Year: 1870

Does she? What Of il? Is it disgrace
to herP Is she the less a true Ig6fsiian,
less worthy Of respect than she who sits
in silk and satin, and is vain Of fingers
which never knew Iabor7 We heard the
sneer a few days ago, and the tone in
which It vas uttered has been a. nuisance
ever since. It betokened a narrow, self
ish, ignoble mind, better fitted for any
place than Democratic country, whose
institutions rest on honorable. labor as one
of tie chief corner stones. It evinced a
false idea of the true womanhood, Of gen.
uine nobility-it showed the detestable
spirit of caste of rank, which certain
class among US is striving to establish-a
caste whose sole foundation is money, and
so the meanest kind of rank known to
civilization. Mind, manners, morals--all
that enter into a grand character are of no
account with these social snohs; position
in their stilted ranI is bought With gold,
and each additional dollar is another
round in the ladder by which elevation is
gained.


In matter of fact is It more dishonora-
BILE for the merchants wife to do.ber oWn
work, than for the merchant to do bis?-
for her to look after her house, than for
him to look after his store? Or is a wo-
man nothing, only to be tickled with a
feather and pleased with a straw? 1t seems
to be the height Of ambition 10 some cir
cles to be, or profess TO be, not only
"abpve" work, but even ignorant of how
work is to be done; and if the table is
poorly spread, if the housekeeping is at
skies and sevens, the. "help" receives
malediction without stint, but the 'lady"
takes none ofthe responsibility upon her
SELF She. looks into the .kitehen-she
knows how bread should be made, or
steak broiled-she know when flour is
out, or the sugar in2 Absurd! "HeIp"
may be bad enough, but what interest can
a girl in the kitchen. feel in the household
economy if the lady in the parlor has none?
If the mistress negiects all domestic duties,
will the maid be thoroughly conscientious?
Will the husbands business 90 on well, if
he neglects it? And why should that of
the wife prosper under her lack Of respon-
sibility?


An aristocracy of wealth is tbB most
inexcusabIs, the silliest Of any social dis
tinction, and yet it is that which many Of our
citizens, many of otherwise sensible peo-
pie, are fostering and trying to establish.
It is quite too fashionable to sneer at la
Dor, and give tts cold shoulder to those
who are not ashamed to do their own
work, or whose circumstances compel
them to do it. If we are to have an arlsto-
cracy at all, let it be one of brains and
| character, and not of purse and dancing
school pOliteness. When that happy day
shall dawn, when the true woman and
the true man are in proper position in
the social world, in the highest scale will
be thousands who know how to work,
and, when necessary, are willing to work,
while the brainless and pursefull snObs of
both sexes will sink by tho weight of their
own coppers.
If ii man or a ao'nah, d"gentleman'' or
"lady," is able to live without actual
manual labor, let them be thankful; it is
a pleasant position to occupy; to be ashan-
ed Of the knowledge sufficient to manage
the shop or the kitchen, the store or the
house, to be ashamed to work, and to
.sneer at those WHO DO worE-this is evil
and only evil, and to-day is an abomina-
ton in "Our best society,"" Vain woman,
and are you, ashamed of her that she did
work? And young man in kids and clo-
yer, did your father get his competence,
on which you live by idIeness? We hon
or the woman who; Ehsn necessary, "does
her own work." and despise those who
and Reflector.