NA TURE 



533 



PAGE 

 533 



537 

 538 

 538 

 539 

 54° 



542 

 542 

 543 

 543 

 543 

 543 



CONTENTS. 



Sex Economics. By Barbara Wootton 



Fishing and Fishing Lore. {Illustrated.) By Henry 

 Balfour 



The Metallurgy of Iron and Steel. By Prof. C. H 

 Desch 



The Snakes of Ceylon. By E. G. B. 



Japanese Social and Economic Life . 



Hull and the East Riding. By W. E. C. 



Our Bookshelf 



Letters to the Editor : — 



Mersenne's Numbers. — Prof. G. H. Hardy, F.R.S 

 Animal Mechanism. — H. S. Rowell 

 Vegetable Rennet. — Prof. R. Hedger Wallace 

 A Question of Nomenclature. — F. H. Masters 

 Capillarity.— R. M. Deeley .... 

 Lead and Animal Life. — Miss K. Carpenter 

 Polar and Non-Polar Valency in Organic G 



pounds. — W. E. Garner .... 

 The X-ray Structure of Potassium Cyanide. — P. A, 



Cooper 



Sex Change in Mollusca. — Prof. J. Bronte Gatenby 



The Galactic System. — I. By Dr. Harlow Shapley 



Transport of Organic Substances in Plants. By 

 Prof. H. H. Dixon, Sc.D., F.R.S. . 



Obituary : — 



Colonel E. H. Grove-Hills, C.B.E., C.M.G 



F.R.S. By H. G. L. 

 Major-General J. Waterhouse 



Current Topics and Events . 



Our Astronomical Column . 



Research Items ..... 



Tendencies of Modern Physics . 



The Isothermal Frontier of Ancient Cities 



The Mechanism of the Cochlea . 



British Association Research Committees 



University and Educational Intelligence 



Calendar of Industrial Pioneers . 



Societies and Academies 



Official Publications Received . 



Diary of Societies .... 



544 

 544 

 545 



55i 

 552 

 553 

 555 

 556 

 558 

 558 

 559 

 560 

 561 

 562 

 563 

 564 

 5°4 



Editorial and Publishing Offices : 



MACMILLAN 6- CO., LTD.. 



ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON, W.C.2. 



Advertisements and business letters should be 



addressed to the Publishers. 



Editorial communications to the Editor. 



Telegraphic Address: PHUSIS, LONDON. 

 Telephone Number : GERRARD 8830. 



Sex Economics. 



IN his presidential address to the Section of Economics 

 of the British Association at the recent meeting 

 at Hull, Prof. F. Y. Edgeworth did not hesitate to 

 plunge into the midst of a raging current controversy. 

 " Should men and women receive equal pay for equal 

 work ? " were his opening words, and his conclusion 

 is that they should " with some reservations and 

 adjustments." 



This conclusion is reached in two stages as follows. 

 In a first approximation Prof. Edgeworth relegates 

 dependants to limbo, and shows — we think conclusively 

 — that, granted that freedom of competition for jobs 

 is generally conducive to the best possible distribution 

 of labour, then there is no reason why such competition 

 should be confined to one sex ; though it must be a 

 regulated competition, controlled by collective bargain- 

 ing, in which " the oppressive action of male Trade 

 Unions " is " counteracted by pressure on the part 

 of women acting in concert." The overcrowding of 

 women into those occupations which are open to them, 

 which has resulted from restrictions upon their freedom 

 to compete on equal terms with men in all spheres, 

 is in fact socially uneconomic as well as unfortunate 

 in its effect upon the women's own wages. Prof. 

 Edgeworth goes on to surmise that given substantial 

 freedom of competition we shall find (a) occupations 

 almost wholly male, (b) occupations into which both 

 men and women enter freely, and (c) occupations 

 almost wholly female. He submits that the average 

 of weekly earnings in (a) will continue to be above 

 the average of weekly earnings in (c), while in (b), 

 though the rate cf pay for a unit of work will be the 

 same for both sexes, the average weekly earnings of 

 the male will continue to be above the average weekly 

 earnings of the female. 



Prof. Edgeworth does not offer any particular 

 evidence of these suggestions, which rest upon an 

 assumption that at present, or rather " for a short 

 period in the immediate future," the industrial efficiency 

 of women must be generally inferior to that of men. 

 In point of fact, practically no scientific investigation 

 has yet been made of the relative efficiency of men 

 and women in different occupations. Nor, in view 

 of the close and long-standing restrictions upon the 

 field of women's labour, does the actual distribution 

 of the sexes between different occupations throw much 

 light upon the problem. In quoting the usual examples 

 of telephony, typewriting, textiles, and nursery duties 

 as the female fortes, Prof. Edgeworth seems to be 

 allowing convention rather than science to be his 

 guide. 



Wise advocates of women's rights will, however, 



NO. 2764, VOL. I io] 



