MARRIED WOMEN WORKERS.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 120, 23 May 1928, Page 6

MARRIED WOMEN WORKERS.

WHERE CAW THE LIKE BE DK£ (To the Editor.) Should we follow "DisgustedV of "shunning" the married without knowing something of the dmneZ difficulties that may have forced her to«S outside employment? Frequently woinen are wage earners from sheer "tmST ' : Must the unkindness of their fellow be added to their other troubles! assuming that all wives are properly pro»32 vi * for by their husbands, is it . refuse work to married women? This w«JS mean that we must not read stories by manfe*' ; women while single authors cannot get ftS writings published; we must be to patronise films showing married stars, for there are thousands of eqqanT - pretty single girls trying to enter the mov£. we must not employ a married charwoman. enter a shop where the proprietor's liiS fc-aK helping behind the counter. In fact, any who can afford it should insist on the abeolnt* idleness of his wife and have the himffy?" ? done -by single servants. Living under a cob. petitive system wherein people are erpecUi to be self-supporting and not become a burdea on the community, can we blame any V vidual, married or single, for doing the ISP®® she can for herself? A wife who stays h"rnn and washes dishes, sews or grows vegetables is doing somebody else out of the job jgSB surely as if she worked in a picture theatre. Does "Disgusted" suggest that the only peonfe" who should work are those who are ftS - ' to it by starvation? If the right to worki*J|S to be denied to wives it should also be denSt®! to boys and girls whose fathers can Buppeef- ;; ||l| them, and to all men and women who hawsSll sufficient private means to live on. the wife who works is not altogether £SI( economic nuisance. Her spending power ii increased and her earnings will" provide work in other directions for the girl who has not got her job. I refuse to "shun" any fellow worker, though she has a husband, and I am -Ssl UXHARBIED. Ji