The married woman who knows how to turn her experience to good advantage may eventually become a person of high industrial value. In a world where so many odd jobs which ought to be done are left undone, because all the experienced workers are permanently employed, the married woman with experience and judgment comes in as the right person in the right place. She is perhaps the only skilled casual worker. If there is no need for money, she should prove the best philanthropic worker, her position as mistress of a house making it possible for her to give a personal service in her own home which the official philanthropist must often regret she is unable to offer. And when her children really are old enough to be quite satisfactorily left to themselves and their teachers for the working day, I see no reason why the skilled married woman should not enter the labour market, and undertake the direction of one or other of those big institutions which Mrs. Stetson wishes to be universal, and which most of us regard as in some cases necessary. It is not permissible to serve two masters. The mother who thinks of earning her living must choose whether her children or the earning of an income shall be her first duty. If her children take the second place, she is worth nothing as a mother; if they take the first place, she is worth little as an outside worker. But in later life the two occupations need not clash. But although the elderly married woman may prove a valuable industrial organiser in the hotel, the residential chambers company, the hospital, the orphanage, or the college, it will only be by having served her apprenticeship, and taken honours as a house mistress and mother. I have not cared to discuss Mrs. Stetson’s views on housekeeping. But I not only see room for improvement in the domestic organisation of working women’s homes, but feel very hopeful of the power of women in the working classes to arrive at, at least, a partial solution of their difficulties by co-operation in removing them. The most important result of the co-operative movement will, I believe, be the improvement of the conditions of home life, and the better organisation of the housework of the overtasked wives of our artisans and clerks. There is much truth in Mrs. Stetson’s criticisms of women’s failures in every direction, but the remedy is better education and simpler tastes. It is only for the sake of her thesis that Mrs. Stetson finds fault with women or with men. She is generous in her estimate of the actual and possible capacities of both, and is full of high-minded delusions about them. “Woman holds her great position as the selector of the best among competing males; woman’s beautiful work is to improve the race by right marriage.” And not once does it cross her mind that most women are neither particularly attractive nor particularly good, and that they have therefore neither the power nor the right to assume this lofty office.