ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE OF WOMEN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 11229, 25 November 1899, Page 1 (Supplement)

ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE OF WOMEN.

[by mizpaii.] By their foolish meddling in political matters, which may or may not concern them, our various women's leagues effect but little in the way of reform. They may look back with self-approval to a glorious achievement —viz., the granting of the franchise to I women. 1 doubt whether women really are as responsible for the passing of the measure, which opened up vistas of boundless power, as the many women's societies seem to think. A knot of statesmen, courting popularity, thinking to earn for their country a unique position among the nations of the world, took up the cause. The question of women's rights was being widely discussed among men; and knowing well that women influence the actions of men, they trusted that this influence would in the future be used more largely for their special behoof. Everyone knows the story of the struggle; everyone sees the unfortunate resulta number of women, education doubtful, banding themselves together to gain cheap notoriety, discussing in the manner in which only women can discuss, every conceivable question that may arise in the world of politics. A few sensible, educated women, anxious to benefit generally the cause of humanity, and particularly that of their own sex, have been drawn into the vortex, and from reasons of loyalty to the cause which avowedly is that of the societies, dare not with honour withdraw their support. They must sit in the temple with the rabble, listening to the frothy effusions of self-styled enthusiasts, or to the spiteful denunciations (of man and his works) of shrews and termagants. If someone could only educate the tyrants who take possession of these meetings, and who call down 011 the sex the ridicule of astonished onlookers; if some beneficent mind could teach them where to draw the line in their ravings; if some power were given them " to see themselves as itliers see them;" then the common-sense members, of whom doubtless there are several, might get an opportunity to work for their cause. The trouble is that these women, stupid in their crass ignorance, think that men may be altogether put aside from the question. All men they condemn as tyrants, and by so condemning, before the acquisition of the power they long for, they defeat their own ends. Their pet scheme for the economic independence of women was perhaps originally evolved from a clever brain; but it is crude, and, in its present form, impracticable. Certainly it is desirable, in certain cases, that the wife should have control of the income; in others, it is just as undesirable. No one can lay down a hard and fast law in such matters. A woman may be the thriftless wife of a prudent, hard-working man. Should she have unlimited control of half the family income? The scheme makes provision for all such as are not happily married—a very wise provision; but is it fair and right to assume that the women of the future are to be unhappy wives? As things are going, it is probable that wives will decrease in number. The trouble is that "lovers are thoughtful and kind, husbands their temper display;" and that generosity before marriage becomes sometimes meanness afterwards. Supposing such a law—requiring the husband to hand over to his wife half of his earnings—would there not be every likelihood of the thriftless man wasting his whole half in complete assurance that out of the other the woman might do as best she could towards paying rent, buying food, clothing, etc. ? He would have a plea for greater extravagance than he now enjoys. In another case, when the wife found that her half was not- sufficient to do all that was required of her, would there not be the same wrangling as to-day with the husband who grudges her money, and would lie not be tempted to flaunt the law in her faje, and to sneer at her? If romance is to die and sordid calculation take its place, the scheme may work. I doubt it. But surely some arrangenri'it mil be made by which the husband agrees to pay the household expenses, and allow to his wife a stipulated amount of pin-money? This will be found to apply only to the incomes of people of social pretensions, for the labouring classes in New Zealand do not seem to require the same. The earnings usually go in one lump sum to the weekly keep of the family. The majority of working men's wives are imprudent. They train their husbands badly. When wages are coming in regularly, their tables are set with an extravagance that many people of better social position cannot afford. Instead of preserving fruit, they prefer to pay dear prices for tinned stuff. Instead of saving, they spend all on immediate desires. Where this extravagance prevails—and it does prevail to a considerable extent in our city— can be no possibility of the wife having only half of the earnings. The husband would spend his half as lie pleased, the wife would be expected to maintain the style of living she had accustomed him to, and there would be endless quarrelling and misery. Law can do little between husband and wife. It might, perhaps, require the man to have certain money or property before marrying. Then there would be a cry about the decrease of marriages. It is hard to see any way out of the difficulty. Truly, there is nothing more humiliating to a woman than to have to ask her husband for money for trifles, nothing more galling than to be churlishly received or to be denied. Every woman about to marry should stipulate—nor should this be considered too delicate a matter to be mooted before marriage—for a certain sum of money to pay for the small items of expense that so harass women, to pay also for her own clothes and household linen. The amount will depend on the economic management of the woman. Above all, no man should marry any woman in whose management- he has not perfect confidence. If lie does, then he should certainly not afterwards twit the wife with her failings. If she fall short, it is his duty to take charge of the household matters, allow her some pocket-money to trifle with, and learn by experience, teaching his better half at the same time how to become a good housekeeper. Clubs, societies, and leagues should not try to interfere between husband and wife, except where there is evidence of gross mismanagement or unkindness. No political league, however much it considers its cause the grand one of humanity, should arrogate to itself the representation of the rights of all women, without first ascertaining, by careful systematic inquiry, whether that which it would like to see done is really that which will benefit the mass of women, and, moreover, that which the mass of women have signed their assent to. Above all, women who wish to benefit their sex should remember that all women: are . not born logicians, any more than all men are born housekeepers. A few women are fitted to take the lead a few men control the destinies of the nation. These will step into their right places when the right- (time comes. Meanwhile, those women who force themselves forward are keeping back the leaders, and are ruining their cause* '• '' f ; v. '. .