THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT.

Evening Star, Issue 15513, 8 June 1914, Page 7

THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT.

TO MB EDITOR. Sir, —I frankly confess that "De Jure" has asked mo some knotty questions. I contended in the initial stage of this correspondence that one could not dogmatise. .Nevertheless, one can surmise with some degree of safety that the present terms of the contract of marriage will undergo considerable modifications; but it would be rash to attempt an indication of the precise nature of such modification. It should not be assumed, for instance, that 'because a woman has married a hus-> band and borne • him children that her entire existence,.. all -her hopes and her pleasures and ambitions, are necessarily bound up in wifehood and maternity. I consider the best service the State can render to its women would be to allow them to find thoir own level. The woman's point of view should be asked for not snubbed out of existence, by the social organism; hence the woman would have to'fight her way to a point of view essentially her own. So far the atmosphere of the social structure has been favorable to the production of but two species of women—the wife and mother, and her equivalent outside the law. Therefore, any variations from this accepted idea of woman are considered by many as unnatural, freakish, and out ot place in the scheme of Nature. After all we are coming to see that, the really unnatural and abnormal feature about womanhood in general is its unfortunate lack of variation. As we progress., so are women getting away from that unhealthy uniformity of type produced by generations of economic pressure and restriction of opportunity. So that what your correspondent "Do Jure" calls the "narrow autocracy »of the father "—or shall 1 not add the husband I— must be abdicated, and man and wife become something more akin to economic and social equals, before there can be established a State recognition of a definite wage for the production of what "De Jure" calls social, wealthchildren, as well as the manifold duties of wifehood.

Further, the requirements of a woman who merely desires a husband will differ to a considerable extent from the requirements' of the woman who endeavors to secure not only a husband, but a means of livelihood, a home, or a refuge from the often despised state of spinsterhood. Before the weighty and unique questions of "De Jure's" can be answered, the situation of both parties to the contract of marriage will have to be enormously simplified. Then there may be an economic foundation to argue a definite wage for mothers. Motherhood,

of course, will always place a woman in a class (even of her own sex) for a certain length of time—a class, mark you,demanding very, special provision,'*and undertaking very special responsibilities.So that, in dealing with women in general, one must be mindful that they are a class whoso interests are varied and multiple. It is, of course, one thing to give freedom ; it is quite another to induce the recipients of that privilege, to make full use of it. • ' " De Jure " affirms that the contract of marriage is merely in the case of the mother a legal distinction between the free worker and the slave. I diaseint from such a proposition, as it appears to me to show a complete misapprehension of the nature of family government, and the true position of the mother in general. First of all, a mother is equal in citizenship with a father, having complete recognition as such. Secondly, she has. a primary instead of a secondary existence, a 'place in community jig well as in the house. Thirdly, the compulsory character of marriage and its concomitant legal obligations give the mother tho greatest freedom (protection in the widest acceptation of the term), and as a consequence is net unpopular with her. To get down to rock-bottom; " De Jur-p" asks: Do I approve of giving mothers a definite wage an exactly the same grounds that any other work done by women-is rewarded?" I have no desire to fence round tfie question, and here is my answer: I do not interpret conjugal affection as generally a desire to enter domestic service without wages, and -I discern a necessary connection . between conjugal affection and domestic service. It would be hard to draw a sharp line of distinction in marriage between housekeeping and marital love, and fallacious to class them as Separate departments of human life and effort. Therefore, in the life of : the mother, housekeeping and bearing of ' children are synonymous—social service. To be logical, I must conclude that the

laborer is worthy of hin hire. State en> downment to inothe.rhood may be the first instalment to meet * the case. If such opinions are valid, them the statue of a " Hbuspkeepers' Union" is worthy of the highest recognition.—l am, etc., • W. E. J. Maguire. June 6.