ARE WOMEN ANY GOOD AS WORKERS?

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XV, Issue III, 20 July 1895, Page 72

ARE WOMEN ANY GOOD AS WORKERS?

A REPLY TO MISS WOODS’ ARTICLE IN THE GRAPHIC, OF JUNE lITH. YES, they are. How truly unfortunate it is that some foolish old ideas and still more foolish old jokes are never allowed to die a death, natural or otherwise. One would really have thought that in these days of clever and beautiful women (not all actresses) the idea would have been quite dispelled from even the dullest minds that a woman not a frou-frou must needs be an unsexed, soulless creature, unattractive in appearance, and in dress something less than ‘ not quite in the Regent-street style.’ At this moment countless examples to the exact contrary occur to me, indeed, I can scarcely think of one example of the woman, that we can quite excuse the average man for fearing—‘ keen-faced, spare-figured, unfrivolous in attire, unrelenting as to millinery.’ I can think of one woman after another —school teachers, clerks, telephone operators, dressmakers, who are comely and heathy to look at, evidently thriving on their work, strong and active in figure, formed like women, and not like abortive men, dressed plainly, it is true (but what sensible woman, beginning with the Princess of Wales herself, does not dress with studied plainness and in the quietest colours for the street where working women, without the capital W, are chiefly seen ?), with unobtrusive sailor hats that will offend no one’s taste, by no means always even with the harmless, necessary lunch-bag, and seldom with a ‘ car-fare.’ Take the general average of women who work, and women who have no regular occupation or pursuit, including actresses (for are they not working-women ?), and it will soon be seen that they are rather more and not less attractive than those without a definite occupation. HARD WORK IS CONDUCIVE TO BEAUTY. * Hard work is not conducive to beauty.’ This is the opinion of Miss Woods. It is not very well supported by the latest scientific researches, which tell us that it is worry, mental anxiety, thatkillspeople, andnothard work, not even work under considerable pressure. That people who have had to work very hard have been often shortlived does not prove that they were cut off prematurely because of the hard work. Excessive work is certainly not conducive to beauty, but simply hard work, that does not demand undue strain, is, generally speaking, an excellent tonic, morally,intellectually and physicallyHow often in the case of aensemic girls have shrewd doctors said * it is a case of not enough to do.’ But even if Miss Woods’ statement were true, and supported by the majority of facts, what woman worth the name would not sacrifice some of her good looks for the satisfaction of winning her independence and the freedom to carry out her own plans ? Women have the same individualities as men, and they are now claiming (and it seems to me justly) the right to develop them. Why should they be compelled to lead such lives that they must, many of them, look back over them and say, ‘ What have Ito show for my life ? Where are its results ?’ ‘ Beauty plays the very mischief with hard work.’ I am sorry Miss Woods thinks so. It is only the most foolishly frivolous women who are so eaten up with vanity that they have no room in their empty pates for thoughts on anything but dress and their own personal appearance. All beautiful, not merely pretty, faces show the capacity for deep thought and hard work. WOMEN NOT BOASTFUL. I do not think women as a rule are much inclined to pat themselves on the back ; but if they are there is some excuse for it when they reflect on the vast difference in their present position compared with their general status in society of fifty years ago. Even Miss Woods allows them a modicum of praise ; and in an unguarded moment she so far forgets herself as to admit that they are ' sometimes quite clever !’ It is proved that women are only sometimes clever (according to Miss Woods) because their work is never more than comparatively good. ‘ Took at this.’ says Woman, holding up her work. * I did this. Aren’t I a clever woman ?’

And man looks on and says : ‘ Yes, very good, very good, for a woman,* the latter in bracket* ‘Clever woman, you are getting on, you will soon be nearly as

good as I am.' Now if this were the true state of the case, then Miss Woods' conclusion that woman's work is never judged by the same standard as man’s would be admissible. But in the two departments which she especially mentioned, art and literature, the reverse is singularly the case. The many women who have achieved the highest distinction, and have been women against whose character none could speak otherwise than in terms of praise

Many women have written both magazine articles and novels under masculine noms-de-plume, and have for years successfully concealed their identity and their sex. In those years their work was judged and criticised like that of men, no critic having had power to detect the fact of their sex from their writings, and when at last their real names were divulged the critics neither made set apologies for having judged them too harshly, nor altered their verdict. CLEVER WOMEN IN LITERATURE. Here, then, is one example, the field of literature, in which it is not necessary for a woman to call attention to her sex before her work can obtain recognition. Women have often written under masculine names simply because there is still so strong a prejudice extant that they have less difficulty in getting their work accepted, and are far more likely to be paid well for it if they adopt a masculine pseudonym. Miss Rossetti, Mrs Browning, Miss Jean, Ingelow, Mrs Ewing, George Eliot, Jane Austen, the Brontes, all are judged by the samecriterions of literary merit and style as men. Mrs Browning’s work is compared with that of her husband, and Miss Rossetti’s with her brother’s. And if we except some episodes in the life of George Eliot, are not all these highly gifted women eminently womanly and refined. Where is now yonr shrieking sisterhood ? WOMEN IN ART. Again, in the field of art, though no women have as yet rivalled the greatest male artists, yet their work is subjected to the same test. Miss Henrietta Rae (I cannot remember her married name), Miss Margaret Dicksee, Mrs Alma Tadema, Mrs H. M. Stanley, Angelica Kaufmann, and Miss Elizabeth Thompson have to stand in exactly the same light as Frank Dicksee and Alma Tadema, and even the great Leighton and Ford themselves. Rosa Bonheur was not a very womanly woman in some ways, nor was George Sand, but both she and George Eliot, in trying the free contract system and failing in it, were less guilty than many women who marry to hide the sins which they dare not expose to the light of open day, and who do in secret what the great literary women did without attempt at concealment. The rock on which they both went down has wrecked the lives of many women against whom the finger of scorn is not pointed because they are ‘unwomanly.’ ‘ The innate gallantry of men toward the work of women ’ is a fiction which may be speedily got rid of by any girl who works alongside of men. Men speak in one way of women’s work, and act in quite another. They too often give women far less chance of performing their duties efficiently, and expect quite as high a standard from them. They lock for mistakes, and of course do not fail to find them.

* Compensation for being a woman !’ Yes, for being a woman such as some perhaps, compensation would be highly desirable. * Feminine laurels are a kind of millinery which man does not envy.’ It would not be much use if he did ; he could not have them. And why should men have their tastes consulted about every detail of woman life and conduct ? Surely it was as a milliner that Mis Woods once adorned the ranks of the army of ‘ working women,’ since her mind constantly harks back to the subject of dress and personal appearance. No doubt amongst the first women who overcame the mass of existing prejudice and took their academic degrees or passed examinations equivalent, there were some who triumphed a little in their sense of conquest. But the general good sense and dignity of women would prevent there being many of such. It is unfortunate that a few women pioneers in the movement for the higher education of women should ever have thought that eccentricity and scholarship should go hand in hand, for they thereby earned for themselves the title of ‘ blue stocking,’ with which every woman (or almost every woman) who does not let her mental powers go utterly to seed is now branded ; and the impression they then created, though long since dislodged from the minds of all sensible people, still exists in the case of the simple-minded and the ignorant. No sensible girl ever wears her M.A. hood or her Trinity College certificate on her arm. She is more careful than the most careful man to hide her light under a bushel. Study the faces of celebrated lady graduates, and those who have taken a prominent part in connection with celebrated ladies’ schools and colleges, such as Cheltenham and Girton, and no matter in what faculty they have distinguished themselves—arts, science, medicine, or law—they are always highly intelligent, and rarely otherwise that most modest and attractive in expression, while frequently they have great personal beauty as well. I am not a physiognomist, but I can read faces well enough to be sure of the truth of what I say. NO DOUBT THERE ARE OBJECTIONABLE FEMALES OF THE BLATANT TYPE to which Miss Woods refers who seem to have so

powerful an effect in obscuring her mental vision that she can see no others, unless they are devoid of any character at all and they will certainly achieve an unenviable notoriety, but never fame. They are, however, in such a small minority that they may be altogether left out of count. The one small ink-spot on the white dress is always the object to which our eyes are instantly attracted, and to which they continually revert even after almost all trace of it has been effaced. Perhaps Miss Woods’ mind belongs to that class which for obvious reasons can only contain one idea at a time.

‘ Our womanhood is against us all through this working system,’ That is strange, seeing how we have just been told of the favour shown to women by men on account of their sex, Their sex is at first, when they are breaking new ground, in some ways against women, when it sometimes handicaps them cruelly, but whose fault is it ? Is it the fault of the Creator, who did not understand how to make women, and now has to be set right, or is it the result of many men not having yet looked matters sufficiently square in the face to have been able to shake off the tyrannical slavery of traditional ideas ? * If we are good-looking,’ continues Miss Woods, ‘that helps us to get work.’ Mere prettiness does not do anything of the kind. An employer is certainly more likely to look with favour on a girl with good looks combined with pleasant manners than on one who is plain and abrupt or gauche. But the.' manners are, after all more than the looks with any sensible employer ; quiet, sensible, respectful manners will always have an immense advantage over Miss Pretty-pert. If a girl has good sense and is competent for her work it matters not whether she is pretty or not. Sense in business counts for more than anything else. It is in this paragraph of her paper that Miss Woods seems to show the most utter lack of practical knowledge of the relations of business men to their employees. lam myself in an office where a girl is employ ed, and I am in a position to know something about other offices where girls .are also employed, and though sometimes employees do marry their employers, still, on the whole so long as the former serve them well business men do not trouble any further about them. An employer who was really sensible and considerate would not put a girl in the position suggested by Miss Wood. Also an employer who had so little to do as to be always ogling his girl clerks would not be worth serving, and what is more, he woutd not get any decent girl to serve him. TOO SILLY AND VULGAR FOR COMMENT OR FURTHER CRITICISM. The next paragraph of Miss Woods’ paper is too silly and vulgar for comment or further criticism. She strikes a little vein of truth in saying that women work best for love. I think I know of men who have also worked at least very much better for love. *We all make babyclothes better than we keep books.’ Possibly, but children are not brought up on elaborately frilled and tucked garments, and the woman who has carefully studied the laws of life and health, so that she scientifically understands her own nature, and who has enlarged and enriched her mind with the best literature, who has, in fact, developed the higher side of her nature, without neglecting womanly duties and accomplishments, will be far better able to fulfil duties to her children and to have an influence upon them after they are grown up. That this is no U topian dream is proved by such women as Mrs Somerville and Baroness Bunsen. George Eliot was a most capable woman in household matters. MISS WOODS IS VERY CERTAIN THAT SHE IS RIGHT IN HER VIEWS, and I do not think many women will be disposed to waste breath in * swearing by stacks of Bibles ’ when they know well that foregone conclusions and unalterable opinions are the monopoly of the narrow-minded, the one-sided and the ignorant. If she has been in the working ranks, so have many others. A life of inactive retirement is not necessarily a virtue, and ‘ Mary, the retiring one,’ is not generally believed to have chosen Miss Woods’ ‘ better part ’ of matrimony. We have certainly to admit that women have put their hands to the plough, but we do not admit that, taking all things into consideration, they are not making * a straight job of the furrow.’ Richmond Dunne.