THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS BULLETIN No. 3134: September 8, 1931 THE LABOR OF WOMEN IN THE PRODUCTION OF COTTON By RUTH ALLEN Adjunct Professor of Economics The University of Texas Bureau of Research in the Social Sciences Study No. 3 PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN Additional copies of this publication may be procured from the University Publications, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS BULLETIN No. 3134: September 8, 1931 THE LABOR OF WOMEN IN THE PRODUCTION OF COTTON By RUTH ALLEN Adjunct Professor of Economics The University of Texas Bureau of Research in the Social Sciences Study No. 3 PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY FOUR TIMES A MONTH, AND ENTERED AS SECOND·CLASS MATTER AT THE POSTOFFICE AT AUSTIN, TEXAS, UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1912 The benefits of education and of uaeful knowledge, l'enerally diffuaed through a community, are eaaential to the preaervation of a free aovern· ment. Sam Houaton Cultivated mind is the guardian reniu1 of Democracy, and while guided and controlled by virtue, the noblest attribute of man. It is the only dictator that freemen acknowledge, and the only aecurity which freemen deaire. Mirabeau B. Lamar CONTENTS CHAPTER Page I. An Introductory Chapter________________________________________ 11 II. The American W ornan : Home and Social ~ack~oun -------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 .2 41-99 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 .2 100 and over ---------------------------------------------------------------------------1 .2 None ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------503 89.4 But women have another place in the social system than that of workers. They are the mothers of families. While, The University of Texas as many insist, childbirth is a natural function, twentieth century America is not a natural society. The physical care of a mother during periods of confinement cannot be left to Nature, and no study of the economic life and possi­bilities of women is complete which does not take into account this factor. The unnecessary human cost of bearing children is impressed upon any observer who studies the life of women. Too frequent confinements, bad or no prena­tal care, lack of proper care during and immediately fol­lowing labor; all take their toll of the mother's strength. One woman rather above the average in intelligence and vivacity said she had borne six children before she was twenty-eight years old, and they had taken most of her strength. At that time there had been none for about four years. Her house was poorly kept, and everything had a "run down at the heels" look; yet she had a big two-story house in which the family had lived for two generations. Another woman had had fourteen children in less than twenty years. Another had borne ten children, including three sets of twins. She held one baby in her arms, while twins less than two years old tugged at her skirts. Woman after woman in the early thirties had six to ten children,. coming at intervals of less than two years. One farmer frankly stated that "a woman who can't have a child a year isn't worth her salt."3 Due to the difficulty of securing help, it is often impos­sible for the woman to have as long a rest as she should have, even if her family were desirous of giving it to her. In some cases she does field work until the very day, some­times until the very hour, of her confinement. One woman worked in the field until she was taken with the pangs of labor and died, a few hours later in great agony, from blood poisoning. Another worked in the field until noon before her child was delivered at four o'clock that after­noon. Such instances are more common among the Middle 8Reported by a woman who was a frequent visitor in farm homes. European immigrant stock than among any of the Ameri­can group, but they are not confined to this foreign group. One rather humorous incident was told by the neighbor of a woman with a young baby. The neighbor, who was present when the mother became ill, wished to call the woman's husband. The mother forbade, saying, "Don't you call him. He has to work. He can't bother about anything like this.'' She was about and taking care of the baby in three hours. Of older women, very few did not mention as one of the worst features of being a farm woman the cost of proper care during pregnancy and childbirth and the doing of hard work at that time. Several said that, in the long run, there was probably no saving in not having a doctor's service, for the money had to go later for opera­tions which would certainly have been unnecessary if proper medical supervision had been secured at first. Similar instances might be given almost interminably, but little is to be gained by multiplying details-horrors they might be called in some cases. The situation calls for some comments. First, medical attention should be available at a reason­able cost. Very few of these women use midwives instead of doctors; but if there is a good midwife available, it is not certain that the majority are wise. The Negro women who use midwives often give as their reason, in addition of course to price, that the woman will come to see them several times and take care of them, whereas the doctor comes only once. The solution is probably in a number of trained, licensed, and supervised midwives whose services are available in the community. Second, children should be spaced at such intervals as will give the mother time to recover from physical strain and give the baby time to get on its feet. Third, these mothers should be protected either by law or public opinion. When a woman works in town industry, there is usually some regulation to protect her during the immediate prenatal and postnatal period. As a hired worker in rural life she is without legal protection as to The University of Texas hours and conditions of work. When the mother works in the field for her own family, she is without even such pro­tection as might be afforded by public opinion and unwill­ingness to employ a woman who is unable to work effi­ciently. The use of midwives during childbirth, as noted before, is not very common among white women of this section. There were 334 married women who reported the kind of attendance during confinement. About 75.6 per cent had doctors, and about 7.6 per cent had only midwives. Two women reported having neither at any confinement. If in this number who had neither doctor nor midwife are included those for whom a doctor was summoned but failed because of bad roads or distance to reach the place in time, the number of individual instances would be larger. Sev­eral women reported having doctors for parts of their families and midwives for the others. In such cases it is usually stated that the doctor is called for the first births and midwives for the later. This may be due to a decreas­ing fear of childbirth, an increasing carelessness on the part of the family, or an increasing scarcity of money with the growth of numbers. It is noticeable that the women \vith families now grown reported having midwives oftener than those with younger children. One woman with eight children said she "had a doctor with the first three and nobody with the other five." One woman who had borne fourteen children, all living to be grown, had had a midwife with all. Her physical condition in old age bears witness to fearful neglect somewhere along the line. Another factor that must be considered is the distance to the nearest doctor. This is important, not only in cases of confinement, but in cases of serious and sudden illness. It was noted that 16.2 per cent of these women live more than ten miles from a doctor. Where the fee is determined by the mile of distance, this means that for numbers of families a visit from the doctor makes quite a drain on the money income. Since the advent of the automobile, the mere fact of distance does not shut the family off from Labor of Women in the Production of Cotton 67 fairly quick service when necessary, unless the roads are unusually bad. And most rural families are within two or three miles, if not less, of a telephone. There are those who insist that the fact that these women can bear children with so little attention, and that they take so little vacation from work for the occurrence, indicates great physical vitality. But this is probably a rationalization to protect our sensibilities from a considera­tion of the high cost that many women pay for mother­hood. The stooped form, lifeless eyes, the subdued bearing, the many aches and pains of women not past their thirties would cause one to question whether physical vitality is an outstanding characteristic. The number of children brought into the world is of significance, especially when related to the economic posi­tion of the mother. The best indication we have of that economic position is the tenure status. Certain comparisons of the size of families in the three tenure groups seem evi­dent. The largest single family is that of an owner; but the percentage of families of six or more is somewhat larger for the laborers, 28.2 per cent, than for the owners, 25.0 per cent, or for the tenants, also 25.0 per cent. It will be noticeable in Table XIII that the owners have the smallest proportion, 7.3 per cent, without children; the laborers next, 9.4 per cent; and the tenants the largest, 11.4 per cent. The modal family is the same for all, with the owners and tenants showing a greater tendency than the laborers to concentration around the mode. But in the case of the laborers the modal family is reported by 31.0 per cent of the entire number, while it is reported by only 29.0 per cent (double mode) of the owners and 17.0 per cent of the tenants. Furthermore, families of less than four children were reported by 50.0 per cent of the owners, 50.0 per cent of the laborers, and 55.0 per cent of the tenants. These figures seem to show clearly a tendency to smaller families on the part of the tenants, while laborers and landowners ~ 00 TABLE XIII NUMBER OF CHIL.DREN AND OF CHILDREN UNDER 15 OF 525 AMERICAN FARM WOMEN OF CENTRAL TEXAS BY TENURE Number Women Reporting Women Reporting of Total Children Children Under 15 Children Total Owner Tenant Laborer No Data Total Owner Laborer Tenant ~ Num-Per Num-Per Num-Per Num-Per Num-Per Num-Per Num-Per Num-Per Num-Per (::r"ber Cent her Cent her Cent her Cent her Cent her Cent her Cent her Cent her Cent {t> Total _________________________ 525 100.0 259 49.4 219 41.9 32 6.2 15 2.8 525 100.0 259 49.4 32 6.2 219 41.6 ~ 0 ---------------------------49 9.3 19 3.6 25 4.8 3 0.6 2 0.4 173 33.0 110 20.9 6 1.1 54 10.3 ~. 1 ----------------------------72 13.7 39 7.5 28 5.3 3 0.6 2 0.4 96 18.2 48 9.2 5 1.0 40 7.6 ~ ~ 2 ----------------------------88 16.8 39 7.5 36 6.8 IO 1.9 2 0.4 90 17.2 39 7.5 9 1.7 40 7.6 {t> "'"": 3 ----------------------------75 14.3 37 7.1 32 6.0 4 0.7 2 0.4 65 12.4 27 5.2 5 1.0 32 6.0 ~ ~. 4 ----------------------------58 11.0 33 6.3 23 4.4 2 0.4 0 ----41 7.8 17 3.3 0 ----24 4.6 ("'+­ ~ 5 ----------------------------42 8.0 19 3.6 20 3.3 2 0.4 1 0.2 23 4.4 4 0.7 3 0.6 15 2.8 6 -------------------·--------34 6.5 16 3.0 15 2.8 1 0.2 2 0.4 16 3.0 4 0.7 2 0.4 8 1.5 c ~ 7 ----------------------------16 3.0 6 I.I 9 1.7 1 0.2 0 ----4 0.7 1 0.2 --------3 0.6 8 ---------------------------33 6.3 16 3.0 15 2.9 2 0.4 0 ----3 0.6 0 -----------3 0.6 ~ ~ 9 ------------------------22 4.2 11 2.2 9 1.7 2 0.4 0 ----1 0.2 1 0.2 I 0.2 ---­ ~ _.,. __ 10 ------~--------------------10 1.9 7 1.3 3 0.6 0 ---· 0 ----0 0.0 ----I 0.2 ----~ ~ 11 ----------------------------2 0.4 1 0.2 1 0.2 0 ----0 ----1 0.2 ----0.0 12 --------------------------9 1.7 6 1.1 2 0.4 I 0.2 0 13 ---------------------------1 0.2 0 0.0 I 0.2 0 ----0 14 --------------------------1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 15 -------------------------1 0.2 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 No data ------------------12 2.3 9 1.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 0.6 12 2.3 8 1.5 Labor of Women in the Production of Cotton 69 show a tendency differing little in amount toward some­what larger families. There is this difference, however, between the two latter groups; the owners are affected by the large proportion of families of European standards. Further, a majority of the landowners reporting families of eight or more had grown families, while the children of laborers were all young. An interesting change in view­point was shown by a German woman whose youngest child was twenty-three. She hesitated so long in answering the question in regard to the number of children that the questioner felt uncomfortable. Then in broken English she said, "I'm ashamed to say it, but I've got ten children." On being assured that she was not necessarily a social out­cast, she reluctantly admitted having been the mother of twelve. There is little question that her attitude is typical, and her husband was within earshot. No landowner of old line American stock reported a family of more than eight, and families of even six were not common. Since among the laborers the families are all of the old line American stock, the larger families must be due to other factors than national standards. Some of these factors are the entire absence of any limitation which might be caused by property ownership ; the utter hopelessness, as contrasted with the tenants' possibility of becoming landowners; and the belief that children help make a living; that is, that children are "economic assets" to their parents and to their families. From conditions brought out in the discussion of the casual laborer, it might seem that the latter attitude is justified. For the "third and fourth" tenant, which is the class of all save very few of the Americans, it is cheaper due to the decreased overhead to the individual to hire such labor than to furnish his own. As pointed out later, the overhead of the casual laborer is shifted upon the social group; but the overhead of the family must be borne by the farm itself. Where there is some property ownership, there is strong incentive to shift as much of the cost as possible. For the owner the services of a family may be used in enlarging the services of the home and increasing The University of Texas the value of the property during periods which would be largely idle to the non-landowner. But in order to meet the cost of family labor, there is almost certain to be a lowered standard, as in the case of the Southern Euro­pean farmer who had thirteen daughters and thirteen farms, a dowry for each, but not a daughter who could read or write. Anticipating some of the situations discussed later in this study, the question may be fairly raised here whether the sententious expression, "Children are an economic asset," is not an empty phrase which has gained a position of respect because of much mouthing by economists and non-economists. The phrase is seldom used in speaking of the urban family, but it is still a shibboleth among many who consider farm life. If children be an economic asset, why does a woman who has borne fourteen and lived all her life on the farm find herself at eighty-three without house or land, living in a hovel, her title to which depends upon an old man with whom she has formed an economic part­nership? Somehow her assets have never materialized to the extent that they could give her a living. If children be economic assets, why is it that of twenty-three women in the entire group of field workers who report families of eight or more, twenty-one are in the families of non-land­owners? Though the sample is so small that it could hardly be a basis for a general deduction, does it not justify the question whether children are an economic asset to any group in modern society? Certainly eight children, who can pick each his bit of cotton, add to the family income, but do they add as much as they subtract? Appar­ently not; if they did, the added moieties of income would eventually lift the family out of poverty. But it seems that the more assets a family has the deeper the family sinks into the economic slough. Even after they grow older, the children are not assets; for it is not in these groups that family pride and family loyalty keep girls and young women from marrying and drive them to give the best of their lives to supporting their families and acting as an Labor of Women in the Production of Cotton 71 old age insurance for parents, aunts, and sundry others who make claims upon them. The original investment in the group where such tradition operates may be greater, but the return is manifold. It is probably time, then, to clear our eyes of the mists of sentimentality and the motes of tradition and to analyze the place that children really have in the economic life of the family. Much badly needed social legislation can never be gotten until we cease to divide people into those who consider children an economic asset, and are therefore hopeless, and those who do not treat children as an asset and do not, therefore, need pro­tection. There are, unquestionably, forces making for the rearing of large families among laborers on the farm ; but, except indirectly, it is not necessarily the urge for economic well­being of the family. These forces are more than suggested by the fact that a tenant with a small family finds it diffi­cult to get a cotton farm. One landlord was heard to remark that he never rented a farm to any man who did not have at least eight children and a wife who worked in the field "like a man." Another landlord, a university graduate and unusually intelligent, asked his tenant to move because he had only one little boy. The tenant was industrious, sober, and had been very satisfactory; but hands are necessary in the production of cotton. Another tenant whose family consisted of the father, mother, and a grown daughter, all of whom worked consistently in the field, had seriously considered moving to town because, since the other children had left home, the family was "not big enough to farm.'' In a large part of the agricultural economy of the South the importance of children as a force of workers, while making a woman an indispensable adjunct to a farm, tends also to place her in a subordinate position as a means to an end a}\d, in the case of many farmers, degrades the mother to the position of a breeder of a labor supply. In addition, the mother is for so large a part of the time so physically unwell she can have little force as a personality within the home. There is little The Univen;Uy of Te~ras question that one reason why the Negro has displaced the white as a tenant on cotton farms is that he has larger families. The Negro, in turn, is being pressed out by the Mexican, who brings his horde with him. With both Negro and Mexican it may not be the children of one couple alone, but branches of the family, both lateral and perpendicular, tend to stay together in a way almost unheard of in the American group. And the larger the single group, the simpler is the problem of securing and handling labor for the employer and the greater the economies of group living, making possible, of course, a lower wage. Under such conditions the family is an "economic asset," but to whom? The cotton producer wants his cotton picked as cheaply as possible. Certainly one source of cheap cotton pickers is the family of the man who is making the crop. Another factor to be considered in the general condi­tions of work and living is the amount of space in the house in relation to the number of persons. From two angles this is important to the woman living in the house. She has the work to do ; and the more space she has to cover, the greater the amount of work required. This is of especial significance where the woman lives in one of the old-fashioned farm homes. It may be that she has inherited a residence built to fill the needs of a past genera­tion, when sons and daughters filled the house to overflow­ing. In such a case she may leave a part of the house unused; she seems no fonder than the town woman of stairs and unnecessary space. The desire for a bungalow as the ideal living quarters is expressed surprisingly often by the woman who lives on a farm. One woman lived in the roomy, two-story, comfortable looking "old home place" of her husband's father. There were only three in the family, so she had closed up the stairs and nobody ever "goes up there." These large houses are found also where the children have gone from home; the father and mother are left, and the big house is still needed as a family gathering place. Under still another condition these large Labor of Women in the Production of Cotton 73 houses are found. The land-owner has left the old home­stead and has put tenants on the place. In such cases the house is usually allowed to "run down," and the state of disrepair is discouraging to the housekeeper as well as destructive to the general morale of the family living in it. A smaller house kept in better repair would be much better from several viewpoints. There is a feeling of recklessness and bitterness engendered in people by being obli,ged to live in houses which are falling about their ears. Yet on the other hand, it can hardly be expected that the landlord should keep so large a house in repair, and not often would the tenants care to live in so large a house. This is an old homestead turned over to Mexican "croppers." The inhabitant and another view of the house are shown at the top of page 213. But much more common than these large houses are the homes whose dwellers are crowded into space which is hardly sufficient for sane or even decent living. Eighteen per cent of the women reporting lived in homes where there was less than one-half room per individual, and 57.0 per cent lived where there was not more than one room per individual. Eleven per cent lived in homes where there were more than two rooms per individual. Where children The University of Te:ras are small, this crowding means that regular naps, early bedtimes, segregation of sick children are all impossible. Quiet may be obtained for one member of the family only when it comes to all members. The nerve strain on both adults and children is almost unbearable. One is led to wonder whether some people are not, after all, "just differ... ent" until the fretful tone of the mother's voice, the "yelling at the children," the hasty cuff and slap convince the observer that possibly for all of us space and oppor­tunity to be alone would make for sweeter and better poised living. It is no unusual sight to see two and three beds in the same room and father, mother, and several children, some entering their "teens," sleeping in them. Among the white people there is, so far as observed, very little or no crowd­ing of grown sons and daughters into the same room for sleeping. It is probable that where such crowding would be necessary, the grown son and daughter do not stay at home. Having considered the general conditions of the farm woman and her living, it is fitting now to consider what she gives in return for the living that she gets. Labor of Women in the Production of Cotton 75 These are outstanding homes of landowners. They have every con­venience and comfort to be found in the middle-class city home, except that in one case there was no running water. The father here could not understand why his daughter wanted to go to town to work. CHAPTER III THE AMERICAN WOMAN: THE NON-FIELD WORKER T HE WOMEN included in this study are divided into two groups according to the kind of work done. The first group includes those whose activities are confined almost entirely to housework and its attendant labor: gardening, raising chickens, milking, and other work which is commonly done without pay around the farm home. The other group, in the common parlance of the women them­selves, "do field work." These are the women who for longer or shorter periods of the year join in labor which results in the production of the principal money crops. The line between the two groups is rather difficult to draw; for a large majority of the field workers are housekeepers, and many housekeepers do field work more or less spasmod­ically, either according to whim or to meet the necessities of the season. The separation is, then, made arbitrarily, and no woman is included in both groups. On one side of the dividing line is placed each woman who reported as doing two weeks' labor in the field last year. In the non­field working group is every other woman covered by the survey. Of the total of 664 American women, 357, or 53.8 per cent, do no field work; that is, practically one-half of the Americans covered in this survey fall in each of the divisions made. Granting that these women are typical of American women who live on Texas farms, approxi­mately 500,000 would be in each classification in the State. This proportion is not according to the census returns for 1920, for the census enumerations do not attempt to make the fine divisions made in this study. According to the census reports, roughly one-tenth would fall into the classi­fication "field workers" and nine-tenths, of course, into the other. There are two reasons for the discrepancy between Labor of Women in the Production of Cotton 77 the proportions found by the present survey and by the census enumerators. The first is that the government agents probably did not consider two weeks of field work as a warrant for classify­ing a woman as "farm laborer." The instructions given to enumerators are not definite as to the amount of field work necessary to classify a woman as a farm laborer, but the instructions do not give the impression that two weeks of such work would be considered sufficient. The definition given to the enumerators by the Bureau of the Census disposes of women doing farm work, our classification of field workers. as follows: Women doing farm work.-For a woman who works only occasionally, or only a short time each day at outdoor farm or garden work, or in the dairy, or in caring for live stock or poultry, the return should be none; but for a woman who works regularly and most of the time at such work, the return should be farm laborer-home farm; farm laborer­working out; laborer-garden; laborer-dairy farm; laborer --stock farm; or laborer-'pNEY INCOME.S or 30 F1Ew WORKERS AND 28 NoN·FIELD WORKERS OF CENTRAL TEXAS ~ No Money Income Producing Money Income ~ From Home Production Income Not ~ More than 11000­ 1750­ Leu than From Home Total Total 12000 2000 1000 1750 Production ~- Num· ber Per Cent Num· her Per Cent Num· her Per Cent Num· her Per Cent Num· ber Per Cent Num· ber Per Cent Num· ber Per Cent Num· ber Per Cent <:"'t­~ Non-field ~ Workers _______ 30 100.0 11 36.6 19 63.2 I 3.3 3 9.9 3 9.9 9 30.0 3 9.9 ~ Owners Tenants ----------­_________ 20 9 66.7 30.0 9 2 30.0 6.6 11 7 36.6 23.3 1 0 3.3 ---­ 2 1 6.6 3.3 2 1 6.6 3.3 4 5 13.4 16.6 2 0 6.6 ~ ~ Laborers --------­ 1 3.3 0 ---­ I 3.3 0 ---­ 0 ---­ 0 ---­ 0 ---­ I 3.3 ~ Field Workers__ 28 100.0 15 53.6 13 46.4 0 ·--­ 0 ---­ 2 7.1 11 39.3 (") <:"'t­ Owners ------------­ 11 39.3 5 17.9 6 21.4 0 ---­ 0 ---­ 0 ---­ 6 21.4 ~. 0 Tenants -----------­ 15 53.6 8 28.6 7 25.0 0 ---­ 0 ---­ 2 7.1 5 17.9 ~ Laborers -------­ 2 7.1 2 7.1 ---­ --­ 0 ·--­ 0 ---­ 0 ---­ 0 0 '""'+-. (") 0 <:"'t­ <:"'t­ 0 ~ c.o ~ The University of Texas work. Neither of those producing a smaller income than these, but more than $1000, has another woman in the household. Neither of the field workers producing an income valued at $750-$1000 has a female helper. In addition, one of these women did field work five months for hire and about six months at home. She is, however, still a young woman. It would appear, then, that it is easily within the range of possibilities for a woman living on a farm to bring in a money income amounting to five hundred to a thousand dollars a year. Does she do as much with her field work? The average money income brought in from production in the home by women who do no field work is $442.69; and for those who earn some actual cash income by home production, the average is $603.95. The average value of the field labor done by the women who work in the fields is $61.30; or, in other words, they save to their families every year the expenditure of that much cash for field labor. In view of this, one is led to wonder just what is meant by the common statement that "cotton is the only ready money crop." Because of this credo, women must work in the production of cotton, yet it seems that women who do not help raise cotton bring in more money than women who do. Again, as in the fiction that "children are an economic asset," the viewpoint is that of the landlord and creditor. It is to be questioned, however, whether the statement is true even for them save that they suffer from the unstimulating virus of "let well enough alone." To seek other sources of money income would require some intelli­gent bookkeeping, and the tenant would have to be taught to do this for himself. Simple enough the keeping of accounts would be, but they are beyond the ability of most tenants and many landlords. Of more than a thousand women interviewed, only one had a system of bookkeeping which showed her costs and income itemized and analyzed for her home production. Very few could make a statement as to the amount taken in during the year from products which they put on the market. The manager of one of the biggest rural credit stores in the State said that very few of his customers ever call for a statement of their accounts. In the face of such ignorance and indifference to the finan­cial organization of the farm, cotton is easily handled and calculated. The terms of tenure can be simplified and rents easily collected. As long as this is true, there will be a necessity for women to work in the production of cotton as the ready money crop. A comparison of the figures just presented gives little indication that the doing of field work tends to cause the woman to fail to carry on home production. There does seem to be an effect upon the amount done, especially within the higher ranges. What must we conclude then-that the women who do no field work are merely shirking? That would appear to be justified by the figures, but other con­clusions are indicated by personal observations. As has been insisted time and time again, the home has other aspects than the material and physical; and it is these that suffer in the case of the field workers who also produce at home. One calls to mind a woman who had a new bungalow nicely painted. Her cellar was filled with jars of preserved food, enough for two years, and she carried on all other activities which were theoretically her province. But the new home was dirty and dejected looking, with bread crumbs and dirt on the floor. All in all it was not a pre­possessing place. Five children were playing around; and the mother spoke fretfully to one or the other, though she was rather an even-tempered and happy looking woman. She apologized for the general condition of things because she was going to the field every day and was just in the house for lunch. This she did for about three months in the fall. Was she bringing in enough money income to pay for the loss in the home? And she is typical of the general situation. It is a conclusion which will hardly be questioned by anyone conversant with the farm life of the State that home conditions of the family where one woman does no field work are almost incomparably better than those of a home where all women do field work. The University of Texas It can hardly be suggested, however, that the way out for the cotton farmer is to have the women of the family producing milk, butter, and eggs for sale in the nearby markets. Such a procedure might result in greater disaster than even the overproduction of cotton. Markets available to the Texas farmers for the sale of their dairy and truck products are almost at the saturation point, and a sudden ambition on the part of cotton farmers' wives to produce an income through home production would be fatal not only to their own ambitions but to the accomplishment of women already producing such incomes. Still further features of the situation may be pointed out. The incomes from home production cannot, of course, be taken as net additions to the family incomes. The feed for cows and chickens is usually raised on the farm. It is possible and it may be probable that the cost, if charged against the products, would reduce the income by a consid­erable amount or even cause it to disappear. It is also probable, and in many cases certain, that the raising of chickens and caring for milk is a personal assertion by the woman of her economic worth. Home production furnishes a method of getting money of her own for which she has neither to ask nor to give an account. It is possible also that it is the husband's method of indulging his wife's desire for work, and it may really cost more than it brings in. Women of the higher economic classes in the country turn to such production as the town woman turns to tea shops and hand work. The work may cost more than it brings in, but psychologically to the woman, it is worth any expenditure the family is willing or able to make. The activity may be non-economic in terms of dollars and cents, but some such adjustment is being made in many families. Women's exchanges in every town, wax flowers, handpainted glass and handkerchiefs, and numerous other semi-economic goods entering into the commodity market are phases of the search for outlet. Among the farm women, as in other groups, it is the woman in the more fortunate classes financially to whom these sources of Labor of Women in the Production of Cotton 95 personal income are open. For the less fortunate, there must be hired labor, and even then it may yield no per­sonal income. In an industry which has reached the financial situation of farming and in a labor situation such as that of Southern cotton production, it is important to analyze all such factors. Labor costs based upon tradition and sentimen­tality may be at the very root of the problem. So long as there is no clear relation between labor costs and produc­tion, there can be no definite relation between costs and price. CHAPTER IV THE AMERICAN WOMAN: THE HIRED LABORER JN THE second group of women are, as stated before, those who do field work in addition to, or in place of, housework. This group, as earlier noted, includes every woman who does as much as two weeks of field work in the course of a year. This may seem a small amount of labor to warrant classing a woman as a field worker, but it can hardly be ignored. True, there is no great signifi­cance in one period of work for two weeks ; nor is there any great hardship for the individual woman, even though the hours are long and strenuous. Neither does it raise any important questions of family welfare, but it is highly significant from one point of view. Two weeks of labor given to the cotton crop may be of little moment to the individual; but when two weeks of labor is given by hundreds and even thousands of women, the result is many bales of cotton put on the market with little or no labor cost. In estimating the amount of unpaid labor given by the women of Texas to the cotton crop, we cannot ignore these bits of production. If a woman picks only 100 pounds a day-and the women who work in this casual manner will not be good pickers-and only five days in the week, the result will be 1,000 pounds of cotton. As an actual fact, very few women considered in this group work so little time. Those who do consider it of so little importance that they seldom report it as part of the year's routine or, if they do list the activity, report working "occasion­ally." The latter report is not sufficient to place a woman among the field workers. Very few of the women discussed worked so little as one month in the field. Of the 664 women covered in the survey, 307, or 44.7 per cent, are classed as field workers. In considering these data, it must be remembered that the women keep no record of their work, that most of it was done several months previous to the report, and that the monotony of most of their lives prevents the presence of milestones from which they might count events. They report simply what is the usual order in the year's work, but that it is so usual as to be matter of fact is in itself significant. It is interesting to note how much more nearly complete is the woman's information when she has received pay for her work than is the same woman's knowledge of work for which she receives no pay. The situation is an interesting sidelight upon the cotton raiser's attitude toward many things in relation to the cost of getting his product on the market. As pointed out in the introductory chapter, the figures may not be taken as meticulously correct; but they are indicative of the general condition. There is very little uniformity in the details given. The hours of work vary from eight to fourteen a day. They vary also from season to season for the same individual. In the spring, during the chopping season, the days are comparatively short; and the pressure for speed is less felt. Consequently, the working day is, in general, shorter than during the picking season which usually begins in August. During the fall the days are long, and the pressure for picking is greater than for chopping. In most cases the working day is limited only by the daylight and twilight hours. In all these reports the working day is a long one, except for those women who are not primarily field hands even during the rush seasons. These do their housework as usual and then go to the field for four to six hours a day. They do not "make a hand in the field," to adopt the expres­sion used by the women themselves to show the degree to which a woman is responsible for or accustomed to field work. There are certain comments which should be made upon the length of the working day. One month of field labor at fifteen, or even twelve, hours a day is more perma­nently exhausting than several months of eight-hour days. One month during which meals are cooked only once a day, and that at night for the next day, depresses family living much more vitally than steady work by the mother for a reasonable day of six hours. One month in which The University of Texas the woman "never gets rested" drains vitality that months cannot restore. It may be that these long days are found among inefficient workers, both as a cause and as a result of inefficiency. Ineffectiveness may be due to failure to start in time, to ill health or lack of robustness on the part of the woman, or to dawdling through the supposed hours of work. It is true that often the full time is not utilized in intensive labor, but if the woman is in the field for twelve hours the results are the same, even though some time is spent in feeding the baby and making peace among the children who must perforce be taken to the field with her. But these explications do not make the labor of the woman less an economic and a social problem. In spite of the lack of uniformity in the data, it is neces­sary, unless we are to consider each individual, to introduce some measure of standardization. The five-day week is rather general because the woman is an important part of the laundry industry in the home, and one day she may stay at the house to do the washing. This is by no means the universal custom, for she may do the washing in the fore­noon and go to the field in the afternoon or vice versa. Where there is more than one woman in the household, one may do the washing while others go to the field as usual. In spite of these exceptions, the week will be under­stood as a five-day week unless otherwise specified. A month will, for purposes of standardization, consist of four weeks; though this will, in general, lessen the amount of time given, for the worker thinks in terms of calendar months. She begins "picking the first of August and quits the week before Christmas." One woman reported working eleven and one-half months which, reduced to the standard months used in this study, was more than twelve months. Her schedule of 'vork as she gave it follows: 3 weeks-12 hours per day-chopping cotton. 4 weeks-12 hours per day-hoeing corn. 19 weeks-12 hours per day-picking cotton. 15 weeks-8 hours per day-plowing. Labor of Women in the Production of Cotton 99 10 weeks-8 hours per day-cultivating. 4 weeks-10 hours per day-making molasses. 5 weeks-10 hours per day-picking up pecans. 52 weeks-% hour per day-chopping wood. Included in this woman's schedule is work done for other farmers for wages, namely : 2 weeks-8 hours per day-chopping cotton at $1.50 per day. 1 week -8 hours per day-hoeing corn at $1.50 per day. 2 weeks--10 hours per day-picking cotton at $2.00 per hundred-weight. In addition, she washes for hire one day out of each week, making five hours. The water to do this washing, as for all other uses, is hauled from the river almost a quarter of a mile distant. The woman is the wife of a tenant farmer who has lived on the place twelve years. She has only one child, a little girl of ten. Her regular housework takes only three and one-half hours of each day, but she does not do a great deal of additional work which might be done. She attends to the milk from five cows, selling thirty gallons each week. She sells ten dozen eggs each week and puts up what canned goods and preserves the family uses, for she buys no canned food of any kind. She does no sewing, either hiring the sewing done or buying clothes ready-m~de. Her only personal income from this labor is one-half of the proceeds from the sale of turkeys raised. This woman's schedule illustrates clearly the nature of the work data to be handled, though in variety of work done and time reported she is not typical. All standardized pres­entation detracts from a conception of the real situation unless the individual is kept in view. For this reason, many individuals will be. dealt with in detail; but it shall be the aim of the mass presentation to prevent the individual's becoming so important that she obscures the proper valua­tion of the group. Among the women classed in this study as field workers, several divisions must be made. There are, first, those The University of Texas who work for wages only. Second, there are some who work at home and also for wages, usually in the neighbor­hood of their homes. Third, there are those who do no hired work but do field work on the home farm. The differ­ent groups will be considered with two purposes in mind. They are to be studied, first, as a group of laborers. Their wages, hours, and conditions of work, and the social prob­lems connected with and arising out of their labor will be considered. The women are to be analyzed, second, as a factor in the production of cotton which has been, hereto­fore, almost entirely ignored. The workers for hire will be dealt with first. For analysis they are divided, as stated above, into two groups: first, those whose hired labor is their only field labor; and second, those who work for neighbors or relatives after the crop of the family is "laid by." In the first group are included many women who do field work for wages; just as they do any other work which will bring in an income, such as sewing and washing. The American white women who do field work fall into these groups in the fallowing propor­tions: TABLE XX PERCENTAGE OF 664 AMERICAN FARM WOMEN IN EACH GROUP ACCORDING TO TYPE OF WORK DONE Class Number of Women Num· Per her Cent Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------664 100.0 Non-Field Workers --------------------------------------------------------------------357 53.8 Field Workers --------------------------------------------------------------------------------307 46.2 For hire only ------------------------------------------------------------------------20 3.0 For hire and famil Y----------------------------------------------------------------58 8.8 For family only --------------------------------------------------------------------229 34.4 While the other proportions may be considered as fairly typical of the situation, it cannot be assumed that the figures relating to the proportion of hired workers are representative in any sense of the word. The number of these women to be found in any locality is, as will be pointed out later, a factor of the season of the year, the amount of the crop made in any one season, and the amount of local Labor of Women in the Production of Cotton 101 labor available. Observation over a period of years might justify the conclusion that the proportion is typical of the normal year or that it is abnormal, but there is no informa­tion upon which such a judgment might be based. Though twenty women who worked for hire alone were visited in the section, only nine were residents of the dis­trict for as long as a year. Consequently, even at the expense of unity in the discussion, these women will be dealt with separately. The eleven women who were in the district only temporarily will be discussed with the group of casual laborers who were seen in many places in the State. It is safe to assume that most, if not all of them, pass through Austin on the highroad from San Antonio to Dallas or on their way to the cedar brakes for the period of winter work. Those of the twenty included in the figures given above were women who remained in the district long enough to be caught and visited. One was in transition from the status of hired casual to tenant farmer, having arrived two days before and having decided after she ar­rived to "stay next year." The house in which she was visit­ed was the first home she had had in two years of married life. Three of the nine hired laborers who lived in the section were tenants; two were owners themselves; and two were laborers who had been living in their present location six and one years, respectively. Of the other two, one was an aged woman, who with an aged man with whom she had formed an economic partnership, had been given a shack by a kindhearted landlord. The other was the wife of a cripple who lived in the same building in which they kept a miserable country store. The two owners rented out their farms and did wage labor to get ready money. One worked a nominal amount and the other, two months. The other seven women worked varying lengths of time. One, the same aged woman men­tioned above, worked less than half a month. She had reared fourteen children, all girls and now married and gone. A farm laborer all her life, she had been as "good as anybody" in her day, but she "wasn't much good" now. The University of Texas She made $6.75 last year. Another woman over sixty years of age picked 10,000 pounds of cotton last year.1 Two women worked less than two months to get spending money. One had no small children, and the other worked only when the baby would stay with his grandmother. The first of these stated that she earned $40.00 by doing field work last year. The remaining three were consistent field workers. Two were married, and the other is housekeeper for the motherless family to which she belongs. One of the married women had nine children, six under fifteen; and the other had eight children, five under fifteen. The latter is the wife of the cripple mentioned above, and she and her older children make a gang to do any kind of wage work in the surrounding country. In their car they go distances of twenty to thirty miles to chop, hoe, and pick. Last year they worked more than seven months. The day she was visited the mother with the older boys had been cutting and hauling cordwood. It seems safe to conclude that the conditions under which women resident in a community do farm work for hire only are the same as those under which women anywhere do whatever work comes to hand-the force of poverty with the alternative cost of charity or starvation. This situation is in the main connected with another, the inability or unwillingness to rent land and raise a crop. It is difficult for a woman to rent land unless she has a husband or sons to take the responsibility. In a study of the labor of women on the farm this group is of little numerical importance. The casual woman farm laborer must be dealt with sep­arately, for she is not a dweller on the farm in the sense that the other women are. She belongs in a group apart, socially and economically. In the course of this study, thirty-six American white women who belonged definitely in this class were visited. This is, of course, a very small sample compared to the total number in the State, but 1This figure is doubtful. If she picked 100 pounds a day, it would require twenty weeks of five days each to pick this amount. they are not found in numbers except in certain localities for short periods. An example of such a locality is Lindale, Smith County, which has a considerable berrying industry. There are several berry canning factories in the town, and the surrounding farms concentrate to a considerable extent upon the raising of blackberries. To this locality, for about six months in the spring, come approximately 3000 of these American white casual laborers in their cars or on the trains. They were formerly called the "jinny bunch,'' but the Ford car has made the name a misnomer. The head of the largest canning factory in the town considered the above estimate of their numbers conservative. The popu­lation of the town is somewhat less than 2000. Conse­quently, the descent of this horde of workers upon Lindale raises serious problems of adjustment. Many, probably most, of the workers camp in the open, but on the larger farms are built houses or long sheds in which they may live. To understand these transient berry-pickers, it would be necessary to follow them over the State as they pass from one locality to another. The women of this class are in the families of men who neither own nor rent land. The husbands or fathers are day laborers, on the farm when there is farm work to do and at other work when farm work is not available. Only two of them had lived in the place where they were visited as long as six months, and a large number had had the same location for less than one month. The two with the longest periods of residence had settled in the cedar brakes for the winter and spring seasons and were waiting for the cotton picking to begin again. The working itinerary of these women is in the main the same. Those who work in the cotton crop only, start in the Rio Grande Valley in June and move northward as the cotton matures. Between Austin and Dallas they turn west and north, passing up into the Panhandle and even into New Mexico, picking and pulling cotton until the winter cold drives them south, usually about February. In a good year there is cotton to be picked for eight months. There is another course which some The University of Texas prefer. The berry picking in the eastern district begins in the early spring, so some go to the berry fields and then to the tomato picking and packing in the same localitie& They may then go either west to the cotton fields or further north or east into the berry districts of Arkansas and Louisiana. There is an enforced vacation of two or three months which may be spent in various ways. Some go to the "cedar brakes" and cut wood. Others continue their travels, living precariously in ways of which only they know the secret. One of these laborers, a man of fifty-five, said that he had slept in a house only one night in his life. Another, when offered a shelter for himself and family in one of the "help houses" on a berry farm until the picking season began, replied that if he took the house he would have to accept a job, so they would just stay on the road. Many of them settle in or near towns and pilfer or beg what they can, the children often becoming adepts in the art of exciting sympathy by pitiful tales. The Mexican casual laborer is pressing these people strongly in the southern and central parts of the State and is following them even to the comparatively icy plains of the North­west. The Negro has never been a casual laborer of this type and has never, therefore, been a competitor. The method of adjustment of the casual white farm laborer to the immigrant flood from the Southwest will be a matter of great social and economic interest. Eight of the thirty-six women were unmarried, all young girls living with their parents. In one case the girl was only fourteen and was the only female member of a group com­posed of her father, two half grown brothers, and another boy in his late 'teens or early twenties. They were living in a truck, and the girl had never known a really settled existence. Two others were motherless daughters, sixteen and eighteen, living with a father and two younger brothers. They were living in the open with a small tent for storage purposes. The married women were all living with their husbands. The single widow lived with her son who was a casual laborer. They were almost all young women, which leads Labor of Women in the Production of Cotton 105 one to wonder whether as a group they are not increasing in number. There was considerable evidence to that effect in the numbers who within the last year or two had tried to make a crop and failed. They decided before the crop was ready for harvesting that they would not be able to make expenses and so turned over the crop or sold it, they themselves going on the road as casual laborers. This was to be the beginning for many of them of the non-sessil life, for later they are not able or willing to return to a settled existence. Many of the workers seem also to be the product of some of the well-recognized lacks of adjustment in some phases of modern industry. For instance, one woman met the visitor with an assurance and dignity which was rather surprising. She was cooking an appetiz­ing dinner, and the two rooms in which she lived for the time-being were neat. She herself was unusually so. The family had travelled last year and expected to travel at least three months this year. They owned a home in Dallas, where they had lived for years. The husband was about forty-five, and year before last he lost the job which he had held for fifteen years. He and five other men were discharged because their employer could get younger men for about ten dollars a month less, and this man had not since been able to get steady work. The family, consisting of the mother, father, and five children, the oldest of whom is thirteen, makes ten to fifteen dollars a day, ready money enough with what the father can make to tide them over the winter months. One can only question what hope there is for a stable existence in the future for any one of the group, with the children deprived of education and the father becoming less and less able to find a permanent loca­tion. In another instance the husband was a tool dresser, but close application to work had ruined his health. The doctor said five years ago that he could no longer work at his trade, and since then the family has been on the road for eight months of the year. Each year they make the circuit from Harlingen, in South Texas, to the New Mexico border and then go back to their home in Llano for a brief The University of Texas visit before returning to the road. These people owned a heavily mortgaged home in Llano and were trying to get it paid out. With the family were two married couples, rela­tives who traveled with them for a part of the year. One of these couples owned a home in San Angelo from which they were receiving a rental of fifteen dollars a month, and they were picking cotton to get money to build a "fine home." At first thought, these desires for homes seem laudable; but in these cases they were highly questionable. The living conditions of the group, consisting of eighteen people, were almost beyond description. There were five women and five men ; two of each were young married people. Yet they, with eight children, lived in one room. 'I1he accommodations for sleeping cotnsisted of a great pile of dirty rags in one corner. From this pile the mother of the family crawled, bringing with her a baby less than six months old. She was an unlovely creature, dirty, and exhausted looking; and the room was almost revolting. Dishes and pans used for the noonday meal were unwashed. The family, consisting of the mother, father, and eight children, earned on an average of fifteen to twenty dollars a day. The mother with three little fellows under five years of age picked regularly except when she was doing the housework. These two groups, the Dallas family and the tool dresser's group, seem to be prototypes of the best and the worst among the casuals who have not come from a background of wandering but who are forced to it by economic exigencies. In the cases of some members of the group of casual laborers there seemed to be simply the desire for travel, and a life of migratory labor was the only method available for satisfying the desire. One family wanted to go to Arizona and was paying the way by picking cotton. An­other year, the road will call to other sections. One woman, mother of nine children, living with seven people in one room, said that several years ago they had to travel because they did not make a good crop. They liked "the Plains" so well then they decided to go there every year. They would not "tie themselves down" with a crop. They had no way to travel, and the man for whom they were pulling cotton had sent a truck 300 miles to "fetch them." Another instance was given by a relative of the casual family. The husband had bought some land in West Texas but could not build a shack and also own a car. At the urgent persuasion of his wife, he decided to spend his surplus on the car. They then had no place to live, and husband and wife with four children have been on the road ever since. Now the car is wearing out, and there is nothing but the unimproved land. Contrary to the common idea, the women in both of these cases seemed to be the casus movendi. Furthermore, the women of these groups were not espe­cially unhappy. It would seem from conversations with them that they are as likely as the men to be the force calling for constant movement. In one family the wife was blamed by her sister-in-law for "always wanting to be on the move," though her husband did not care for the life. In the first case mentioned above the woman liked to be in the open air all the time. She had tried working in the city once, but "the cigar smoke always makes me sick if I stay in town a few hours." At the time, it will be recalled, she with her husband and children were living in one room; and since the weather was freezing, the room was tightly closed. In only a few of the cases interviewed did the women seem to have any great objection to their mode of life. Comparing their lives with that of the wife of the cotton "cropper," with its deadly monotony, its grinding poverty, and ceaseless toil, who shall say that they do not choose wisely? Socially, the most significant factor connected with these casual women is the number of children, and especially of small ones, they carry with them in their traveling. Those reporting no children were, with one exception, rather newly married women; and newly married women alone had no children under fifteen years of age. The latter fact emphasizes the statement already made that these casuals are young women. Whether they are young because, as the individuals of the group grow older, they settle down or because the group is growing by the addition of The Un'iuersity of Texas younger men and women who never take up a settled mode of life would be information of the greatest economic and social significance; but there is no available data upon which to base a judgment. TABLE XXI NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND OF CHILDREN UNDER 15 OF 26 MARRIED AMERICAN CASUAL LABORERS Number of Children Number of Women Reporting Children Total Under 15 Total _ __ _____ ________________________-----·--------------------------·---------------26* 26* 0 --------------··----------------------------··------------------------------------­5 5 ! -------------------------------------------.. ----------------------------· ----------4 4 2 ---------------------------------··--------.-----------··---------------·-----------I l 3 -----------------------------··----·--------.----------------.----------------------3 3 4 ----------------------------------------··------------------------------------------2 4 5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 3 6 ------------------------------.. ----------------------------------------· -·-----------1 3 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I 1 8 --------------------------------------.------------------··-------------------------I l 9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------· ----------3 10 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------­11 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------·------------1 *Data in regard to two women were obtained from other persons than the women, and exact information as to the number of children was not available. There seemed to be little thought among these women, even among the younger ones, in .l~9gard to limiting the size of families. One woman, the mother Pf nine children, when given an opportunity, deliverei a passionate oration which seemed typical of the attitude of the class. "Many a soul is going to fry in hell for that very thing. That's plain language, but that's the way I feel about it. . . . If the Lord intends for me to have any more, I will. We are put here to do the Lord's will and He says in His Book to multiply and susplenish the earth. Nobody knows better than the Good Book, and it says to take what you have and be content. We all have to go up there, and I'm not going to appear with murder on my soul." There was some doubt in her mind, however, as to whether her daughter, less than twenty years of age and with one child, felt the same way about the matter. Another woman with five children who lived on the road all year delivered a discourse on the duty owed to children and how she made the fulfilling of that duty the first aim of her life. Another "wasn't ashamed of nothin'." She "did the best she could and left the rest to the Lord." Considering the unspeak­able filth surrounding herself and her twelve children, she left a great deal. One can only conclude that the first step in the elimination of these people is the limitation of increase by the stork method. Proper care during pregnancy and childbirth seemed to be a matter of little moment. Several women reported that they had no attendance at all at several confinements. One mother of twelve had had a doctor with five and no attendance for the last seven. Another mother of nine said that none of them seemed to "hurt her until the eighth, and it died." She had never had the attendance of a doctor. All of these women worked more or less consistently at field labor of any kind. Most of them reported from six to eight months. All the time they were on the road they were presumably working; but it is doubtful whether the women themselves, that is the mothers of families, did in every case a full day's work. The girls in every case prob­ably worked whenever any member of the family did. Those relieved from labor seem more likely to be the men, who are prone to busy themselves with "boss trading" or allied activities. Not in any case did the single women either collect their own wages or have any control over the spending of them. Seven of these women did not live on the road, continually shifting, but stayed in one place as long as there was work to do. The difference is merely that they become more settled than the others. The seven more sessil women reported periods of work as follows: two worked four months; one, five months; one, six months; two, seven months; one, eight and a half months. The woman working the maximum time divided her labor as follows: 3 months picking cotton at $1.25 per day, $150.00. 3 weeks picking up pecans at $2.50 per day, $37.50. 3 weeks gathering tomatoes at $1.00 per day, $18.00. 4 months chopping cedar; wages with husband's and sons'. Another woman gave the following schedule: 6 weeks chopping cotton, $45.00. 6 weeks hoeing corn, $45.00. 3 months picking cotton, $300.00. Washing, $35.00. Chopping cedar during winter months; wages with husband's and sons'. These schedules of work and wages are given as typical, for very few women could give such detailed accounts of their activities. One other woman gave chopping cedar as a part of her regular year's routine. She "was raised to chop wood;" but her daughters never had, for "they was raised to do field work," indicating that there are social classes even among casual laborers and that mothers of the casual labor group, like most other mothers, are eager for their children to have an easier time than their parents have had. She herself had not chopped for a year or two, for she had a baby less than a year old and she "wan't as well as she ust to be.'' (She has had nine children and must be about forty years of age.) The earnings of these women reported above would seem to prove the statement, commonly made by the workers of the group, that they make "pretty good money." A family of average size can earn from $20.00 to $30.00 a day during the cotton picking season ; and especially in the western section, where cotton is pulled rather than picked, even the small child can earn two dollars a day. One employer told of paying a group of seven, only two of whom might be called grown, $35.00 for the day's work. Data in regard to income are rather sketchy. Four women who worked seven, four, four and one-half, and four months respectively were never paid as individuals, but the father or husband received all income. Two of the four women were married, and two were single. As mentioned above, the women earning $390.00 for six months and averaging a thirteen-hour day had the highest yearly income reported. Two others probably earned as much, but no definite figures are available. All of the three were full-time farm laborers. Five women reported from cotton picking alone incomes of $300.00, $240.00, $125.00, $75.00, and $14.00. Needless to say, cotton pickers earning more than $250.00 are good cotton pickers. The highest return here was reported by a woman who picks three to four hundred pounds a day for four months. Two additional women reported incomes of $270.00 and $180.00, respectively; but their work was chopping and hoeing, as well as picking, cotton. The lowest income was $6.75, the result of several days of chopping, hoeing, and picking by the aged woman already discussed. Other work reported as done for wages was heading maize, plowing, and picking up pecans. Eleven women gave a definite statement as to the number of hours per day they worked. Those unable to give com­plete information had probably a similar working day, but as a group the casual women take little account of time. In general, they work irregular hours, on some days work­ing ten to twelve hours and on others, six to eight hours. But during the "rush season" wage labor, as family labor, is for long hours, limited only by the existence of enough light to allow discrimination of plants or cotton bolls. Sum­marizing the information in regard to hours, we have two women reporting an eight-hour day; four, a nine-hour day; three, a ten-hour day; one, an eleven-hour day; and one, a thirteen-hour day. Considerably more than one-half of the eleven women work a nine to ten-hour day. The woman who reported working a thirteen-hour day stated that she worked a ten-hour day for three months and a twelve to fourteen-hour day for three months. For about four months she chopped wood half a day, but this work was only to increase the incomes of husband and sons. For it she received no individual wage. She had seven children under eighteen years of age. The living conditions of this group of casual laborers cannot be compared with those of laborers who live in one place a year or more. Three of the women lived in tents, and three lived out of doors. All of the latter were mother­ less girls. A description of the living quarters of one of The University of Texas the tent-dwelling and one of the open air families in this district will give an idea of the typical living conditions for casual families, wherever seen. A family consisting of two girls aged fourteen and eighteen, two younger brothers, and a father lived on the banks of the Llano River. They had arrived there three days before for "cotton picking" but had found no work. They had no means of conveyance but waited until some one came along who had room in both heart and vehicle for them and their belongings, and they were consequently handicapped in the choice of destination. Their menage was bounded on the west by a tree against which was set a box, their only seat; on the south by a tree under which was set a cook-stove whose chimney ran up into the branches; on the north by a barrel with a plank laid across which served as a table; and on the east by a tiny tent in which was piled such bedding and clothes as they pos­sessed. The girl hoped that they would be able to buy a larger tent soon, for the small one was unbearable in the heat. The living was carried on out of doors, where they slept on the ground. The stove seemed to be for looks only, for the cooking was done over an open fire with a dutch oven. The girls were filthy with filth of great age, though the father was very clean and cleanshaven. He seemed to be quite deaf and amused himself during the conversation with drawing a picture of the granite mountain which loomed in splendid grandeur before him, and not such bad work either. A few yards behind flowed the river with its water of crystal clearness. The fourteen members of another family had been traveling for four years but had been settled four months in their location. They had, accordingly, arranged a more comfortable and civilized mode of living. They had one rather large tent and a covered wagon. The tent had a floor on which beds were made of boughs covered with wagon sheets. The mother with her two months old inf ant and t'vins two and one-half years old slept in the wagon on a mattress. There were no chairs, no table, and no stove. The children were thin and looked undernourished, but the mother assured us proudly that they were healthy; they "never have a doctor." Most of the casual laborers live in houses during their periods of work, but one is forced to acknowledge that unless the weather is cold and rainy, the houses, by giving more congested living quarters, lessen the healthfulness of the living. Of those living in houses, twelve lived in houses of one room, with others, as shown below: 1 with 2 people 3 with 6 people 1 with 4 people 1 with 7 people 1 with 6 people 1 with 9 people 4 with 16 people Nine women lived in houses of two rooms, with groups as follows: two with three people; four with seven people; three with eleven people. Two lived in houses of three rooms, with groups of six and nine respectively. In a single district two women with three men were living in a smoke­house; and two young women with their husbands and a baby, in a seedhouse, while the weather was almost at freezing temperature. Not all the members of this house dwelling group were seen in this district, but there was no evident difference between those living in different sec­tions. It is safe to say that the majority of the American white casual women laborers of the State will pass through the section every two or three years at least and will stop under one or another of the conditions described. It is hardly necessary to add that toilet facilities and a water supply are seldom arranged. Living conditions could scarcely be worse unless with greater congestion, and one of the factors that is making the Mexican a welcome laborer in some sections of the State is that the American landowner and his wife dislike to see "white people living that way." There is no home production among these women. A sewing machine takes up room in a car; therefore, the sew­ing when necessary is done by hand. But most of the The University of Texas clothes not given them are bought ready made. There are numbers of these people who do not consider themselves objects of charity at all; but a personal judgment is that they are, in the main, newcomers in the group ; and, if they remain in their present mode of living, that feeling of independence will disappear. The miserable standard of living prevailing among these families wherever found is to be explained economically by the fact that everything­f ood, clothes, and even services-must be bought with cash. Some of them hire their washing done and some, their sewing. In addition "keeping up a car" is expensive, and a car is a necessary overhead charge upon their business. For pleasure, these women are dependent upon the com­mercialized recreations of the town. Very few could read if they had anything to read. There are usually no home facilities for entertainment, yet one group of nine who lived on the road during the entire year had a large cabinet phonograph overpowering the shack in which they were staying. As individuals, the casual laborers make no com­munity ties and consequently do not attend local entertain­ments. It is noticeable that most of these women attend pic­ture shows during the year. Several go every week, a gaiety almost unheard of among the tenant farmer group. To the employing farmer this class of laborers has a decided advantage over the resident tenant. If the laborer lives on the farm during the entire year, he and his family must be given at least a minimum of food and clothes. The furnishing of this subsistence represents an overhead expense to the farm. By using migrant labor which passes on when the job is done, the overhead may be shifted in part at least. The onus then may be upon society, largely upon the towns, or upon the laborers themselves. Not belonging to the class who suffer in proud silence, the casuals will take the cost from the social group by thieving or begging and from themselves in moral degradation. It is probable that this type of labor is cheaper than even the farmer's f arnily, and a growth in numbers due to a meta­morphosis of the cropper may relieve the wife of the farm owner and higher tenant of the necessity for field labor. It would, however, be a liberty dearly bought, so far as the social group is concerned, replacing the overworked wife and mother of the Southern cotton farms by wives and mothers who have no home, no community, no traditions of self-respect and moral independence. It is a matter for deep regret that there is, so far as the writer has been able to find, no statement based even on conjecture as to how many people belong to the casual farm labor group in Texas. Consequently, there can be no estimate as to how large a percentage of the workers are included in the discussion in this chapter. It is certain that it is quite a small per cent, but it is certain also that those here discussed are typical of the group. The only basis for an estimate as to their numbers is found in the census reports that there are in the State approximately 26,000 women who are "farm laborers" not on home farms. 2 Not all of these would be laborers without a settled habita­tion, as shown in this chapter, but it is probable that by far the larger number are of the migrant labor group. It is more than probable also that the census enumerators did not reach many of the group. Considering the facts brought out in the preceding dis­cussion, certain conclusions seem to be indicated in the case of the woman who does field work for hire only. 1. She is not tied to the land in any sense. The family to which she belongs has not a rood of soil from which it may claim the right of usus even temporarily. 2. As a consequence of the freedom from the land, the wife is debarred from adding to the family income those goods and services which are the product of the ambitious housewife on the farm. Since the family cannot support unproductive members, she must add to the family income by the only available method, field work. 3. She is a married woman, or quite a young girl. The life of the transient farm laborer is not a life for unmarried 2Fourteenth Census, Vol. V, Chap. VII. women. Marriage is early in the group; or, if the girl refuses to accept the delights of matrimony, she can earn the same or a larger wage in town and have a gayer life and a more comfortable living. 4. She is likely to be the mother of a rather large family, Whether the hopelessness of life leads to having large fami­lies or the large families lead to settled hopelessness and shiftlessness, it is hard to say. Certainly, the absence of children where they were lacking had little effect upon the standard of living. The only apparent difference was less dirt and fewer human beings. County health nurses who deal with these people feel rather certain that the ignorance of methods of artificial limitation is not the primary cause of the size of families. Given all the knowledge available, they would still be victims of their own shiftlessness. It would certainly seem advisable, however, to give the younger women a chance. 5. She is like the industrial working mother driven to work by need of subsistence. Her income and that of her husband, even with the help of children, is a bare living for the family. And the family must live on its money income just as the town family does, for it has no more "home products" with which to eke out the living than does the city slum dweller. The second group of hired workers, those who work for their families also, comprises fifty-eight women. As indi­cated, they fall also into two groups: those who do little work for hire because they do much for their families and those who work spasmodically for either. They are by no means the same ; for with the first, hired labor is an addi­tion to long and strenuous exertion, while with the second, field work of any kind is done more or less to secure varia­tion from the monotonous routine of housekeeping or to get "spending money." The "pin money" worker is to be found on the farm as well as in town industry. In agri­cultural life she does not have the effect upon wages that she has in the industrial group, for her work is paid by the piece, the acre, or the hundred pounds; and since the work must be done within a limited period of time, all available labor is welcome, at an undiminished rate of pay. The worker gets the "going rate" of wages for what she accomplishes, and it is noticeable in considering this group that none of them does work paid by the day. Seven women who stated that they did field work for hire whenever they got through with the home crop in time are not included in this group. Four of those included could give so little information that they will not be counted save in the total number. The division of these workers as to marital status is worthy of comment. The percentage of unmarried women, 46.9 per cent, is to be compared with the percentage in the entire number included in the survey, 20.6 per cent. The proportion of widows, 10.0 per cent as compared with 6.0 per cent in the total number of women is also noticeable. The reason for the large proportion of unmarried women is not clear, but some suggestions may be made. The girl of the modest income classes is finding it necessary today to earn money if she is to have more than her meals and bed, and the girl on the farm is no exception. If she prefers to stay at home rather than go to town, she must find some means of getting spending money or of helping in earning a living for the family. TABLE XXII MARITAL STATUS OF 58 AMERICAN FARM WOMEN OF CENTRAL TEXAS WHO Do FIELD WORK FOR HIRE AND FOR FAMILY ALso Marital Status Women Reporting Num-Per her Cent Total -------------------------------------------------------------------------58 I00.0 Married -----------------------------------------------------25 4.3.1 Unmarried ----------------------------------------------------------27 46.9 Widows -----------------------------------------------------------------6 10.0 Fourteen of the twenty-seven single women are of Ger­man parentage and live in communities whose conditions and standards are molded according to Old World ideas. Girls from such parentage and such communities do not leave home, but they do not remain idle. Their work for hire is decidedly an addition to long strenuous labor on the home farm. In the main, the home farms are large; and by the time the family crop is gathered, there is little field work left to do. Only one of these girls reports as much as a month of hired work; and she is a member of a family gang, father, mother, and five children, who work together in their own crop and then for hire wherever their services are wanted. She worked about three months at home and about three months for hire. The other twelve of the unmarried women come, with one exception, from two communities. This segregation leads one to inquire whether community standards are not a determining factor in the "hiring out" of girls. Only two of the girls come from the families of laborers; and they are not migrant laborers, for one girl has lived in her present home nine years and the other, fourteen years. In the neighborhood, then, where it is the accepted thing for a girl to work for wages, she is likely to do it if she has time and opportunity. Where the social code of the community places a stigma upon wage work in the field for girls, the daughters will suffer many things before they will defy the code, and their families have the same attitude. TABLE XXIII TENURE AND MARITAL STATUS OF 58 AMERICAN FARM WOMEN OF CENTRAL TExAs WHo Do FIELD WoRK FOR TuEm FAMILY AND ALSO FOR HmE Tenure Total Married Unmarried Widow• Num-Per Num-Per Num-Per Num-Per her Cent her Cent her Cent ber Cent Total ------------------_______58 100.0 25 43.2 27 46.5 6 10.5 __________________..21 Owner 36.2 2 3.5 15 25.8 4 7.0 ____________ _________31 Tenant 53.4 19 32.6 10 17.2 2 3.5 Laborer --------------------4 6.8 2 3.5 2 3.5 Incomplete data -----------2 3.5 2 3.5 Combining the tenure and marital status, some rather significant tendencies appear. The most noticeable feature is the large decrease in the proportion in the families of laborers' class. This is to be expected. Only the landless farm dweller can spend all of his labor for hire, for be alone has no crop whose harvesting must be his first care Labor of Women in the Production of Cotton 119 and source of income. Where these non-land owners live on one farm for a long period of time, they get a small plot of ground for their own use, or they even buy a plot ; but they continue to earn their living by the performance of wage work on the surrounding farms. The small propor­tion of workers who are wives of owners is noticeable, and this merely points again to the conclusion, drawn before, that the wife and mother of the family does not work for hire unless forced by economic necessity. The largest single group is, however, composed of married women, the wives of tenants ; while the second in size is composed of unmarried women in the families of owners. The evidence here indicates that the single women tend to stay at home in families of the higher financial class. In the tenant groups the daughter, being freer in her move­ments than the mother, tends to leave home because of the conditions of living or because she chooses the ready money to be gained from work in town. She may also add more to the family income by wage work in town than she can by working in the family cotton crop. The daughter of an owner may, however, add as much or more to family living by her work at home than she can add by working for wages in town. It is possible that the wives of tenants are in a younger group and will, in the course of time, pass into the owner group; but the situation does not appear to be so, as indicated by the number of children under fif­teen. Turning to consider the family responsibilities of these women, it does not appear that the married women have any less care for children because of wage work. The largest families reported contain nine children, and seven women reported seven or more. Of the mothers of nine children, two are widows, both of whom own farms. One, whose children are all grown, reported four months of field work, eight hours per day spent in picking cotton with several days of driving stock. Another worked one month for hire. She picked ten hours a day and received $20.00 for the month's work, for she is more than fifty years old The University of Texas and picks very slowly. Still another, mother of nine chil­dren and wife of a tenant, worked two months for her family and one and a quarter months for hire. She worked ten hours per day, chopping and picking cotton, and received $80.00. There are two mothers of eight children, one a widow with five children under fifteen and the other, the wife of a tenant farmer, with six children under fifteen. The first woman worked two months for her father, with whom she lives, and one and a half months for other farmers. For the latter work, she received $52.50. The second woman worked four and one-half months for her family and one and a half for others. For the latter work she received $49.00. In addition, she did washing for hire. She reported sixteen hours for one month making molasses, a twelve-hour day for three weeks and a ten-hour day for most of the other time. Attention should be called to the fact that though the making of molasses does require the attention of the maker for sixteen hours a day, it is not continuous attention, and it is possible for the worker to carry on other activities during the same period. It is to be noted that the mothers of the largest families among the wage workers of the owner class are the mothers of grown families. There is probably no great social signifi­cance in their working. They are still in the prime of life, and they enjoy the work and the independence. They are often less burdened with household work than the younger mothers. It is important that we get rid of senti­mental auras in regard to the work of women in the field. The woman herself needs work ; and, unless life has taken great toll of her vitality, she does not care at fifty to be pronounced unable to work. It is the mothers who are carrying the two-fold task of bearing and rearing families of three or more children and at the same time doing heavy farm work who call for social questioning. It is for them that concern should be felt; first, for them as individuals and then, for them as a determining factor in the inher­itance and the environment of the next generation. TABLE XXIV NUMBER OF CHILDREN A.ND OF CHILDREN UNDF.R 15 IN THE FAMILIES OF 31 AMFJUCAN FARM WoMEN oF CENTRAL TEXAs WHo Do FIELD WORK FOR FAMILIES AND FOR HmE AI.So, BY TENURE Number Incomplete of Total Owner Tenant Laborer Data Children Num· Per Num· Per Num· Per Num· Per Num-Per her Cent ber Cent ber Cent her Cent her Cent Total Number of Children Total 31 100.0 6 19.3 21 67.7 2 6.4 2 6.4 0 5 16.2 4 12.9 1 3.2 I 4 12.9 1 3.2 3 9.9 2 5 16.1 I 3.2 2 6.5 1 3.2 I 3.2 3 5 16.1 I 3.2 3 9.9 1 3.2 4 1 3.2 1 3.2 5 3 9.7 3 9.9 6 I 3.2 1 3.2 7 I 3.2 1 3.2 8 3 9.7 I 3.2 2 6.5 9 9.7 2 6.4 1 3.2 -----3 Children Under Fifteen Total -------31 100.0 6 19.3 21 67.7 2 6.4 2 6.4 0 9 29.0 I 3.2 6 19.4 2 6.4 1 7 22.6 13 9.7 4 12.9 2 4 12.9 1 3.2 2 6.5 3 3 9.7 1 3.2 I 3.2 1 3.2 2 6.4 2 6.5 1 3.2 4 ----------------­ 5 6 19.4 6 19.2 It should be noted here that two of the three women reporting families of nine children are in the families of owners, while all of those having no children are in the families of tenants. This fact adds a further point to the discussion already given regarding the relation of tenure to the size of family. Furthermore, neither of the married women in the status of an owner's family had children large enough to work, pointing again to a situation com­mented upon elsewhere-that it is not the presence of young children which prevents the mother's doing field work but the presence of children large enough to take her place. The fact of national standards is again emphasized, for these daughters of owners were with one exception in communities predominantly German; while the two wives of owners were in "old line" American communities where, if there were grown girls, they would, more than probably, not be at home. The University of Texas In regard to the amount of work done, the accompanying table (Table XXV) shows that 4.4 per cent of this group reports working eight to nine months as compared with 9.0 per cent of the group working for hire alone. But, on the other hand, 4.4 per cent of this group reports a working period of eleven to twelve months, while none of the former group reports more than nine months. The modal class of this group works 4.1 to 5.0 months, while the modal class of hired workers works 5.1 to 6.0 months if we neglect those of the largest class who do only a nominal amount of work. In the present division of workers there are only two who work less than a month. The explanation of the disappearance of women who do a small amount of field work is probably two-fold. First, the aged woman who lives with her family is not driven by economic pressure to earn a few dollars ; and, even if there were need, her family would probably object to her doing work for wages. Second, the family will not be interested particularly in a few days of labor that a woman may put in, and she may not care to do the work at all unless she can get ready money in payment. Consequently, she prefers to work for others, where she will get paid for her work. It is to be noted further that while 45.0 per cent of those who work for hire only work more than four months a year, the pro­portion working that long in the present group is 70.0 per cent. It would appear that the women who work for wages and also for their families work for a longer period of time than those who work for hire only. This is due to the fact that the family begins work on the crop before there is enough work to warrant the "hiring of hands" and works also after the principal part of the crop is gathered, in cotton which it "would not pay to hire picked." Between these times there is often opportunity to work for wages. The working season is, in the main, several weeks shorter for the worker who does all of her work in the crops of others. Labor of Women in the Production of Cotton 123 TABLE XXV TOTAL MONTHS OF FIELD WORK REPORTED BY 58 AMERICAN FARM WOMEN OF CENTRAL TEXAS Months of Work Women Reporting Num· Per her Cent Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------58 100.O 0.0--1.0 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------2 3.5 1.1-2.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------7 12.I 2.1-3.0 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------5 8.6 3.1-4.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------5 8.6 4.1-5.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------13 22.2 5.1-6.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------I 0 17.3 6.1-7 .0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------4 6.9 7 .1-8.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 6.9 8.1-9.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------2 3.5 9.1-10.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 10.1-11.0 -----------------------------------------------------------------------­11.1-12.0 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------2 3.5 Incomplete data ----------------------------------------------------------------4 6.9 The daily hours of labor reported, as in the other groups, show little standardization. Here, it may be noted, the modal group reports a nine to ten-hour day, while the modal group of those working for hire only reports an eight-hour day. Of the present number, however, 68.0 per cent reported working eight hours or more; while of the workers for wage only, 95.0 per cent worked eight hours or more. This difference is to be expected, for those wage­workers who cannot work at least eight hours in each of the days on which they do work are not likely to be hired, nor are they likely to offer for hire. But of the latter group, 46.0 per cent reported working ten hours or more a day, while of the former group about 30.0 per cent reported a day of ten hours or more. It is to be expected that those working for hire do not work such long hours as those working at home, for wages are more or less standardized, and a twelve-hour day seems not to bring a proportionately increased compensation over an eight-hour day. Two women in this number who work for wages and also for their families report a twelve-hour day. The first of these is a grown daughter in a family of German origin. She forms one-sixth of the female blessings that have been added to the family, only one of whom is less than twenty. five years old. She works five days for hire and five months for her family. Under each condition she spends a twelve­hour day. Her wages reported for hired work were 75 cents an acre for chopping and $1.00 a hundred for picking cot­ton. Both types of ·work are paid by the piece method, which tends to cause work for long hours if there is, as there was in this case, physical strength to enable the worker to bear the strain. The other twelve-hour worker works five months at home and one month for hire. She gets a flat wage of $1.25 per day for all work save picking cotton, which is paid as usual by the hundredweight. For two months this woman reported a fourteen-hour day pick­ing cotton and for three months, a ten-hour day using a riding-plow. One other worker reported an eleven-hour day. She works a little more than six months at home and six days for hire. In wage work she spends an eleven­hour day at chopping, for a flat wage of $1.25, and a twelve-hour day in picking, at $1.00 per hundred pounds, which to her means a daily wage of about $3.00. TABLE XXVI HOURS OF FIELD WORK PER DAY REPORTED BY 58 AMERICAN FARM WOMEN OF CENTRAL TEXAS wHO WoRK FOR wAGES AND ALSO FOR FAMILIES Number of Hours Women Reporting Num· Per her Cent Less than 8 __________ ______ ------------------------------------------------------------------------5 8.8 8 ----------------------~-------------------------------------------------------------------14 23.9 8.1-9.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15 25.7 9.1-10.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18 30.9 10.1-11.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 1.8 11.1-12.0 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 3.6 Incomplete data ----------------------------------------------------------------------------3 5.3 Total __ ___---------------------------------------______ __ ________ -------------------------------58 100.0 Five women reported a working day of less than eight hours. Three of these reported a straight six-hour day whether at home or for hire. Two of the three reported picking cotton at a dollar a hundred ; and a six-hour day gives them a daily wage of $2.00, for they are young girls and unusually good pickers. The third chops cotton for six hours at $1.00 a day. Compare this wage with that of the woman working eleven hours for $1.25. Both of these workers live in the same district, and the great difference in wages is difficult to understand. The explanation is probably that the woman last mentioned accepts a hard bargain for the additional 25 cents and that she is accus­tomed to a long day, both at home and for hire. The other woman works a long day in neither situation and would probably not consider an eleven-hour day under any condi­tion. The differences pointed out illustrate a very common divergence. Another woman, about twenty miles distant from the two women just mentioned, reports a seven and one-half-hour day for about twenty days, at a flat wage of $1.25. It is probable that competition does not greatly affect the work of married women who live twenty miles apart, but why the difference in the first two cases? The fifth worker reporting less than an eight-hour day picked up pecans for two weeks, seven hours a day. The pecan gathering day is normally a short one because the season is late in the year, and the daylight hours are few. The work, as pointed out elsewhere, is peculiarly fatiguing to mature women. The work done by these women, as with all others covered in this discussion, is principally chopping cotton, hoeing corn, and picking cotton. Twenty-four of the fifty-eight in this group reported doing other types of work. Eighteen reported picking up pecans, but eight of these spent only a nominal time; that is, less than one week. Only four gath­ered pecans for a month or more. The hours per day varied from eight to twelve. Thirteen women reported harrowing, cultivating, or plowing, three for a nominal time only. Their time was spent as follows: Four women plowed for less than one month; one plowed for one month; one, for 1.8 months; two, for 2 months ; one, for 3 months ; and one, for 6.3 months. In this work the hours varied from eight to ten per day, a large majority reporting an eight-hour day. Plowing seems to call for the shortest day, due to the less pressure for time and the season when much of it is done. One woman reported breaking new land ten hours The University of Texas a day for two weeks. Three women herded stock for con­siderable periods of time; but this is not continuous labor, and the time is very difficult to estimate. Two women made molasses, one for ten hours a day for four weeks and the other, sixteen hours a day for one month. In the makfnr of molasses the periods of work are long because one mill is run for the entire community or for several communities, and the work must be done in a limited period of time. One woman gathered corn, and another planted three hun­dred fruit trees. Only two women reported as plowing for wages. For such work the payment is a straight dally wage. The two women plowed, each for two weeks, one receiving $1.75 a day and the other $1.25 a day. One woman "topped corn" for several days for a wage of $1.75. Some conditions seem to obtain which tend to cause women who live at home and work in the family crop also to do field work for wages. 1. Hired farm labor seems to be an outlet for the un­married girl, just as clerking, working in the laundry, or waiting on the table is an outlet for the town girl. There seems to be no necessary connection between the poverty of the family and the daughter's doing field work for wages. If we accept land tenure as an indication of comparative well-being or poverty, the fact that fifteen of the twenty­seven unmarried women in the group are in the families of owners would tend to indicate that there is no great economic necessity behind the girl's work. As pointed out earlier, it is probably the absence of great economic neces· sity which causes the girl to remain at home. 2. Where married women who live on a farm do hired field labor, the situation is probably connected with poverty and economic need. This is indicated by the fact that only two out of twenty-five are in the families of owners; and those two do not raise the family problems which might be raised by other married women, for one has a single child of six, and the other has two children of six and ten. In neither case do they work the maximum day, and the amount of hired labor done is nominal. Connecting these figures with those already noted, that no wife of an owner was reported in the group working for hire alone, it seems safe to conclude that only necessitous families or those per­sons who think themselves necessitous demand or allow long and exhausting labor by mothers in the field. Some general conclusions as to the conditions of work for the hired field workers seem warranted. 1. The wages paid hired field workers compare favor­ably with the wages paid workers of the same class in town. The six-day week seems to be rather common for hired labor; or rather actually only five and one-half days, for while many hired laborers during the rush season work Saturday afternoon, such work is not the rule. At $1.00 per day, which is the lowest daily wage reported, the monthly wage is $25.00 for a six-hour day. Considering $1.50 as the daily wage, the monthly wage is $36.00. At $1.75, the highest wage reported, the monthly wage is $42.00. These wages compare favorably with wages paid in laundries, which would probably be the level of work undertaken in town by the mature women of this group, or with wages paid in the five and ten cent stores, where the younger women would probably work. It is much higher than the wage paid the girl who comes smiling out to greet your car as it drives up to the soft drink stand. There is, however, in the field work no hope for future advance­ment or future increase in incomes, less hope than in even the poorest town job. 2. Payment of work by the piece does not seem to have so clearly the effect which attends its use in industry. Still, there is little question that many women work far beyond a wise expenditure of energy in order to get a large daily wage. Pound rates, and no other, used for cotton picking allow higher earnings for "good pickers." Some of these workers earn $4.00 to $5.00 a day, and this is a return higher than can be realized from any other kind of work. When cotton is good, thick, and clean, the rate is about $1.25 a hundred-weight; and an ordinarily good picker can pick The University of Texas 350 pounds a day. As the cotton gets poorer and harder to pick, rates go up, sometimes as high as $2.00 or occasionally higher. But, as a rule, daily earnings go down then and hired work becomes harder to get. There seems to be little indication in the data at hand that there is any special drive in the use of the piece rate method of payment. There is some indication that the mature woman in the poor crop works longer hours to gather a hundred pounds, but there is little tendency in good crops to work an unreasonably long day to increase earnings. A better comparison can be made between the wages paid for chopping, sometimes 75 cents to $1.25 an acre and sometimes $1.25 to $1.50 a day. Even where such differences in payment exist, there seems to be no indication that the piece workers work longer hours than the wage workers. 3. There seems to be little controlling force in the setting of wage rates for hired women-workers. One reported a twelve-hour day at $1.50 and another a nine-hour day at $1.25. It would appear that women in agricultural labor are as poor bargainers as women in urban life. They take the jobs as offered, probably because they are strictly lim­ited as to jobs available and as to their fields of operation. 4. While no data as to men's wages were obtained in this study, inquiry seems to establish the conclusion that where women are employed to do the same work as men, they receive the same wage. Only the woman who can equal the man's work is employed at a daily wage. Often-it is safe to say usually-she is employed in connection with some man in her family if she consistently does wage work. When wages are paid by the piece, the men as a rule have a higher daily wage than the women; at least that is the opinion of the women interviewed, but again we have no data on the subject. In picking and chopping cotton many of the unmarried girls are "as good as any man," but the older women are frank to express their inferiority. Many of the married women, following an effective method developed by laborers in industry during the riotous nine­ties, practice a system of "ca'canny" in order to save their strength and, at the same time, have the desired moral effect upon the family as a working group. Mothers feel that they must go to the field with the children to keep them in order and at work. But they pick very slowly, "soldier­ing'' as much as possible so as to conserve their strength for housework which must be done. The method used is an intelligent adjustment to the necessities of the situa­tion. The University of Texas At the left is th home of a tenant who has liv d on hi father's place for ten y ar . One family has lived in the home at the right for twelve years. Two HOMES OF AMERICAN TENANTS, AMONG THE BEST FOUND CHAPTER V THE AMERICAN \VOMAN: FIELD WORKER FOR FAMILY ONLY W E ARE to consider now a group of workers whose economic significance is probably greater than that of the groups doing farm labor for hire. This includes the wives and daughters who do field work for their families alone. Farm women working for wages seem to present only additions to groups of industrially employed women who have already been recognized; the necessitous wage­earning mother, the daughter who seeks a job either for herself or in order to help her family. The only new phase presented by the farm group of wage-workers is the close relation between the economic and the family life. But in the group of women who work for their families is one of the most difficult problems of modern industry, created by individuals working in productive industry whose labor is given almost without relation to the return received, and by individuals also working not with a wage contract but under a system of status. An analysis of this group and of its meaning economically and industrially would enable us to understand many similar situations in modern industry. The situation is, however, so closely linked with the emotional and traditional basis of family life that it is difficult to judge its real significance. TABLE XXVII TENURE A:\D MARITAL STATc s o r A:'\1ER1CA:\ WoME~ Do1:'.\G FIELD WoRK FOR: THEIR F.OULIES Tenure Class '\farita1 Sta tu!' Total :\farrie r :\um - P er :\um- Pn her Cent bN Cent bn Cent bn Cf'nt Total ·-----­-·­----­----­----­.229 100.0 143 62.5 75 32.8 11 4.8 Owners ---·­----­-·­·­------·--­100 43.6 54 23.6 40 17.5 6 2.6 Tenants -·--·----­------·----·--­122 53.1 82 35.8 35 15.3 5 2.2 Laborers -­----­---­-----­-­-­-­ 3 1.4 3 1.4 Incomplete data --­------­ 4 l.9 4 l.9 The University of Texas In the group of women covered by this survey there are 229 who work for their families alone. The large number of married women in the group (Table XXVII) serves to make stronger the conclusion already drawn that many of the grown girls do not stay on the farm. When the per.. centage of unmarried women is compared with the per. centage of unmarried among the women who work for hire, 46.5 per cent, further strength is added to the com­ment already made that two things seem to be necessary to keep the girl at home: fairly good living conditions and a chance to earn money. The comment is emphasized further by the fact that about three-fifths of the married women are in the families of tenants, while less than one-half of the unmarried are in that class. Further, all of the women in the families of laborers are wives. The figures presented in regard to the tenure status of this group further support the generalization that it is in the main the difficulty of making a living on the farm, as in town, which forces the daughter out of the home. It is a tentative suggestion, which would require more data before it could be con­sidered as substantiated in fact, that families which give their daughters even a high school education deprive them­selves by that gift of the assistance of those daughters on the farm. Girls who receive that much education teach school, take nurses' training at local hospitals, become stenographers, or enter the ranks of the better paid class of clerks. Girls in the f arnilies of owners not financially able or willing to give their daughters so much training find themselves better off at home than in such industries as they might enter in town. In addition, they have a better social position, in spite of their educational lacks, in the communities where their families have been land­owners for years than they could ever have as unskilled workers in town. There is one girl in this group who attends high school in town and comes home for the week· end to work in the field. There is another who has been to a teacher's college and is doing field work while waiting Labor of Women in the Production of Cotton 133 "to get a school." Another is a woman, with college train­ing, who is known as one of the best rural teachers in the section. The latter works after school hours in the field and all summer, except when she has to go to school. She does all kinds of field work, chopping and picking cotton, plowing, cultivating, and fertilizing, as well as taking care of fruit trees. There are some other girls with college training. All of these girls are in the families of owners and do not expect to "work that way always." Theirs is a hope of greater leisure, more education, and "getting away." TABLE XXVIII NUMBER or Can.OREN AND OF CHILDREN UNDER 15 OF AMERICAN FARM WoMEN WHo Do FIELD WoRK FOR FAMII.IES ONLY Number of Children Women Reporting Total Children Children Under 15 Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Total 154 100.0 154 100.0 0 -· l_ --­ 15 ~ 9.7 14.3 40 29 26.0 18.8 2 -------­ 23 14.9 24 15.6 3 ---------------------­ 26 16.9 27 17.5 4 -------------­5 --------------------------­ 23 15 14.9 9.8 18 9 11.7 5.8 6 -------------·----­7 -----------------------------­8 ----------------------­ 12 2 9 7.8 1.3 5.9 6 1 3.9 0.7 9 -----------------------------­ 2 1.3 10 ----------------------­ 2 1.3 11 -----------------------------­ 1 0.6 12 ------------------------­ 2 1.3 13 ------------------------­ 14 -----------------­ Turning our attention to the married women, we ask first the question: What effect does their marital status have upon their responsibilities for non-field work? The best indication of the answer is probably found in the number of children to whom they have given birth. As will be noticed from Table XXVIII, one-tenth of these married women have no children, and 60.0 per cent more have four children or fewer. On the other hand, a little more than one-tenth have families of eight or more. Comparing these propor­tions with those in the group of women who work for hire The University of Texas as well as on the farm, we find that only two per cent of the women who work for hire as well as on the farm have families as large as eight in number. Further, no one of them has a family of more than nine ; while of these women who do field work for families only two report ten children; one, eleven ; and two, twelve. Turning to the women who work for hire only, we find approximately one-fourth reporting families of eight and more. These figures reen­f orce the conclusion that the power driving mothers into work outside the home is the pressure of more mouths to feed. The work done by these women has been gathered togeth­er in the accompanying table (Table XXIX), but it must be remembered that in this table, as in all others relating to work, there is of necessity a great deal of rough hewing. As in all other tabulations presented, there has been an effort to give the figures a bias toward under rather than over calculation. As mentioned before, the tendency of women who wish even subconsciously to excite sympathy for their hard lot is probably more than balanced by the tendency found in others to be unwilling to admit that they really "make a hand in the field." TABLE XXIX AMOUNT OF FIELD WORK DONE FOR FAMIUES BY 215 AMERICAN FARM WOMEN OF CENTRAL TEXAS Months of Field Work Women Reporting Number Per Cent Total -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 215 I00.0 1 and less ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 4t() 18.6 I .I-2.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 35 16.3 2.1-3.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 24 11.2 3.1-4.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 28 13.0 4.1-5 .0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 23 10.6 5.1-6.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 35 16.3 6.1-7 .0 -------------------------------------------·---------------------------------------------­ l 0 4.7 7 .1-8.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 12 5.6 8.1-9 .0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 4 1.9 9 .1-10 .0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 2 .9 I 0.1-11.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 0 0.0 11.1-12.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 2 .9 A glance at the table will show that the largest number of women reported working two months or less. This is Labor of Women in the Production of Cotton 135 practically one-third of the entire group. About 4.0 per cent reported working between eight and twelve months. The woman who reported twelve months of continuous work is of no special significance, for she spent only three hours a day herding goats. She has no children, and her husband owns his farm. Consequently her outside work is desirable from the viewpoint of variety and of physical activity. Another woman, reporting eleven and three­fourths months of work, is a widow who rents her farm and manages it herself. Two women reported working ten months in the year. One is a single woman, one of five unmarried sisters who range from sixteen to twenty-eight years of age. Her maximum working day is nine hours during the cotton-picking season ; and her minimum, eight hours during the plowing season. Her schedule of work is as follows: Chopping cotton and hoeing corn, 2 months, 8 hours a day. Picking cotton, 5 months, 9 hours a day. Plowing with riding plow, 3 months, 8 hours a day. The other woman reporting ten months of field work is a married woman. Her two little girls, eight and twelve years old, do the housework; and she helps her husband in the field. They share the work, as they do also the short mail route the husband nominally carries. The complete list of field work done by this woman includes chopping cotton, hoeing corn, picking cotton, plowing with both walking and riding plow, cultivating, topping and gathering corn, as well as baling feed-stuff and shocking fodder. The first woman is of German parentage and lives in a German community. The second is of old line American stock and lives in a community of people with similar background. Twelve women reported working eight to nine months. Six are in the families of owners and six in the families of tenants. None is in the family of a laborer; and this is to be expected, for if the family owned or rented land enough to furnish work for eight months in the year, the members would not be farm laborers. Four of those in the The University of Texas families of owners are unmarried, and two of those in the families of tenants. These figures still further emphasize the conclusion that chiefly economic necessity causes the wife and mother to work in the field. Two of the women are widows, one of whom rents a farm herself, while the other lives with her father. The renter has nine children, four of whom are under fifteen. There are at home, five daughters who do the housework. The woman herself does no cooking or cleaning and only seven hours a week of sewing and mending. In such a division of labor, there is no problem of the double burden. The mother has become the bread-winner for the family, and the daughters have become the homemakers. Another eight-months worker is the mother of four chil­dren, all under fifteen. Her girls are two and ten years old, and they give little help with the housework. She and her husband divide the field work, each doing half. Her half consisted of ten hours a day for two months, chopping and hoeing; ten hours a day for four months, picking 200 pounds of cotton ; and ten hours a day for two months, plowing with a riding plow. Neither of these women just considered does the outside work around the house; such as milking, feeding, chopping wood, .and caring for meat. It seems to be typical of such partnerships that husband and wife share in making the living; and the homework is divided by agreement, either tacit or expressed, she doing the housework and he the outside work. The idea of the partnership clearly expressed in these cases and in others of which they are typical represents a more or less intelli­gent attack upon the question of division of labor in the economic life of the family group. By no means all women field workers have any clear idea of their place as partners in the economic phase of the marriage relation­ship. The women last mentioned are typified by an eight­months worker, the wife of an owner. She chops cotton for one month, picks for two months, plows and cultivates for four. She simply "works in the field," and as to the other work she seems to carry a rather heavy burden. There are three children, the oldest fourteen and the youngest, one. She does the housework; and, in addition, she regularly cuts the wood, feeds and milks five cows, cares for the horses, and slops the hogs. She put up nearly 300 jars and cans of preserved food last year; she made soap and quilts and did the sewing for her family. Between this woman and the other is a great gulf. The former represents the economic partnership in marriage which, on the one hand, those with the backward look idealize and for which, on the other hand, the forward-looking strive. The latter woman represents the bearer of the "double burden," who struggles in a no man's land between being a helpmeet for her hus­band wherever her labor is needed and being a homemaker and relieving her husband of responsibility for that section of his domain. Of the unmarried women reporting eight months of field work, three are the daughters of owners and two, of ten­ants. All save one has a mother who does the housework. Only one reported doing other field work than chopping and picking cotton. The exception is a girl who plows with a riding plow ten hours a day for two weeks. The hours of work per day of those who work as much as eight months tend to be rather long. One worked five hours a day; five, nine hours; five, ten hours; and one, eight to fourteen hours. The woman who reported a five-hour day was a rather frail looking little woman who said she was in poor health. The other half of the couple was almost as frail looking, but two of them had done all of the work on twenty-five acres of land. Their daughters were all grown, with children of their own. The couple did both housework and field work together, and both moved very slowly. They had a rather nice looking three-room house, but it was poorly kept because "they had to get to the field as early as possible." It will be seen, by a comparison of the reported hours per day (Table XXX) of this group with the hours of those who do hired labor, that a large proportion of family The University of Texas workers report a short working day. In the group working for hire only, three women reported less than an eight­hour day, and they were really unfit for work. Only one of those working partly for hire reported less than an eight-hour day. In the group now under consideration, thirty-six women, 16.0 per cent of the number, work less than eight hours. These are all married women. Further, only one of these thirty-six women works as much as four months in the year. It would appear that long months and long hours go together, indicating a rather severe economic pressure behind consistent working of the married woman in the field. This shortening of hours of work for the wife and mother suggests a recognition of the value of her services in the home which is intimately tied up with the standard of living; whether as cause or result, it would be difficult to say. On the other hand, thirteen women, 6.0 per cent, report working more than a ten-hour day; while in the group working for hire only, 35.0 per cent reported more than a ten-hour day. It would appear that work for hire tends to demand longer hours than work at home. This is connected to some extent with the home workers' more settled location which requires more housework of all kinds. TABLE XXX HOURS PER DAY OF FIELD WORK REPORTED BY 229 AMERICAN FARM WOMEN OF CENTRAL TEXAS WHO WORK FOR FAMILIES ALSO Number of Hours Women Reporting Number Per Cent Total ----------------------------------------­ 229 100.0 Less than 6 ________ ----------------­ 13 5.7 6 ----------------------------­ 12 5.3 7 -----------------­--------------­ 11 4.9 8 -----------------------------------------­ 55 24.0 9 -------------------­-------------------------­ 43 18.6 10 ----------­----------------------------------­ 73 31.9 11 ----------------------------------------------­ 9 3.9 12 -------------------------------------------------------­ 4 1.8 Incomplete data ---------­-----------------------------------­ 9 3.9 Not all of the work done by these women is chopping and picking cotton and hoeing corn, which, as mentioned before, are commonly accepted as women's part of the field work, where women do such work at all. Forty-three women, approximately one-fifth, of this group reported doing other kinds of field work, the last covering·every kind commonly done on a Texas farm. Twenty-~ight women reported plowing with a riding plow, four for nominal periods, that is, a week or less. Three who did considerable plowing could give no definite information as to the time spent. The other eleven reported varying periods. Seven plowed one month or less; eight plowed one and a half and two months; three plowed three months; and one, four months. Eight women reported plowing with a walking plow, four for a nominal period and four for one month each. Seventeen women reported riding the cultivator and planting. Of these, one spent only a nominal period, and four were unable to give any estimate as to the time spent. The remaining twelve reported the following periods : nine, one month or less; two, two months ; and one, three months. Other kinds of work reported were making molasses, setting out, pruning, and spraying fruit trees reported by one woman each; gathering corn reported by three ; topping maize and fodder by three; baling feed-stuff, shocking fodder, planting sweet potatoes, fertilizing, chopping sweet potatoes, cutting and shocking oats, hauling feed, reported by one woman in each case. The time spent, in each case, was more than two weeks. Fertilizing was considered by the woman reporting it as the most exhausting work on the farm, and she did every kind available. The fertilizer used is, of course, not a com­mercial product. The wagon or truck is driven to the barnyard, and the manure is pitched in with a shovel. In the fields it is pitched out and spread over the land. The woman who reported this work had a home that any woman of the modest income class might envy, brand new with the most convenient and up-to-date kitchen imaginable. An­other type of work reported as very exhausting is setting out sweet potatoes, where they are raised on a large scale. Hoeing potatoes is also considered more difficult than hoe­ing cotton or corn because the plants lie along the ground. 140 The University of Texas Weighing Up-A Group of Mexican Pickers Picking Cotton-A Group of White Women SCENES FROM THE COTTON FIELD The work, therefore, requires short strokes and constant attention, as well as being much slower. Such labor is tir­ing, as any sustained activity will be; but if only field work is done, there is no great danger of strain upon the woman's Labor of Women in the Production of Cotton 141 physique. The same is true of chopping cotton and hoeing corn. The greatest danger lies in the picking of cotton. It becomes necessary to drag along the ground a sack weigh­ing several pounds and finally to lift and carry it to the weighing place. If small weights are carried, the strain is not great; but there is the constant temptation to carry large weights and save time. Especially will this be true with young girls, and the strain of bending and lifting is sometimes serious. In one afternoon's visits three Ameri­can girls were found who had lifted too heavy sacks, and none of the three had been "any good" since. Two had had operations, and the other was under the constant care of a physician. There was little question that in each case the heavy lifting from a stooping position by girls who were in the formative stage physically was the cause of ill­health. Since such cases are by no means -uncommon among the women and girls who do field work, one wonders at the judgment of those who will risk the loss of the woman's labor and the consequent heavy doctor's bills, which more than balance ·anything she earns if we are to count only the financial loss. More intelligent placing of the weighing­wagon with regard to the rows to be picked would obviate much of the physical strain. Keeping a car or a horse to carry the full sacks to be weighed would also be an adjust­ment which would save strength. Women field workers are not given to sentimentalizing their position unless they are really working beyond their strength. Older women were not of the general opinion that field work per se is "hard on women." There was pretty general agreement, however, among both Negroes and whites that the performance of field labor by women under certain conditions was expensive in the long run and had serious physical consequences. Women who did field work during the period of pregnancy paid for it very heavily in later years both in doctors' bills and physical condition. The sending of young girls to the field without allowance for their physical condition and the work among wet plants and in great heat during the menstrual period were stated by most women to be very undesirable. The Unive'rsity of Texas There can be little question to the observer that the women of the Southern European or even the Northern European peasant group who have immigrated to this country are more able to do field work than the native American. They have been given a better physical develop. ment, less hindered by shibboleths of femininity and chiv­alry, which if they are to be field hands is much in their favor. It must be remembered that these results are evi­dent whether the girls and women be American, colored, or Mexican. As will be pointed out later, the smaller strain on the Negro woman is due to her lower standard of living, making necessary less housework. The number of Negro women approaching middle age who have had operations or show the effects due to heavy work would seem to the observer to be larger than among the Americans. This may be due to some extent, however, to the kind of medical service which the Negroes have. The attitude of farm people toward field work for women is worthy of comment. It is somewhat more difficult to get information about the amount of plowing, cultivating, har­rowing, and other such work than about chopping and pick­ing, for some women are rather ashamed of having to do the first tasks. The woman who plows seems to feel, and others feel, that she has lost something real but indefinable. There is a traditional line between men's work and women's work on the farm. On one side lies hoeing corn and chopping and picking cotton for the woman; on the other lies riding a plow or cultivator for the man. One woman, after report­ing five months spent in chopping and picking, commented upon cultivating and plowing as "men's work." Another young girl who worked with her family for hire said that her mother said "she had never plowed and her daughter never should either." There is very little question in the mind of anyone who has seen work on a Texas farm that plowing with a riding plow and cultivating and planting with horses provide the easiest work in the field. In addi­tion, the position of the body is not so cramping and tiring as in chopping and picking. The real reason for the dis­tinction is probably economic ; and the idea of chivalric Labor of Women in the Production of Cotton 143 protection of women from unsuitable work, combined with the prestige aura, was developed later. Fewer hands are needed during the plowing and planting, and the men of the family can usually furnish the necessary labor. There may be further relics of primitive taboos. Men do not like to see women "monkeying with a team; it isn't a woman's business." Whether the cause be the rationalization of an economic necessity or a clinging to a group tradition, the result is that the work of women in the fields is used to increase the production of cotton at the point where the cost would be highest if it were necessary to pay that cost. Cotton picking is probably the most important hand process in the modern industrial system. The only possible competi­tor for the position is housekeeping; but even for the domestic routine machines are available, and the question of transformation depends upon the comparative desir­ability of the individual unit as compared to the community unit. The same choice obtains also for many farm processes, but not for cotton picking. Machines are not available for cotton picking, and the only adjustment possible for a hand process in a machine civilization is subsidized labor or the forcing of the product into the position of a luxury or a prestige article. The latter alternative is hardly open to the producers of raw cotton. The former, then, is the course that has been chosen, unwilling though the choice may have been. The operations antecedent and posterior to the picking of cotton have become mechanized, the manufacturing very highly so. The plowing and the planting on the small farm are only slightly so; but even here, horse-power instead of human­power is commonly used. And this is not a condition of the last quarter-century. Its roots lie far back in the history of the South, when cotton was only heir-apparent. The demand was insistent for cotton to fill the never satisfied maw of the growing factory system, whose capacity to absorb seemed unlimited if cotton were only cheap enough. The duty of the Southern farmer was plain before him. It is The University of Texas explained to him clearly in a pamphlet published in 1861, from which the following excerpt is taken.1 Let it then be the policy of the government . . . to prepare the way for the overthrow of slavery by the competition of free labor upon the fertile soil of Texas. . • . Have not the cotton spinners of the world the right to say to the slave­holder: you have proved by the experience of the last few years that with your slave labor you cannot give us cotton enough; we must try free labor and see if that be found wanting. . . . He (De Bow) says, "The general idea used to be that the only limitation to the production of cotton was the proper climate and soil, and that of course there was scarcely any limit in the United States. But this is a great mistake. The great limitation to production is labor. Whenever cotton rises to ten cents, labor becomes too dear to increase production rapidly.... "Let him (the intelligent farmer) suppose himself upon the Texas cotton lands, the best in the world, producing 500 pounds of clean cotton to the acre. He will put 20 acres in cotton and if he be blessed with a reasonable family of chil­dren, he will require very little assistance to pick it.... "Then we may safely leave slavery in the old slave states to die a certain and peaceful death. . • . "Then may we cease to 'tremble for the future of our country when we remember that God is just.' " To produce cotton cheaply enough the cotton raiser must avoid the necessity of competing with the city and the factory for his labor. Otherwise, the hand labor required would force cotton into the luxury class, and few farmers would be needed to produce it. The older Southern cotton planter, then, withdrew from the competitive wage market and sought another source of labor. He found it in the ships which plied the Middle Passage. The Cotton King­dom was built upon labor which worked for a bare subsis­tence. The cotton farmer who owned no slaves was unable to employ free labor, for the free white preferred the routinized work of the Northern factories to competition with the black slave of the South. He has not ceased to prefer it. The white wage laborers who now compete with 1Bull.. "Cheap CottoJt by Free Labor," by A Cotton Manufacturer, pp. 26, 27, 31. Negroes for the jobs on cotton farms are surely as degraded economically as any people to be found in the United States. Many of them are considered in greater or less detail in this study. The keenest competitors, however, for jobs on the cotton farms are the families of the cotton raisers, and only such work as they cannot perform is left to the wage­earner. It is in their position as unpaid laborers who dis­place paid laborers that the group of women just described have their especial significance. Further into the situation calling for the use of family labor in the production of cotton has entered, of late years, another factor. Not only competition, in the past with Negro slave labor and in the present with freed slaves whose liberty is no more than nominal, has forced the cot­ton producer to use whatever labor could be had with least expenditure; but the Hindu, with a wage and a standard of living lower than can be conceived by even a "one horse Negro cropper," has placed an effective bid for the right to supply English looms. From Egypt, from China, from South America, the supply of cotton is coming; and even Soviet Russia sounds a warning that she can put into the world's market enough of a new product, kendryn, to break the cotton market if there be any resistance left. The woman doing unpaid labor on the cotton farms is competing with the coolie, the pariah, and the forced cooperator. Her fate is tied with the questions of international competition, of high tariffs, and of world markets. It must be insisted again that the position of this group of women is not an isolated problem. There is not in this instance, nor in any other, a question of the work and position of women which is not primarily or entirely a question of human relations and of human values affecting every individual in the group and, through the tangled skeins of human relationships, touching all groups and all the individuals within those groups. The work of these women is intimately tied, both as cause and result, with the work and economic welfare of many members of the human race. More immediately, what will be the effect upon the men in the group dealt with in this study of the work of mothers at consistent field labor? What kind of citizen is the man whose wife walks down the furrows with him, each of them following a plow, when the fourth baby is expected within a month? A suggestion, in this instance, that she should be in the house brought the weary answer that with cotton so low and one more baby coming she would have to help as long as she could. His look of sullen and hopeless bitter­ness indicated that he thought little of a society in which her answer was necessary. What can the social group demand or expect of a man who has been forced unwillingly to see his wife under such conditions? Men who are hope­less and broken are even less desirable factors in the body social than are women who are overworked even to the point of exhaustion. Let it be repeated, the problem of the labor of women in the production of cotton is woven into the warp and woof of the civilization of the Southern cotton economy. It can be considered and dealt with and some approach made to a solution only as the major problems, social and economic, inherent in the present distress of the entire group con­nected with the raising of cotton are attacked. The labor of women who work without wages is fur­nished almost without compensation to their families and through them to the social group, for their wages may be considered as consisting in the main of their "board and keep." If field labor formed all of their work, it might be granted that they received a subsistence wage which is, by and large, as much as unskilled labor may expect. In rare cases there is a division of labor, but it is only for the crop period. During the rest of the year the woman does the housework and the outside work also, and this work certainly equals in value the board and lodging she gets during that period. In most homes it would have a value much greater. To calculate, then, that the value of her living in the period of field work is compensated by the field work only is to juggle the figures considerably. But she is so seldom relieved of the housework while working in the fields that the situation is hardly worth considering. Her method of self-preservation is neglect, and in neglect the value of the living often degenerates until it can hardly be considered in terms of value. Furthermore, to argue in this way in regard to the labor of the wife and daughter is to acknowledge openly a system of peonage. It may be modified, but seldom is it beautified by the family relation­ships. Drag it into the open, and we have laborers working for a payment in subsistence with the terms of remunera­tion set without the wage market. The relation is not that of a wage contract but of a system of status coming either from a contract entered into for other than economic reasons or from birth. The cotton farmers' children who work without pay in the fields raise the same problem as do the women in the calculation of costs of production of the crop and a greater problem of social loss. But they do not raise the economic and industrial problem which is inherent in the working of adult women at labor, commonly considered wage labor, merely for board and keep. The cost of the labor of women who are also house­keepers, or even a considerable part of it, can not be esti­mated in dollars and cents. The greater part is in grants of omission and not of commission. A profit and loss account of a cotton crop raised by the labor of the home­maker in the field would show, upon the asset side, labor costs very low; and upon the liability side, poor food, unkept houses, dirty and poorly nourished children, mar­riage relations which have become worse than common­place, and the loss of wholesome family life. Who shall attempt to balance the accounts by talk of money equiva­lent? An attempt will be made here to indicate the peculiar relation which labor given by the female members of the families of cotton farmers bears to the production of the money crop. It is sound to consider the female rather than the male members of the family as giving the unpaid labor, for it is practically a universal situation that the money received for the sale of the crop is the man's income. True, he may spend it as a family income, and most men do; The University of Texas but the fact remains that he controls it. It is evident, too, that the relation of the income of daughters is different from that of sons, for it is safe to assume that there are no adult males living with their parents whose fathers receive and hold the entire income from their labors. The greater mobility of the sons, as also the greater recognition given by the family to their need for freedom, would indicate this, even if there were no evidence to prove it. The stronger the tradition of the patriarchal family, the stronger is the comparative position of the grown son. His freedom from financial responsibility, relative to that of the grown daughter, has been clearly shown for industrial groups in studies made by the Woman's Bureau,2 and there is little question that the same would be true to a more marked extent in the rural districts. Even without a recognition of this condition, there would be clear evidence that the unrequited labor given to the production of cotton is greater on the part of the female than male members of a family. Work in the fields, as pointed out in several instances which may be taken as typical of the larger por­tion of the group, does not relieve women of their tradi­tional and actual productive labor in the home. The actual work would in itself be equivalent in money value to more than a living for the able-bodied woman. There is no equivalent labor, in addition to the field work, which may be done by the male members of the family. In order to consider the facts in hand, an analysis must be made of the field work and housework done by the same women. A calculation of the value of unpaid field work done will also assist in an understanding of the situation. The first step is to segregate those women who report being paid for field work done for their families. There are thirty-six women in this group. Of these, seventeen are married women ; one is a widow ; and the others are unmar­ried women. But from another angle, there are 143 married and seventy-five single women who do field work for their families. The married women who report receiving pay 2Bulletin Woman's Bureau, No. 80. Labor of Women in the Production of Cotton 149 for such WQrk are only 10.0 per cent of the total number, while the proportion of single women receiving pay is 22.0 per cent. It would seem that the daughter is a better bargainer than her mother in the family circle ; but this is probably not a fair conclusion, for a great many married women have other sources of income from work done on the place, while almost none of the daughters have such sources. Six of the seventeen married women are the wives of owners; and two, including one widow, are owners them­selves. Eight are the wives of tenants and one, the wife of a laborer. Of the unmarried women, nine are in the families of owners ; eight, in the families of tenants ; and two, in the families of laborers. Tlie comparatively large number in the owner group might be expected. A family must be above a pain economy before individual incomes have an existence of significance for any member who does not exploit the family for his own living. Twenty-three of those reporting received an indefinite wage at less than the usual rate, while thirteen were paid a definite rate of wages, usually the going rate in the community. The former group is composed of eleven married and twelve unmarried women; the latter group includes six married and seven unmarried women. Of those receiving a definite wage, six are in the families of owners ; six are in the families of tenants; and one is the daughter of a laborer. The figures viewed comparatively would not indicate that members of the owner class tend to consider the labor cost of production in the raising of their crops more intelligently than do members of the tenant class. The laborer's daugh­ter who received a definite wage received a part of the total price for picking done with the family ; in this case, 50 cents from the total payment of $1.25 per hundred pounds. Of the group receiving pay at the current rate, six are married women. One owns the farm, and her husband man­ages it under a definite arrangement. Another is a widow The University of Texas whose son-in-law manages her farm under a rental con­tract. In this instance the woman gets the proceeds from any cotton she picks. \\there the woman owns the land there is, of course, no situation comparable to the family of which the husband and father is the landowner. Of the others, one gave definite information as to income. She picked 200 pounds a day at $1.25 per hundred. She worked three weeks of eight hours a day, five days in the week. Her earnings were $27.50. Not one of this group did field work for wages, and it is to be noticed that this is not the group which works for the longest periods or for the longest hours. One family deserves special attention for the intelligent method of handling the wage problem. The father and mother were noticeable, not only for their appearance of unusual physical strength and vitality but for a rugged in­telligence and good sense, probably the result of their Scotch heritage. The mother had brought into the world twelve children, ten of whom were living, sturdy young people and children. She was relieved not only of all field work but of all outside work around the home. On the other hand, the three daughters were relieved of all house­work while working in the field. The mother had an in­come last year from eggs ~.nd chickens amounting to $175.00. She was highly productive in the home in terms of goods. Sixty-eight quarts of preserves and 361 cans of vegetables and fruits filled her shelves. She bought no soap, lard, or meat, and not a single garment was bought ready made. Each child also had an income. One dollar a hun­dred was paid for picking cotton, and each of the three girls received from this source an income of $65.00 last year. The wage paid is an agreed reduction of one-fifth from the community rate, to recompense for the services rendered in the home. The father is a tenant farmer, but he seldom moves. The home is clean and well kept, with a Victrola, a daily paper, and a telephone. In another instance every member of the family save the mother did field work, and each was given a part of the crop for his own. The entire crop was worked in common, but the individual had the proceeds from his section of land. Of more than 300 Amer­ican families visited, only these two seemed to have a clear­cut business organization based on an understanding that labor plays a part in farm production. Such an organization of family labor seems from the viewpoint both of the cotton raiser and of the observer to be highly desirable. Labor troubles exist within the family as well as out. Young people have to be either "led or driven," and the promise of pay acts as an incentive to con­sistent work without "bossing" on the part of the parents. In many cases the mother stated that she went to the field because she had to be with the children to "keep them at work." There are many other values in family life con­nected with the payment of individual incomes, especially when the work performed is work commonly paid for; and there is little question that all of these values would obtain in the case of the cotton raiser who would make some pay­ment, however small, to the older members of his family who work in the family economy. Though the objections to unpaid work are not voiced so openly and bitterly by the white women as by the Negroes, there is a distinct feeling of injustice among the young women who are working under the system of producing cotton for "board and keep" ; and any feeling of injustice is a problem of labor within the group. In addition, the payment of a wage to the members of his family would probably suggest to the cotton farmer, so plainly that a wayfaring man could not mistake the signal, that his crop does not pay the cost of production. The women who receive pay at the current rate offer little difficulty; for the expense of their labor is the same as if the labor were hired, and they receive an income equal to what they would receive as hired laborers. Some calculation of the value of the unpaid labor which women give to the cotton crop may be made from the figures gathered. From the reports given as to the amount of cot­ton picked in a normal day, the arithmetic average was 194.5 pounds as a day's picking. The modal group of those The University of Texas reporting gave 200 pounds as a standard day's work. It is probably safe to assume 200 pounds as the average day's work. The group reporting seemed a normal group con­taining six women who picked 300 pounds a day or more, two who picked less than 100 pounds, and eight who re­ported 100 pounds. It includes, therefore, some "good pickers" and some who would be considered quite slow. The wages paid are for two kinds of labor, a rate per hundred­weight for picking cotton and a rate per day for other work, or it may be that the other work is paid for by the acre. The modal group of pickers reported receiving a rate of $1.25 per hundred. Almost as large a number reported re­ceiving $1.00 a hundred; and a very few, more than $1.25. A dollar and a quarter seems, then, a fair rate, but it may be better to assume a rate of $1.15. For the daily wage there is more divergence. The rates paid vary from $1.00 to $1.75. Practically half reported a wage of $1.25 a day. As mentioned before, the length of the working day seems to have little relation to the wage. One dollar and twenty. five cents is the rate paid for a day ranging in length from seven and one-half to fourteen hours. One-fifty is the rate paid for days ranging from eight to ten hours and $1.75 for days ranging from nine to ten hours. The only report of $1.00 was for a six-hour day. We shall assume, then, that a daily wage of $1.25 is paid. Since there are as many to­gether reporting wages of $1.50 and $1.75 as reporting a wage of $1.25, the assumed wage is certainly not too high. Payment by the acre for chopping, hoeing, and plowing seems to be seldom used for white women in Central Texas, for only two women reported payment according to this method. One reported payment of $0.75 per acre and the other of $1.25 per acre. These items would scarcely be sufficient data upon which to base a current rate. The terms of our calculation, accordingly, shall be a rate of $1.15 for each hundred pounds of cotton picked and a wage of $1.25 for each day spent in other field labor. The value of the individual woman's labor will be calculated and such summations given as seem instructive. Taking the Labor of Women in the Production of Cotton 153 data in regard to average prices of cotton given by the De­partment of Agriculture8 and getting the arithmetic aver­age of the prices for the years 1920-28 inclusive, we find the mean price of cotton for those years to have been 18.2 cents. From these figures a calculation can be made of the amount of cotton marketed for which the labor of these women is responsible. There is information from 192 women of a sort to make possible the calculation of the value of their labor at the rates determined. The total money wages which they would receive at the going rate is $24,965.15, or an average per person of '180.00. At the computed average market price for cotton, 722.4 pounds of lint would be required to pay the wage, or 1.4 bales of cotton. Each woman, then, gives a labor equivalent of 1.4 bales of cotton to the market. Thirty-four and five-tenths per cent of the women in the present survey were included in the group doing work for their families alone. Assuming that this proportion holds true through­out the cotton producing sections of the State and that the average amount of labor is typical, there are approximately 187,879 American women who work in the Texas cotton fields without pay. To pay their wages at the market rate would require 164,855 bales of cotton. The yearly cotton crop of Texas as given in the Texas Almanac for 1929,4 is 5,150,000 bales. To pay the wages of the group of women under consideration would require a little more than one­thirtieth of the entire crop. Viewed from another angle, if the women refused to work in the production of cotton, one-thirtieth of the cotton would be taken from the market; or the producer would have to replace them with hired labor at the going rate of wages. Without doubt, in this event, wages of hired labor would rise. The figures for the amount of field work done by the groups of women in the East and West Texas sections which are presented in a later chapter justify the conclusion that the amounts here calculated are not excessive. •Yearbook of Dept. of Agriculture, 1928, p. 850, Table 266. 'Texas Almanac. 1929, p. 102. The University of Texas The greatest possible fallacy in the computation of the amount of cotton put on the market with no commensurate return for the labor performed by women of the producers' families is the assumption, previously mentioned, that the women do get their living. The women get their "board and keep," and this is no more than paid for by their labor in the fields. There are, to repeat, two apparent criticisms of this claim. First, does not the non-field work done by the women pay for their board and room; and if valued at the market price for such labor, if there be such a price, would it not be equal in value to more than the board re. ceived? It is useless to insist that the services of wife, mother, and daughter in the home are not to be evaluated in terms of money. Here it is not a question of estimating the value of immaterial and sentimental services but of de­termining the effect upon a distinctly material good, the cot­ton crop of the State. Is it not possible that the value of the services rendered by the woman, in addition to her field work, would justify her claiming board and room from her family and from the productive system? Or is it true that the board and room and clothes which the woman receives must be paid for by field work? Do not other services ren­dered balance any hypothetical bill for living expenses? The field for performing such services is found in the home. Of the 210 women doing field work without pay, eighty-three have no other female in the house who might help with the work. The husband or son may relieve the mother of the housework, but even the casual observer will agree that this is hardly the customary situation. It is less common in rural than in urban life, due to the greater rural force of tradition in which the distinction between man's work and woman's work plays a large part. The greater prevalence in the city of help for the housewife is also due to the fact that the urban woman asserts her "rights" much more consistently and vehemently than does the rural woman. With no further speculation, it may be postulated that the farm woman who has no other female in the house has no help worth considering in the work of the home. In Labor of Women in the Production of Cotton 155 this aspect, five classes must be examined. First, there are those who have no other female in the house. These num­ber eighty-three. Second, there are those who have some little assistance from young daughters under fifteen years of age or from aged women over seventy-five. These num­ber twenty-seven. Third, there are thirty-six women who have another grown female in the house. Fourth, there is a group of those living in families where there is another female over fifteen who does no field work. These number twenty-one. And finally, there are the women who have more than one other female over fifteen living in the house. With these are included all of those who are in families in which there are more than two women, though all work in the fields. In this class are eighty-five women. The first group seems not to present a great deal of diffi­culty. If the home is kept and there is a single woman in it, she is responsible for its management and performs the necessary labor. This work cannot stop because she works in the field. She can slight some of it and "catch up" when field work is done. But three meals a day must be had; milk must be cared for each day and washing done each week if living is to be decent. The market value of these services alone would balance any account for living ex­penses. A further analysis of the work of these women will be enlightening. Their housekeeping responsibilities are indicated by the fact that the average number of indi­viduals for whom housekeeping was done is 3.9 persons. It appears that the burden is not light. In fact, one-third of these women keep house for a family of the famous "aver­age size" or larger. They carry on the ordinary day by day activities; but a housekeeper on the farm must do more than this to justify herself, economically speaking, so these women carry on also the activities leading to what is known in the farm economy as "living at home." Of those keeping house for two people, only six put up no preserves or canned goods, while six more put up only a nominal amount. The others furnished the family needs. The University of Texas Eight raised no gardens, but five of these raised consider­able numbers of chickens; and chickens and gardens are not compatible in many farmyards. Seven of these women are responsible for considerable quantities of milk, butter, eggs, and cream to be sold and provide addition to the money income. It can hardly be questioned that the women fur­nished goods and services equivalent to several hundred dollars a year. In addition, eleven spent full days in the field for four months, or more, during the year. Only three women spent less than two months in the field. This situation seems not to change because of the heavier burden of housekeeping; rather, the contrary tendency seems to be to produce more food in the home as a result of the larger groups to be fed. Of those keeping house for six people, not one reported doing no preserving, and only two had less than a hundred quarts of canned and preserved foods. All raised chickens in rather large numbers, and only one had no garden. Neither is a smaller amount of field work done because of the greater burden of house­keeping. Of the ten keeping house for six people, only one works less than two months in the field, and five work for four months or more. These women may be taken as typical of the group doing field work without pay and having no female assistance in the home. Can it be held as economic­ally sound that these women have to pay for their board and lodging by doing field work? The second group calling for consideration includes those who have some assistance. Of the twenty-seven in this group, twenty-five have daughters under fifteen years of age, and two have relatives aged seventy-five and eighty­three respectively. The young daughters are, or should be, in school during most of the field-working season; conse­quently, such assistance as they give is limited and more or less uncertain. If the girl stays at home to perform the household work while her mother works in the field, there is no lessening of the social cost. It takes merely another and more significant form. The situation in this group differs so little from that in the group just examined that it is hardly necessary to consider the details. The house­keeping burden of this second group of twenty-seven women seems to be heavier than that of the preceding group. The arithmetic average of those for whom housework is done is 5.4 persons per woman. It would seem that the women of this group, as the other, may be considered as performing services and producing goods which would be equivalent in value to their board and room. TABLE XXXI NUMBER OF PERSONS FOR WaoM HousEKEEPING Is DoNE, REPORTED BY 22 FARM WOMEN WHO HAVE SOME ASSISTANCE IN HOUSEWORK Number for Whom House Is Kept Number of Women Reporting 3 2 4 4 5 3 6 8 8 3 9 I 10 1 There are 110 women of the 210 doing field work for their families who are responsible for the housework also. Any labor given by these women to the production of cotton is unquestionably a gift. In most cases they even pay highly for the privilege of making the gift. The cotton put upon the market as the result of their labor has a labor cost of less than nothing. The women pay for more than they "eat and the clothes they wear" by household services ren­dered; and, in addition, they make it possible to put on the market thousands of pounds of cotton to which no possible method of rationalization can give a labor cost. And this labor cost, according to the study of distribution of costs made for the United States Department of Agriculture, is about 65.0 per cent of the total.5 The third group includes those living in homes where there is another female over fifteen years of age who also does field work. The relation is in each case that of mother and daughter. Since field work must be done at stated times, both work in the field at the same period. Of two GUnited States Dept. of Agriculture Bull. 896, p. 15. The University of Texas couples in the twenty, one woman of each pair did only a nominal amount of field work. Five couples reported the same work for mother and daughter. Three of these re­ported a six-months period with a ten-hour day for both and one a six-months period with an eight-hour day for the mother and a nine-hour day for the daughter. The mother, in the latter case, went to the house to perform some house­hold tasks before the others left the field. Another couple worked eight months each in the field for a nine-hour day. In this case they did housework for four people. In the remaining cases mother and daughter reported different periods, and their reports are interesting and rather surprising. I. Daughter reports 4 months. Mother reports 5 months. II. Daughter reports 4 months. Mother reports 5 months. III. Daughter reports 2 months. Mother reports 5 months. IV. Daughter reports 2 months. Mother reports 6 months. In each case, as shown, the mother gives more time than the daughter to field work. This fact suggests the conclu­sion that where the mother does field work at all, she makes it her business more than does the daughter. In no instance covered in this study was the daughter entirely relieved from field work, but in the majority of cases where there is a grown daughter the mother is entirely relieved. The sit­uation here would indicate either that the mother prefers field work or that she is physically more able than the daughter to stand the work. There may be other reasons. It will be remembered that under the handicraft system in England it was the mother who helped the father to make a living while the daughter stayed at home and practiced the art of homemaking for which she was destined.6 There may be an element of this idea in the present situation. 6Tickner, "Women in English Economic History," p. 49 There may be also an element of feeling on the part of the mother that she likes to spare the daughter from hard labor. "She will have to do it soon enough." Rather surprisingly, the amount of household produc­tion accomplished by the two women seems to be less than that performed by the single housekeeper dealt with in the two preceding groups. There are several possible elements in determining this situation. It may be that both women, especially the mother, do field work because they prefer it to housekeeping and have never taken a great deal of in­terest in the process connected with the latter. The daugh­ter, even though she may prefer to keep house, is not likely to be very efficient. Where two people carry on work to­gether it is very probable that neither will accept full re­sponsibility for the organization of the task. A further ex­planation is probably that the families included have ac­cepted the doctrine that the raising of cotton is the primary business of the farm family and every member in it, and they have never really considered that there may be more economic use of the women's labor. The groups for whom these women keep house seem to be larger than the house­holds of the women previously considered, the average size being six persons. The difference in amount of work is apparent in other features. Six couples put up less than fifty quarts of canned foods last year, and four had no garden. Three had less than fifty chickens and turkeys. While all had at least one cow and cared for the milk, and all save two had more than one cow, only three of these couples reported the sale of milk, butter, and eggs, and two of the three reported only nominal amounts. Is this failure to add to the family income through such sources the cause or the result of the deflection of the labor of these women into field work? It is probably both, and it is more than possible that for the individual woman there is no choice. The sources of home production may not be open due to lack of facilities. From the viewpoint of the observer, the difficulties seem in each case not to be insur­mountable. The women had "never fixed a chicken yard;" The University of Texas "the varmints caught the chickens;'' "the garden had never been fenced;" "the bugs ate up everything." The deduction indicated is that the labor of the women, given initiative and energy, could have been used in other channels than the production of cotton and would have yielded income at least in goods and better living conditions. This conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that five of the couples were in the families of owners ; and of the six in families of tenants, only two had moved in the current year. It is not by any means a viable conclusion that the two women in each of these families perform or could perform enough labor in and around the home to justify their both receiving board and lodging in return. It would appear sound to infer that there is more than sufficient work to make it economically defensible to relieve one woman for non-field work. Is the use of the labor of the other member of the couple in the production of cotton not only vindicable but economically desirable? This question is raised still more sharply and insistently by the group which must now be considered, the women in families having more than one female over fifteen years of age, one of whom is relieved of field work. This group contains forty women. In twelve cases the relation is that of a field-working mother and a daughter who does no field work. Six of the daughters were in school and were necessarily of little assistance ; and four took the responsibility for the housekeeping, working in the field only for recreation and variety. Twenty-seven of the women are daughters whose mothers do no field work, or at least no appreciable amount. The latter group is of especial interest, for it gives. some indication of the loss to the family from the deflecting of the housekeeper's labor into field work. It will probably be instructive to examine in detail the situation in some of the homes of the women whose mothers are entirely relieved from field work. The most evident fact is that the mothers rear large fami­lies, larger than any other single group, the average size being 6.2 children. Of the two reporting no children, one was an older woman who had acquired by marriage a family of grown step-children; and the other was rather recently married. The large families may be both a cause and a result of relieving the mother from field labor. There is a rather general feeling, as stated before, among both women and men on the farm that a woman who has no children should do field work. The attitude is held without question among certain groups that the wives must go to the field themselves, or they must present their husbands with substitutes. In the case of fifteen of the twenty women, there was added to the family income appreciable amounts each week by the sale of cream, butter, and eggs. The smallest amount of sales was that of four dozen eggs a week. Sample reports are as follows : 30 dozen eggs and 15 pounds of butter; 20 dozen eggs and 105 gallons of milk. It has been pointed out that there was a tendency to exaggerate the average of such sales for the year, especially since this report was made at the season when the amounts would normally be larger than at some other seasons. Granting even considerable exaggeration, these women were responsible for consid­erable money income, probably for more even than the cot­ton crop was responsible. Of the five who sold no products, only one failed to supply her own family, and she had been sick all year. Fifteen women reported more than a hundred quarts of preserved foods. Further, twelve of these women regularly raised flowers, and some had beautiful displays. But there still rises to vex us the question of the second woman. How may she economically pay for her living in the home? This problem we will leave for consideration until we have examined the situation among the women who live in families where there are more than two females over fifteen years of age. In this class are sixty-eight women, but for four of them complete data are not avail­able for each of the female members of the family. These women must be considered as members of the family group. Thirty-nine women with whom we shall deal especially represent seventeen families. In nine of these cases, the The University of Texas mother did no work in the field. There would seem to be reason for the exemption, for the mothers had families ranging in number from six to thirteen. In some cases the constant bearing of children kept the mother in a physical condition which necessitated her being relieved of both field work and housework, and in these instances the daughters were forced to carry the "double burden.'' With two sturdy girls who were carrying double loads there seemed to be no great physical strain. But, at times, the girls were not sturdy, and the situation was that of a child homemaker burdened with many cares. In one case there were two girls in their middle teens. One was the father's assistant in the field, while the other kept house. The mother, with eight children under eighteen, was nursing twins a few weeks old. In another case a fourteen-year old girl had done all of the housework for a family of seven, had put up large quantities of canned goods, had done the sewing and the washing, and had, in addition, worked four months in the field. In eight of the families the mother was a field worker with her daughters. One reason for this will be apparent. The youngest child in the group was three years old, and four of the women had no children under fifteen years of age. But the age of the children would seem not to be a determining factor. Woman after woman who does no field work now said, "My children will not let me work in the field ; they say it isn't any place for me;" or, "I worked in the field until my children got big, and they would not let me." Five of these family groups will be taken for somewhat detailed study, for it is safe to say they typify the families of field workers wherever found in the cotton belt. Group I consists of a mother and two daughters, aged eighteen and twenty-three. There is a father somewhere in the background, but he need not concern us here. There is a grandmother eighty-five years old who does the housework during the crop season. The mother, father, and two daugh­ters did all the work on eighty acres of land last year. The Labor of Women in the Production of Cotton 163 daughters worked more than six months last year, includ­ing one month for hire in the pecan harvest. The mother worked still longer; harrowing and breaking ground, work in which the daughters did not share. Each of the three planted, chopped, and picked cotton. They "hired out" if any time was left from working their own crop. Nor did cotton receive .all of their attention. They sold eighty turkeys and seventy chickens last year as well as an aver­age of two dozen eggs a week. They averaged throughout the year an income of $1.00 per week from the sale of milk. And, they ask little in return. While the house in which they lived was roomy and substantial, the furniture was plain and only what was necessary. There was no telephone, no musical instrument, no library, no daily paper. The local semi-weekly and Farm and Ranch provided the only reading matter coming regularly into the house. The women went to no entertainments and no parties. The sole dissipation consisted in going to town on Saturday, and they "took turns" staying at home then. These two were the only grown girls in the community, and there were only three grown boys. And yet the girls did not suggest any need of sympathy; for overflowing vitality and joy of living they would be noticed in any crowd. Group II consists of a mother, father, five daughters, and two sons. The sons are twelve and fourteen, and all of the daughters are older. The six women form an efficient, happy group of field workers. Last year they gave to the production of cotton two months of labor from the mother, three months from one daughter, and six months from each of the other four. The mother worked an eight-hour day for one month of chopping and one month of picking. Since she can pick only 100 pounds a day, as compared with the younger daughters' 225, 250, 259, and 300 pounds, it is economically wise to relieve the mother and allow the girls to concentrate on field work. The oldest daughter achieves only 150 pounds a day, and she also is relieved from picking save for one month. The girls work always a longer day The University of Texas than the mother. The value of the labor of the group at the assumed market prices given above is $1,239.00, or an average of $206.34 for each. For their labor there is no definite return considered. They have good, but not remarkable, living conditions. They have no modern con­veniences for housekeeping. They draw water by hand and carry it about a hundred yards. They all go to church once a week, and the daughters also attend the picture show once a week. They spend more time than is usual in reading and have the daily paper and two farm magazines with a library of seven books. Their great recreation is music. The five girls form a quintette which is well known in the surrounding country, and they have sung over the radio at the broadcasting station in the nearest town. They do little preserving of food, but they have plentiful supplies of milk, butter, and eggs. They buy a large number of clothes ready made, though they buy no canned food. The nine people live in a house of four rooms with two screened porches and a yard pretty with flowers and shrubs. They are tenants who have been living on the place for seven years. The mother was born in Sweden. Group III includes a mother and three daughters. The mother has borne twelve children, the youngest of whom is not twelve years of age. The mother picked cotton for two months. Since she is a rather good picker, the result was five bales. The daughters worked two, seven, and one-half months. They picked twenty-three bales. Calculated at the assumed rates, their labor last year was worth $736.65. The living conditions were in the main the same as those in the other group. These people had a telephone and water piped, but they did not have the music and the picture shows. They also were tenants. The mother was born in Switzerland. Group IV is a mother and two daughters. Each works six months in the year. After two months the mother finishes the home crop, and the girls are "hired out" by their father who receives all their wages. They have con­siderable income from cream and eggs, and the living condi­tions di ffer little from those of the two preceding groups. Group V consists of a mother, a daughter aged eighteen, a daughter-in-law aged twenty-seven, and another daugh­ter aged thirteen. The mother, a widow living with her son who is a tenant, does no field work. The oldest girls are married. One is separated from her husband and has a year-and-a-half old baby. She works five months for the family without pay and then one month for hire, for which she does not collect her own pay. The other, the mother of two children five and seven years old, works six months in the field for the family. She plows for one and a half months, half of the time with a walking plow. Housework is done for ten people. All the usual food products, save pos­sibly some canned goods, are produced at home; and some­thing more than a hundred dollars is added to the farm in­come from home production. What can be said of these groups? They raise again the question raised by the woman who had a helper more than fifteen years of age, either in the field or in the house. Granting that one woman may earn her living by non-field work, is there enough of this kind of service to enable another woman to earn her living in this way? If the mother is rearing a large family, it is probable that the services of another woman can be utilized profitably in the home, but certainly no more than one extra woman would be needed. It is desirable from more than the economic angle that a third woman shall do consistent work in the field if she remains at home. She could not remain idle, and the work in the field is no more difficult under the usual conditions than other work she might do. In addition, where there is a group of girls, the loneliness often con­nected with work on the farm is obviated. Not among these groups is found the weary, repressed woman of the South­ern farms who has become almost traditional. Work in such groups is divided among so many persons that the strain for any one is not great. The Uuil'ersity of Texas It is presun1ably established that the labor given to crop production is, for the number of women whose labor is necessary to keep the home, a donatiqn more or less willing­ly given. But for these groups of women, another question arises. Here is a sufficient number of women to keep the home and living conditions from suffering, and all the advantages of group living in the furnishing of material needs are obtained. Here also is the solution of the problem of loneliness and unrest among the laborers. The problem 'vhich they raise, then, is of another kind. What effect does production by such a group have upon the entire field of production? The ultimate query is: How does the labor of these women affect the price of cotton? True, the female members of the family do not carry on the entire process of production, but, as mentioned be­fore, the limitation upon the amount of cotton which can be produced is the amount which can be picked. ''The area devoted to cotton on a given farm will be limited by the amount of labor available to do the chopping and picking."1 The girls in Group III, for example, en.able the family to produce a comparatively large amount oi cotton with a labor cost which is a living for the women, really for no more than five of them, or it may be four. It can scarcely be said with a fair c'nance of supporting the contention that the cost of producing cotton on this farm is the result of exploitation of labor. The cause lies probably in two other closely related factors; first, the size of the group and, second, a comparatively high efficiency in carrying on the labor involved. The group is large enough to provide women to keep house and keep it well. Notice that tw·o 'vomen are freed from half of the field 'vork done by the other members of the group. The indi­viduals are ·well fed; the meals are regular and well served, even the mid-n1orning lunch. The home is clean and well organized. The girls are well satisfied \vith conditions of "'"ork and living. As a result, they are the most efficient group of 'vorkers found in this survey, for nowhere else 7U. S. Dept. of Agriculture Bull. 896, p. 15. was there a group which could pick so much cotton as these girls. The size of the group is not, of course, determining, for the largest groups commented upon in this study include some of the poorest workers and have the most miserable living conditions. There are not in any other group, save one, so many adult women, and in the other case they are only a little less efficient. But in the second similar case the women are older, some being in their thirties; and as a rule the ability of women to do field work t-ends to decrease after they have passed their first youth. This fact, however, is to be noted: While the present group comprises a tenant family and is just becoming prosperous, the other comprises a landowning family which is compara­tively well-to-do. We shall not say prosperous; for the human cost, in terms of denial of opportunity to the women and repression of ambiton, must have been and must be great. But groups little less efficient than these are not unusual; for where there are two or more adult women in the family and the standard of living is kept up, there will be only slight differences in efficiency. That such groups are by no means unusual may be deduced from the number of such groups considered here. In the groups covered by this survey there are two families of six women, five daughters who work several months in the field ; two of five women; and five of four women, all of whom are field workers. There are twelve families with three grown women, two of whom work in the field consistently. In addition, there are forty­seven women in families where there is another woman who does no field work. In none of these families is there pro­vision made for paying for the work of the women. It is a conservative estimate that one of the families of six daughters, first mentioned, put on the market approxi­mately sixty bales of cotton. And they demand little, very little, in return. Roughly, a tenth of these women live in such groups. What is their effect upon the production of cotton? To what level might the price of cotton sink before The University of Texas a farm like the one discussed would be forced out of busi­ness? The labor cost can be forced down, by lowering the women's standard of living, until cotton can be raised by such groups at a very low labor cost. Labor which works for hire in the producton of the crop must meet these wages, or there will be no cotton to pick. The only way in which the low-wage condition can be met is by some method of group living such at that discussed here. The result is that the labor of the cotton crop is group labor; or, where it is individual labor, it is single, drifting male labor, though usually members of this latter class attach them­selves to a group. But the standard of living of migrant laborers must be immeasurably lower than that of the fixed family, for following the patrin of the cotton casual is in itself expensive. To meet the competition of such groups of workers as those discussed here the farmers not so fortunate as to labor supply must pay for labor as little as possible in actual money. The wages of women workers for their families are paid largely in goods and services from other sections of the farm unit. The food of the workers is pro­vided to a large extent from the milk, butter, and eggs furnished by one or more of the women who furnish also laundry and household service. The individual who suffers most in the situation is the woman in the family containing a single female who works in the field, for she must produce goods and services to pay her own living and that of other members of her family. For this she receives nothing. Then, having paid her own wages, she goes out and pro­duces cotton. She gives her family, and through its mem­bers the social group, these home services in order that she may have the privilege of working for four months of the year in the cotton crop. The living of the family may not suffer, but it usually does, for it must be remembered that the greatest subsidies given to industry come from human lives. As the number of women in the family increases, the necessity for the woman to subsidize herself grows less, and the production of cotton per unit of cost rises, or the cost of the pound of cotton falls. How then shall we estimate the cost of production of cotton? The greatest cost under present conditions of farm­ing is labor cost, but it is not a cost of individual laborers. The cotton farm is organized about the conception of the household as an economic unit and the family as a produc­ing unit. This may be the ideal unit and the ideal method of production. Regarding this, it is of no benefit to argue. Whatever its value, it is out of line with modern industrial development. For such a system to be socially sound, it must be practically universal. If not, the competition of the labor working in the family unit will force down the wages of other labor, and the effect will be felt not only in farm labor but in unskilled labor in all lines. The by no means unusual occurrence of such families as those con­sidered above-in this study they are one out of ten families -enables them to have an important effect upon the condi­tions under which cotton must be produced; for they form a large marginal group, and their product is a large propor­tion of the total product. The result is twofold. All families not so fortunate as to size and efficiency of labor must force down their standard of living. It is the family which has both elements that is able to survive the pressure with a "decency standard." For such a family there is an individ­ual solution, but it is not a social solution. Failure to recog­nize this fact has led to an insistence upon members alone, resulting in the comparatively large families of the tenant cotton farmer. It is probable that unless the children are strong and healthy and the mother can keep her vitality through twelve to fifteen years of childbearing, the small family is more prosperous. The cotton farm, then, is organized on the principle and theory of the household system of industry. But the twen­tieth century is a century of machines, of individual in­comes, of individual production, of the almost completed passing of production from the home to the factory. It avails not to sing of the beauties of family life, of groups The University of Texas living and working together. Such beauties, if there are any, exist at great cost to those who cannot meet the require­ments of that system and who are helpless before the pres­sure of a factory age. It is by individuals from groups such as these who are drawn into twentieth century industry without the necessary adjustment, that the slums of the city are filled, that prostitution takes its toll, and that the standard of living of the factory worker is driven down. Why not organize the farm definitely upon the recogni­tion of the family unit as a solution of the "farm problem"? There are several reasons. First, the farm has already entered the machine system to an extent which for bids the use of the very small unit, small enough say for the family of five to work efficiently. Already, the other processes in cotton culture have gone far beyond picking and chopping. With the advent of the mechanical cotton picker, and its shadow already appears, the family group will lose its economic significance. It may be that in a system of large scale production a family unit may keep its foothold, but if so, the stars in their courses must fight for it; and the stars in the shape of protective tariffs, general property tax systems, and closely knit organizations of middlemen seem not especially propitious. Further, a widespread organization of small group units would require an icono­clastic change in our system and theory of landownership. Suffice it to say that such a change seems hardly imminent. A second force pressing insistently upon the family unit system is within the family itself. The young women in the system are deprived of many things that young women are demanding today. Most of them do not understand the meaning of "economic independence" ; but to even the most removed has come an echo, faint though it be, from the · thousands of girls who are "making their own money and spending it." There is, contrary to popular belief, no premium on "dumbness" on the farm. The brightest and most energetic of these girls, the best cotton pickers and those who are not afraid of defying conventions enough to plow and cultivate, are going from the farm in this generation. In another generation the exodus will probably be complete, and the most fertile source of home labor will be gone. The only thing that can hold the girls is to pay wages not only as high as they can get in town, but enough higher to offset other advantages which they might gain by moving. In order to do this, the production of cotton would undergo an economic adjustment, and the entire face of a civilization would be changed. Many fewer laborers will be necessary to produce the amount of cotton required to satisfy the market. The third reason why cotton production cannot safely remain a family industry is its inability to produce a value per capita equivalent to that of a machine industry. Conse­quently, the return per producing individual will be small, and the command of those individuals over the goods pro­duced by industries having a larger per capita production value will be small. On the other hand, the demand of producers in other industries for their product will be comparatively large. This leads to an insistence upon a larger amount of product from the hand industry unless it can be made a luxury or at least a semi-luxury good. The first requisite of such a good is scarcity, and this can be accomplished only by limiting production. In an industry requiring skill the luxury route is not only possible but is almost a certainty. In an industry in which skill and train­ing are negligible assets it is impossible to build up a luxury cult. The only way out is by way of increased production per laborer. More cotton per laborer must be produced and not more cotton per dollar of expense. Counting $800.00 as a living for an individual, she must produce at 18 cents a pound approximately nine bales of cotton per year to have a decency standard of living. Under present methods of production this is impossible. Furthermore, such families as those discussed can stay with the ship a long time before they desert and still keep a fairly good standard of living. From another angle the work of these women and girls is of great importance. From the viewpoint of the wage earning group especially, the labor of every one who works The University of Texas without a wage is important. That these workers shall leave the farm and so decrease the amount of cotton pro­duced is highly desirable, but they can do so only if they can find in town industry jobs which will pay them board and keep. Accustomed as some are to being "hired out" by members of their families, unaccustomed as almost all are to considering their work in terms of market value, how will they fare in making a wage bargain with employers who insist upon the worker's right to sell her labor under a free contract? How will other workers fare in competi­tion with them? In regard to the women who do field work for their families, certain conclusions seem justified: 1. Unmarried women living at home will with few excep­tions do field work for their families. 2. Married women work in the fields largely as the result of poverty, as indicated by a large percentage in the fam­ilies of tenants. 3. The larger percentage of unmarried girls is found among the families of owners, indicating that the force tending to keep a girl at home is a comparatively good standard of living. 4. The refusal on the part of these girls to do unpaid field labor would probably force many farms to stop produc­ing cotton, which is a consummation devoutly to be wished. 5. The burden of the mother who has no one to help her with the housework and yet works in the field is very heavy, more so probably than the double burden of the industrial worker. 6. Families having two or more adult women are in a very favorable situation with regard to labor costs in the production of cotton. 7. Groups like those mentioned in Paragraph 5 are sig­nificant because of their effect upon the wages of labor on the cotton farm and, through them, upon the wages of all unskilled labor. 8. The unmarried girl who stays at home is likely to do some work for hire, as indicated by the small percentage in this group as compared to the percentage among the hired workers. CHAPTER VI THE NEGRO WOMAN JN DEALING with the colored women who are now to be considered, two large groups must be examined; first, the women who live on the farm and do their work on the farm and, second, the women who live in town but do farm work for hire for longer or shorter periods in the year. The two groups will be dealt with separately. In the first class are 207 colored women, and it is from them we shall get our information concerning the living conditions of the colored farm woman. Some comparisons with the white women will be made; but the comparative analysis will, in general, be left until the Mexican group has also been considered. With regard to marital conditions, the group is com­posed of 14.0 per cent widows, 30.0 per cent unmarried, and 56.0 per cent married women. The percentage of unmar­ried women seems surprisingly large, but more than half of them are young; that is, not more than twenty years of age, while only seven are more than thirty. Of the seven, four are members of a family of eight men and women, all forty and over, who, with the exception of one sister, have eschewed the bonds of matrimony and live together. "Mar­ryin' wan't our part," the woman informed the visitor sev­eral times. With relation to tenure, the group is composed of 9.8 per cent laborers, 14.0 per cent owners, and 76.2 per cent ten­ants. A much larger proportion of this tenant group than of the white group is of the "cropper" class. The proportion of tenants itself is about a fourth as large again as the pro­portion in the white group. The figures for the number of widows require some com­ment. Real widows seem rather rare among colored women, but there is a comparatively large number of deserted wives. It is, of course, a matter of common remark that even the deserted ones seldom stay deserted if they are not attached to large families of children. Deserted wives with large families are pathetic figures in the Negro population, and they make a courageous fight for economic balance. Many of them are "better off" without their husbands, but the entire mental attitude of the Negro woman is to believe in the necessity for having a man somewhere in the offing. In addition to these deserted wives, the term "widow" includes all unmarried mothers, some of whom have had as many as four children. Thi is one of the best Negro tenant farm homes. The '=ame family has lived in this place for a number of years. TABLE XXXII Tr. l 'HE ·o MARIT L T Tl F 207 E R FARl\1 w ME TR L TEXA 11·11111 Total Mani •d Widow um­ p ·r 'um­ p r 1um­ 1um­ p r b •r •nt bN t•nt her b C' r C' nt T tal ------------------­ 207 100.0 116 56.l 62 30.0 29 14.0 wn r T nant --------------------­29 ________________________ l 58 13.8 76.4 10 90 4.8 43.5 10 50 .8 24.2 9 18 4.2 8.4 Labor r -----------------------­ 20 9.8 16 7.8 2 1.0 2 1.0 The bitterness expressed by some of these women toward men as a class and toward a system which allows them to suffer as they do is startling, as is also the cynicism of the younger women toward men and marriage. Many of the The University of Texas younger women are learning from their mothers' expe­riences and are developing interesting attitudes of inde­pendence. They do no hired labor unless they are allowed to keep their own money, though it seems to have occurred to few to make a demand for a share in the family income. Al­most universal dissatisfaction at the existing monopoly of control of the family income is freely expressed, and the same discontent is found also in a growing spirit of opposi­tion to the waste of the family income through the romantic meanderings of their husbands. The Negro man who lives in a family with several women will sometimes control the income of the entire group. One such instance was a young Negro man married to one of four sisters, all of whom lived in the house and worked together in the field. A query as to whether he did not find himself rather lonely with so many women brought the answer, "No, I likes it." It later developed that each of the women worked regularly in the field, but not one collected her money or spent it. Further instances of the same condition may be cited. One is the woman more than sixty years old who said she did not know until the last two or three years that she did not have to let her husband beat her and spend all their money on other women. Another is the woman who owned a farm and did all the work herself. Her husband came out every Saturday night from town, where he ran a blacksmith shop, and appropriated all the money she had taken in during the week. She had already tried three husbands, and her atti­tude suggested that she would soon be ready to try a fourth. Such situations are bad, bad for the women but worse for the men. Under such a system men can only be at best lazy and selfish and at worst idle and vicious. The burden of the Negro mothers in the bearing of chil­ dren is heavy compared to that of the white women. Twenty-five of these women, or 17.0 per cent, have fami­ lies of ten or more children. Children among the colored farm group are, if they are to any group, an economic asset. Many of them work in the cotton patch almost from infancy. Two or three mothers visited in the fields had each a child of six years trudging beside her and picking his ''hundred TABLE XXXIII NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND OF CHILDREN UNDER 15 OF 145 NEGRO FARM WOMEN OF CENTRAL TEXAS Number of Children Number of Women Reporting Total Children Children Under 15 Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Total ---------------------------------------------­ 145 100.0 145 100.0 0 --------------------------------------------­ 17 11.6 56 38.6 1 --------------------------------------------------­ 24 16.6 28 19.3 2 --------------------------------------------­ 18 12.3 19 13.1 3 -------------------------------------------­ 16 11.0 10 6.9 4 ----------------------------------------------------------­ 13 9.0 10 6.9 5 ------------------------------------­---------------------­ 10 6.9 9 6.2 6 --------------------------------------------------------­ 6 4.1 6 4.1 7 -------------------------------------------------------­---­ 3 2.1 2 1.4 8 --------------------------------------------­-----------------­ 4 2.8 2 1.4 9 ----------------------------·---------------------------------­ 9 6.2 0 10 -------------------­------------------------­-------------------­ 4 2.8 2 1.4 11 ----------------------------------------------------------­ 4 2.8 0 12 ------------------------------------------­---------------­ 4 2.8 0 13 -------------------------------------------------------------­ 6 4.1 I 0.7 14. -----------------------------------------------------------­ 3 2.1 0 15 -----------------------------------------------------------­ 3 2.1 0 19 -------------------------------------------------­ I 0.7 every day," as the mother proudly informed us. However, the question may be asked, as it was bef ore--economic as­sets to whom? In regard to the size of families there is much contention among the Negroes. The younger women are frankly impatient of the standards which demand the bearing of large numbers of children, but many of the older ones are vituperatively bitter against the "no countness" and the "sinfulness" of the younger people. Among the white women who do not use methods of contraconception, there may be grave questioning as to the wisdom and the rightness of restriction in the size of families, but most of them seem to be open minded on the subject. The older Negro, though, is a "die hard" when it comes to woman's duty. Woman after woman considered a sufficiently con­demning answer the simple query, "What else did the Lord put women here for?" Unquestionably, the ignorance of proper methods of limitation of families is doing great dam­age to the health of Negro women, though it is impossible to secure statistical information on such a subject. Unques­tionably, also, the bitterness against any attempts at re­striction is due to the methods used. A short conversation The University of Texas reveals the fact that to most of the women, abortion and limitation are synonymous. During periods of confinement, midwives are much more commonly used than among the white women. Fifty-five per cent used midwives at each confinement, and 11.0 per cent more used midwives at some of their confinements. All gave the comparative cost of doctor and midwife as the reason for using the women attendants. One woman gave the cost of four successive confinements. For two, she had doctors costing $45 and $75, respectively; for the other two, she had midwives costing $5 and $7.50. Such figures were given again and again. Many women had reared large families and had "never had a doctor in the house." The "woman" waits on other patients than those in confinement, especially children. One midwife talked to had quite a prac­tice, even among the white children in the vicinity.1 The amount of work done is indicated by the numbers in the households. Three of the women did no housework at all. Of the remaining, six did the work for groups as large as nineteen persons. A little more than one-fifth did work for groups of ten or more. A glance at the size of the groups will indicate the conclusion that individual families are not the rule among the colored group. The household generally consists of related families. In one instance there were two sisters with their husbands and one child and the mother and grandmother of the women, a household of seven. Another household consisted of the mother, two grown daughters, and three sons with the wives and chil­dren of two of them-nineteen in all. The family connec­tion of the Negro seems to be much more permanent than that of the white person; and the reason is undoubtedly that the larger the number of hands, the better able they are to carry on the farm activities. But the size of the household does not mean necessarily that the Negro woman has a heavy housekeeping burden. As suggested by the 11f the Negro gave a truthful statement, she was called in by the white families living in the community to treat serious sickness among children, such as pneumonia and diphtheria. composition of the households mentioned, not often does a single woman have the work to do for a large group. Less than a third have no other woman to help with the house­work, while 6.0 per cent have as many as five women in the household. TABLE XXXIV NUMBER OF PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLDS OF 207 NEGRO FARM WOMEN OF CENTRAL TEXAS Namber in Boaeehold Women Reporting Number Per Cent Total ----------------------------------------207 100.0 1 ------------------------------------------------------------I 0.5 2 ----------------------------------------17 8.2 3 -------------------------------------21 IO.I 4 ---------------------------16 7.6 5 --------------------------------------------21 10.1 6 --------------------23 11.1 7 -----------------------------------------------20 9.7 8 ----------------------------------------------------25 12.1 9 -------------------------------------------------------18 9.2 10 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------10 4.8 11 ----------------------------------------------------------------8 4.0 12 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------17 8.0 13 -----------------------------------------------------------4 1.8 19 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------6 2.8 As will appear in the discussion of the field workers, it is not customary among the Negroes, as is commonly done among the whites, to relieve one woman to do the house­work and leave the others free to do field work. It seems to be a matter of all hands doing all things. Little extra­routine housework is done; only 21.0 per cent do any pre­serving of food, and only 4.0 per cent put up as much as fifty quarts. Forty per cent make no garden. Twenty per cent raise no chickens, and only 18.0 per cent raise a flock of more than fifty. Twenty-nine per cent raise turkeys. Sixty-two per cent make no quilts, and 75.0 per cent make no soap. The size of the physical plant in which housekeeping was done is of significance, but here there must be considerable caution in accepting any figures. There is a distinct diffi­culty in view of the fact that many large houses are seldom fully used. Old homesteads which have in their day been the center of family and social life for large groups have TABLE XXXV NUMBER OF WOMEN IN HOUSEHOLDS OF NEGRO FARM WOMEN IN CENTRAL TEXAS Number of Females in Household Number of Women Reportln1 Number Per Cent Total ----------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 207 100.0 1 ----------------------------­-----------­-----------------------­--­-------------------­ 64 30.9 2 66 31.7 3 24 11.1 4 25 12.8 5 16 7.7 6 12 5.8 This barrel is the water supply connected with a house of two rooms. Such reservoirs appear constantly around the homes of the "cotton croppers". In this case the two rooms were occupied by fifteen Mexicans, ten adults. now descended in their estate to house tenant farmers and are falling into disrepair. Some parts of the house are unfit for use, or some rooms are used for storing seed and feed-stuff. Often again, there is not furniture for so many rooms, and they are left vacant. Shall they be included in the number of rooms available? They will not, of course, At the right i shown a typ­ical t nant farm home of two room . Negro, Mexican, or v n Am rican children may b p ping from the door. be among the number kept. Empty rooms do in nice weather give an opportunity for the family to spread out. The difficulty of the situation is even greater among the Mexi­cans, for they have been more heavily endowed with desert­ed homesteads for their place of habitation. Quite often the house, in spite of good size or even nice appearance, is like the one described by the woman who dwelt there as in "bad shape; it leaks outside and rains in the house." The lack of window lights is almost universal, and even door panels are not always in their places. Sixteen per cent of these women have more than one room per person. Thirty-six per cent have one-half a room or less per person. Only twenty-two women, however, live in what is considered the typical Negro tenant house, a small house of two rooms. The methods of doing housework are of the simplest. A single woman reports having a washing machine. She was 182 The University of Texas left twelve years ago with eleven small children to bring up and had secured the money for accomplishing her task by doing farm labor and taking in washing. She had a wash­ing machine, run by a small gasoline pump, which repre­sented an outlay of $207.00, even though there was an evi­dent lack of clothes and many times a shortage of food. She said that she was determined to have a washing machine, even if "the children do have to do without." Now she has more strength to do field work. TABLE XXXVI METHOD OF DOING HousEWORK Usw BY 207 NEGRO FARM WOMEN OF CENTRAL TEXAS Total (Wood) (Oil) (None) (No Data) Num· Per Num· Per Num· Per Num.. Per her Cent her Cent ber Cent ber Cent Cooking ___207 203 98..0 4 2.0 (Kerosene) (Gas) Light ~----207 205 99.0 2 1.0 (Flat) (Gasoline) Ironing ___2.07 201 97.0 2 1.0 4 2.0 (Pot) (Machine) Washing ___207 180 87.0 I 0.5 24 11.5 2 1.0 Very little effort is made to have a water supply at hand, or even reasonably convenient. Only one woman had water piped into the house, and forty-three, or 21.0 per cent, hauled their water from creek, mud tank, or well. But these figures, or any figures, tell nothing as to actual con­ditions, as has been suggested again and again. Two Negro families had dug a hole by the side of the road in a creek bottom in order that the water might seep up. The hole was distant from one house something less than a mile, over a creek and up a steep hill, while it was considerably more than a mile from the other house. In the first instance the water was carried and in the second, hauled. Carrying water in a bucket for a quarter of a mile across level land is much easier than carrying it for 200 yards across .. ploughed fields and up and down hills. In one case water had to be carried up a creek bank which was almost per­pendicular, after being drawn hand over hand from a well almost in the bed of the creek. Many of the women used Labor of Women in the Production of Cotton 183 small tin buckets to carry water; and there must be very little water drunk in many households, much less used for cleanliness. The task of washing is sometimes relieved by taking the clothes to the water instead of bringing the water to the clothes. Seventy-four women, 34.0 per cent, had no sewing machine in the house, though many of these had nearby relatives whose machines were open for their use. Thirty-one of these women, about one-seventh of the num­ber, produce an income from production in the home; that is, from milk, butter, and eggs. But seventeen of them sold products amounting to less than $25.00. Seven of the re­maining sold products amounting to less than $50.00 ; that is, only seven of the group sold home products amounting to as much as $50.00. Four of this last group sold products amounting to more than $100.00, while one of them sold products amounting to $200.00 or more, and one woman sold butter and eggs amounting to more than $400.00. In­teresting enough, not one of the incomes of more than $50.00, as will be pointed out later, was reported by a woman who did not do field work. The woman who reported an income of more than $400.00 worked seven months in the field. TABLE XXXVII TELEPHONES, RADIOS, AUTOMOBILES, AND DAILY PAPERS REPORTED BY 207 NEGRO WOMEN OF FARMS OF CENTRAL TEXAS Number Reporting Total Yes No Num-Per Num-Per Num-Per her Cent her Cent her Cent Telephone 207 100.0 2 1.0 205 99.0 Radio 207 100.0 0 207 100.0 Automobile 207 100.0 112 53.8 95 46.2 Daily Paper ----------------... ---·------207 100.0 6 3.0 201 97.0 The means of contact with the outside world are by no means universally or even commonly found among the Negro population. The most common means of outside con­tact is, as to be expected, the automobile. The car is quite often of unknown genre and very untrustworthy, but it does furnish a means of getting to town on Saturday afternoon. The University of Texas Some of those not owning cars of their own have relatives or neighbors who take them to town. Very seldom are they willing to use horse drawn vehicles, for they are afraid to go in buggies with so many cars about, and a wagon is too slow. It may be assumed that the woman who did not have a car had no method of going a distance further than she could walk except upon invitation from someone outside the family. When she lived in a community of colored people, she was usually within walking distance of the church, schoolhouse, and lodge house. If she lived in a community of white or Mexican people, she was very much isolated from outside contacts, especially if she lived "off the road." The Negroes' means of recreation are in general those of the white women. The woman's club, in the shape of orders and associations, takes some part in her life, prob­ably a larger part than that indicated by the figures. Her phraseology was not that of the interviewer, and unless the correct term was used she answered in the negative. So it was she denied attending a club when she attended an "order" meeting or a "sassiety"; and unless the entire gamut was run, correct information was difficult to get. The popular orders are the "Daughters of Hur" and the "Her­oines." Only five of the women reported attending a club meeting during the year. Many belonged to a Burial Asso­ciation, but it had no meeting. None belonged to a Home Demonstration Club, as might be expected, since there are no colored home demonstration agents in these counties. The attendance on church was more regular. Ninety-one per cent attended church service during the year, and 28.0 per cent attended regularly at least once a week. From such close connection with church life, it would not be ex­pected that attendance at either parties or shows would be great; and only one-twentieth of the women attended either of these forms of entertainment during the year. In face of the common opinion that the Negro is a pleasure loving individual, the contempt expressed by many of the women for parties and all social life is rather unexpected. Neither they nor their daughters attended "such things." Many of Labor of Women in the Product.ion of Cotton 185 the daughters expressed their dislike for social gatherings because they were "too rough." The church and church society gatherings seem to fill the lives of a majority of the women, both young and old. The B.Y.P.U. and the Woman's Society are those most commonly attended. While this con­dition is true for the Negro woman, she seems not to ques­tion the privilege of her husband to indulge in more worldly pleasures. The calmness with which she, especially if be­longing to the older group, accepts the vagaries of the hus­band who leaves her at home with the children is in striking contrast to the attitude of white women who have drawn in with the air of the twentieth century a rebellion against the double standard of morals. On the other hand, the Negro woman, when roused by her personal wrongs, shows an individual and sex hatred which does not appear among the white women. These observations are not, of course, based on exact information but are simply to be taken as an interpretation of some observed social factors. Recreation through reading was not commonly available, even if the women could avail themselves of the opportunity. One hundred and forty had no books, and only two had a collection of more than fifty. None drew books from a library. So far as known, there is no public library for colored people in the entire district. Sixty-one, or 29.0 per cent, owned no Bible. It has already been stated that only six women reported a daily paper, and only one of these had any other periodical literature. Forty-seven subscribed for magazines of some sort; the periodicals were the same as those of the white women. Periodicals of racial conflict have left this group of farm women untouched. Seventy­four per cent subscribed for neither daily paper nor maga­zine, while about 8.0 per cent subscribed for more than one magazine. There was observable a decided reluctance on the part of many women to tell how little reading material there was in the home, and it unquestionably represents a wider hori­zon when a woman realizes that a home which has no books falls short of the ideal. One woman insisted that she liked The University of Texas to read and did read a great deal. Being questioned as to what she read she glanced around for inspiration, and her eyes fell upon a battered book reposing in lone grandeur on the table. "I reads the dictionary more than anything else," was the immediate response. In spite of the Negro's commonly accepted love of music, only 27.0 per cent had a musical instrument in the house. The colored women of the farm dwelling group are di­vided into the same groups as were the white women on the basis of the kind of work done; that is, they are either field workers or non-field workers. The total number of 207 women is composed of twenty-eight non-field workers, 18.0 per cent, and 179 field workers, 87 .0 per cent. TABLE XXXVIII TENURE AND MARITAL STATUS OF 28 NEGRO NON-FIELD WORKING WOMEN OF CENTRAL TEXAS Tenure Class Total Married Unmarried Widow• Num- Per Num· Per Num- Per Num- Per her Cent her Cent her Cent her Cent Total ----------------­ 28 100.0 16 57.4 3 10.6 9 32.2 Owner -----------------­ 10 36.0 3 10.7 2 7.2 5 18.0 Tenant -----------­ 16 57.6 11 39.5 I 3.4 4 14.2 Laborer -------------­ 2 6.4 2 72. 0 0 We will first consider the non-field workers, twenty-eight in number. Of these, twelve are more than fifty years of age. They have been as "good as anybody" in their day but are now "too old." They are, in the main, relegated to keeping house for groups of five people or more, and one keeps house for nineteen people. The presence of these older women means a great relief to the younger mothers who do field work. One of the unmarried owners is not really a non-field worker, for she works or "putters" all the time; but she has "poor understanding" and could never really learn to work. There is no classification to which she properly belongs. Of the sixteen married women, all have done their share in adding to the world's population. Not one has no children; and of the four reporting only one, two have babies less than six months old. The largest family found in any group was reported by the mother of nineteen children. Eleven of these women have nine or more chil­dren. The largest group under fifteen years of age was also reported by a woman of this number. She has ten. It seems hardly necessary to point out that as a bearer of chil­dren the Negro non-field worker far surpasses the whites who were covered in this survey. TABLE XXXIX NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND OF CHILDREN UNDER 15 OF 25 NON-FIELD WORKING NEGRO FARM WOMEN OF CENTRAL TEXAS Number of Children Number of Women Reporting Total Children Children Under 15 \'umber Per Cent Number Per Cent Total -----------------------------------------------25 I 00.0 25 100.0 0 ----------------------------------------------------------0 13 52.0 I ------------------------------------------------------------4 16.0 5 20.0 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------I 4.0 0 3 ------------------------------------------------------------I 4.0 0 I 4.0 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------4 16.0 I 4.0 5 ----------------------------------------------------------------3 12.0 6 ----------··-------------------------------------------------------I 4.0 I 4.0 I 4.0 7 ----------------------------------------------------------------­ I 4.0 & -------------------------------------------------------------­ 0 9 -------------------------------------------------------------------2 8.0 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------I 4.0 2 8.0 11 -----------------------------------------------------------------2 8.0 12 ----------------------------------------------------· ------------2 8.0 13 ---------------------------------· ----------------------------· --2 8.0 14 -------------------------------------------------------_________ I 4.0 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------I 4.0 As a housekeeper, the non-field worker cares for rather large groups. Fifteen keep house for six or more, and six keep house for ten or more. Eleven take care of one cow; four care for two cows ; and one, for three. Only eight women preserve or can food, and only two "put up" an amount greater than fifty quarts. Three women raise no chickens, and only two raise a flock as large as 100. Twelve raise flocks of turkeys, two having more than fifty. Twenty make a garden regularly. Four make soap, and eleven make quilts for their household use. The home production here reported is so much less than that done by non-field working white women that detailed comparison would be of no value. The University of Texas Only six of these women brought in a money income by home production. Three brought in less than $10.00 and no one as much as $50.00 in the year. Again there is simply nothing to be gained by detailed comparison with the white group. There are probably several reasons for the great difference. The larger percentage of tenants, more espe­cially "croppers," puts a large proportion of the women in a group where they are not able to carry on home produc­tion. In many cases the terms of tenure forbid; and, in other cases, the need for cotton to pay the bills and "come out" calls all individuals to the field. The rearing of large families in short periods of time makes the women con­stantly listless and half-sick. Finally, and probably most important, the Negro women are not by tradition or train­ing housekeepers, certainly not those who live on the farms. The mothers and grandmothers were field hands in "slavery days;" and if a girl does not learn the secrets of housekeep­ing from her mother, where will she learn them? The source of information on how to keep house is the "white folks," and the Negro farm women have not lived in the white folks' homes. Many of the older women express their utter ignorance of any housekeeping processes. What house­work they do, and it is only such as is absolutely necessary, is done poorly. So far, government education of farm women has not touched the Negroes of this section. We would not wish to leave the impression that none of the Negro women visited were good housewives in the ac­cepted sense of the term. Some of the best homes visited were kept by Negro women ; some of the nicest sewing and some of the best canned goods seen were shown by Negroes; but they were the exception. We simply wish to state that it is our impression that the Negro woman on the farm is not primarily or generally a housekeeper either actually or theoretically. Of the colored women covered in the survey, 179, or 87.0 per cent, belong in the classification of field workers, as al­ready defined. According to tenure and marital status these workers were divided as follows: TABLE XL TENURE AND MARITAL STATUS OF NEGRO FARM WOMEN OF CENTRAL TEXAS WHo Do FIELD WoRK Tenure Cla11 Marital Status Total Married Unmarried Widows• Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per Num- Per Total her __________l 79 Cent 100.0 her 99 Cent 55.1 her 59 Cent 33.5 her 21 Cent 12.4 Owner ---­19Tenant ____142 10.6 79.3 7 78 3.9 43.4 8 49 4.5 27.9 4 15 2.2 9.0 Laborer ----18 10.1 14 7.8 2 1.1 2 1.2 *Includes all separated from husbands, and unmarried mothers. The number of children who have been borne by these women, as well as the present responsibilities for children, are summarized in the accompanying table. TABLE XLI NUMBER OF CHW>REN UNDER 15 OF 120 NEGRO FARM WOMEN OF CENTRAL TExAs WHo Do FIELD WoaK Number of Children Women Reporting Total Children Children Under 15 Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Total --------------------------------120 100.0 120 100.0 0 ------------------------------------------------17 14.2 43 35.7 1 --------------------------------------------------------20 16.8 23 19.1 2 ------------------------------------------------------------17 14.2 19 15.9 3 ------------------------------------------------------------15 12.5 10 8.4 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------9 7.6 9 7.6 5 ----------------------------------------------------------7 5.9 8 6.8 6 --------------------· -------------------------------------------5 4.1 5 4.1 7 --------------------------------------------------------------3 2.6 1 .8 8 --------------------------------------------------------------4 3.4 I .8 9 -----------------------------------------------------------7 5.1 10 ---------------------------------------------------------3 2.6 11 -----------------------------------------------------------2 I.7 12 ----------------------------------------------------------------2 1.7 13 -----------------------------------------------------4 3.3 I .8 14 ------------------------------------------------------------------2 1.7 15 --------------------------------------------------------------3 2.6 The difficulties of determining any facts with regard to the family relationships of the Negro may affect the figures in regard to children. Quite often there seems little rela­tionship between the number of children born and the pres­ent responsibilities. Younger Negroes who remarry often give their children to the parents to be cared for. The re­peated attempts made by both men and women to secure a The University of Texas satisfactory marriage relationship leads to considerable mixing of families. Women who have never borne children are rearing large families much more commonly than among the whites. Adoption of children seems to be more prev­alent among Negroes than among whites of the same class. This may be due to less social protection for the Negro orphan, or it may be due to more general recognition of the place of the child as a worker and a weaker feeling of responsibility for training. The hours of work reported by Negro women field work­ers are more standardized than those of the American white women. There are no working days longer than ten hours reported by any Negro, while a number of American women, as pointed out, worked twelve and even fourteen hours a day. It is interesting to speculate as to whether the dif­ference is a real one, or whether the American subcon­sciously attempts to magnify the hardness of her lot. Th& Negro woman accepts much more as a matter of fact the necessity for working as a field hand and will consequently have less disposition to color the facts, but it is probable that some Americans do work longer hours in the field than any Negro is likely to work. The white women are very am­bitious to improve their own condition and that of their families, while the Negro woman is probably protected from a consuming fire of ambition by a love of ease and a lesser horizon. On the other hand, there are many fewer Negro women who work a partial day. The Negro woman is more consistently and more contentedly a field hand than is the white woman. The same condition obtains as to the months spent in field work. It will be noted that half of these Negro field workers reported working more than six months in the year. In comparison with the white women field workers, there is a difference noticeable in both the upper and lower range of the scale. There are fewer Negroes who work less than one month and none who works more than eleven. The division among the field working Negroes is the same as that already made among the Americans ; workers for hire only, workers for hire and for their families, and work­ers for their families only. The 179 women are divided into these groups in the proportions shown in Table XLIII. It is to be noticed how closely the number of workers for hire only, nineteen, corresponds to the number, eighteen, of women in the families of laborers, where they would be forced to work for hire by the lack of land of their own to cultivate. TABLE XLII AMOUNT OF FIELD WORK DONE BY 179 NEGRO FARM WOMEN OF CENTRAL TEXAS Namber of Month1 Number of Women Reporting Number Per Cent Total -------------------------------------------------179 IOO.O Lest than I month-------------------------------------·-------------2 I.I 1.1-2.0 ------------------------------------8 4.5 2.1-3.0 ---------------------------------------------------------13 7.3 3.1-4.0 --------------------------------------------14 7.6 4.1-5.0 ----------------------------------------------21 11.7 5.1-6.0 -----------------------------------------------------35 I9.6 6.1-7 .0 ----------------------------------------------------46 25.8 7.1-8.0 --------------------------------------------------------------27 I5.l 8.1-9.0 --------------------------------------------------------------8 4.5 9.1-10.0 -------------------------------------------------------------3 I.7 10.1-11.0 -----------------------------------------------------------________ 2 1.1 TABLE XLIII CLASSIFICATION OF 179 NEGRO WOMEN FIELD WORKERS OF CENTRAL TEXAS As TO THOSE FOR WHOM WoRK Is DoNE Number Per Cent Total --------------------------------------------------------------------------------179 IOO.O Field workers for hire only -------------------------------------------------------19 10.6 Field workers for family and others -------------------------------------------66 37.0 Field workers for family only ---------------------------------------------------------94 52.4 The first group to be considered includes the workers for hire only. These, as stated above, are nineteen in number. In regard to status, four are in the families of "halvers," and fifteen in the families of laborers. Of the "halvers," one lives with her husband; and three are widows, two by separation. Of the women in the families of laborers, only one is unmarried; the others are married, living with their husbands. The markedly large proportion of married women living with their husbands, as compared to the white women, is worthy of comment. Only three of these Negroes, The University of Texas or 15.0 per cent, are not living with husbands, while about 40.0 per cent of the whites were unmarried or widows. Thirteen of this group of nineteen have borne children, and one has a family of eight which she acquired by mar­riage, though she has none of her own. One has no chil­dren; four have one child; one has two children; three, three children ; one, twelve ; and one, fifteen children. Three of these have no children under fifteen years of age. Of the remaining eleven, eight have three children or less under fifteen; one has four children; and two have five. These women who work for hire only work for long periods of time ; they are hired farm laborers before any­thing else. Their reports show that thirteen of them work more than six months in the year for wages. Four women worked four months or less; two worked five months; three, six months; four, seven months; four, eight months; one, nine months ; and one, eleven months. In regard to hours, three reported an eight-hour day; two, a nine-hour day; and the others, a ten-hour day. Data as to wages are ex­tremely limited. The family system is even more prevalent among the Negro group than among the Americans. There are more women handling their own incomes from their work, but only one of them has a husband living with her. Even where women handle their own wages, they can give little idea as to the amount or the rate of pay. Only one of these women seems to belong to what might be termed a "gang." She works with her husband and four children. Not one of these laborers for hire only is what might be termed a casual laborer in the sense that some of the white women were. Each has a settled habitation. True, only four of the nineteen have been in the present place more than a year; but even when they are located only for the crop season, the Negroes seem to have some place that they count as home. No Negro interviewed lived on the road as does the casual white farm laborer discussed in the first division of this study. To the colored person, such a life seems to have little appeal. Unquestionably, one psycho­logical factor of some force is the often noticed fear that the Negro seems to have of fresh air. He has never become accustomed to the idea of living in the open, and to be a true casual one must hear the call of the open road as the call of the blood. The bitter contempt which the settled Negro shows for the white folks who bring up their chil­dren on the road is a serious blow to any smugness of Nordic supremacy. One old woman, picking cotton, almost bare­footed, stated proudly, "You don't never see no colored per­son livin' that way. Bringin' up dey children in the middle of the road." Further, the Negro is limited territorially by racial prejudice. Into many localities he is not allowed to go, and experience has made him wary of adventuring where he is not wanted. There is in the eastern part of the State, where the number of Negroes is about equal to the number of whites, a section about fifteen miles long and six to ten wide into which the Negroes will not venture. The inhabitants of the district had trouble with them years ago and "ran them out." When a sawmill was built there sev­eral years ago, the Negro workers would come in only under the protection of Rangers. Even now, workers in the mill will not take jobs on the surrounding farms. When the Negro has a place and knows that he is wanted, his natural inclination is to stay there. TABLE XLIV TENURE AND MARITAL STATUS OF 66 NEGRO FARM WoMEN oF CENTRAL TEXAS WHO Do FIELD WoRK FOR HmE AND FOR FAMILIES ALso Unmarried Widows Num-Per Num-Per Num-Per Num-Per her Cent her Cent her Cent her Cent Tenure Clau Total Married 53.0 25 37.9 6 9.1 Total ------------------66 100.0 35 9.1 4 6.2 2 3.0 Owners ----------------------6 0 Tenants 57 86.4 32 48.5 21 31.7 4 6.1 _______________....__ 0 Laborers 3 4.5 3 4.5 0 Sixty-seven women of the eighty-five working for hire worked for their families also. The same condition seems to affect the division of labor done under each class as affects the division among the white laborers already dis­cussed. In regard to tenure, the noticeable feature of this group as compared with the group of white women of the The Unirersity of Texas same class is the small number of laborers. Another fea­ture is the absence of wives of owners, while 4.4 per cent of the white women of this group are the wives of owners. In size these families may be compared with those of the American married white women of the same group, of whom not one has a family of more than nine children and only one-fourth have more than six. Of the married Negro women, more than one-third have families that large. Of the whites, one-third have no children under fifteen; and of the Negroes, 41.0 per cent. None of the white women has more than five children under fifteen, while one-ninth of the Negroes have more than that number. It appears, then, that so far as these women are concerned, the common idea that family responsibilities are likely to be heavier among the Negroes than among the whites and that mothers are likely to work with heavier responsibilities is substan­tiated. The family responsibilities, both past and present, are summarized in the following table: TABLE XLV NUMBER OF CHILDHEN AND OF CHILDREN UNDER 15 OF 41 NEGRO FARM WOMEN OF CENTRAL TEXAS wHO WoRK FOR HIRE AND FOR FAMILIES Number of Childrrn Number of Women Reporting Total Childn•n Children Unc!N 15 Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Total --------------------------------------------------____ 41 100.0 41 100.0 0 --------------------------------------------------------------------8 19.4 17 41.5 1 -------------------------------. ------------------------------------8 19.4 8 19.4 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------5 12.1 5 12.1 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------6 14.4 4 9.7 4 --------------------------------------------------------------------2 4.9 3 7.3 5 -------------------------------------------------------------------1 2.5 1 2.5 6 --------------------------------------------------------------------I 2.5 1 2.5 7 --------------------------------------------------------------------1 2.5 I 2.5 8 --------------------------------------------------------------------I 2.5 1 2.5 9 -------------------------------------------------------------------2 4.9 10 --------------------------------------------------------------------2 4.9 11 ---------------------------------------------------------------·----1 2.5 12 ____________ ____ ______________________ ___ ______________ __ __ ____ __ I 2.5 13 --------------------------------------------------------------------] 2.5 14 --------------------------------------------------------------.. -.--1 2.5 It is hardly necessary to separate the data as to the amount of field work done by this group from the total amount done by workers for hire. One of this group works for eleven months in the year, and five 'vork for more than nine months. TABLE XLVI AMot;~T OF F11::LD \VoRK Do:\E BY NEGRO WoME~ WoRKL\G roR llrnE !'iumber of ~lonths :\unilwr of WonH' n Hqiort in~ :\umber Po (('nt Total ----·--·-···--·-___ .·-····------------------·· __ _..___ ___ __ ...______ ..._ _ ·--·__ 85 100.0 uss than 1----·-····------·--·--·----·-·---·----------····---·-·-·-----·-------·-·--··-----·--0 l.O-2.0 -----··· --·---··--·-· __ --· _ ········-··--·-· ..·--·----·-·····-------·-··-·--·--·-·-I 1.2 2.1-3.0 -·-------··-----····· -.. ··-····· .. --·-··-·-·----·----------------·---·--------5 5.9 3.1-4.0 ..-------· --· ---· ...-··-·.-· ----·..·---·. ---..-·-· ----------·----------------·--·--~ 5.9 4.l-5.0 .... -.... -· ·-----···-----·--·· ··-· . ··-·-···---------····-------. --··-10 ]1.8 5.1-6.0 -· ---------------------------· -·------------------·-····----------------------------19 22.3 6.l-7.0 ···-··-·--·---·-··-----··-·--------------------·-·--·-···--·-···-····------·--···---20 23.6 7.l-8.0 -·--·-···--·-··· ----·-···-· ----· ............. .. ·•··--·········--··----·------13 15.3 8.l-9.0 ..··············--········------·-·······-··--··----------·----··----------·--···---7 8.2 9.1-10.0 -· -··· ..-·-· -----· .... ---· ...... -·····------·-··-··----·-···---···--·......... 3 3.5 10.1-11.0 . . . ···-.. ·-·· · ·-··· . -·· ......... ·-----.......... ·-----· -·--·--· 2 2.3 Data for wages are, as mentioned in the consideration of the preceding group, rather meager. T'venty-nine of the eighty-five 'vomen were able to give some information either as to total income from field labor or as to the rate of pay. As in the case of the 'vhite 'vomen, the work \Vas in the main of two kinds, chopping and hoeing in the spring and picking cotton in the fall. FiYe reported other kinds of work; two plowing 'vith riding plo,v, two picking up pecans, one planting, and one plowing with a walking plow. One picked up pecans for two weeks, and another planted corn for one week for wages. For chopping and hoeing, the wage was commonly set by the acre of land. Quoted wages ranged from 60 cents, which was giYen by two women, to as high as $2.50, giYen by one woman. In the latter case, however, the '\Von1an stated that she was paid different rates ranging from 75 cents when the chopping was easy to $2.50 when it was hard. It is interesting to inquire why twelve of the fifteen Negro 'vomen who gaYe inforn1ation on the matter \Vere paid by the acre. It is probable that the Negro prefers a piece \vage, for it giYes opportunity for higher earnings. If the rate paid 'vere a day wage, it would be the same as that paid to the white; and \vhile there is no The University of Texas statistical proof of the statement, it is probable that the Negro, when she "works well," is a better field hand than the white. From the viewpoint of the employer, the piece rate gives a method of securing more work in a given amount of time, and, rightly or wrongly, the white employer commonly considers such a method almost necessary in the successful handling of Negro labor. The rate paid for cot­ton picking differs little from that paid to white women do­ing the same work. Total income was stated in only a few instances where the income was rather small and where, of course, the woman received her pay separated from that of anyone else. Sixty-five dollars was the highest total income reported. Another gave rather definite information indi­cating that her income was between $130.00 and $140.00. Forty-four of the hired workers picked cotton and did no other kind of work. Twenty-six of these picked for one month or less. The longest period was five months, reported by one woman. The total amount of hired work done shows several rather long periods of work. TABLE XLVII AMOUNT OF HIRED WORK DONE BY NEGRO WOMEN WHO WORK FOR HIRE Number of Months Women Reportin1 Number Per Cent Total ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­~than ! _______________________________________________ -------------------------------------­ 8522 100.025.8 1.0-2.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 36 42.4 2.1-3.0 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 7 8.2 3.1-4.0 -----------------------------------------------------------·--------------------------­ 4 4.7 4.1-5.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 3 3.5 5.1-6.0 ---------------------------------------­----------------------------------------------­ 5 5.9 6.1-7 .0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 2 2.4 7.1-8.0 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 4 4.7 8.1-9.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 1 1.2 9.l-10.0 -------------------------------------------------------­----------------------------­ 0 10.1-11.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 1 1.2 The modal group works for one to two months in the year. The same forces which operate in the case of white 'vomen ; that is, the amount of land farmed by the family and the size of the crop in the given year, determine the amounts of field work done. A g-roup of workers that seems not to exist among the Negro women is that of the "pin money" worker. Neither in conversation nor in actual work was such a group apparent. From a glance at the table of the entire amount of field work done by colored women for hire it will be seen that not one works for less than one month, though there are twenty-two women who report doing hired labor for less than one month. Some estimate of the probable income from hired labor may be made. Of the ninety-one women reporting on the amount of cotton which they considered the normal day's picking for themselves, forty-four picked 200 pounds a day and fourteen picked 300 or more a day. The modal group picked 200, while only twenty-four picked less than 200 pounds a day. A comparison with the reports of the white women shows that while amount picked by the modal group is the same, there is a greater number of Negro women who pick more than the modal amount. The distri­bution of the labor as to time and kind seems to be valid here as with the whites; that is, one-half as much time is spent in the spring in chopping and hoeing as in the fall picking cotton. The estimated wage will remain the same as for the whites, $1.25 per day for chopping and hoeing and $1.15 per hundredweight for picking. The estimated income for the modal group is $58.00 per individual. The wide spread in earning power is indicated by the reports of two women. One picked cotton for two months and made $50.00, while the other picked only one month and made $100.00. Of another pair, one picked for a half month and made $13.00, while another picked the same length of time and made $50.00. The differences are not improbable, and the reports may be exact. A woman who picks 100 pounds a day at $1.25 will earn $6.25 a week, or $12.50 in one-half month. A woman who picks 300 a day and works one more day a week would earn $45.00 in the same length of time. This illustrates again the impossibility of standardizing this data. Ninety-three of the colored women do field work for their families alone. The amount of field work done can be sum­ marized by months. The University of Texas TABLE XLVIII MoNTHS OF FIELD WoRK REPORTED BY 93 NEGRO WoMEN FIELD Woaxus WHO WORK FOR THEIR FAMILIES Number of Months Number of Women Reportin1 Number Per Cent 100.0 Total ----------------------------------------------------93 Less than 1----------------------------------------------------3 3.2 -- 7.5 1.0-2.0 --------------------------------------------7 2.1-3.0 ----------------------------------------------9 9.7 3.1-4.0 --------------------------------9 9.7 12.9 4.1-5.0 ----------------------------------------------12 5.1-6.0 --------------------------------------------22 23.7 6.1-7 .0 ----------------------------------------------------------19 20.4 7.1-8.0 ---------------------------------------------11 11.8 8.1-9.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------1 I.I Attention is called again to the absence of women who work a nominal amount. Only ten of the number work as little as two months. There is, as would be expected from observations already made, an absence of women who work for the longest period. Seldom is there farm work on the home farm to require more than eight months of labor. Not one of the number reported a partial day, that is, less than eight hours. Fifty-nine reported a ten-hour day, and attention is called again to the lack of long days. Only one woman did any work save chopping and picking, and she ploughed for three weeks. After the discussion given in the preceding chapter, it is not necessary to point out the social and economic signifi­cance of this group of workers. It is sufficient to say that they add to the amount of labor which is given to the cotton crop each year without a wage contract and without remu­neration. It cannot successfully be contended that the situation is the same as that for the white woman. Fewer Negroes pay by heavy household cares for the privilege of doing the work. This, and not greater physical strength, is probably the reason why the work seems to "hurt'' the Negro woman less than it does the white. The Negro, as shown before, is a field hand and so considers herself. From the viewpoint of the woman there is not, then, the great drain on vitality, due to the heavy double burden of housekeeping and of field work, that appears in the case of the American white woman. The Negro woman does have a greater drain due to childbearing, both because of greater ·numbers and of poorer care. From the viewpoint of the woman, the doing of six months of labor in the field is not an undue hardship. To her the great factor is that her six months of labor is given in return for less than a living wage, for almost no wage at all. With her, as with the white woman, the home theoretically furnishes the living; and when she, the source of that living, is debarred by poverty from performing the work which is theoretically hers and her labor is deflected into labor in the fields where the return does not substitute even in the most meager way for the use of her efforts, she is not receiving a share of the social product which is defensible upon the ground either of justice or of social expediency. When there are available in large numbers women who will work for six months in the production of cotton in return for a living such as that described in this paper and furnish a large part of that living themselves, why should any one else be used to produce cotton? The answer will appear more clearly from the discussion of the Mexican woman. A group whose women will do more work for the same return in living conditions, or a group whose women will do some­what less work but will accept even less in the way of living conditions may be used. Why is this more true of the women workers than of the men? Because, as pointed out before, the return is an income as great as one unskilled laborer might expect to receive for a year's work, and the man does not do other work; he neither keeps the home nor bears children. And finally, the wage is the man's. He receives it and controls the expenditure. It is possible to consider the income as that of an adult woman in the group, but to do so would do violence to the accepted basis of the economic life of the family. It cannot be argued success­fully that the situation is the same as that in which the woman of the city industrial classes takes a job to help eke out the family existence. The city worker has an income which is divorced from the product manufactured. If she The University of Texas receives two hundred dollars for her year's work, it is an addition to the family income or to her husband's three or four hundred dollars. This is not true of the woman who works for her family in the production of cotton. There is on the farm the same loss in home living which is found in the case of the industrial worker, but the labor brings no additional income. The rural family is worse off because of the labor of these women in the field, for if they remained in the house with even the present conditions, the standard of living would be improved. There could be at least a garden and chickens. Woman after woman stated that she tried to raise chickens, but something always "got them" while she was in the field. The industrial worker of the same financial class can add nothing in the home which will substitute for the expenditure of money directly. All losses, both social and economic, resulting from her work in the factory arise also from a woman's going into the field, not to mention additional losses which would represent money expenditure, for there are not the possible sources of production in the home open to the poverty stricken industrial woman of the city. The individual woman, of course, cannot raise the income of her husband and family by refusing to produce cotton, but all the women refusing to do field labor would probably increase the income from the cotton crop. This alone would not necessarily improve the condition of the group unless the woman performed other tasks which added to the family income, as it is assumed she would. Rebellion on the part of the Negro woman against the performing of unpaid work will prob­ably mark the beginning of a higher standard economically for her entire race throughout the cotton farming section. Using the calculated prices and wages used in the discus­sion of the white woman, what amount of the cotton crop would be necessary to pay for the labor of these Negro women? Taking the actual number of months given on the frequency chart, we find that the amount necessary to pay for this labor at the current rate of wages is $57,523.82. To pay this wage would require, at the price of 18 cents per pound, 638 bales of cotton. It will be granted, with less question than in the case of the white women, that this is a typical group of colored farm women, for the Negro population is concentrated toward the central and eastern parts of the State. There are so few Negroes in the western section that they can hardly be accounted as having any real effect upon the economic life of the group. Deci­sion as to whether the use of woman's labor is typical must wait upon the comparison with the group of Negroes from East Texas. About one-fifth of the farm women in the State are colored. The women who do field work for their families only constitute 45.0 per cent of the group covered in this study. If the same proportion holds, there are in the State 88,452 colored women who do field work for their families alone. Accepting the ninety-three women as typi­cal, it will require 951 times 638 bales of cotton to pay their wages at the current rate. This will mean 626,738 bales of cotton, or between one-eighth and one-ninth of the produc­tion in a normal year, to pay their wages at the current rate. As pointed out before, this economic factor is the signifi­ cant thing-not that the women carry a double burden or that their lot is indubitably hard. That lesser factor is a part of the age old problem of poverty which cannot be solved for the individual, nor even for the single group, until we analyze clearly the forces causing it. But here is labor which puts on the market one-ninth of the total amount of the product and receives for the work no return but a share in the family living, and yet the labor is pre­ sumably wage labor. Again, it may be insisted that we hold no brief for the correctness of these figures. They are merely indicative; but even if the error is as much as fifty per cent of the actual production which may be accredited to the unpaid labor of Negro women, the figures are still of great signifi­ cance. Another group of Negro women which must be con­sidered includes those who do not live on the farm but who The University of Texas do farm work for hire. They are laborers, but they are not farm women in the same sense as those with whom we have been dealing. They were interviewed in the cotton patch. Some of them go out from their town home for the day, but most of those interviewed lived on the farm in one of the houses kept for such groups. In the present study these women number thirty-one. Three women can scarcely be classified. Two are daughters in a family which lives in town, but the father rents land on the halves and makes a crop. The family comes out and camps during the work­ing season. This year each of the girls worked three months for their father and two months for hire. They use the money earned as hired laborers to pay their tuition in col­lege in the nearest town. Another woman is the wife of a tenant farmer who made a crop about forty miles away from the place where she was working when interviewed. She did eight months of field labor this year, one month for hire. These women are, of course, casual laborers in a sense, but for purposes of our discussion they are better isolated. The group of casual laborers with which we shall now deal is composed of women who dwell in town and come to the country only during the cotton chopping and picking seasons. Of the thirty-one women, twelve, or 38.7 per cent, were married; eight, or 25.8 per cent, were unmar­ried; and eleven, or 35.5 per cent, were widows. Only two of the widows have husbands who are dead. Six are divorced, and three are mothers who have never married. Of the unmarried women, only two are more than twenty years of age. Two of the married women and widows have no children. Eleven have none under fifteen. The members of the group reported as follows: TABLE XLIX NuMBER OF CmtDRE:\'. Axo OF CHILDREN UNDER 15 OF 21 NEGRO CAsU..\L WOMEN FIELD WORKEHS Number of Children \\-omt·n Reporting Total ChilJr1..'n Chi!Jren Cutler 15 :\umber Pt•r Ct'nt :\umber Per Cent Total _____________________________________________________ 23 100.0 23 100.0 0 -------------------------------------------------2 8.7 11 47.8 ! ----------..-------------------------------------------------------7 30.4 3 13.1 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------6 26.3 5 21.9 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------. 2 8.7 1 4.3 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------1 4.3 5 ---------------------------------------------------·---------------1 4.3 6 --------------------------------------------------------------------1 4.3 1 4.3 7 -----------------------------------------------------·-------------2 8.7 8 ---------------------------· --------------------------------------­ 9 -------------------.------------------------------------------·----­10 -------------------------------------------------------------------1 4.3 11 -----------------------------------------------------------------­12 ------------------------------------------------------------------­13 ----------------------------·--------------------------------------1 4.3 14 --------------------------------------------------------------------1 4.3 The husbands of all married women are casual laborers, on the farm when there is farm work to do and in town at other seasons. Four of the women came out from town each day, while the others lived on the farm on which they were working. Eighteen had come a distance of about thirty miles to work; one, a distance of about forty; one, a distance of about sixty; and two, more than two hundred miles. The conditions of living are indicated to some extent by the crowding of individuals. Seven of these women lived in one group of eleven people having a house of three rooms; five others also lived in a group of eleven people who lived in three rooms; and four were members of a group of sixteen people who had three rooms. One woman lived in a single room with five other people. Summarizing the space per individual in the groups living on the farms where they are working we have: Here are two views of the t mporary home of a group of Negro cot­ton pickers, all adults. Th two bush s before the door (below) have been pulled up and ti d th re a a pitiful attempt to have shade and decoration. TABLE L RooMs PER PERSON REPORTED BY 26 CASUAL NEGRO WoMEN FIELD WoRKERs OF CENTRAL TEXAS Roome per Person Women Reporting Number Per Cent Total ------------------------··-----------------------·---------------------------------26 l 00.0 0.2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9 34.6 0.3 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------7 26.9 0.4 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 15.4 0.5 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 11.5 0.7 -------------------------------------------·-----------------------------------------------------2 7.7 0.8 ------------------------------------------------------·-----------------------------------------1 3.9 It is needless to say that there are not enough beds for the people in any house. In many, it is safe to say most, of these cases there were no beds. Sleeping arrangements consisted of straw spread on the floor and covered with rags. In many cases the odor was almost unbearable, and any facilities for decency or comfort were, in most cases, lacking. There was in almost every house a stove for cook­ing and some sort of rough table; but there were no chairs, boxes usually taking their place. When we consider that these groups of people live in this way for several months of the year, it becomes evident that even if the home in town has a higher standard, that standard will be under­mined, for change of location seldom means change in living conditions. A rather amusing story came to our attention. A negro servant who had not been in the habit of "going to the cotton patch" felt one fall the urge for adventure. Her mistress, cognizant of the dangers attendant upon the promiscuity of living conditions, warned her of the ways of Negro cotton pickers. After the woman had been gone a while, she wrote back to her employer that she "had a private bedroom; just myself, my friend, and my friend's husband." It need hardly be pointed out that the crowded living conditions make for looseness of conduct which con­tinues the lessons taught the Negro in the old slave breeding South. The figures for the amount of work done are undoubtedly affected by the fact that in the year 1929 there was an almost total failure of the cotton crop in the Central Texas The University of Texas section. If the workers had been visited in the preceding fall, there is little question that the time spent in field work would be two or three times as great. In instances where the women could give some estimate of the difference in time spent in the two seasons, the difference was at least that much. There was little moving around this year be­cause of the scarcity of work. Another effect of the small crop is upon the wages paid. Almost every woman report­ing on the wage paid for a hundred pounds of cotton this fall received $1.00. Those reporting on wages for last year's work gave no wage less than $1.25. Cotton pickers were hard to get last year because of the great demand for labor to get out the crop, but this year the crop was gathered easily in two or three months time. The Negroes, even in a good year, do not tend to migrate toward the western part of the State as do the Mexican and American laborers. When they migrate some distance from home, they go toward the Oklahoma line and up into that state. There are some, however, who join the movement to the West. Nine of these casual Negro women reported going to the fields at two periods, in the spring for chopping and in the fall for the picking. The others went this year for picking only. All of those reporting more than four months of work went both seasons. All of these, save one, are living and working with their husbands. The exception was a woman with small children who had been deserted by her husband about a year before and who could do nothing but field labor. She worked near her home town. This situation is probably typical. The chopping season is of too short dura­tion, and the chances of large earnings are not so great that the Negro woman who works in town finds it desirable to leave her job. There is also little place for children in the chopping, and women with children are somewhat in the way. The labor of two adults as represented by the hus­band and wife is desirable from the viewpoint of the em­ployer. Half of the number of women reported working two months or less. Without doubt, as pointed out above, this is a distinct understatement of working time as com­pared with a normal year. Data in regard to wages are again highly unsatisfac­tory. Of the married women, only two have any share in the collecting of their wages. Only one could make any statement as to the method of payment or the amount paid for the work of chopping. More could give the rate per hundred-weight for picking, but only ten could give that. None of these women, according to the figures given, made less than $1.50 a day, and eight made more than $2.50 a day. Many of the groups averaged from $20.00 to $30.00 a day, depending upon the number of workers in the group. It is possible for a mother and daughter who work together to average more than $4.00 a day, or $25.00 a week. This means more than a hundred dollars a month, with living expenses very low. Both are sure of work so long as they stay, while in town one or both may be out of work at least a part of the time. Many of them expect to make enough to meet the exigencies of unemployment during the winter months. The social element also has its weight. Work in the kitchen and over the wash tub is lonely work. In the cot­ton patch is life and company and courting. One needs only to walk down the rows of a field of cotton pickers at work to realize that there are many social compensations for the heat, the dirt, and the hard work. It is probable that this element is passing. The mixing of the Mexican and the Negro groups in the field has, on the one hand, lessened the numbers of the colored workers and, on the other hand, brought social barriers of race and language. There seems also to be another change taking place. Fewer young men go to the cotton patch. If they have a steady job in town, they do not care to leave. Woman after woman of those divorced or widowed told of the good, steady jobs their sons held in town. It is probable that the work in the cotton fields is beginning to partake more of the nature of monot­onous drudgery with few alleviating circumstances. The The University of Texas comparatively large number of deserted wives who seem permanently deserted and of unmarried mothers made the groups of workers seem rather depressing. This may, however, be due to mental attitudes and social traditions of the interviewer. CHAPTER VII THE MEXICAN WOMAN THE THIRD racial and national group found in the territory studied is the Mexican. The Mexicans are considered as a separate class, though there are many difficulties in the way of securing comparative data. So far as the census is concerned, figures regarding this group are well concealed. All Mexican people born in this country are counted as "native white," which is the only feasible classi­fication. Such a division makes it impossible, however, to determine the extent of penetration by the Mexican people or to secure statistics for a study of the extent of the social problems raised by their presence. In this study the census classification was completely ignored. A woman was accounted a Mexican if she lived in a family speaking the Mexican language and had a distinctly non-American back­ground. The group covered in this survey consists of 293 Mexi­can women. Of these, 156, or 52.0 per cent, were born in Mexico. There are in the group twenty-four women who are casual, transient field laborers such as those dealt with among the Negroes. There are 269 who live on farms, and with this latter group we are at present concerned. The tenure and marital status is summarized in the accompany­ ing table. TABLE LI TENURE AND MARITAL STATUS OF 269 MEXICAN F>-RM WOMEN OF CENTRAL TEXAS Marital Scatus Tenure Total Statu1 Married WidowsUnmarried Num· ber Per Cent Num· her Per Cent Num· her Per Cent Num· her Per Cent Total ---------------------­------. 269 100.0 150 55.8 86 32.0 33 12.3 Owner --------------------­Tenant ______________________213 79.2 117 43.5 74 27.5 22 8.2 Laborer --------------------­56 20.8 33 12.3 12 4.5 11 4.1 The outstanding f ea tures of this summary are the ab­sence of any members of the owner class and the surpris­ingly large proportion of unmarried women. It would not, of course, be safe to make the assertion that there are no Mexican landowners in this section; but since the inter­views were taken wherever there was a Mexican group, it is safe to say that a Mexican landowner is, to say the least, rare. Even if they were more numerous in other sections of the State, it is certain that in a class of Mexican land­owners the difficulty of classification would be great because of the likeness to the American group, both as to attitudes and standards of living as well as language. The proportion of unmarried women, 32.0 per cent, is to be compared with a proportion of 30.0 per cent among the Negro women and 21.0 per cent among the white. This proportion is surpri\s­ing because in Old Mexico marriage, and early marriage, for the girls is almost universal. There is, in addition, a rather large proportion (more than one-ninth) of unmar... ried women more than twenty-five years of age. This large proportion of unmarried women indicates a lack of social and economic adjustment which much have come upon the girls rather unexpectedly. It is probably of significance to note that twenty-seven of these girls, all save one of those more than twenty-five, are found in ten families, and these families average nine children apiece, most of them young. It is possible that these girls remain unmarried because, with the higher standard of living in the new country, their work is necessary to eke out a living for the family, and grown unmarried sons living with their parents are rather rare. It is probable, also, that eligible young men are scarce in the country community, and the Mexican fathers and mothers do not marry their daughters to strange men. The Mexican man is probably also becoming less willing to take upon himself the burden of a wife and family, and the greater freedom of the new life makes it unnecessary for him. If he marries, he probably desires a wife of different character from the typical Mexican peon woman. A rather interesting sidelight on the situation was given by a young man who had married one of five sisters. Four sisters with their husbands and parents and one unmarried sister were living together. Referring to the unmarried state of the younger sister, he remarked, "She ain't got no pretty clothes, and men will not marry girls without pretty clothes. We all going in together this cotton picking and buy her clothes, and she be married in about three weeks." The proportion of wido\vs is also noticeable, 12.0 per cent, as compared 'vith 6.4 per cent among the whites and 14.0 per cent among the Negroes. This proportion is probably to be explained upon the same grounds as the large number of unmarried women. The widows do not marry again for the same reasons that the girls do not marry. Some of them, but not nearly so many as among the Negroes, were deserted wives. It is certain that the Mexican, like the American white, is rather reticent in acknowledging that her husband has left her, while the Negro has much less inhibition because of the more common occurrence among her group. The widows, almost without exception, lived with members of their families, their parents or their chil­dren or with relatives of much less close relationship. Not a single Mexican woman lived alone, though several of the white women and a few of the Negroes did. In spite of their small numerical importance, the deserted wives among the Mexicans are of social significance. They indicate some of the results, which will probably cumulate in the future, of the state of flux arising from the penetra­tion of the Mexican peon into a society which is alien in more than nationality. Even marriage has ceased to bring to the Mexican woman the stability and security of the past. The Mexican man, becoming impatient of the ties of marriage and family, is asserting his right to greater freedom. The new world offers him opportunities to make money and have a good time that have never before been his, but these cannot be enjoyed if they must be shared with a worn out wife and several small children. Consequently, the deserted wife is becoming a pathetically and surpris­ingly common figure among the Mexicans. She is at a dis­advantage as compared 'vith the Negro woman who has commonly found the Negro man an undependable source of financial support, for she lacks the Negro's physical strength and ability to care for herself and her offspring. There comes to mind a frail slip of a woman, with five young children, whose husband had left her several months before. He said she "couldn't do nothing but have children." The group was trying to pick cotton, but the mother's lack of strength and the ages of the chil­dren made it impossible for them to cover even present expenses. They, of course, had been absorbed by the mother's family, but that meant the division of a bare sub­sistence among a larger group. Another example was a young wife with eight small children. She had left her family to follow her husband into the new home. But he loved music and he loved to dance. And now he was gone. A woman with small children could not farm, and what was she to do? There are in the families of the Mexican women no groups of children as large as some of those reported by Negroes. There are, on the other hand, fewer small groups. The out tanding M xi an amily vi it d i hown above the father and mother at d in th · nt r. Th ir offspring who are at home (ten out of fourt en) ar hand. m tr n , and h althy looking. They hav lived for more than fift n y r on thi place. H re i one of the poorest Mexican families visited. Ignorant sick, and filthy, they live in the old homestead shown on Page 73. ' TABLE Lil NUMBER OF CHILDREN AND OF CHILDREN UNDER 15 OF 183 MARRIED MEXICAN FARM WoMEN AND Wmows OF CENTRAL TEXAS Number of Children Women RC'porting Total Children Children Under 15 Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Total ___________________ ----------------------------------183 100.0 183 100.0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------18 9.8 54 29.5 I --------------------------__________ _____ _______ _ _______ _____ 21 11.5 23 12.5 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------19 10.4 19 10.4 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------24 13.1 25 13.6 28 15.3 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------24 13.1 5 ----------------------------------------------------------------18 9.8 15 8.2 10 5.4 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------15 8.2 4 2.2 7 ----------------------------------------------------------------11 6.1 2 1.1 8 ------------------------------------------------------------------15 8.2 1 0.6 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------7 3.8 1 0.6 10 -----------------------------------------------------------------3 1.6 11 ------------------------------------------------------·_______ 2 I.I 1 0.6 12 --------------------------------------------------------------3 1.6 13' ----------------------------------------· -------------------------2 1.1 14 -------------------------------------------------------------­15 -------------------------------------------------------------­16 ------------------------------------------------------------------1 0.6 Fifteen per cent of the Negro women have families of twelve or more children, while only 3.0 per cent of the Mexican women have families so large. Of the Negro women, 12.0 per cent have no children, while only 9.0 per cent of the Mexican won1en have none. This is probably tied up \vith the large percentage of unmarried Mexican girls, leaYing the n1arried \von1en, on the whole, older than the Negro women. As pointed out in the discussion of the Negro \Vomen, the unmarried Negro \Vomen are, in the main, hardly old enough to be considered marriageable. The modal group of the Negro women have one child, while the modal group of the Mexicans have three and four chil­dren. The Mexican women average 3 child per family more than the Negro women. Midwives are less commonly used than an1ong the Negro \Vomen. Only 56.0 per cent used \vomen attendants at any confinement, as compared to 65.0 per cent among the Negroes. Seldom does the Mexican woman take more than a week for the process of bringing a child into the world. Three days of confinement and rest are commonly con­sidered necessary. The term "no good" is often used in speaking of a woman who finds the strain more than she can stand and still be able to \Vork. The necessity of bear­ing children is more commonly understood among the Mexican women than among the American white women, and more calmly accepted than among the Negroes. The woman herself must work, or there must be some one to take her place. Consequently, as a rule she works until her children are old enough to work. An interesting com­mentary upon the attitude is found in the fact that the average number of children per woman who had children, of those who did field \vork, is 4.4 and of those who did no field \vork, 5.1, \vhile the average of those under fifteen for the two groups is 2.6 for the field workers and 2.4 for the non-field workers. Relief from field work seems to be, not a recognition of the fact that the woman may have a heavy burden of work in the home, but a reward of accom­plishment. The number of children is no very accurate indication of the size of groups for \vhom housework is done. As with the Negro, the household group may consist of several families usually related in fairly close degree. The largest Labor of Wonien in the Production of Cotton 215 family group found any\vhere was reported by a Mexican woman. It consisted of thirty people. TABLE LIII NU1\1BER OF PEOPLE I~ HOUSEHOLD FOR 269 :MEXICAN FARM W 01\IE~ OF CE::-.lTRAL TEXAS Number of People Number of Women i\umbcr Per Cent Total __________ ____ ___ _ ______ _____ _______ _______________ _________ __ ___ ____ ___ ________ __ _____ __ ___ _ 269 100.0 I ----------­---­--------­--­--------­-----­--­----------­--­------­---­---­-­----­-------­-------­------­--­- 2 12 4.5 3 16 6.1 4 13 4.9 5 22 8.2 6 31 11.5 7 38 14.1 8 32 11.9 9 30 11.1 10 12 4.5 11 20 7.4 12 10 3.8 13 5 1.7 14 9 3.4 15 7 2.6 17 18 5 1.7 19 30 7 2.6 Thirty-seven of the Mexican women, or 14.0 per cent, and twenty-six of the Negroes, or 13.0 per cent, lived in households of twelve or more members. As stated in the case of the Negro, the large household does not necessarily mean that the woman has a heavy burden of housekeeping. Seldom is there a single woman in a large group. TABLE LIV NUMBER OF FEMALES OVER 15 1:'11 HOUSEHOLDS OF 269 :MEXICAN FARM WoMEN OF CE~TRAL TEXAS Number of Females Over 15 Women Reporting Number Per Cent 269 100.0 Total ------------------------------------· ----------------·--------------------------------------­ 60 22.3 I --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 99 36.8 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------... ------------------------­ 45 16.7 3 ---------------------------·--___ .,. --___ ... ___ -----_______ .,. _______ --------------------------·---·-----------­ 30 11.2 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------. ---------------------------------­ 17 6.3 5 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­ 11 4.1 6 --------------·----·-----------------------------------------... ... --------... .. ... ... --------... -----------------------­ 7 2.6 7 -------------------------------------... ------------------------............. -----·-------·----------------------------­ The amount of space in wh:ch housework is done is indi­cated by the number of persons per room, or the amount of room per person. TABLE LV NtlMBER OF ROOMS PER PERSO'.'i AMONG MEXICAN FAHM WOMEN OF CENTRAL TEXAS Rooms per Person Wonwn Rt'porting Number Per Cent 0.1 or less _____ ___ __________ _____ ____ __ _--------------------------------------------------------22 8.2 0.5 or less__________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------194 72.8 1.0 or less ______________________________ _·------------------------------------------------------·-256 95.2 l.5 or less _____ -------------------· ___ ________ __ ____ _____ __ -------------------------------------266 98.9 2.0 or less _______ -·--__ __ __________ ___ ______ ___---------------------------------------------------269 100.0 The same factors suggested in the discussion of the amount of space per person in the case of the Negro must be kept in mind here. The Mexican tenant, even more than the Negro, is given the old family homestead which is often allowed to fall about his ears. In one instance of seven This Me ican dw lling i Y i al of "help hou s" of a certain kind. There are m ny room~ d~vi d amon many families. This barn of a Mexican "cropper' " home is typical of the barns which appeared over the ountry<::t, The, 58. Schedule of work: sample case, 98-99. a ten-months worker, 185. of casuals, 109-110. Schoolhouse in recreation, 52. Scotland, home of foreign-born, 84. Season for cuuala' travellne, 108. Season of Work: definition of a month, 98. among casuals, 109. of white workers for hire and fam~. 122-128, 127. of white workers for family only, 18'­ 187. of Negro field workers, 190-191. of Negroes for hire only, 192. of Negroes working for hire and family, 194-195. of Negroes working for family only, 198. of Negro casuals, 205-207. of Mexicans for hire only, 280-281. of :Mexicans for hire and family, 282. of Mexicans for family only, 282-288. of Mexican casuals, 287. comparative, Central Texaa, 247-248. American comparative, sectional, 2H­ 255. Negro comparative, sectional, 258. Sewing: by Americans, 48-49. in fal"m housework, 84. not done by casuals, 118-114. Sewing :Machine: American use of, 48. none for casuals, 118-114. Negro use of, 188. M'.exican use of, 218. comparative uae, Central Texas, 246. Shame in certain work, 142. Significance : of cotton farm women, 12. of unpaid labor, see Contribution. Singing, in recreation, 51. Slaves, in competition,. 144. Sledding Cotton, in Lubbock County, 2'. Sleeping, see Living Conditions. Smith County: location, description of, 24. berrying industry in, 108. town population of, 254. Smithville, population of, 18. Soap: in farm housework, 87. value of, 89-90. see alao Home Production. Social Contact of American women, 40­ 42. Social Position of daughters of owners, 182. Soil of region studied, 16-16. South America, competition of, 146. Southern Pacific Railway, 17. South Plains, see Lubbock County. Space: devoted to groups in study, 38. related to living conditions, 72r-74. for casuals, 113. for Negroes, 179-181. for Negro casuals, 208-205. for Mexicans, 216-217. Spain, home of foreign-born, H. Spending-money, 116. Spiritual Growth, possibility of, 49-68. Stability of American women, 86. Standard of Li-ring, see Livin~ Condi­ tions. Standardization in season of work, 98. Standards, community, 117-118. State Library, 62. Steam Canner, 86. Stoves, He Living Conditions. Index 285 Strain of fteld work, 40, 141 ; Ne alao Health. Study, 1166 Extent of Study. Substitutes children for mothers, 161. Sqgestiona, general. 268-266. Summary of facts, 267-276. Sunday dinner u recreat:Dn, 49-51. Sweden, home of foreign-born, H. Sweet Potatoes, aee Work. Switzerland, home of foreign·born, 34. Sympathy, de1ire for, lH. Tables, aee Living Conditions. Taboo&, against certain tasks, 143. Taylor, population of,_ 18. Taylor Marl, 11ee Soil. Taylor Prairie, 16. Teacher, 80. Telephones : Americans using, 42. for Negroes, 188. for :Mexf.eans, 219. eomparative use, Central Texas, 246. comparative use, sectional, 261. comparative Negro use, sectional, 261. Tenants, number of women, 12; eee alBO Tenure Status. Tent-show, in recreation, 64-65. Tenure Status : of American women, general, 87-39. American mothers& 67. fteld and non-fteld workers, 78-79. of casuals, 116. workers for hire and family, 118-119. and size of family, 121. and daughters working, 126. of workers for family only, 181. and season of work, 185-187. of paid workers for family, 149-150. of Negroes, general, 174-176. of Negro non-field workers, 186. of Negro field workers, 189. of Negroes tor hli:re only, 191. of Negroes for hire and family, 198­ 194. of Negro casuals, 208. of Mexicans, general, 209-211. of Mexican non-field workers, 223,...224. of Mexican field workers, 226. of Mexicans for hire only, 227-228. of Mexicans {or hire and family, 231. of Mexicans for family only, 232. comparative, Central Texas, 246. American comparative, sectional, 252­ 268. Negro comparative, sec&nal, 257. Tezaa Almanac, The, 153. Theater: American recreation, 54-55. for Negroes, 184. Time of study, 80. Tomatoes: sample price, 88. see alao Work. Tomato Crop, · 259-261. Tool-dresser, now a casual, 105. Town, trip to: for Americans, 52-58. for Mexicans, 222. Towns, in region studied, 18, 254. Transient Laborers, aee Casuals. Transition, rural to urban economy, 18­ 14. Travel, lack of, 85. Travis County: in study, 16. crop production, 19. True Stor:.Ss, 58. Turkeys, farm housework, 84 ; see also Home Production. Understatement, by women interviewed, 31. University of Texas, The, library of, 62. Unpaid Labor, see Contribution. Urban Group, not farm population, 11. Urbanization, of Texas, lS-14. Vacation, for casuals, 104. Van Zandt County: location, description of, 24. population of towns, 254. Vegetatlon, related to cooking, 43. Vehicles, of Negroes1 188-184: see also Automobiles. Victrola, 150, 238. Villages, rural, 80. Visiting, as recreation, 49-51. Wage Market, women outside the, 265; see also Contribution. Wages: in one case, 99. of casuals, 109-110. of workers for hire and family, 116­ 117, 127. control of rates of, 128. women's and men's, 128-129. subsistence only, 146. for work for family, 148-149. of Negroes for hire only, 192. of Negroes for hlilre and family, 195­ 197. of Negro casuals, 206, 207. ot Mexicans for hire only, 281. need for control of, 265-266. see also Contribution and Income. Washerwoman, not available, 45. Washing, see Laundry. Washing Machine: American use of, 46-47. Negroes owning, 181-182. comparative ownership, Central Tex­ as, 245. Water: method of obtaining, 16, 47. for livest:ock, 16. supply for Negroes, 182-188. supply for Mexicans, 218-219. comparative supplies, Central Texas, 245. Weeds, fewer in Lubbock County, 28. Weighing-wagon, position of, 141. Western Stones, 58. West Texas: place in study, 88. in sectional comparisons, 251-262. White Women, see Americans. Widows, see Marital Status. Williamson County: place in study, 16. crop production of, 18-19. Woman's Bureau, 148. Woman's Society, 185. Work, types of : general American, 23-24, 79-80, 88, 102, 108, 104, 120, 125-126, 188, 185, 138-141, 142, 159. Negro types, 195. Mexican types, 288-234. East Texas variety, 260-261. West Texas types, 261. similarity of conditions, 261-262. see also Season of Work. Working day, see Hours of Work. Workshop, woman's, 89. World War, 86. Young People, in American community, 51.