WAR CHANGES WOMEN.

Taranaki Daily News, 1 December 1917, Page 6

WAR CHANGES WOMEN.

THEY WILL NEVER BE THE SAME.

There are some people (writes "Pcsgy Scott in the Daily Mail), who tliiii'k that women will be 'as they were" after the war: Some of them may want to be so, but it Is not in their power. The other day a girl sat looking at herself in the glass as a hairdresser waved her hair. She noted the lines on her own face—lines of determination, lines of endurance. "I can never look young again," she said to herself. "Yon never see marks like those on young faces." A man said to a capable women warworker: "I was glad when you wrote and said that you cried over Marjorie. I was afraid that you never cried nova' days." The woman looked at him in astonishment. "Surely you don't think it is good to cry?" "It seems that you are changing completely if you do not." ho sajd. "It meons that you are developing the masculine qualities at the expense of the feminine." "That is good," she said quickly, "if it means fewer tears. They only demonstrate self-pity." Women do not themselves knew how their engagement in men's occupations is changing them—changing their lo.ika, their manner, and their character. At a recent women's farm competition yotr.g girls killed tho chickens.' They seemed not to mind the job, but whether they did mind or not the work was having its effect upon them. Either thi'ir natural sensitiveness had become dulled or they were holding it strongly in check Women's very walk is becoming different to-day. You cannot often be in a hurry without unconsciously increasing the length of your stride. Their manner is taking on a certain detemnuMon jjven pushing for a place in an omnibus does away with indecision of mowmens Th<> girl who has to look after herself develops a natural resourcefulnev. —she has difficulty in preventing it fron becoming pushfulness. It is very difficult to do a man's work and remain a clinging woman.

■ The question is: Do women wan!, to remain so? Are they willing to have the lines on the face which denote a certain strength of character? Ara they willing to give up the weapons of tears, if instead they have gained self-control?

Some women are too willing lo do so. Their obvious aim is to be as like men as possible. They cut their hah' short, thoy stride, they call each other by tteir surnames, they smoke, and—they swear. Vvomen have always stood for the id->al to man. These women are doing tbcto best to drag it in the dust. If only they would be content to remain women! They cannot help acquiring masculine qualities when they face the same conditions as men, but they can still preserve the best of the feminine. Tears do not make a woman; gentleness and refinement do.

The new woman takes some "getting, used to." No one expects her to have the qualities she has acquired. She is still judged by a pre-war standard. A girl who lost a very dear brother in action resolutely put her own feelings to 6ne side and continued her war work. A man actually asked her what her attitude meant. "It is not callousness," he said; hut there was a doubt in his voice. That is where the breaking point ccmes in woman's new-found endurance. It is not certain that men want this self-pcssessed counterpart. They rather went to keep certain qualities to themselves, but the war has taken the matter out of their hands. Women will nevo be the same again.