p. 390 | HOME-MAKING A VOCATION by Caroline Abbot Stanley

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 19, 1900

HOME-MAKING A VOCATION.

By Caroline Abbot Stanley

Caroline Abbot Stanley, in Good Housekeeping.

Is HOME-MAKING a vocation, or is it only an avocation? Should a woman enter upon it as a man enters a profession, or may she properly look upon it as subordinate to the greater concerns of life? Are there any greater concerns for her? Let us see.

A man and a woman, drawn together by that subtle attraction we call love, plight to each other their troth, “for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health; till death do part.” It is a solemn vow, fraught with momentous consequences; for upon its faithful keeping depends the perpetuity of the home, and upon the home depends the nation. Fidelity to the marriage vow is its corner stone. Let it be wanting, and “they labor in vain that build the house.” Add to it love, mutual forbearance, and common sense, and the building rises foursquare on a solid foundation.

Now at the very outset of their home-building our young couple are confronted by a serious question. They are both wage-earners. Shall both continue to be so?

It costs a woman more than most men realize to lay down a good salary, and become dependent upon her husband for every dollar she spends. If she has never known the joy of independent self-support, she will find it comparatively easy; but if she has had the handling of her own money, and the unquestioned right to spend it as she chooses, it is idle to say that she will not miss it and often long for it. This, indeed, is one of the strongest arguments against young women so generally entering business life. The occupation in itself may not unfit her for wifehood, but the long continuance in it unfits her in a measure for the financial dependence which accompanies wifehood.

And why need she be dependent? it is urged. She has her own business. Why should she give it up? She earns perhaps as much as the young husband does. They are just starting in life, and need money. How much more they will have if they both work! Of course she can not do much housekeeping if she is engaged in other business, but she can hire it done, or they can board. These are some of the arguments that entice them—or rather her; for it is rarely the case that a man is willing for his new wife to continue outside work, and we do not usually think much of him when he is.

Shall both continue to be wage-earners? That is the pressing question to be settled before they can determine what their home is to be. Perhaps it can be answered better by a consideration of what the organization of a home means than in any other way.

Organization in general is the bringing together of interdependent parts, each having a special function, office, or relation, into one organic whole, which shall accomplish, with the least possible friction and the greatest possible efficiency, the object of its existence. Interdependent parts! Special office! This would seem to preclude all discussion as to preeminence of parts or uniformity of function. They are brought together because they are unlike,—because they are to accomplish different ends. If the constituent parts were all similar, there could be no organization; if all had the same office, the object of organization would be defeated.

It was this, undoubtedly, that Paul had in mind when he said to the Corinthians, respecting the organization of the Christian church:—

“For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ [the body of Christ—the organized church]. . . . If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? . . . And if they were all one member, where were the body?”

Apply this principle to the organization of the home. There we have brought together the interdependent parts—man with his strength of body and soul to battle with the world, and his will to do it, and woman with her no less God-given power to put inspiration into his work, and to make a place of rest and refreshing for him when the day’s conflict is over—a place so sweet and sacred that the thought of it shall be a constant incentive to further effort. It is his special office to be the bread-winner; it is hers to be the home-maker. But, to paraphrase St. Paul, if both are wage-earners, where were the home?

It is the province of organization to lay stress upon specialization, subdivision of labor, unity of purpose, and harmonious working.

There can be no doubt that men and women were designed for specialized work. It is proclaimed by their physical constitutions and the bent of their affections. It is emphasized whenever the little mother gathers her babies to her loving breast, and casts about for a playhouse

site, while her more aggressive brother mounts his stick horse, and, gun in hand, goes forth to conquer. Every true woman has an instinct toward home-making. It is possible for her to stifle this, to go on making money or doing work outside the home until this natural feeling, from being so long held in abeyance, is superseded in time by another. But it by no means follows that this is a desirable state of things.

The world’s best work is done by wise subdivision of labor. No man can do all things well. A part of woman’s work is laid on her by an unalterable decree. This can never be changed by universal suffrage nor legislative enactment. Since this is true, is it not both wise and just that she should be relieved from the added strain of laboring for daily bread?

It is easy to see that there could not be unity of purpose nor always harmonious working if both husband and wife are bread-winners. Hours would clash; interests would conflict. A man who is working to support his family has a right to a good dinner, well cooked and promptly served, to a comfortable, well-kept home in which to rest when the day’s work is done. He has a right, too, to the undivided interest of his wife in what concerns them both. How can she give either at its best if her duties call her into office or store? These are prosaic things. But the woman who fails her husband at this point will have domestic trouble, and ought to. This is the part that he can not do; it is the part that she is specially fitted for, and has promised to do. She can not safely neglect it.

“No man can serve two masters.” Wifehood, with all it entails, is a vocation. One who enters it disqualifies herself for business life. Nay, for her henceforth the business of life is in the home. Let her bring to its conduct all the energy, the thought, the devotion she would give to any other calling. Let her dignify it. Let her, like St. Paul, magnify her office, not by endlessly retailing her trials with man-servant and maid, but by opening her eyes to its possibilities for influencing the life of her husband, her children, and the world. Then will it become to her a vocation.