Support for proposed scheme of motherhood endowment

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32633, 15 June 1971, Page 6

Support for proposed scheme of motherhood endowment

(By

ELSIE LOCKE)

Now that equal pay for equal work is really on its way, the new talking point seems to be motherhood endowment. The whole topic is surrounded with mystification as to why and how. I shall not concern myself with the how, nor with-speci-fic proposals advanced or carried at the recent conference of the Labour Party, with which I have no connection. I have advocated motherhood endowment for many years, and fee) that it must be understood and accepted in principle before we confuse ourselves further with the details. In a way, the idea is a corollary to equal pay, which many women have been hesitant to endorse because they feared it would place the man with a family to support at a disadvantage. Equal pay for both sexes implies that each individual earner has the same spending power. The wage of the family man must support two adults plus the children, and the only “levelling up” comes in the income tax structure. A motherhood endowment can

be seen as additional “level-: ling up.” Obviously this, too, could < only come from taxation; and why should unmarried people be taxed to support someone else’s wife? Why should someone else’s wife expect it? REASON FOR HOSTILITY This thinking comes easily to both sides and- is one of the reasons why there is hostility to the idea; but it leaves out of consideraion the cont. bution of mothers to the community beyond the home. Nobody, so far as I know, is proposing to pay housewives for their housework, any more than to pay husbands for week-end digging and repair jobs. Even to assess how much of our homework is efficient and essential, and how much is pleasant pottering, would be difficult. But note this calculation from Great Britain, outlined by Nan Berger and Joan Maizels in “Woman: Fancy or Free?” that the work done by British housewives, if charged at current scrubbing rates, would cost £4500m a year or about a quarter of the national income. Those wage earners who think that their pay packets may be unjustly raided might

reflect on how mfich fatter i all our pay packets are because so much of the basic work of < the nation is done by the un-; paid labour of housewives. i Parents, and particularly mothers, play a central role 1 in the education of young l citizens. They do all of it > up to play-centre age, most of it to school age, and a large share throughout the school years. RESPONSIBLE We recognise that they are responsible to the whole community for the results when we blame bad parents for delinquency and vandalism, and invite their presence when their offspring are honoured for some achievement or other. Nobody complains about paying teachers, whether or not the taxpayer has children at school. The mother’s role as teacher, if done well, includes day-long attention, keen observation, and knowledge of child development, nutrition, hygiene and the rest. It is highly skilled work, highlighted rather than otherwise by the admitted fact that there are also careless and lazy mothers who muff their job. A motherhood endowment would be a recognition of this contribution to society. Everybody else is tangibly recognised and a monetary benefit does not demean their work. There was a time when nurses had to maintain themselves during training and work for- low salaries after graduating, on the justification that their vocation called for dedication, not moneymaking. Nowadays nobody would ask the most dedicated of nurses to forgo’her proper salary, or think less of her for accepting it. Her status has gone up with her income, rather than otherwise. INDEPENDENCE The most important thing of all is that an endowment would give the home-bound mother her necessary measure of independence: and I mean independence of per-

sonality, not money, paradoxical as that may seem. When she leaves work to care for her children, the young wife becomes utterly ’ dependent on her husband. He may, and frequently does, deal generously with his income on the basis of mutual agreement. But the pay packet is his, and with it goes the power to exercise a variety of controls over her life. If she is the most cherished wife, in the world, she is still dependent on his grace and favour. When the husband is not fair, when she has to plead for the bare minimum of housekeeping or the price of a pair of ' shoes, her dependence be- ’ comes intolerable. The only money over which a wife now has complete disposal is the family allowance ’ (provided that it has not been 1 capitalised to buy a home). When this benefit was first i introduced, thousands of women found it simply mar- . vellous to be able to spend - this money without consult- , ing their lord apd master. ■ LITTLE ABUSE Nevertheless, despite many predictions of abuse, they have always in general spent ’ this money as intended, for ’ the children. Every marriage reiation- : ship is different. Occasionally ’ a wife with a private income may be denied housekeeping ’ money, on the grounds that ' she aireddy has it in her ' purse. Couldn’t this happen with motherhood endowment? 1 It could, but the defence against it lies in the independence of personality. Total 1 financial dependence has a strong tendency to push the wife into a secondary role, to which she may react by becoming a nagger or a battle-axe, or a submissive kitten allowing her own potential to be smothered. Of course many couples do strike a happy balance; but they are not helped by the ; system. We generally agree that i the good marriage is a partnership for life. Partners are : equals who respect one another and exercise their inde-

pendence of personality within the partnership; the “give and take” of marriage is freely given and joyfully taken, grounded in love and understanding. Surely this is much harder to achieve, when the wife is loaded with the weights of total financial dependence and the consequent dependence of choice? And when the busband is fully aware of the power that he wields with his pay packet?