sacrifice. In the old days a man who did not marry paid for his liberty
by loss of physical comfort and wealth. Thus Hesiod, one of the earliest
Greek poets, in his Farmer's Almanac called "Works and Days," coupled
the marrying of a wife with the purchase of a yoke of oxen and a plow
as the first things needful in beginning to farm, and this in despite
of the fact that he was a woman-hater.

Now it is the woman who is tempted to marry for economic reasons, to
be certain of material support while she exercises herself in those
household avocations and social pleasures which constitute the main
activities of women. This is a legitimate consideration only when the
interest of the man is also taken into account. Marriage to a man whom
she does not love is a crime for any woman; giving falsely the offerings
of love for material things is harlotry even though legitimated by vows
and ceremonies.

On the other hand, marriage for love to a man who cannot support her is
a sad mistake for a woman who is not able or willing to take the place
of breadwinner, for such a union defeats its own purpose. Therefore,
in kindness to the man as well as to herself, such a woman should satisfy
herself that he can support her, not necessarily in "the style to which
she has been accustomed," but in the style necessary for her to perform
the duties of homemaker and mother. Those marriages are the happiest
where a wife can also enter into sympathy with her husband's business
ambitions in particular and ideals of life in general. Here she is
peculiarly his helpmate. He can hire a housekeeper, but not a companion
of his bosom.

A girl properly reared will naturally be drawn to a man complementary
to her in character--not "opposite," as is so often said. Opposition