SHAMROCK’S PROBLEMS.
Dear Linda, — I hasten to congratulate you upon your idea of a Household Page, which ia an excellent one. I hope you will pay special attention to the needs of «a women ; many of us are kept busy in the home—so busy that we have little time for reading, and a page containing short, interesting articles ■which we can take up in a quiet interval will be a real boon. We shall hope' to obtain a good* deal of help from this page in our own department, too. For instance, Invercargill abounds in good cooks: why should they not exchange recipes P Anyone who learns a new fancy-work pattern, or gets a new idea with regard to children’s clothing, can pass it on. Uew books might be noticed, and a hundred other ways found of helping each other to make home happy and bright. So I hope every woman interested in this column will contribute something to help us in our own particular sphere. The gentlemen will doubtless assist us with a few hints also. We speak very glibly of our “ sphere ” - I do wish somebody would define the term for us. Directly a woman gets out of the ruts even by half-an-inch, somebody is down upon her with the bloodcurdling reproof that she is stepping out of her sphere —a most repugnant idea. I can even imagine some pious folks holding up their hands in holy horror at the idea of a woman writing for the Southern Cross ! This is not within the magic (!) circle of our “sphere.” It includes only such occupations as scrubbing, baking, cooking, washing, sewing, dusting, etc. But, Mr Editor, this is what puzzles me : If these occupations are essentially feminine, why do the men not leave them to us P Why do they act as waiters ? That is our work. Why are men cooks ? Why is the professional baking done by our brothers and husbands ? Why do tailors take the sewing away from us, and why is it that the masculine element intrudes even into the realm of dressmaking P In factories, too, hundreds of men are employed in the manufacture of light fabrics, manipu-
lating delicate threads for which the light, nervous fingers of women are much more suitable than their own. Why, is it ? Now, I am not complaining of all this—l never heard a woman object to it in the least—l simply say I cannot understand it. There is an old proverb which says “ What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,” and if it is wrong for us to venture into the sphere of man it must he equally wrong for him to intrude into ours (though, curiously enough, one never sees the expression “ man’s sphere ” —it covers everything—woman’s included!) Things are very contradictory. If ever a woman stepped out of her sphere, it was Grace Darling when she undertook work for which the muscles of a man were necessary. Yet whoever heard anything but praise bestowed upon her? Was Thomas Carlyle ever more really manly than j on those Saturdays at Craigenputtoch i when he went down on his knees and scrubbed the kitchen floor for his wife ? We do not like to see a man with fancy work in his hands : but is there really anything unmanly in a young fellow knitting vests for the children, in the evening when the merry chat goes around ? I knew one who did this- —keeping his work in the drawing-room as his sisters did —and he was of a type no one could call “ soft.” After all, who defined the limits of a woman’s “ sphere ?” Who but the Crealor has a right to do so ? It is a law of nature that faculties are bestowed upon a creature for use ; are women alone—in all creation —exempt from this law ? Surely the Creator meant them to use any powers, all powers, which Ho gave them. I ask for information : perhaps some of your readers can explain all this, and if so I shall feel encouraged to air a few more of my puzzles. At present I feel inclined to say with the Rationalistic Chicken:— “ Here are three problems, out of manj more, Enough to give me pip upon the brain.” But if I go on any longer, my readers may feel inclined to retort that I am already afflicted with that disease. Wishing your Household Page all success, I am, &c., Shamrock.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SOCR18940526.2.5
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Southern Cross, Volume 2, Issue 8, 26 May 1894, Page 3
Word count
Tapeke kupu
745SHAMROCK’S PROBLEMS. Southern Cross, Volume 2, Issue 8, 26 May 1894, Page 3
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.