QUIT YOU LIKE MEN

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 28 June 1926, Page 7

QUIT YOU LIKE MEN

In one of Professor .Tack’s books of his Hibbci't lectures he says:— “Most of the world’s greatest men have been educated by women, and most of the world’s greatest women have earned their title to everlasting honour piecisely by educating such men some times early in life and sometimes late. “Though the modern wonifin no longer seems to recognise this as one of her functions in the universe, and tho highest of tlier.i (which goes far, perhaps, to account for the dearth of great men in these times), it is impossible to believe that a function so clearly intended by Nature to be supreme can have fallen into permanent obsolescence. Though I do not share the professor s view that we cannot hold up our heads in this matcer of current great men, 1 inn very much afraid that tho obsolescence 'will remain permanent until [women have less need to he more gravelly preoccupied with two other of their functions in the universe. '.The first is the tremendous business for a woman of bringing berscif up m il self-supporting member of the world s workers, able to eopc successfully with the potential problems of natural instincts frustrated, and her" own old age and care. ' The other function is the equally great need for educating women to be kind to each other. The really shocking stories that are told everywhere • concerning the plight paid housework among the middle classes has reached, are scarcely credible, and certainly not credible, in an age when all women can be said to be created equal. The casual and often heartless breaking of verbal contracts to take jobs. The abominable amount of petty theft —so enormously difficult to detect at the lime. The extraordinary fact that thousands of grown-up women won’t, bargain to commence their duties before nine in Ihe morning. I lie horror wit h which able-bodied females regard the family wash-tub or the inside cleaning of windows. . •

Once upon a time the woman who was unable to keep servants was looked upon ns well deserving her unfortunate experiences. It was quite likely she was. The misery that was domestic service for many poor, neglected, downtrodden girls ■ and women before Qiis country opened •i its eves in to be realised in those .cott- | icinpluoiis and odious classifications, ! “skivvv’’ and “slavey.”

But nowadays the cry: "I can t get a maid who.will sleep in. or come at seven in the morning, or who can lie relied upon to give me reasonable notice or j see me settled with 'someone else, if she | finds she prefers another job elsewhere, : or 'the servants I could have, I won t ■ have.” is so generally heard that it wouldn’t lie true or fair to say that . Lhcse employers arc incapable of appreciating O'P dealing with good and honourable. housekeeping assistance. 'The curious things is—perhaps it’s not so curious after all—th a the woman who is careless about her establishment, and who insists on no high standard of work or appearance is very infrequently to he heard recounting long - ’ dreary

stories of domestic discomfort. II s the woman with the delightful house. the easily workable, lip to date kitchen, the time and labour saving gadgets, who often cannot gel help to” give her clean and dainty service in return for good conditions and pay, and courteous dealings the “skivvies” and the “slaveys” of wars ago would have given their eyes for. And so il emuis about that all over the country familes are taking lo private hotels, because the problem of stalling large houses is too disheartening and

unsatisfactory. Married women, capable of earning money that will increase the family standard of comfort are forced to dissipate their energies in getting breakfasts, .cleaning in boots, coping with the errand boys, and doing all the household jobs they are willing to pay to have done for them. Women w;th very young children have uniimagined struggles to run a home, because. nearly all the working housekeepers advertising for situations want to go to bachelors, widowers, or to business houses!

Now, why are women refusing to work for women in their own kitchens? It can’t, he because the work is too hard. Nothing could he more laborious or fatiguing than certain kinds of factory work; the hairdresser employed in a popular shop is on her feet for twelve hours of steady, hard labour on Fridays and Saturdays, and waiting in a city tea shop needs her strength and endurance of a young draught horse.

And why is it that many a woman, when consenting to do housework, goes about her simple tasks with the injured air of one who has been told off, singlehanded. to run tlie British Empire? Meanwhile, the middle-class man (deservedly and rather subtly called tlie backbone of the country) pays bis rates and taxes for the upkeep of tlie free schools, tho unemployment insurance, and th? widow’s pensions (which will mean that the supply of outside help will be still further curtailed), and his wife, unable to obtain even a washerwoman. sends the linen to the laundry, and has the pain of being charged one penny for the cleaning and faint ironing of a nine-inch square handkerchief. , The self-supporting middle-class woman is, in the same boat. She is endeavouring. with tlie fruits of her brafn, to secure her own independent old age, but 1 lie class for whose future safety she is also contributing refuse to take her money, or. alternatively, give ber good value for it. She is lucky if she gels a work-tired charwoman to keep her bachelor at or rooms in order. Wlia’t a topsy-turvy joke. For those, that is. who have no domestic difficulties.