ined and in which she has already gained a
place. But she may have attained her vocational opportunity and to
keep it must continue to live in a locality remote from the man's home
and work. What then? To be near each other and to live together is the
chief desire of genuine lovers. That would be no home which had two
centres of vocational activity miles apart. Circumstances may compel
such separation for economic reasons long after marriage has bound two
lives together so closely that distance even cannot really separate
them. But at the outset, if two people are to belong to each other,
they must be able to combine their home life if that is to be a help
and not a hindrance to the joint affection that alone makes the two
one. The question of domicile, bound up with that of whether or not
the woman shall continue her vocational connection after marriage,
sometimes becomes acute in this manner:--the woman earns more than the
man and her place of earning is in a far-away location from his and
the transplanting of his life has no promise of economic readjustment.
Shall she give up her larger salary and go with him to a place in
which she is less likely than if single to gain a professional
foothold and they both make the smaller income do? Or shall she
insist, if he is willing, that the economic advantage of the married
firm requires his removal to the seat of her labors at any risk of his
getting another hold upon vocational opportunity?

Those who ask such a question should remember that the facts of life,
social and economic, all make the upsetting of the man in his work
seldom a safe or a happy solution. In the first place, the position of
a man who even temporarily depends upon his wife's vocational success
and relinquishes his own economic position, is far more difficult than
that of a woman who sacrifices her own professional standing to go
with her husband to a new centre. Any woman asks more of a man in the
way of sacrifice, both of his standing as a man and his chances as a
worker, if she demands that he take her income as the basic economic
element in the joint family treasury (when such demand entails a
change of residence and a giving up of assured income on his part)
than any man asks of a woman when the conditions proposed are the
reverse. No woman loses "caste" who depends upon her husband in an
economic sense. Perhaps the time will come when it will cost a woman
the loss of social prestige and of the best