She opened up a factory, and spoiled it all again.

Nonsense? Yes--but with a strong element of sense, nevertheless.

Entirely aside, however, from the industrial status of the home,
unless we are to see a practical cessation of childbearing and
rearing, homes must apparently continue to exist. No one has yet found
a substitute place for this particular industry. It is a commonly
accepted fact that young children do better, both mentally and
physically, in even rather poor homes than in a perfectly planned and
conducted institution. And we need go no farther than this in seeking
a sufficient reason for saving the home. This one is enough to enlist
our best service in aid of homemaking and home support.

From earliest ages woman has been the homemaker. No plan for the
preservation of the home or for its evolution into a satisfactory
social factor can fail to recognize her vital and necessary connection
with the problem. Therefore in answer to the question "What ought
woman to be?" we say boldly, "A homemaker." Reduced to simplest terms,
the conditions are these: if homes are to be made more serviceable
tools for social betterment, women must make them what they ought to
be. Consequently homemaking must continue to be woman's
business--_the_ business of woman, if you like--a considerable,
recognized, and respected part of her "business of being a woman." Nor
may we overlook the fact that it is only in this work of making homes
and rearing offspring that either men or women reach their highest
development. Motherhood and fatherhood are educative processes,
greater and more vital than the artificial training that we call
education. In teaching their children, even in merely living with
their children, parents are themselves trained to lead fuller lives.