LARGE FAMILIES.

Evening Star, Issue 20980, 19 December 1931, Page 20

LARGE FAMILIES.

10 TUB BDITOK. Sir, —In reply to “ Workers’ Wife and Mother of Three,” there are thousands of good, respectable, and most conscientious mothers who have brought large families into the world and, whilst not being able to give them a University education or place them in a white collar position, have given to them the standard of character which has been the means of putting to shame tho ideals of the children whose parents were guilty of limiting the number of the family. Had it not been for the thousands of good, conscientious mothers who had larcge families previous to tho period between 1914 and 1918, and who gave their sons to fight for the freedom which “ Worker’s Wife and Mother of Three ” enjoys, I suggest that she would have been unable to maintain her self-righteous standard of respectability under any circumstances whatever. There -would be no question of “ how could the relief depots cope with things if we all provided large families?” should there be a repetition of the period between 1914 and 1918. On the contrary, wo would be commenting on the wonderful sacrifice made by all those mothers who had failed to limit their families in older to avoid heavy taxation and the existence of relief depots. During the period stated there was no insulting comment made against the mothers who sent large families of sons to fight. No; they were held in the highest esteem. But to-day the unfortunate mother who brings a large family into the world is looked upon apparently by “ AVorker’s AVife and Mother of Three ” as a degrading, thoughtless, and conscienceless creature, unfit for a place in tho community. Every sane mother desires that she and her children should be happy. All realise that with large families under present-day industrial conditions the problem is difficult. However, “ Worker’s Wife and Mother of Three ” will render most valuable service to many young wives and others by submitting her own methods, conscientiously avoiding the machinations of the law, in preventi.-g large families. But all must be carefully on guard against the night when, looking into the red glow of the fire, we find ourselves beholding visions of beautiful features and asking; “ Where are all my chilrden or the children that might have been?” Should “ AVorker’s AVife and Mother of Three ” refrain from submitting the advice necessary for limiting families she should hereafter mind her own business and not throw insults at “ Proud Possessor of Twelve Children ” and his wife.—l am, etc., Nil Desperandum. December 18. ' TO THB EDITOR. Sir, —1 was surprised to read the letter in to-night’s paper from “ Mother of Three.” She is very lucky to have only three, but why cry dowu .the person who had the family of twelve? I am sure it is not a very nice principle ror any mother to follow, for did we not learn to respect and look up to our mothers and grandmothers before us, who in the good old days had large families and helped to make the country? I do not know how the next generation is going to fare if it is going to be like “ Mother of Three,” and 1 do not think that any wife would ask or want charity so long as tho breadwinner gets a fair deal. I cannot understand that a mother of a family could so condemn another for helping to populate tho country.—l am, etc., Mother of Eight. December 17. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —“ AVorker’s AVife, Mother of Three,” hits the nail on the head. But I differ from her this way: No worker’ for wages should have twelve of a family, or threo either. A family, no matter how small, is a proper hold- up these days. So it seems “ Mother of Three ” will have to take a little advice in her turn.—l am, etc., Unemployed, Father of None.