more serious bodily ones. In the case of the housewife, poverty on the
physical side means (1) never-ending work; (2) no escape from drudgery
and monotony; (3) insufficient convalescence from the injuries of
childbearing; (4) a poor home, badly constructed, badly managed, without
conveniences and necessities.

That there are plenty of poor women who bear up well under their burdens
is merely a testimony to the inherent vitality of the race. A man would
be a wreck morally, physically, and mentally if he coped with his
wife's burdens for a month. Either that or the housekeeping would get
down to bare essentials. If a man kept such a house, dusting and
cleaning would be rare events, meals would become as crude as the needs
of life would allow, ironing and linen would be wiped off as
non-essential, and the children would run around like so many little
animals. In other words an integral part of what we call civilization in
the home would disappear.

Perhaps men would reorganize the home. The housekeeper of to-day is only
in spots coöperative; her social sense is undeveloped. Men might, and I
think likely would, arrange for a group housekeeping such as that which
they enjoy in their clubs.

This digression aside, there are debilitating factors in the housewife's
lot which need some amplification. We have referred to the insufficient
time for convalescence from childbirth. There are _sequelæ_ of
childbirth, such as varicose veins, flat feet, back strain, that render
the victim's life a burden. The rich woman finds it easy to secure rest
enough and proper medical attention. But the poor woman, not able to
rest, and with recourse either to her overbusy family doctor or to the
overburdened, careless, out-patient department of some hospital, drags