LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 286, 22 August 1918, Page 6

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

GIIIL CLERKS

&ir,—lt is with strong feelings that we, as girl employees in a city office, reply to tlie extract from tho "Wc-eiuy bcousman," published in your paper, 'to say the least, the sentiments expressed therein are grossly unjust and uniair to tho average girl employed in office work. At the time the article first appeared wo. did not doom it worthy of reply, as it is evidently written by one who does not know any better, does not want to know any better, or u one-sided individual who refuses to look at a question from more than one standpoint— his own. However, since "lf.R.M.'s" composition of inaccuracies seems, to have become so universally popular that employers have taken to cutting same out carefully and going to the trouble of framing it for the edification of their girl employees, wo consider it is high time to vindicate ourselves, give our opinion on the matter, and explain our justification for working in offices, in case "H.R.M.'s" allegations should bs accepted by the people who aro not behind tho scenes, and only form their opinions from what they read.

To begin with, "H.K.SI." desires to give tho impression that men clerks are vastly superior in every way—punctuality, conscientiousness, otc, etc.—that they never talk or waste time on any account—and, in short, that girls in offices are a complete failure, wholly ignoring the fact that sinco the hum. ness world has opened its doors to girls they have done excellent work in their respective occupations as book-keepers, typistes, and clerks, and huve given great satisfaction. It is. rather discouraging, to say tho least of it, for girls who always strive their utmost to give their best services, to be maligned as emptyheaded butterflies, with no ambition. in life boyond talking of beaus, prospective and otherwise, coming fashions, and powdering themselves and dolling up generally, as "H.R.M." would have people believe, though quite contrary to tact and existing conditions. How many of these Self-same girls that "H.R.M." seeks to disparage have taken men's places for the duration of the war and have made good in them? Why should all girls who work in offices be branded as inefficient, vain and unambitious, because of a few girls (generally tho type that has no need to go to work at all,: but just does so for the mere sake of filling in time and having extra pocketmoney to adorn herself with)? It is not right,' and we protest against such unjust treatment. The .majority of girls who go in for clerical work do so to gain a livelihood, and it is very real work to them we assure you. There aro not nearly so many occupations open to girls as to men, and if girls succeed in one branch (as they have certainly done in offices), would it hot a better spirit for men to give them praise for their honest efforts instead of seeking to belittle their efficiency and ridiculing them? Tell us this, are there no men clerks in offices, who ever pick "winners" for all the races run in New Zealand, talk politics (past, present, and future), discuss sport, billiards, local news, etc., not forgotting the opposite sex, who seem to come in for a fair share of criticism, the age of chivalry being very much a thing of the past? Why this inequality? Why not give credit where credit is due ? Why not take notice of thc | good around as weil as the bad? Co-opera-tion is what is needed—not little hairsplitting differences and arguments, which do not go towards promoting goid feeling and fellowship between men and women clerks. Wo feel the injustice done ns keenly, and hope you will publisli this letter as an indication of what girls think about the matter—We are, etc.,

WAGE-EARNERS BY NECESSITY Wellington, August 21.