DIGNITY AND DOMESTIC SERVICE.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—The letters from Mrs. Tait, in your issues of December 5th and 19th, on the attempt being made to raise the status of " domestic service " are timely and important, but she reports a difficulty in securing girls wishing to be trained. Does not the remedy for this, and for much of the poverty and thrift- lessness around us, depend on the nation insisting that every girl before leaving an elementary school should pass a practical domestic economy standard P The welfare of every man, woman, child, and home in this country depends on whether some woman knows how to cook, clean, sew, and wash, whether she knows something of the laws of health, has self-respect, and good moral principles. The elements of these things could be taught at school, and if practical domestic economy were the highest standard and all had to pass it, household work would cease to be looked down upon, a taste for it would be evoked, and also in many cases a wish to obtain the further training and certificate which Mrs. Tait mentions. If England does not rouse herself to secure this, she will find herself after the war with thousands more helpless, unemployed women on her hands than formerly. But a girl who knows how to make a home comfortable may be almost certain of having her living in her hands ; and if she marries, the knowledge is invaluable to her husband and [We entirely agree. We must not only preach the utility of domestic work, but also make people realize its dignity. A. woman is no true mistress of her house unless she has learned the principles of Home Science. Training in this knowledge is as necessary to her as training in the use of arms is to a man who aims at being a good citizen and the true master of the house. We must raise Home Science to the highest place in our elementary-school curriculum.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
