But the question of social standing goes farther than this. Not only
are social advantages of every kind denied the domestic employee,
but the badge of social inferiority is put upon her in characters as
unchangeable as are the spots of a leopard. This badge assumes several
different forms. The first is the use of the word “servant.”[273] We may
prove from etymology that every person who confers a favor on another is
his servant. We may present a lawyer’s brief showing to the satisfaction
of every local and national court that every employee in the eye of the
law is a servant. We may argue from the biblical standpoint and show
without a flaw in our chain of reasoning that we are all servants of
one another. We may point to the classification of occupations made by
the national census bureau and show that clergymen, doctors, lawyers,
teachers, and domestic servants are placed together. We may quote to
every employee the proudly humble motto of the Prince of Wales, “Ich
dien,” and the example of the Pope, who calls himself “the servant of the
servants of the Lord.” We may by a social fiction subscribe ourselves a
score of times each day, “Your most humble and obedient servant.” We may
do all of these things, but just as long as common phraseology restricts
the ordinary use of the word to those persons engaged in domestic
employments for which they receive a fixed compensation, just so long
will arguments prove of no avail and the word “servant” continue to
be a mark of social degradation. The efforts of domestic employees to
substitute the terms “maid” or “working housekeeper” have as yet in many
quarters excited little more than ridicule.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account