BRINGING UP WOMEN.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 18911, 28 January 1927, Page 13

BRINGING UP WOMEN.

TO TBI EOtTOB OF THI PRISS. Sir,—l think the point that your correspondent ''E.G." is trying to make is—That the modern girl is no good; that office work ruins her constitution, and that she has not a grain of sense. Perhaps the fact that - 1 answer his absurd rigmarole proves the last clause; for anyone so absolutely out-of-date ami lacking in sympathy deserves to be left alone. I consider that woman is developing along stronger and better lines than man, who thinks of very little besides making money and defending his commercial interests nt the point of tho bayonet. The now power and freedom that have come to women since the last war have slightly gone to her head, but this is only to be expected; and [ will back my own sex to come out all right in the end if they have fair play. More education is what is wanted for everyone, and nat less. You will always find that women have sufficient stamina to do what they want to do, and even now could raise large and healthy families, but it is not done, and in these last simple words you have the key to modern life and can go anywhere.—Yours, etc. D.C.M.

to ins tci'rot or thi racss. Sir,—l have read with great interest the letter of "E.S." upon the subject of "Bringing Up "Women." "E.S." has evidently been tliinkiug'dccply, aiid I agree with many of his deductions. However, he (presumably he) has to my, mind taken the subject rather onesidedly. "E.S."- says a woman's natural sphere is the home. Possibly. so! In the average home to-day there is no room for more than one daughter to assist with the housework. Therefore, what can a working man with four or five daughters do? (I know one with seven.) "E.S" would probably say. "Marry them off,' 1 as was done in the' good old days. Unfortunately, there is a scarcity of men, and such as we have ar<j not frightfully enthusiastic about matrimony. It's rather expensive' these days. .'' E.S'' also speaks with horror of the "numbcrof doctors, Plunket'nurses, and hospitals we support," and infers that they have not done much to improve the. health of the people. In fact, very much the reverse. I think otherwise. The Plunket Society, for instance, has through its influence greatly decreased the death-rate among babies. People talk of the "good old days" when mothers were able to look after their babies without the help of Plunket Societies. One has only to visit -an old cemetery, Barbadoes street, for instance, and read upon tho stones of the amazing number of babies that died before the ago of-Bis or seven. Somet'nies there were whole . families of eight or nine. This goes to prove that Plunket nurses have done something to improve tho health of the people.' "F..5." writes,, also, of '.'the. doctors we support." I really think doctors earn all they receive; and I gather froni the use of the pronoun "we" that "E.S." has assisted in the "supporting." Perhaps we are blessed with too many doctors, but who would rather return to those "high and far-off times" when "bleeding" was the cure for every 'known disease, and superstitious old women were the only doctors? Nobody. I think. And what would we do without our hospitals? Where would tho innumerable victims of accidents be cared for. if- there were no hospitals! ''E.S.'' has evidently goth.thc idea that people become careless of health and railway Crossings when there' is a large and competent medical force at hand. ■ Apart from these few points, I agree, with "E.S..'s".ideas, but I am afraid that the movement of "modern woman" is too far advanced to be checked by mere man now.—Tours, etc., ADVANCING WITH THE TIMES.