THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN.

Wairarapa Age, 26 August 1930, Page 4

THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN.

MB. J. A. BRAILSFORD’S W.E.A. LECTURE. IBSEN’S* PROBLEMS AND IDEALS, At the meeting of the W.E.A. in the Municipal Social Hall last evening, Mr J. A. Brailsford, 8.A., tutor-organiser, spoke on “Ibsen*s Splendid Women.” The lecture was followed by a discussion, some passages of which are reported in another column. Mr. J. Mulvey presided over a largo attendance. Members and the public are asked to note that the hour of meeting is now 7.45 p,m. It might be thought, Mr. Brailsford observed in opening his lecture, that there was no need in these days to speak in favour of the emancipation of women, but as one example of what was still possible he might mention a cablegram in which the London "Times” was quoted as observing that there would be some natural disappointment that the princess born a day or two ago was not a boy. Ibsen was one of the pioneers in training father in the way in which he should go. He dealt with this problem, first ,in great epic plays like “Brand” and “Peer Gynt,” and afterwards in more homely plays. Mr. Brailsford dealt at length and analytically with a number of these plays and with the women characters introduced into them. Some of these women were heroic examples of devotion and loyalty, but they had their own ideals and these were different from the ideals of the husbands to whom they were devoted. Ibsen in his later life declared that the regeneration of mankind must come from women and from humble toilers, but he clung also to the conception of men like his character Brand, who saw ideals and would pursue them in an "all or nothing” spirit. Ibsen’s play “The Master Builder” was largely autobiographical, and in it might be seen something of what Ibsen felt about his own wife having had to sacrifice so much while he struggled against poverty in his early days. His family life was not as tragic as that of the Master Builder. He had one son who grew to manhood and -was an honour to him, but it did seem that he felt, like the Master. Builder, that he had demanded too great a sacrifice of his wife and wished that she might, instead of becoming the withered thing she had, have lived her own life, building the beautiful souls of children that he talked about and so remained young right through.

Although Ibsen’s play, “The Doll’s House,” had been taken as almost the gospel of modern feminism, there was nothing in it about women's rights in the ordinary sense. What Ibsen claimed was the right of his character, Nora to live her own life—not to gain a place in politics or anything of that kind. Ibsen in his later days was honoured by the Women’s Rights Association of Norway. He thanked it for the honour, but disclaimed having consciously done any work on behalf of women’s rights. Ibsen did teach that woman was entitled to a better place and a wider freedom than was accorded to her in this masculine world. He said that the life of the mother in modern society was like that of certain insects which went away and died when they had done their duty in the propagation of the race.

Nowadays, said Mr. Brailsford, woman was not necessarily restricted to the home. She must be allowed to live her own life, not of necessity merely as the mother of the race and guardian angel of her household. She must take an independent place in Society. There was a sad lack of real chivalry in modern life. AU sorts of chains and handicaps were put on women. They were not paid the same wages as men for equal work and they were still excluded from certain professions, after having been admitted grudgingly to others. Why should a girl, perhaps supporting a family, not get a man’s wage, when a boy with no family to support, didj Women were entitled to a fair start with men. They should get equal pay for equal work. Society must pay mothers for their services in that capacity. This meant universal family allowances. Mothers should bo guaranteed the means of bringing up their children. As long as women were treated as inferior, so long would marriage continue to be for a good monv women a means of seeking a commercial success. There were no doubt many women who did not regard marriage in this way, but success for many depended upon their winning a man with money and property and retaining his favour. Too often a woman fed her husband like a brute and pampered him like a tyrant and probably made a brute and tyrant of him. Until there was .a revolt against these features of the marriage system, the evils against which Ibsen had protested would continue. Ibsen raised the question whether family unions could not be made more of a comradeship and something less of domination by man. He asked whether woman could not be given an equal opportunity in life, whether we could not escape from the atmosphere of falsehood. Ibsen did not work out a clear solution of his problems, but he had opened up these problems in a very intense form. “I think,” said Mr. Brailsford, “that he has done the world a big service in doing it.” (Applause.)