SHOULD OUR WIVES "OBEY"?

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 254, 23 October 1920, Page 17

SHOULD OUR WIVES "OBEY"?

A PLEDGE THAT COUNTS FOR NOTHING. (By lAN MALLOCH.) Who says the stronger partner in marriage will always take control.) The other day a young man refused to marry a young woman to whom he had become engaged because she declined to promise, at the altar, that she would "obey" him. The young mas held by the marriage service. "To love, cherish, and to obey. '* The young woman held by the newlywon independence of her sex. Which was right? Here is a brief symposium of "views": "Miss 1920": "The man who invented the marriage service never look tea xvith Mrs. Pankhurst or saxv the splendidness of xvomen in the Great War. Subjection for the better half is a contradiction in terms. No one shall boss mc, not even the boy I love." "Mrs. 1SS0": "For all your boasted independence men are stronger than women, physically and economically. Wait till you have children —then you'll see what happens to independence. It isn't possible. You depend on your husband for protection, for money, for everything." RULE OF THE STRONGER. Mr. Chop-Logic : "It is nonsense to refuse to 'obey' your husband if you agree to 'love' and 'cherish' him. Obedience is within your gift, at all events. Love isn't. You may find one day you don't love him and no amount of trying will make you. What becomes of your eternal vow then? On the other hand, you can obey him, even if you don't want to." W. Shakespeare: "Such duty ns the Eubject owes the prince, Even such a woman oweth to her husband." Mr. Six-of-One-and-Half-n-Dozen-of-the Other: "What we want is co-partner-ship. No bosses, male or female. Perfect comradeship, perfect equality. Coalition." Very well then. The questions remain, Should the husband command, the wife obey? Should the wife comr_and, the husband obey? Or should there be dual control? The answer to each of these questions is: Do run away and play.

; "Should." Everyone talks of "should."' 'Should men drink? Should Bolshevists light? Should children cry? A plague on "should." You will not get co-partnership in j marriage by saying that there should jbe co-partnership. You will not get ; feminine control by saying that there 1 should be feminine control. You have j not got masculine control, even though the marriage service has been in vogue I donkey's years. i The plain fact of the matter is just this: that "should" or no "should," marriage service or no marriage service, the stronger partner always has, does, and will come out on top. The sooner we recognise this openly the sooner not i xvomen, but men, xvill get their rights. | THE DOMINANT WIFE. The current assumption, fostered by . the marriage service, that husbands arc. qua husbands, lords and masters, is what ! every married man seems to be anxious ito maintain, yet, anomalously enough, 1 it is what every married man should be I anxious to dissipate as speedily as pos- | sible. It is all right xvhen the husband j does happen to be the lord and master 1 But when lie doesn't ? I The dominant wife gets it both ways. I She. rules the roost when it suits her i convenience. When it doesn't, she • takes cover behind her husband's 1 nominal authority, evading all the ' "dirty work" by suddenly rounding on i her subject-mate and saying, "This is | your job. I command you to take comi inand." ! It is a pitiful position, the position of | the figurehead husband. We all know i him. He takes bis holidays where his I wife dictates, he sends his children to ! the school his wife selects, he invites :to dinner only the friends his wife , affects. Then the cook turns crusty, J and it's "You fro and speak to her, I George: you're the master." j Yes, xve all knoxv him. And we all I conspire to keep up the silly fiction. He \ has to pretend he doesn't know xve I know that his xvife rules the roost, and Iwe have to pretend xve don't knoxv. i And all because the wife said she'd "obey" him, and courtesy demands that we should take her at her word. If I were going to the altar toi morrow, I would willingly sxvap re- | spouses with my bride. I would offer to take the pledtfe of obedience—and to reap the after-benefit. . But there should, of course, be no pledge o-i "ither side. Pledges don't alter facts. You may promise to eat your hat, but that does not make the operation possible of performance. "To love, cherish, and to obey." Perhaps. Perhaps not. You never can tell. Then why pretend you can?