[272] “Domestics are not admitted into any society, and are often for want of a little pleasure driven to seek it in company that is often coarse and vulgar.” “It is very hard for a young, refined woman to give up a pleasant home, and live constantly with ignorant and ill-bred people, as is very often the case where more than one servant is kept.” [273] “I fairly hate the word ‘servant.’” “I don’t like to be called a ‘menial.’” “The girls in shops call us ‘livers-out.’” “No woman likes to be called a ‘hired girl.’” “American girls don’t like the name ‘servants.’” “I know many nice girls who would do housework, but they prefer doing almost anything else rather than be called ‘servants.’” “Some people call us ‘kitchen mechanics.’” “I don’t know why we should be called ‘servants’ any more than other people.” [274] A woman who had been for years a domestic employee left her place on account of sickness, and ultimately opened a small bakeshop. Her former employer called on her one day, and said, “Well, Sarah, how do you like your work?” She replied, “I never thought of it before, but now that you speak, I think the reason I like it so well is because everybody calls me ‘Miss Clark.’” An employer invited her Sunday-school class to her home to spend an evening. One of the members went into the kitchen to render some assistance, and found there the housemaid, an unusually attractive young woman. The employer said, “Miss M, this is Kate.” The maid, who never before had showed the slightest consciousness of occupying an inferior position, said, under her breath, “I am Miss, too.” [275] That this jest has a basis of fact in England is evident from the testimony of the footman of the Earl of Northbrook, who some time since stated under oath, in a court of law, that although his regular wages amounted to but $300 annually, yet he received from $2,000 to $2,500 more each year in the shape of tips from the Earl’s guests. “Her Majesty’s Servants,” in the _New York Tribune_, August 23, 1896. [276] Mr. W. D. Howells has an excellent discussion of the feeing system in _Harper’s Weekly_, May 16, 1896; also, Julia R. Tutwiler in the _American Kitchen Magazine_, April, 1896; still a third is found in the _Outlook_, August 8, 1896. [277] One illustration of the fact that domestic service is never judged by the same social canons as are other occupations, is seen in the unwillingness shown by a young woman to enter the service of a family having a questionable reputation. Her “squeamishness,” as it was called, excited only laughter in a circle of women, no one of whom would have exchanged calls with the family in question. [278] _First Annual Report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of Connecticut_, 1885, p. 12.