SUPERFLUOUS WOMEN.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16569, 5 June 1914, Page 5

SUPERFLUOUS WOMEN.

5 TO THE EDITOB. Sir,—Your contributor “ P.J.F.,” in to-day’s issue say3:—“ln this country J the actual numerical preponderance of I women over men is not very considerable,” and she bases certain arguments ’ on “the presence in the community of superfluous women.” lam very sorry to have to cross swords with any fenii- . nist, but we shall get nowhere at all if we don’t stick to facts. It is a | fact that in this country there is no , “ numerical preponderance of women over men.” Hero are tho figures: Males of Females of All Ages. All Ages. 563,447 610,022 Superfluous males, 53,425. The census return for 1911 (p. 227-3) shows that at every age males and not females are in preponderance in this country. For every eleven males in New Zealand there are only ten females, and, taking “ men ” and “ women ” to be persons over tventyj one years of age, tho proportionate | preponderance of men is much greater. 1 Thebe are the percentages given on p. 226 of 1911 Census: ( | !

And so on. (I might point out here that there is an obvious misprint tf the percentages at the 50-55 age period.) It is worth noting, too, that womansuffrage countries, except. Finland and Norway (where war and emigration havo depleted the male population), have a large surplus of males, thus: Surplus Males. Australia (say) . . 200,000 New Zealand . . 60,000 Wyoming . . . 37.000 Colorado , , . 72 000 Utah . . , . 20 000 Idaho .... 45,000 Washington . . 175,000 California . . . 263,000 As to the superfluous woman in England, there is also a good deal of misapprehension. I “They were always hearing about the surplus of women,” said Sir Rider Haggard, according to a recent London report, “but the Dominion Royal Commission had found that in the marriageable ages, eighteen to thirty-five, thero urns no surplus of women in this country, except in what ho might call the i motor-car class and their dependants.” That is exactly what we should expect, arguing from biological probabilities, that the class which is overfed and underworked will tend to produce more females than males. It is a vital change of the economic system that is wanted, so that we 6hall cease to have largo masses of women shamefully overworked and underfed lacing small classes of women whose conditions are just as shamefully reversed. I As to the “ surplus of women of j non-marriageable age,” this also is largely duo to present industrial conditions. Men are cheap; money is dear. _ Men die liko flies in mines and factories and workshops, on railroads and in ships. How can this fail to upset tho natural balance, of tho population—the approximation of numbers of men and women so obviously desirable? So great a scientist as Alfred Russel Wallace has shown clearly that there is no natural tendency whatever to produce “surplus females,” but rather that under sane economic conditions the reverse is true. If then we remedy tho economic conditions w© will not need to bother about, the “superfluous woman.” She will vanish like mists in the morning, sunshine.—l am, etc. ETTIE A. ROUT. Christchurch, June 3, 1914.

Males Females Age. Per cent. Per cent. 21-25 . . 52.12 47.86 25-30 . . 53.30 46.G1 30-35 . - 53.51 46.49