THE DOMESTIC HELP.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 159, 22 June 1911, Page 4

THE DOMESTIC HELP.

The congratulations which have been bestow ed upon the deputationists who waited on the Minister of Education last week at Christchurch in connection with the training of young girls for domestic work are badly considered and illplaced. The proposal to allot two and a-half hours a week for domes-

tic training at the public schools is a pointed absurdity, inasmuch as the necessary opportunities are not available and the teachers them-

selves, who are essentially students by their training, have not the practical experience to be satisfactory exponents of the work. They can only impart theoretical knowledge, which is taking the stick at the wrong end, for in no case is “practice better than theory” more fully illustrated than it is in the routine of household work. The theoretical teaching would, no doubt, be informative and useful to young girls, but to imagine that by its means we could raise an adequate supply of domestic workers to meet the existing scarcity is absolutely foolish. We “do not gather grapes from thorns, nor figs from thistles,” and we are not going to make “domestics” out of students. It is not much good preaching to the New Zealand girl about domesticity as an ideal, or to advise her with regard to the responsibilities of her future life. She simply detests the former, and dreams a lovely vision of augmented liberty and pleasure in the vista of days to come. Another oblique view is taken of the domestic training problem in the holding up of the dignity of work in the house as an inducement to the taking up of domestic service. The modern girl does not see much dignity in scrubbing floors on her knees and scouring pots in a grubby apron. She much prefers the dignity of a smart figure and dainty hands. She has no idea of raising her position by answering door-bells, cleaning the master’s boots, and the many menial jobs which fall to the lot of a paid help. It is all very well to decry the word “menial,” and say it should not bb applied to domestic service, but what else is it? To be sure, “a rose would smell as sweet if called by any other name,” and so we substitute the term domestic for- “menial,” but it does not in any degree alter the case. We shall have to arrive at some better idea for instruction in these details than Mr. Taylor’s 2/ hours a week in our public schools. We must remember there are girls —and girls ; there are homes—and homes, and some scope must be allowed for differentiation in the modes of instruction. Domesticity is a great charm in a young woman of any degree, and is a lovely vir.

tue to cultivate, but it cannot be cultivated in all cases by the same mehods or for similarity of results. The cultivation ought to be carried out in the various homes where practical opportunities are never wanting. In the meantime, if we must have domestics, we shall have to bring in a lot of sturdy immigrants, who are not yet initiated in the delights of the mazy dance, the exhilarating glow of hockey, and the fascinating attractions of fashionable attire. When the new arrivals have become naturalised in these respects (as they soon would be) we shall need more immigrants, and by the time they have reached the cultivation pitch that renders their domestic services unavailable, let us hope electricity will be so developed that we shall have electric automatons for all “menial” purposes, or even for such painful tasks as nursing the baby for half-an-hour or getting the kiddies ready for school.