SOCIAL HYPOCRISY.

Bruce Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 67, 27 August 1917, Page 6

SOCIAL HYPOCRISY.

' OUR COSTLY MEDIAEVALISM. THE CRUCIFIXION OF MOTHERHOOD. (By Alison Bain, in the Sydney Sunday Times.) I grow -weary of words. All this talk about "illegitimates" and "notwanteds" saps precious energy, leads to no effective action, and leaves us exhausted mentally and physically. If we really were something more than sentimentalists and amateurs we should give up vaporising and get down to fundamentals. Unfortunately that -is what we are most reluctant to do. We prefer to have our emotional centres unhealthily stirred rather than to exercise a, little uncommon sense. For the past 18 months Sydney has been swept by sex waves and the community has been engulfed in verbosity —the words illegitimate, venereal disease, sexual sin, morality, the future of the State, providing the necessary, stimulus to obsession for jaded nervous systems. The usual '-'proper" reactions iave occurred, and we have exhibited —'quite unwittingly, of course—all the symptoms of a sexually deranged population. We have had the amusing spectacle of the clergy "running with the microbe and hunting with the doctor," as the Bulletin so aptly put in, and our old friend the birth-rate has come in for a goodly share of rough handling. But now that we iave 'had our little "fling and apotheosised the birth-rate and half-a-dozen other things, isn't At time we settled down and asked ourselves what it is all about? There can be no blinking the fact that the problems of illegitimacy—or, as Mr Knibbs fittingly expressed it, exnuptial births—and of venereal disease, have their roots in our attitude towards the problem of sex generally, an attitude, it must be confessed, based largely upon profound ignorance fostered by the fear of knowledge. Like the poor, this problem is always with us;' and, like the poor, it will continue to be with us until we abandon the habit of punctuating life with a series of tearful "Why's" and exclamations, instead of seriously getting to work to find out something of the basic character and inherent nature of the whole business. Let us face the practical problem. What are we going to do about it? For the moment the particular aspect of the sex problem that is agitating our minds and flooding the, daily press with more or less futile comment is that of the so-called illegitimate child. So far as I can judge, our attitude towards these children is characterised solely by a desire to punish—somebody. Now, just what is it we wish to penalise—'the sexual act, motherhood, or the chMd? Theoretically we exalt motherhood; practically we protect and dignify with the name of marriage a relation stigmatised outside the sacred bonds of matrimony as prostitution. Sentimentally we extol the virtues of motherhood; actually we put up a premium on the skill and prowess of the woman who has been able to drive a better bargain than the unmarried mother. Is it motherhood or marriage we wish to honour? Again, if an unmarried mother wishes to retain a remnant of social respect, the only choice open to her is to give up her child, either surreptitiously, by adopting the berceaux ombres of the French, as a recent writer in the Times advocated, or other customary channels, or by boarding it out through a Government Department. Whatever avenue of escape is accepted, it means artificial feeding for the child. Now, the concensus of medical opinion is that children who are breast-fed have a better chance for life than those who are bottle-fed, and that the mortality among breast-fed children is less thanthat of bottle-fed babies. Are we genuinely interested in child welfare, or is our interest limited to our baby, not to the other woman's? Apart from the inhumanity of separating mother and infant, a practice bad for 'both, why should the illegitimate

child be further handicapped in this fashion? Of course, a community suffering from a legal interpretation of life makes the child accessory after the fact, and uses all the devices at the disposal of a Christian community to make the punishment more than fit the crime—the crime, by the way, not being stated. Let the mothers who wish to keep their children do so. Those who are incompetent or who are auxious to be rid of them will continue to avail themselves of the usual arrangements. A large proportion of abandoned children are deserted not because the mothers wish to escape further personal responsibility, but because society in its ' righteous (?) desire to punish makes'it impossible for the mother to exist eco-, nomically if she retains possession. Such is our charity that we make it impossible for the unmarried mother to engage in productive work of any sort, either as a worker earning her own living or as a mother raising a child. It's a short-sighted policy, but good people are notorious for defective vision. Result: one child and one woman for the community at large to keep. Truly, woman's inhumanity to woman makes countless numbers—derelict*. Leaving aside all ethical considerations —and there are many—our mediaeval attitude toward the problem of illegitimacy is a very expensive luxury. Perhaps, in these strenuous times, it is a luxury that the Control Board might reasonably be asked to investigate. But we are a practical people, and one of these days some taxpayer is bound to get excited about the amount of money spent in maintaining this particular form of needless extravagance—'the luxury of having soemthing to throw stones at. When that day comes, we shall perhaps realise what all our theology and cant have obscured from us: that the illegitimate child and its mother are assets to the State just as much as any other child and moi»her. Consideration for our own pockets may then enable us to pursue a policy that ■ a shop-window morality has hitherto I precluded us from adopting. Our pres- ' ent treatment tends to make neither I mother nor child useful members of society. It is open to serious question whether the branding treatment ever does any good, and whether it does not make it more expensive for the State in the long run. The upkeep of foundling asylums and rescue homes (that don't rescue) is already a heavy charge on the social income, entirely disproportionate to the return. j Our methods of dealing with the problems of sex have heretofore been denunciatory and negative—and flagrantly unsuccessful even in mitigating the evils they are designed to prevent. All our primitive taboos have failed to accomplish the more or less vaguely desired end. They have punished, but are powerless to prevent. In addition, they are unnecessarily costly in human suffering and misery, as well as in cold cash. Is ft not time that we gave positive methods a chance? The war has to some extent chastened the spirit, and we are no longer disposed—at least, I hope we are not —to make the sweeping generalisations of pre-War days. A few things other than guns have been exploded, not the least of which are pet notions and stock ideas concerning an uncomfortable number of things. Surely it is time the great catastrophe divested us of the verbal impediments with which we have confused our thinking, most of all on questions of sex. Perhaps if we really knew what we were talking about we should be disposed to talk less .-Mid do more. Oh, Morality! what sins are committed in thy name.