Dear Sir,

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 2, Issue 171, 10 June 1940, Page 4

Dear Sir,

Letters to the Editor must be clearly written on one side of the paper only. Where a nom-de-plume is used the name of the writer must be enclosed for reference purposes only. THE BLESSINGS OF A FAMILY Sir, —Your leader under the above heading has provoked a good deal of discussion in this town and I would esteem it a favour if you granted me suiTicient space to criti- ; cise it briefly. Firstly, the article was not of an : even tenor; it contradicted itself. You say, 'It is interesting to note by a slight process of analysis the ' warm (?) encouragement given to the founders and would-be founders of families.' Later you condemn the childless couples after partially excusing them in that way. It is to be expected that the man with a family should have higher costs to meet. After all. that resolves itself into very elementary arithmetic. Then you write of unencumbered couples who do not recognise that even entertainment costs must be so much higher for the man who has to pay for a family as well. In cases where so much blatant ignorance exists, it is safe to assume that the couples concerned did not go beyond Standard 2, and lack even the slightest -appreciation of common sense and logic. I would like to quote another extract from your leader. 'Perhaps it is the pursuit of pleasure which tends to . make childless marriages the ideal, small families the fashion and large ones the laughing stock.' Does it not occur that your wholesale condemnation of childless couples does an injustice to those married people who have no family, yet WQUkI give : a - fortune for one? As you so rightly pointed out., there is no encouragement to rear families and there is a gross intolerance in many quarters, chiefly, as you wrote, by landlords and farmers. But I contend that the selfishness exhibited' there, because it is only selfishness ■ that prompts the prohibition, is greater than that which you infer is the reason for so many childless marriages. We know that the man with n family to support has his work cut out in doing it. We know that his costs increase with the family. But your leader presents him as a national hero, nobly doing his duW no matter the trials and hardsuips he and his wife experienced. He is a national hero, I agree with that; he is an asset to the country- But does he raise his family as a duty to the country? Does he count himself as assisting the nation? No. By raising a family he is displaying quite as much selfishness as you so readily debit to those without children and if he wants the he should be prepared to meet the higher costs which must inevitably follow. Too many points are raised, or could be raised, in a thorough discussion of the subject and as the result would profit little I will confine myself to observing that, though your leading article was a splendid one, from one point of view, as an indictment of childless marriages it lacked complete fairness. Yours etc.* K.G. Whakatane, June 7th. (If the caps fits, wear it. Ed)