THE FAMILY:

NZ Truth, Issue 80, 29 December 1906, Page 7

THE FAMILY:

' CORRUPTED' §V CAPITALISM. A Factory Inspector's Testimony. THE "FAYQRINGmTf IMMORAL WOMEN. • Maternity a " Disagreeable Necessity "-—The Working Class "Home." — — — » 1. 1, No. 11. '

In our last issue, we gave some accouat > of the effects of the factory system, m destroying family life. In doing so, we quoted at some length from Allen Clarke's "Effects of the Factory System." The excerpt that we gave did nob exhaust the subject, as is proved by ' the following excerpts from pages 27, 31, and 32 of Allen Clarke's pamphlet:— "Miss Abrahams, factory inspector, says: Though the conditions of mill life m Lancashire are closely similar to those m Yorkshire, I found a larger number of CASES OF ACTUAL IMMORALITY - and of immoral tendencies. I see no explanation for this except m the fact that the sanitary accommodation is much more frequently common to men and women m Lancashire than ifc is m Yorkshire. Two cases of immorality have- been directly traced to this, and it is mentioned as the cause of much loose language and immoral behaviour. Moreover, common provisions for decency are sometimes absent, as m mill 375, where the lavatories, opening from the ' shed m- which men aad, women work together, are unprovided with doors. In Several cases also the sanitary accommodation for the women is situated in" the fcaperoom or m other rooms ih which .men only are employed.' ' - "Further, she reports: 'I have made the most careful inquiry into the effect of mill life upon the morality of women, girls, and children,- and I find, that m a number of mills the overlookers do use loose and violent language, whioh it is considered has a harmful effect, especially upon the children. There are undoubtedly some few CASES OF DIRECT IMMORALITY m connection with a system of "favoritism" (e.g., No. 35) ; -but a more general cause of immorality m girls and children is -insufficient sanitary accommodation, the same closets being common m some mills to men, women, and children. Beyond this there is no special tendency to iauriorality amojig mill-workers.'* . "The immorality of children is. attributed, and probably correctly co, to the fact that the inadequate sanitary accommodation I have mentioned as being so injurious is most general m spinning-rooms, and this is just the part of the mill where children are largely employed.' "t "After the facts stated previously conI cerning the debilitation of adults by the factory life, and especially the deteriorating effects on the mother, it will be obvious to readers of this article that children born m manufacturing towns begin life bitterly burdened with a hell of heredity from whioh, in 'most cases, there is no escape but death. A great percentage of infants m Lancashire manufacturing towns are still-born. This is no wonder ; neither is it the least surprising, after seeing the conditions under which PREGNANT WOMEN WORK, that miscarriages m the early stages of gestation are verjr common. But for *this fact j the large families m the working population would be overwhelmingly large. Indeed, many of the factory women try to force miscarriages by means of pills, herbs, and all manner of tricks, such as standing on the table and jumping off,., etc. Whether they do this for the benefit of the unborn | child or themselves I cannot say; but I j think, ifc is mostly out of consideration for themselves. Those women, who work m the factory: do not wish to have the trouble of I confinement, with consequent loss of wages ! and the addition of another mouth io fill. ' Scientific preventives of conception are not ! much m use among the factory operatives; they resort, to the clunisy expedients for abortion I have just mentioned. But this is a chapter not to be written here. I have merely mentioned it m passing to show that amongst the majority of factory mothers tho birth of a child is not looked forward to with the longing love of pure maternity, but regarded as A DISAGREEABLE NECESSITY, incident to sexual commerce. Indeed, there' is little sweet and clean idea of fatherhood and motherhood amongst the factory workers. The babe is generally an unwelcome incumbrance, the result of fleshly accident; and, to 'make the most of a bad job,' as the Lancashire saying has it, is invested m some employment as soon as possible, m order to make some return towards the expense of his bringing-up, which *bringingup' is mostly a scramble through picked bones, and not at all the food, education,' and happy childhood which should be the unstinted heritage of every little child. I am glad to say, however, that there . are many exceptions to this type of parent:, mothers and fathers who will sacrifice themselves willingly "for the benefit of their cfcil-^ dren; noble women who will- slave and starve themselves . m order to keep their children clothed and fed, who will deprive themselves of necessities that their offspring, may not be sent to the factory, but have a better chance m life than their parents; and m this connection I mention, with choking, tearful sensation and deepest reverence, my own mothef and father." The truth with regard to family - life and the present sfcate of society is thus ably stated by Ernest D. ' Hull, m the New York "Worker." Mr. Hull is the Socialist candidate for the position of Governor of Connecticut: — "SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY. "You are told*that Socialism would breakup the family, and, mind you, it is the de- j fending spokesmen of capitalism who aro anxious to preserve the sacred family 1 "Examine the daily news columns and the records of,, divorce courts, and. learn how sacred the capitalist's family r ! eally is. In addition to this, remember that wealth is itself a more or less effective screen for much that is not recorded. The Pittsburg group 08 steel — properly spelled 'steal' — millionaires afford ah excellent illUstraision of the point. This gr6up of parasites is particularly famed for the production of scandal—not steel — and for lavish , expenditures for purposes of corruption and prostitution. 'THE WORKING-CLASS FAMILY. "Docs capitalism treat the working-dass family as though that is sacred? Does it not take by hundreds the wives and mothers from the homes to the factories to displace husbands ' and fathers, solely because they must work cheaper? Does it not take the children just out of baby clothes, t__us of thousands and hundreds of thousands of them, away from home, mother, and school, solely because it can grind their little bodies into big profits? Is this preserving or breaking up the family ? Yet they declaim about the sacredness of the family, which you are told the Socialists would destroy. Their inconsistency and hypocrisy would be amusing if not tragic. "It is further truo that tho present al-

most intolerable struggle necessary tb maintain a family at present causes many intelligent men and women to refrain from marriage because of the impossibility of economic comfort? "No, Socialism is not opposed to the family. It comes as the saviour of tho family, and as the promotor of family welfare by establishing economic equality for the sexes, and tho abolition of man, woman, and dbild slavery. "THE WORKING-CLASS HOME. "Ifc is said that Socialism would destroy the home. Now, Socialists consider thai Socialism will for the first time make ib possible for -the working-class to possess real homes. What is your conception of a home? Is it 6imply the place whore yoa can do your eating and sleeping? Th« place where, wife and mother slate themselves from early until late, m order to maintain the standard of appearances which might mislead a stranger to believe that yours was a capitalist's home instead of a working-class home? Is it not true that woman's work is never done, and fch.at, m» steady of being man's real companion the wife is more compelled by the existing order to be man's slave? How many members of £he working-class now actually own a home? Does a flat m a crowded tenement block .which a capitalist owns conform to your ideals of a home? "PAY INTEREST OE PAY RENT. " . "A few wage workers may, ori the face of tilings, appear to own a home. Most of them merely . substitute Mterest paying for rent paying. Capitalism creates m all of our large cities so-called homes, consisting of one room m which hundreds, yes thousands, of famjiies of three and four members are obliged to eat, sleep, and existbarely exist, for this certainly is not living. Socialism would most assuredly destroy that type of : tomes. Even ;in Connecticut cities Of moderate fiize, tha factory Workers' who are getting so-called "fair" wages ; ar» obliged to double v up, two'" families m a small/ tenement for one family— this because Vents are higher than one family caa afford to pay. In the face of these facta you are told that Socialism would destroy your homes, something which ha any true conception it is impossible fora wageworker at present to possess. • For Avery so-called home which Socialism would destroy, ifc would give back something worthy of the name "home."