Evening Star Newspaper, September 20, 1936, Page 84

PARALLEL, so it seemed to me, to the situation at present imperiling the happiness of modern man in his closest relationship with still more modern woman, was drawn by Colonel Lind- bergh when he said: ‘“‘While we (who have de- veloped aviation) have been drawing the world closer together in peace, we have stripped the armor from the heart of every nation in war . . . I begin to realize we must look for a new type of security — a security which rests in intelligence.” Y In the parallel case of woman’s increasing power it would seem that security in modern marriage must also rest in intelligence that shall put this new feminine force to valuable use, and not allow it to become an instrument of destruction. The question of whether a woman can have a career and a home too, is usually asked as though the issue depended on nothing further than her ability to co-ordinate the energies given to her work, with those which must be given to her home. The reply to this differs, naturally, according to individual capability, vitality and temperament, but even so the an- swer in each case can be made as definitely as a sum in arithmetic. The really serious point in question is how will, or does, the fact of her ability to earn affect her husband? And this in turn leads to the further question of how much his point of view is affected by the opinion of the world? That the success of woman should threaten the well being of man, is in itself a paradox, since much as she may want to succeed in a career, she does not want to keep it apart from him. In fact, his ready understanding of, and interest in, her problems is even more essential to her, than her encouragement and belief in his abilities are to him. To work with him — and for him — to add to his suc- cess, is supreme happiness. To work against him, to have the brightness of success fall up- on herself leaving him in the shadow, is as dis- tressing to her as it is devastating to him. But let us come down to the single point at issue, the objection of the typical American man to his wife’s contribution to the family income! Plainly the wife and mother of the THIS WEEK HER HUSBAND'S UNDERSTANDING OF AND INTEREST IN HER PROBLEMS IS ESSENTIAL family has always shared her husband’s work on the farm, or in the store. Even the wife of the man who kept his business completely separate from his home, had every hour of her day filled to more than capacity with the very real work of house-cleaning, cooking, sewing and mending, to say nothing of bearing and taking unrelieved care of children. Oh yes, I know this has always been wom- an'’s proper share. But let us consider the ideal American wife who neither drudges, nor idles, and whose contribution to the family’s budget includes the highest efficiency in getting not only excellent value for every dollar she spends, but further value in the use to which each article is put: Food expertly chosen, pre- pared and utilized to the last morsel; a house beautifully cared for and its upkeep carried on at the minimum figure. Moreover, such a woman usually has capable fingers which can cut and sew, paste and paint, and may even be handy with the tool box. Why does it not in the slightest way reflect upon the pride of the American man to let a woman contribute unlimited hours of work which are quite actually — if the bookkeeping is to be fair— deductible from the debit side of their domestic ledger? And then why does he so often suffer shaming mortification and anguish, if she contributes a much less strenu- ous degree of labor to a job which enables her to deduct twice or three times as much from the debit side? In at least a hundred letters during the past year, young wives have described their lives, their flats, their incomes and their husbands’ Magazine Section . s A man is no less the head of the family because his wife helps to earn the income, says " EMILY PosT Avuthor of “’Etiquette: The Blve Book of Social Usage,”” **The Personality of a House,” Etc. prejudiced conviction that the only way a man can be head of his house is to keep every penny of expenditure inside of his own pay check. A young man who has a good job with good prospects, but as yet a very moderate salary, is engaged to a young woman whose salary equals or even possibly doubles his. She wants to keep on with her job and go fifty-fifty on their expenses. But this he won’t permit. A man who is worthy of the name must support his wife. Moreover, he refuses to listen to the per- fectly plain fact that even half of her salary, added to his, will make all the difference be- tween living at ease and scrimping to make ends meet — or, as she puts it, having plenty in reserve for luxuries or for those unexpected emergencies of illness or accident which are the dread of all whose living costs draw upon salary to the full. No! He won’t allow his wife to work. She must give up her salary and live on his! That is his ultimatum! Of course, if the man a woman marries can give her a home and she can have children and the wherewithal to take care of them, this is the perfect situation. But while she is wait- ing for his ability to provide adequately for their home, why shouldn’t she be allowed to help him to this end? Through every hour of the day she deplores the impractical and uneconomical situation, and worries over the things they badly need and cannot afford to buy. It is all very well to balance a budget on paper — so much for rent, and so much for food and so much for What Women Ask! Should you call her “Jane,” if the wife of your husband’s employer calls you “Mary’ May a reception clerk greet visitors with a “How do you do?”’ Must a man’s secretary knock before she enters his office? There are other important questions in Emily Post’s “What Women Ask.” To get it send a three-cent stamp with a letter or this coupon to THis WEEk Magazine in care of this newspaper. lllustration by George J. Tetzel gas, and then forget to add so much for his new suit and a few new shirts and a good pair of shoes. Those he had don’t last forever and he mustn’t look shabby —and why should she? This does not mean that every woman who marries should keep her job; still less that she should embark on one because she thinks hav- ing a career would add to her prestige. To the luckiest ones of us, marriage is a full time job, and no one can belittle its importance. This article is concerned with the situation * * of a typical young couple starting out under a financial handicap built on an utterly false ap- praisal of dollar value! It is this more than anything else that I want to point out. Always we have resented Europe’s opinion of us as a nation which measured excellence only in dol- lars. And always we have answered vehe- mently: “It isn’t trye!” But wait a minute! What else is the basic cause of the ignominy suffered by the Ameri- . can husband whose wife has a professional career, except our inability to measure a man'’s own value other than by the almighty dollar? Does public opinion — which seems to have such complete control over our happiness, our tranquility, our very lives — exact that the husband of a brilliant or talented or fascinat- ing woman be as brilliant, talented or fascinat- ing as she? Not at all! It exacts merely that he shall have money. But a husband who can not counter-balance his wife’s talents, or still worse, her dollars, with dollars of his own, is all too apt to be looked upon as one who failed “to make good.” And this no matter what qualities of heart and mind and character he may possess. We recognize the talent of a musician and see it apart from all the other qualities he may possess. We recognize the talent of an inventor and set that apart. But our false attitude is that we don’t recognize the fact that money- making is just as specialized a talent; and that even though necessity exacts a certain degree of acquired proficiency, we actually expect every business man to have a talent for money-making comparable to the talent of a Kreisler or an Edison! Does this seem reason- able? Does it? Copyright, 1936, by Emily Post