"NO ENCUMBRANCE."

White Ribbon, Volume 25, Issue 294, 18 December 1919, Page 5

"NO ENCUMBRANCE."

(From "Woman’s Outlook. )

Fateful words! Surely they appear with increasing frequency. One is struck, when scanning the dailx paper, to see the number of advertise ments stipulating that applicants must he without childien; while it is

not uncomtnon to see advertisers seeking employment. adding the words “no children" to their li-t of capabilities, as an additional bait to the potential employer. I heoretieally, the child is ‘‘the complement to married life, the light of tlie home, the most valuable asset to the State," and so on. Practically, children are anathema. Landlords look askance a* the family with young child yen ; no hotel or boarding house desires them as guests; the owner of a furnished house t<> let firmly de nines the ten.mt with young children, no one willingly travels in the same

railway carriage as mamma and baby. Worse still, it is a distinct handicap to a man seeking employ ment to have to own to a wife and children. The confession is a draw back to his chanc e of an engagement. In fart, the single man applying for the same* post as the family man. given that their attainments are equal, would undoubtedly have preference. Why? Because the salary that might be sufficient for a bachelor would not support a married man with hildren. lias any one ever seen advertise ments reading somewhat as follows; Wanted,- Married couple to take charge of an hotel; preference* all things being equal, will be given to a couple with a family." “House to let, healthily situated, excellent sani tation and ventilation, good nursery. \dmirably suited for a family with xoung children." Or, "Widower requires a competent housekeeper; no objection to one with childien.

Such advertisements one has nevei come ac ross, although there must have been at least some rases where* they could have been inserted with out detriment to the advertiser. So much has been said about the “declining birthrate," “the empty cradle," and "one’s duty to one’s country,” thereby emphasising the duties of parents to their country, that the case for the parents should also be carefullv considered. Has society as a whole no duty to the children? It would he a bold

person who would say it has no such duty. In fact, it is being increasingly urged that it has many and veryreal duties to the children, but alas! the child being in most cases depend ent ii|x>n the* parents, it is onb possible* tee benefit the children through them. x

It is neither right nor fair that children should be* so generally con srdered cither nuisances or encumbrances, but true it is that tliev are too frequently looked upon as such. If considered as encumbrances, children will c*ith«*r suffer or not ap |M*ar. The limitation ‘if families is a serious evil; one* might almost sav crime. Certainly the* sacredness of the married state is violated by a wilful I-termination that there shall be „o offspring. Vet while conditions K-main as they are, and children an* regarded as ‘•encumbrances," there remains some excuse for the* empty cradle. Let women ch* what they can to have the point in question clearly focussed, and considered, and decided upon its merits, and may it ne*vei be said that women encouraged the attitude of mind which, on paper, lamcnu with bitter accent the declining of the birthrate*, but in actual »le*ed and word discourages the* build ing up of a family, by proclaiming the child "an encumbrance." Rathe i should they strive* to make the saying true, that “happy* is the man who hah his qu ver full," remembering as well that the child of to day is the man of t<- nriorrow.