ARMLET BADGES.

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2753, 24 April 1916, Page 6

ARMLET BADGES.

Sir,—l am entirely in acoord with' Mrs. Hadficld that the rightful possessors of badges should wear them, and the excuse that they are a disfigurement is petty to a degree. The real reason probably, lies deeper than this. The average man has an innate dielike of advertising his own private circumstances or details of his history. Hn ako hates to make himself conspicuous. Still, theso are feelings ho shpuld' strive to overcome in the interests of recruiting. Worse things than these are cheerfully borne in, the trenches. Mrs. Hadfield is, however, on moro debateable ground when she remarks that "in a short' time, if not mors badges are to be seen, the women ■of this country will be forced to come t<3 the conclusion that the badgeless ones are truly shirkers, and will accordingly feel a measureless-contempt for thorn.'' Now, married men are badgeless, so are single, men with dependents, yet . a very great many of such are positively compelled to'stay behind if they would not see their own flesh and Wood suffei privation and want. Let me assure Mrs., Hadfield that in many cases such' men would gladly go if they oculd. Which would he the easier—ro go to the front or stay behind and bear ths "measureless contempt" p Uememhef that it_ is impossible for all to go. Lf conclusion, I can only say that if any of that sort of feeling is opeuly expressed, it will probably meet with tha retort which it deserves. However, in all probability the women cf Now Zeaj land will follow the dictates of . gco<! taste and sound common sense, and re .fuse to place themselves in a fals( position at the bidding of a few whosi patriotism has for the time being rur amok.—l am, etc., BADGELESS, BUT NO SHIRKER. '