WOMAN’S FREEDOM.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 296, 13 November 1937, Page 8

WOMAN’S FREEDOM.

(To the Editor.) Sirj-—After reading with interest the letters by “Catholic Woman” and “Social Progress,” I would like to ask “Social Progress” i 3 it progress when women are called upon to compete against men in the industrial world so that they may purchase more for their children, who by the way are well looked after in special children s nurseries. It would be progress, indeed, if conditions were such as to obviate the necessity of tlie lowering of womanly diginity by forcing her to work for her living, when her husband should be earning, and is entitled to earn the family livelihood. lam not here concerned with the single woman who has every right to earn her living in what way she pleases, but a married woman’s place is in the home, and very much* more so is it in the home if there is a family. Special children’s nurseries are excellent things, but would any mother worthy of the name be content to leave her children in such nurseries during their most impressionableyears ? Would there be so many youthful offenders now if the mother had exerted her influence on her children, and brought them up as good citizens instead, as is often the case nowadays, of leaving them to the kind administrations of others, or to look after themselves ?• The married woman has a fulltime duty of the highest order, and it is because it is so exacting that many would shelve the responsibility, not always through necessity, but often from motives of selfishness. If one could walk into the homes of some of our present day unemployed one would not find many widows left alone to bring up their families. In nearly every case the husband is deprived of the right to earn the family living, and it would be social progress if this wrong were righted. Of course where the man cannot earn then his wife, if she is able, is to he congratulated on going forth to do her hit. It is not progress, however, that causes this state of affairs; rather is it a departure from rightful progress. The British Empire now holds a place of honour second to none in the world of to-day; but that proud place can only be heki by the work of good mothers in the home.—l am, etc..

R. P. RYAN 25 Cuba Street, Palmerston North

(To the Editor.) Sir,—l should like “Social Progress” to re-read my letter in Thursday's paper, that he or she might not again miss (or sidetrack) its main issue, i.e., that women, by grasping their gay bauble of “new freedom,” are thereby forfeiting the dignity that Christianity obtained for them and are paving the way for national decay through the destruction of true family life. May I also request “Social Progress” to show ordinary courtesy by quoting my words in their original context — not in a new arrangement that conveys a different meaning. I said “In modern States that have abandoned the Christian code of living we find women once more constrained to work in the fields or labour as human cogs in the wheels of industry—women shorn of their glory and dignity as mothers of men and becoming once more beasts of burden”—quite a different matter from that which “Social Progress’s” misquotation introduced. I referred to States that have abandoned Christianity and with it the ideal and dignity of, motherhood introduced into society by Christ. In those States women are on the same footing as men inasmuch as they spend their lives as State slaves, but not always for a remuneration of £4 to £8 per week. Now, to contest another point raised by “Social Progress,” who mentions the nurseries where children may be cared for while their mothers earn £4 to £8 per week wherewith to purchase more for "their children. Silk clothes instead of cotton ones will not compensate a child for the loss of mother-care which not even the most efficient nursery can replace. If children were little machines that needed only washing and feeding, a nurse might prove quite as satisfactory as a mother, but children are extremely sensitive human beings who must be treated according to the laws of their nature if they are to develop healthily in mind and temperament. What family life is possible with the mother away at one job, the father away at another job, and the ,children away at a public institution until it is time for them all to return as tired individuals to the house in which they sleep ? Such conditions foster individualism in its worst form—disintegration of the family. As I stated in • my former letter, firmly united families are the only foundation for a firmly united State. It is therefore the duty of-statesmen as well as the public to see that family life is protected. Finally; it appears that “Social Progress” does not apnreciate what is implied by the “Christian structure of society,” or, he would realise that social and economic security are ensured by it and by no other means. —I am, etc.. CATHOLIC WOMAN.