as a natural consequence of our division of labor on sex-lines, giving to woman the home and to man the world in which to work, we have come to have a dense prejudice in favor of the essential womanliness of the home duties, as opposed to the essential manliness of every other kind of work. we have assumed that the preparation and serving of food and the removal of dirt, the nutritive and excretive processes of the family, are feminine functions; and we have also assumed that these processes must go on in what we call the home, which is the external expression of the family. in the home the human individual is fed, cleaned, warmed, and generally cared for, while not engaged in working in the world.

human nutrition is a long process. there’s many a ship ’twixt the cup and the lip, to paraphrase an old proverb. food is produced by the human race collectively,—not by individuals for their own consumption, but by interrelated groups of individuals, all over the world, for the world’s consumption. this collectively produced food circulates over the earth’s surface through elaborate processes of transportation, exchange, and preparation, before it reaches the mouths of the consumers; and the final processes of 226selection and preparation are in the hands of woman. she is the final purchaser: she is the final handler in that process of human nutrition known as cooking, which is a sort of extra-organic digestion proven advantageous to our species. this department of human digestion has become a sex-function, supposed to pertain to women by nature.

if it is to the advantage of the human race that its food supply should be thus handled by a special sex, this advantage should be shown in superior health and purity of habit. but no such advantage is visible. in spite of all our power and skill in the production and preparation of food we remain “the sickest beast alive” in the matter of eating. our impotent outcries against adulteration prove that part of the trouble is in the food products as offered for purchase, the pathetic reiteration of our numerous cook-books proves that part of the trouble is in the preparation of those products, and the futile exhortations of physicians and mothers prove that part of the trouble is in our morbid tastes and appetites. it would really seem as if the human race after all its long centuries had not learned how to prepare good food, nor how to cook it, nor how to eat it,—which is painfully true.

this great function of human nutrition is 227confounded with the sex-relation, and is considered a sex-function: it is in the helpless hands of that amiable but abortive agent, the economically dependent women; and the essential incapacity of such an agent is not hard to show. in her position as private house-steward she is the last purchaser of the food of the world, and here we reach the governing factor in our incredible adulteration of food products.

all kinds of deceit and imposition in human service are due to that desire to get without giving, which, as has been shown in previous chapters, is largely due to the training of women as non-productive consumers. but the particular form of deceit and imposition practised by a given dealer is governed by the intelligence and power of the buyer. the dilution and adulteration of food products is a particularly easy path to profit, because the ultimate purchaser has almost no power and very little intelligence. the individual housewife must buy at short intervals and in small quantities. this operates to her pecuniary disadvantage, as is well known; but its effect on the quality of her purchases is not so commonly observed. not unless she becomes the head of a wealthy household, and so purchases in quantity for family, servants, and guests, is her trade of sufficient value to have force in the market. 228the dealer who sells to a hundred poor women can and does sell a much lower quality of food than he who sells an equal amount to one purchaser. therefore, the home, as a food agency, holds an essentially and permanently unfavorable position as a purchaser; and it is thereby the principal factor in maintaining the low standard of food products against which we struggle with the cumbrous machinery of legislation.

most housekeepers will innocently prove their ignorance of these matters by denying that the standard of food products is so low. let such offended ladies but examine the statutes and ordinances of their own cities,—of any civilized city,—and see how the bread, the milk, the meat, the fruit, are under a steady legislative inspection which endeavors to protect the ignorance and helplessness of the individual purchaser. if the private housekeeper had the technical intelligence as purchaser which is needed to discriminate in the selection of foods, if she were prepared to test her milk, to detect the foreign substance in her coffee and spices, rightly to estimate the quality of her meat and the age of her fruit and vegetables, she would then be able at least to protest against her supply, and to seek, as far as time, distance, and funds allowed, a better market. this technical 229intelligence, however, is only to be obtained by special study and experience; and its attainment only involves added misery and difficulty to the private purchaser, unless accompanied by the power to enforce what the intelligence demands.

as it is, woman brings to her selection from the world’s food only the empirical experience gained by practising upon her helpless family, and this during the very time when her growing children need the wise care which she is only able to give them in later years. this experience, with its pitiful limitation and its practical check by the personal taste and pecuniary standing of the family, is lost where it was found. each mother slowly acquires some knowledge of her business by practising it upon the lives and health of her family and by observing its effect on the survivors; and each daughter begins again as ignorant as her mother was before her. this “rule of thumb” is not transmissible. it is not a genuine education such as all important work demands, but a slow animal process of soaking up experience,—hopelessly ineffectual in protecting the health of society. as the ultimate selecting agent in feeding humanity, the private housewife fails, and this not by reason of any lack of effort on her part, but by the essential defect of her position as individual purchaser. 230only organization can oppose such evils as the wholesale adulteration of food; and woman, the house-servant, belongs to the lowest grade of unorganized labor.

leaving the selection of food, and examining its preparation, one would naturally suppose that the segregation of an entire sex to the fulfilment of this function would insure most remarkable results. it has, but they are not so favorable as might be expected. the art and science of cooking involve a large and thorough knowledge of nutritive value and of the laws of physiology and hygiene. as a science, it verges on preventive medicine. as an art, it is capable of noble expression within its natural bounds. as it stands among us to-day, it is so far from being a science and akin to preventive medicine, that it is the lowest of amateur handicrafts and a prolific source of disease; and, as an art, it has developed under the peculiar stimulus of its position as a sex-function into a voluptuous profusion as false as it is evil. our innocent proverb, “the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach,” is a painfully plain comment on the way in which we have come to deprave our bodies and degrade our souls at the table.

on the side of knowledge it is permanently impossible that half the world, acting as amateur cooks for the other half, can attain any 231high degree of scientific accuracy or technical skill. the development of any human labor requires specialization, and specialization is forbidden to our cook-by-nature system. what progress we have made in the science of cooking has been made through the study and experience of professional men cooks and chemists, not through the sisyphean labors of our endless generations of isolated women, each beginning again where her mother began before her.

here, of course, will arise a pained outcry along the “mother’s doughnuts” line, in answer to which we refer to our second premise in the last chapter. the fact that we like a thing does not prove it to be right. a missouri child may regard his mother’s saleratus biscuit with fond desire, but that does not alter their effect upon his spirits or his complexion. cooking is a matter of law, not the harmless play of fancy. architecture might be more sportive and varied if every man built his own house, but it would not be the art and science that we have made it; and, while every woman prepares food for her own family, cooking can never rise beyond the level of the amateur’s work.

but, low as is the status of cooking as a science, as an art it is lower. since the wife-cook’s main industry is to please,—that being her chief means of getting what she wants or 232of expressing affection,—she early learned to cater to the palate instead of faithfully studying and meeting the needs of the stomach. for uncounted generations the grown man and the growing child have been subject to the constant efforts of her who cooked from affection, not from knowledge,—who cooked to please. this is one of the widest pathways of evil that has ever been opened. in every field of life it is an evil to put the incident before the object, the means before the end; and here it has produced that familiar result whereby we live to eat instead of eating to live.

this attitude of the woman has developed the rambling excess called “fancy cookery,”—a thing as far removed from true artistic development as a swinging ice-pitcher from a greek vase. through this has come the limitless unhealthy folly of high living, in which human labor and time and skill are wasted in producing what is neither pure food nor pure pleasure, but an artificial performance, to be appreciated only by the virtuoso. lower living could hardly be imagined than that which results from this unnatural race between artifice and appetite, in which body and soul are both corrupted.

in the man, the subject of all this dining-room devotion, has been developed and maintained that cultivated interest in his personal 233tastes and their gratification,—that demand for things which he likes rather than for things which he knows to be good, wherein lies one of the most dangerous elements in character known to the psychologist. the sequences of this affectionate catering to physical appetites may be traced far afield to its last result in the unchecked indulgence in personal tastes and desires, in drug habits and all intemperance. the temperament which is unable to resist these temptations is constantly being bred at home.

as the concentration of woman’s physical energies on the sex-functions, enforced by her economic dependence, has tended to produce and maintain man’s excess in sex-indulgence, to the injury of the race; so the concentration of woman’s industrial energies on the close and constant service of personal tastes and appetites has tended to produce and maintain an excess in table indulgence, both in eating and drinking, which is also injurious to the race. it is not here alleged that this is the only cause of our habits of this nature; but it is one of primal importance, and of ceaseless action.

we can perhaps see its working better by a light-minded analogy than by a bold statement. suppose two large, healthy, nimble apes. suppose that the male ape did not allow the female 234ape to skip about and pluck her own cocoanuts, but brought to her what she was to have. suppose that she was then required to break the shell, pick out the meat, prepare for the male what he wished to consume; and suppose, further, that her share in the dinner, to say nothing of her chance of a little pleasure excursion in the treetops afterward, was dependent on his satisfaction with the food she prepared for him. she, as an ape of intelligence, would seek, by all devices known to her, to add stimulus and variety to the meals she arranged, to select the bits he specially preferred to please his taste and to meet his appetite; and he, developing under this agreeable pressure, would gradually acquire a fine discrimination in foods, and would look forward to his elaborate feasts with increasing complacency. he would have a new force to make him eat,—not only his need of food, with its natural and healthy demands, but her need of—everything, acting through his need of food.

this sounds somewhat absurd in a family of apes, but it is precisely what has occurred in the human family. to gratify her husband has been the woman’s way of obtaining her own ends, and she has of necessity learned how to do it; and, as she has been in general an uneducated and unskilled worker, she could only seek 235to please him through what powers she had,—mainly those of house service. she has been set to serve two appetites, and to profit accordingly. she has served them well, but the profit to either party is questionable.

on lines of social development we are progressing from the gross gorging of the savage on whatever food he could seize, toward the discriminating selection of proper foods, and an increasing delicacy and accuracy in their use. against this social tendency runs the cross-current of our sexuo-economic relation, making the preparation of food a sex function, and confusing all its processes with the ardor of personal affection and the dragging weight of self-interest. this method is applied, not only to the husband, but, in a certain degree, to the children; for, where maternal love and maternal energy are forced to express themselves mainly in the preparation of food, the desire properly to feed the child becomes confounded with an unwise desire to please, and the mother degrades her high estate by catering steadily to the lower tastes of humanity instead of to the higher.

our general notion is that we have lifted and ennobled our eating and drinking by combining them with love. on the contrary, we have lowered and degraded our love by combining it with eating and drinking; and, what is more, we 236have lowered these habits also. some progress has been made, socially; but this unhappy mingling of sex-interest and self-interest with normal appetites, this cupid-in-the-kitchen arrangement, has gravely impeded that progress. professional cooking has taught us much. commerce and manufacture have added to our range of supplies. science has shown us what we need, and how and when we need it. but the affectionate labor of wife and mother is little touched by these advances. if she goes to the cooking school, it is to learn how to make the rich delicacies that will please rather than to study the nutritive value of food in order to guard the health of the household. from the constantly enlarging stores opened to her through man’s activities she chooses widely, to make “a variety” that shall kindle appetite, knowing nothing of the combination best for physical needs. as to science, chemistry, hygiene,—they are but names to her. “john likes it so.” “willie won’t eat it so.” “your father never could bear cabbage.” she must consider what he likes, not only because she loves to please him or because she profits by pleasing him, but because he pays for the dinner, and she is a private servant.

is it not time that the way to a man’s heart through his stomach should be relinquished for 237some higher avenue? the stomach should be left to its natural uses, not made a thoroughfare for stranger passions and purposes; and the heart should be approached through higher channels. we need a new picture of our overworked blind god,—fat, greasy, pampered with sweetmeats by the poor worshippers long forced to pay their devotion through such degraded means.

no, the human race is not well nourished by making the process of feeding it a sex-function. the selection and preparation of food should be in the hands of trained experts. and woman should stand beside man as the comrade of his soul, not the servant of his body.

this will require large changes in our method of living. to feed the world by expert service, bringing to that great function the skill and experience of the trained specialist, the power of science, and the beauty of art, is impossible in the sexuo-economic relation. while we treat cooking as a sex-function common to all women and eating as a family function not otherwise rightly accomplished, we can develope no farther. we are spending much earnest study and hard labor to-day on the problem of teaching and training women in the art of cooking, both the wife and the servant; for, with our usual habit of considering voluntary individual conduct as 238the cause of conditions, we seek to modify conditions by changing individual conduct.

what we must recognize is that, while the conditions remain, the conduct cannot be altered. any trade or profession, the development of which depended upon the labor of isolated individuals, assisted only by hired servants more ignorant than themselves, would remain at a similarly low level.

so far as health can be promoted by public means, we are steadily improving by sanitary regulations and medical inspection, by professionally prepared “health foods” and by the literature of hygiene, by special legislation as to contagious diseases and dangerous trades; but the health that lies in the hands of the housewife is not reached by these measures. the nine-tenths of our women who do their own work cannot be turned into proficient purchasers and cooks any more than nine-tenths of our men could be turned into proficient tailors with no better training or opportunity than would be furnished by clothing their own families. the alternative remaining to the women who comprise the other tenth is that peculiar survival of earlier labor methods known as “domestic service.”

as a method of feeding humanity, hired domestic service is inferior even to the service 239of the wife and mother, and brings to the art of cooking an even lower degree of training and a narrower experience. the majority of domestic servants are young girls who leave this form of service for marriage as soon as they are able; and we thus intrust the physical health of human beings, so far as cooking affects it, to the hands of untrained, immature women, of the lowest social grade, who are actuated by no higher impulse than that of pecuniary necessity. the love of the wife and mother stimulates at least her desire to feed her family well. the servant has no such motive. the only cases in which domestic cooking reaches anything like proficiency are those in which the wife and mother is “a natural-born cook,” and regales her family with the products of genius, or those in which the households of the rich are able to command the service of professionals.

there was a time when kings and lords retained their private poets to praise and entertain them; but the poet is not truly great until he sings for the world. so the art of cooking can never be lifted to its true place as a human need and a social function by private service. such an arrangement of our lives and of our houses as will allow cooking to become a profession is the only way in which to free this great art from its present limitations. it should 240be a reputable, well-paid profession, wherein those women or those men who were adapted to this form of labor could become cooks, as they would become composers or carpenters. natural distinctions would be developed between the mere craftsman and the artist; and we should have large, new avenues of lucrative and honorable industry, and a new basis for human health and happiness.

this does not involve what is known as “co-operation.” co-operation, in the usual sense, is the union of families for the better performance of their supposed functions. the process fails because the principle is wrong. cooking and cleaning are not family functions. we do not have a family mouth, a family stomach, a family face to be washed. individuals require to be fed and cleaned from birth to death, quite irrespective of their family relations. the orphan, the bachelor, the childless widower, have as much need of these nutritive and excretive processes as any patriarchal parent. eating is an individual function. cooking is a social function. neither is in the faintest degree a family function. that we have found it convenient in early stages of civilization to do our cooking at home proves no more than the allied fact that we have also found it convenient in such stages to do our weaving and spinning at home, our soap and 241candle making, our butchering and pickling, our baking and washing.

as society developes, its functions specialize; and the reason why this great race-function of cooking has been so retarded in its natural growth is that the economic dependence of women has kept them back from their share in human progress. when women stand free as economic agents, they will lift and free their arrested functions, to the much better fulfilment of their duties as wives and mothers and to the vast improvement in health and happiness of the human race.

co-operation is not what is required for this, but trained professional service and such arrangement of our methods of living as shall allow us to benefit by such service. when numbers of people patronize the same tailor or baker or confectioner, they do not co-operate. neither would they co-operate in patronizing the same cook. the change must come from the side of the cook, not from the side of the family. it must come through natural functional development in society, and it is so coming. woman, recognizing that her duty as feeder and cleaner is a social duty, not a sexual one, must face the requirements of the situation, and prepare herself to meet them. a hundred years ago this could not have been 242done. now it is being done, because the time is ripe for it.

if there should be built and opened in any of our large cities to-day a commodious and well-served apartment house for professional women with families, it would be filled at once. the apartments would be without kitchens; but there would be a kitchen belonging to the house from which meals could be served to the families in their rooms or in a common dining-room, as preferred. it would be a home where the cleaning was done by efficient workers, not hired separately by the families, but engaged by the manager of the establishment; and a roof-garden, day nursery, and kindergarten, under well-trained professional nurses and teachers, would insure proper care of the children. the demand for such provision is increasing daily, and must soon be met, not by a boarding-house or a lodging-house, a hotel, a restaurant, or any makeshift patching together of these; but by a permanent provision for the needs of women and children, of family privacy with collective advantage. this must be offered on a business basis to prove a substantial business success; and it will so prove, for it is a growing social need.

there are hundreds of thousands of women in new york city alone who are wage-earners, 243and who also have families; and the number increases. this is true not only among the poor and unskilled, but more and more among business women, professional women, scientific, artistic, literary women. our school-teachers, who form a numerous class, are not entirely without relatives. to board does not satisfy the needs of a human soul. these women want homes, but they do not want the clumsy tangle of rudimentary industries that are supposed to accompany the home. the strain under which such women labor is no longer necessary. the privacy of the home could be as well maintained in such a building as described as in any house in a block, any room, flat, or apartment, under present methods. the food would be better, and would cost less; and this would be true of the service and of all common necessities.

in suburban homes this purpose could be accomplished much better by a grouping of adjacent houses, each distinct and having its own yard, but all kitchenless, and connected by covered ways with the eating-house. no detailed prophecy can be made of the precise forms which would ultimately prove most useful and pleasant; but the growing social need is for the specializing of the industries practised in the home and for the proper mechanical provision for them.

the cleaning required in each house would be 244much reduced by the removal of the two chief elements of household dirt,—grease and ashes.

meals could of course be served in the house as long as desired; but, when people become accustomed to pure, clean homes, where no steaming industry is carried on, they will gradually prefer to go to their food instead of having it brought to them. it is a perfectly natural process, and a healthful one, to go to one’s food. and, after all, the changes between living in one room, and so having the cooking most absolutely convenient; going as far as the limits of a large house permit, to one’s own dining-room; and going a little further to a dining-room not in one’s own house, but near by,—these differ but in degree. families could go to eat together, just as they can go to bathe together or to listen to music together; but, if it fell out that different individuals presumed to develope an appetite at different hours, they could meet it without interfering with other people’s comfort or sacrificing their own. any housewife knows the difficulty of always getting a family together at meals. why try? then arises sentiment, and asserts that family affection, family unity, the very existence of the family, depend on their being together at meals. a family unity which is only bound together with a table-cloth is of questionable value.

245there are several professions involved in our clumsy method of housekeeping. a good cook is not necessarily a good manager, nor a good manager an accurate and thorough cleaner, nor a good cleaner a wise purchaser. under the free development of these branches a woman could choose her position, train for it, and become a most valuable functionary in her special branch, all the while living in her own home; that is, she would live in it as a man lives in his home, spending certain hours of the day at work and others at home.

this division of the labor of housekeeping would require the service of fewer women for fewer hours a day. where now twenty women in twenty homes work all the time, and insufficiently accomplish their varied duties, the same work in the hands of specialists could be done in less time by fewer people; and the others would be left free to do other work for which they were better fitted, thus increasing the productive power of the world. attempts at co-operation so far have endeavored to lessen the existing labors of women without recognizing their need for other occupation, and this is one reason for their repeated failure.

it seems almost unnecessary to suggest that women as economic producers will naturally choose those professions which are compatible 246with motherhood, and there are many professions much more in harmony with that function than the household service. motherhood is not a remote contingency, but the common duty and the common glory of womanhood. if women did choose professions unsuitable to maternity, nature would quietly extinguish them by her unvarying process. those mothers who persisted in being acrobats, horse-breakers, or sailors before the mast, would probably not produce vigorous and numerous children. if they did, it would simply prove that such work did not hurt them. there is no fear to be wasted on the danger of women’s choosing wrong professions, when they are free to choose. many women would continue to prefer the very kinds of work which they are doing now, in the new and higher methods of execution. even cleaning, rightly understood and practised, is a useful, and therefore honorable, profession. it has been amusing heretofore to see how this least desirable of labors has been so innocently held to be woman’s natural duty. it is woman, the dainty, the beautiful, the beloved wife and revered mother, who has by common consent been expected to do the chamber-work and scullery work of the world. all that is basest and foulest she in the last instance must handle and remove. grease, ashes, dust, foul linen, 247and sooty ironware,—among these her days must pass. as we socialize our functions, this passes from her hands into those of man. the city’s cleaning is his work. and even in our houses the professional cleaner is more and more frequently a man.

the organization of household industries will simplify and centralize its cleaning processes, allowing of many mechanical conveniences and the application of scientific skill and thoroughness. we shall be cleaner than we ever were before. there will be less work to do, and far better means of doing it. the daily needs of a well-plumbed house could be met easily by each individual in his or her own room or by one who liked to do such work; and the labor less frequently required would be furnished by an expert, who would clean one home after another with the swift skill of training and experience. the home would cease to be to us a workshop or a museum, and would become far more the personal expression of its occupants—the place of peace and rest, of love and privacy—than it can be in its present condition of arrested industrial development. and woman will fill her place in those industries with far better results than are now provided by her ceaseless struggles, her conscientious devotion, her pathetic ignorance and inefficiency.