GATHERING OPINIONS

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 150, 28 June 1938, Page 4

GATHERING OPINIONS

WOMEN'S SOCIAL PROGRESS THE QUESTION OF DIVORCE All the meetings of the Women's Social Progress Movement have some object as well as the pleasant meeting of members together in social form. ( The members of the movement en- 1 deavour to gather together as much < information about women's affairs and j social service as possible, as well as ( about the laws which govern the lives of women, and which in a num- I ber of directions differ from those 1 which govern those of men. It is j these differences which are, in quite C a number of cases, objected to, and yes- t terday afternoon, starting with "The s Economic Status of Married Women," f a number of aspects of the lives of t women came interestingly under dis- a cussion. ? Mrs. J. C. Andersen was in the chair, | and the speakers were Mrs. Alex Gil- v lies, Mrs. M. H. Chatfteld, and Mrs. ti J. Down. Mrs. G. L. Stewart also v made a valuable contribution to the ~ information given when the time for ' discussion arrived. Divorce was the subject on which Mrs. Gillies spoke very earnestly, as, , she said she was convinced thai the \ three years period-of separation be- . fore a decree could be obtained was ij a great disadvantage to women, being Ij sure that the former time of five years was a better proposition for them. She ® pointed out that a divorced woman r had no rights except those the Court allowed her, and these were often a: pitifully "small and with considerations attached. She received no share from the home she helped to build, or from the insurances that so often were the result of the woman's care and econo- _ mies. "There is l a difference between s£ a legal right and a moral right," added w Mrs. Gillies, and went on to say that m women • suffered most as the result of j n divorce,; no matter who .was in the a wrong, and that the easier it became v( to obtain a divorce in New Zealand 0 f the more in jeopardy were our homes _j. and our women. The three years legal separation period, she considered, was = an unfortunate piece of legislation, because it meant that a woman who f agreed' to a separation order was vir- . tually signing her divorce papers. "If a divorce is inevitable, get it at once," Iv said Mrs. Gillies, "and otherwise be- ® ware of signing papers." She said that under the present legislation J;® women, who often were not naturally , adapted to cope with legal problems, signed away their rights as married v women without realising that they S? were doitig so. 'And things will remain exactly as they are now unless bodies like the Women's Social Pro- ® gress Movement act." she concluded. The home was spoken of by Mrs. Chatfield as the centre and glory and c , safety of the nation. "But," she said, , "it must be a happy and willing home." ;? She thought that women should be : free to follow careers if they wished l w to do so, and that it was a mistake to presume that every woman wanted c; r to be a housekeeper and a mother. als "Some women," she said, "have no flair P° for either." She referred to the limi- stu tations of the Civil Service in other a . E directions, where it is impossible for a. woman to rise as high as a man. She ttl£ stressed the need for women police to deal with the criminal aspect of women j in the community, and added that it pe] was ridiculous to say that in so small q 0 a country as New Zealand this aspect did not exist. She suggested that j more women should stand for Parlia- j at raent if they were financially able to t^( io so. Mrs. Chatfield also paid a tri- ca _ 3ute to all the work New Zealand pu | .vomen had done since they obtained ;he franchise, although, owing to the 'act that women really interested in ' n ;heir country and humanity were not ji h( is a rule well off, they had not been ible to meet the expenses of standing 0 * - 'or Parliament. Mrs. G. L. Stewart, n the audience, pointed out that this In . vas a blot on women's economic status. are Returning to the question of divorce, cur Urs. Down described the Swedish , narriage laws of 1920, by which hus- jj >and and wife form a partnership in or vhich there is absolute equality and oint responsibility in all economic mat- jL ers. She compared this with the posi- . ion in New Zealand, and said that .. ' uch a* law as the Swedish one might .' lelp people in this country, but that she distrusted new legislation and felt, , . ike Hamlet, that she would "rather iear the ills we have than fly to others hat we know not of" .. 1 During afternoon tea, which was . e ' erved by the committee, the discusion was continued informally.