WOMEN AND LABOUR.

Otago Witness, Issue 3757, 16 March 1926, Page 71

WOMEN AND LABOUR.

Lately some newspapers have devoted editorial s)>ace to the question, “Should the well-to-do girl be au economic competitor” in connection with a reported speech by Hr M‘llwraith, school inspector for Hawke’s Bay. Mr MTlwraitli, in his speech, mentioned that he knew 01 three daughters of a well-to-do man who between them were earning over £IOOO a year, and apparently implied that this was very unfair to poorer parents and their daughters who must wor - for a maintenance. The father referred to, said the inspector, could perfectly well maintain his daughters. Supposing he could; suppose that his means allowed ot his giving each of his daughters an income of £3OO a year or any larger amount, is this a sufficient reason why the daughters should not work for money and be economically independent through their own exertions? The question should be considered carefully in all its bearings; but 1 think the general verdict will be against the inspector’s adverse opinion, and in favour of the full freedom of the well-to-do girl to work at any calling to which her abilities ana tastes attract her, and to receive the market reward for her services.

It may clear the ground if we consider the case of sons. Would any one propose that because a rich man can allow his sons adequate incomes they should refrain from acquiring competence in some profession or business, maintaining themselves and pushing their fortunes in all honourable ways? Should any eccentric person propose that the sons of even millionaires should refrain from competing economically with the sons of comparatively poor persons, the immediate answer would be that nothing is moro fataJ to young men that idleness, and that it is the duty of every normally capable young man to "be doing regular work according to his gifts and opportunities in such a way as to be economically independent and useful in the world.

The still pretty firmly rooted idea that it is wrong for well-to-do or wealthy girls to fill places that might be filled by poorer girls is a relic of the old state of things in which it was held that the home and marriage provided the proper field for women’s activities, and that except when necessity compelled, daughters should live in their parents’ homes till thsv married—or indefinitely. The girls of the poor of course supported themselves by domestic service or by some industry; those of the genteel poor were often driven to become poorly-paid governesses and companions, but if a father could keep his daughters at home, even at the cost of much pinching for the whole family, and of a restricted, aimless life for the girls, it was held his duty to do so and for the da”"' ters to content themselves as best they might to go without pleasures and advantages that a little more money would have procured them, and to wait on the hope of a good matrimonial opening—never a very rosy prospect for the poor genteel girls. Of late years with improved educational advantages for girls, d the wide-reach-ing social changes of our times, the reluctance of parents of average means to fit their daughters for economic indepen dence and start them in as wage earners has greatly diminished. But still many parents who can do so prefer to keep their daughters home. “There is plenty for you; you can have everything you want without working,” says the well-to-do man to the daughter who proposes that she shall enter for a position or train for a profession. And the mother wants her daughters, or one at least, to help her in her social engagements, and make the home attractive. For the daughters of well-to-do parents to remain in their parents’ home after the completion of their education usually means that their lives will be divided between a few trivial home occupations and society amusements. Thev are doing nothing, or next to nothing, that really wants doing. They are filling no recognised place. Now, for a great many girls with indulgent parents and pleasant homes it is quite enough to “have a good time,” spending their lives in the usual round of society engagements, amusements, travelling, etc. But such a life will soon pall on a young woman of intelligence, character, and initiative. She wants to be doing something that counts; and she wants to feel that she can support herself without relying on her parents* means. She finds pleasure in earning a fair salarv. because this shows that she is competent; that she ‘s doing creditably some work of which society has need.

Nothing is more essential to selfrespect. more mentally bracing than the sense of true independence and usefulness. In passing, it may be noted that this sense may be enjoyed without working for wage or salary by the wife and mother who is doing indispensable woik in her home, and bv the voluntary worker who gives her services gratuitously i’ social work.

But for the ordinary girl, on the completion of her school education, the readiest wav to an independent and useful career will usually be through some regular calling, with a regular salary attached. Success in any of these usually entails some special training, which means steady effort, as will the calling itself. The three young women whom Mr M‘llwraitli (apparently) would have remain at home supported by their father, must have worked hard to qualify for salaries of over £3OO a year, and must be doing good work to continue in them.

Which is the better for the girl herself; to he thus active, capable, independent, and useful, or to be living an aimless society life, with at best little odd bits of home duties and occasional assistance to some socially useful work? And which course is not in the interests of society in the wider sense of the word? Socialists and very many

of the poorer classes are accustomed to decry “the idle rich,** and there can be no question that the existence of a large number of really idle wealthy is a social evil. As a matter of fact many of the people who are stigmatised as “idle rich’* are very far from being idle all or most of their time, though this may be the impression gained by those not favoured by fortune, who see or hear of their shooting parties, their fishing and yachting, the society gaieties of their womankind, and their pleasure travelling all over the world. Daughters of rich men having no business to attend to, no estates to manage, no real work to do, may be regarded as a really idle class. They are expected to be idle, their environment tends to make them so. Often it is hard for them to find anything to do that is not in the nature of busy idleness, unless they break through the convention which says that the daughter of a rich man should not work for money. Idleness is bad for women as well as for men, and in these days, when even young girls enjoy such freedom of action, and when social morality is in some directions so much laxer than a couple of generations ago, idleness conjoined with means to do what inclination prompts is likely to work serious evil in the live of many young women. Such considerations lead to the view that every girl, rich or poor, should be a worker—in some capacity or other. On the other hand it is quite easy to understand the point of view of girls who must work for a maintenance, and of their parents, when they see daughters of rich men gaining salaried positions desired by themselves. It is another case of “to those who have, shall be given the more.** The wealthy can give their laughters the best advantages of education -and technical training, and can use influence to secure their preference for good positions. Parents who have had a hard struggle to give their daughters a good education, and girls who have studied and attained competence under difficulties naturally resent the successful competition of wealthier girls. This is a matter of personal feeling, and the real question is, what is most for social good? Many people, however, will argue that it is not an alternative between idleness and working for money. There is plenty of useful work for girls and women to do without competing with others who must work for money. There is truth in this; there is very much useful unpaid work to be done for the sake of human service. But much of this demands special qualities of character and disposition; some of it demands wide knowledge of life. Often where a woman has had the discipline of training for a professional or business vocation, and has worked at it for years, she may later utilise her business ability and her j experience of life to do social work or fill public positions for which the woman who has led a domesticated and society life would be unfit. The great need is that all should recognise the duty of service. And if the rich girl seeks to render the best service she can, it is a secondary question whether or no a money payment is attached to her services. IN FASHION’S REALM. WEEKLY UP-TO-DATE DRESB NOTES. By Mabgusbitm. I observe what I regard as fairly remarkable. It is in certain Australian city papers. They contained towards the end ot February quite a number of fur advertisements —sales, so please you, and framed as though at the end of winter. Am I wrong in deducing from as much immense consignments from abroad — garments wholly and partly fur and fur for trimming purposes? I may remark that fur played an unusually strong part with autumr. and winter dress tins time in the Northern Hemisphere. I never remember anything like it, and so, I suppose, with a great excess, we shall be asked to follow -suit. Well, there is always the law of supply and demand. If we are to be deluged with fur, then it stands to reason that it will be at a price within easy reach. Welcome the drawing of the curtains —fur at a bargain price right at the start of the season. * * * In menticnings of this character I always imagine myself at the little table with the teacups—“ Mrs Smith, every Thursday,” or “Mrs Brown, every Friday.” And so the query, pertinent or otherwise, if we have given “Tame Wolf” the thought it calls for. In this way, mention “Sinafil” and you can’t hear yourself for the chatter; but what of the animal that, once running wild and hard to catch, they now breed like poultry where prices have their genesis? “Tame Wolf” is a “coin” of ray own minting. The creatures that feed out of the hand, as it were, are tame fox, tame skunk, tame squirrel, and so forth. This industry is flourishing in America and Canada, and I shouldn’t wonder if it is at the buck of a good deal of the overplus. # # * I have a lot of hats to show you, but can only do them progressively. The shape’s the thing, though trimming counts. Taking the small variety, there is the soft type, and then the firm one, and then the one between—the firm enough to stay as left, but soft enough to punch into something different. The hat od top is simply one of the soft kinds, which you can twist into whatever shape you like, the brim a favourite —turned down in front and up at the back. And the one

at bottom is simply one of the firm kinds, creased where indicated, and with

the ribbon treated as you will see it again and again.

I have got into the habit of associating every thing more or less with dress. Came Guy Fawkes Day steadily year by year to the birth of the present younger generation, and then it died; April Fool's Day ditto; and, as I was reminded during February, St. Valentine’s Day. Gone are those festivals as though all together, and because the world of now is with a different bent of mind. So, too, handw’ork with dress. I see the new autumn styles in the model by the score and in the picture by the thousand, and what impresses me is the absence of anything savouring of the home-worker. Dresses have collars that are decorated, sleeves that have decorated sections, corsage bands that are highly decorated; but I see that it is what the machine has done—decorated material by the loom or the printing machine. And I am wondering if this is not a new bent of mind—hand work out of it: no time, and so forth. And, truly, when we have no longer any time to do our hair, we have still less to waste with the needle.

Are skirts getting shorter? You remember what used to be said —just to the ankle, then midway from the knee to such, and then to just below the knee. From what 1 can see it is just to where the knee becomes below itself, and often enough to the “cap.” Well, those who object should have thought of it before, as I am quite convinced that we shall never return to any greater length than we are wearing. Indeed, Poiret, the famous French designer, is talking of turning the present short skirt into what men, as regards themselves, call “Oxfords”—“Oxfords” to the knee; but in winter, no, as then—are you listening ?—knickerbockers.

Here you have a simple type of autumn dress, where everything explains itself. It is with the straightest contour, and then the flare, but at the sides, and not all round. There are two girdle

bands, and beads are used for what is indicated, and then the sleeve —a modified bishop. Shall I speak of the ribbon? Yes, hut in the next paragraph. * * * The long ribbon with the dress may seem a mere nothing, but then if it appears with nine out of ten it becomes, and is, a feature. And that is what the long ribbon is going to do this autumn. Now you have oue thing here, and you shall have another next week—the ribbon where there is a collar all round and the same where the neck is “V’d” or round or straight across. Where the collar is as you see, the ribbon will be also as you see, a bow against the side with the end or ends down the side front, or one -down the front and the other down the back. But have a “V” neck or round one, etc., and especially the first, and the ribbon becomes a tie that either floats without coming together, or becomes a “V” itself, knotting well down with the ends falling from that. A charming finish is given either way. and that is what justifies a special mention. # # # The blouse returns, but so only because it is of different complexion—-though it needn't bo—and distinct. I associate this one with a pleated skirt, and just indi-

cate the latter with those little ticks. Truly, a simple enough thing, but pretty

in its way, with a little braid to border the collar, to make a cravat front, and to provide a simulated belt. * * *

Back to fur, but to the coat that is trimmed with such. I shut my eyes, open them again, and see in the window a coat with an enormous fur collar and correspondingly enormous cuffs—of fur. And without being too inquisitive, I feel that I should like the coat complete without this decoration, and then wdth the self-same collar and cuffs hanging on a string and marked, in effect, “attachable and detachable,” at will. For the enormous fur collar is only a collar, choker, or whatever else you like to call it, and as for the cuffs, they are just two muffs instead of oue with the hands apart, or one made up of two when these are joined. I like the idea of detachablcs wherever possible. It spells economy, but it also spells variety. If you can take a thing or two off rather than keep such on, and then put such on rather than have it off, why, at once you have two coats or two dresses or whatever it is at once. With fur I’ll go as far as this: except in trimmings all fur additions should be detachable, simply because it is so easy to make them so. And the method of fastening? Well, I leave that to the clever people who—and I am not flattering them —seem to be able to do anything.

While this is not exactly a blouse, nevertheless you could have it so. As shown it is the blouse or bodice section

of a dress of the utility order, plain as ever you can get it, but with just that

amount of the right kind of trimming to allow me to declare it among the saved. Wherever bands are employed in this way there is room for something in the way of buttons, if small and dainty; enough.