The first paper in the session on Family Standards was by Prof. Simon N. Patten of the University of Pennsylvania. His analysis of changes in woman’s dress is worth quoting: “In the early history of America, the dress, the habits, the morality, the relations between men and women could be predicted with certainty. This uniformity has been broken up by recent industrial changes through which the working population has been transferred from the farm to shops and factories. City life makes new demands and excites new wants. “A new woman is appearing who differs in many ways from her predecessor. She is stronger, more healthy, more ambitious and with moral qualities that match the new vigor. With greater physical vigor and more ambition, women love activity and cut out the contrasts in color and design in which the primitive woman indulged. The man-made woman dresses to emphasize her sex; the self-conscious woman subordinates her clothing to the needs of her own personality and her activity. “The active, healthy woman creates a spiritual impress by simplifying her dress and thus enhancing her facial beauty. Her less advanced sister clings to the older dress forms, through which a lower appeal is made. Out of the struggle is coming a new womanhood with higher morality and more beauty. Dressing is thus more than an economy; it is the essence of moral progress.” Martha Bensley Bruère of New York city, author of Increasing Home Efficiency, maintained that twelve hundred dollars a year was the lowest standard for decent family living. This twelve hundred dollars she found from her study of family budgets to be distributed as follows: “Food, $447.15, on the basis of 35 cents per day for an adult male and a sliding scale for others in the family; shelter, $144; clothes, $100, based on New York prices “where clothing is cheaper than any other place in the country,” she said; operation of household, including light, heat, etc., $150; advancement, meaning education, recreation, charities, church, savings, etc., $312; incidentals, $46, a total of $1,199.15.” ELEMENTS ENTERING INTO COST OF FOOD Edith E. Smith, president of the Pennsylvania Rural Progress Association, asserted that the fallacy that lessened production is the chief cause of high prices has been exploded and there is ample food produced if waste were eliminated. Said she: “While city people are complaining of the prices paid the farmer, it is an absolute fact that the farmer has a hard time to make a living profit on his business. The farmer has to face the combined problems of production and distribution and he runs the gamut of both. If any manufacturer were compelled to face the difficulties of the farmer ... attempted it on so small a margin of profit, he would quickly go to the wall.”