SHOULD WIVES OBEY THEIR HUSBANDS?

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 1250, 26 May 1914, Page 4

SHOULD WIVES OBEY THEIR HUSBANDS?

, This is a question that one | would imagine offered but two ; unqualified answers, and yet, in the May number of "Everylady’s I Journal,” just out, we find upwards of a dozen prominent people I expressing various opinions on the [ subject. And they are people o! wioely different stations and profes'lon. Men as far apart as Mr Bernard O’Dowd, the well-known Australian poet, and Mr Paris Nesbit, K,C. ; men so closely associated—by their laughter —as Harry Lauder and Sir Alexander Peacock ; and stage favourites like Miss Ada Reeve and Miss Daisy Jerome, all differ more or less on this important topic. Even champions of Women’s Rights like Miss Vida Goldstein and Miss Adela Pankhurst, are not quite at one about it. Harry Lauder —the famous Scotch comedian, who is at present visiting Australia — looked very serious as he said, i “But women don’t obey if they don’t want to ! No, not even if ; they have promised in twenty i marriage services.” “Anyway,” he added, “in any- wed regulated household, a certain amount of . argument is necessary ; it stimulates the intellect, you know, and makes the wheels go round.” The famous visiting militant suffragette was charmingly and unexpectedly diffident, but the local champion war emphatic to the point of enthusiasm. “Certainly no woman should be asked to obey,” declared Miss Goldstein, “the inclusion of the words in the marriage service is a relic of barbarism. There should be no talk of obedience between husband and wife if both wish to retain | their self-respect. It is a word ! more fitted for use between a • master and slave !” 1 Miss Ada Reeve has been f married since she visited Austra- • lia last, and when she was married > the service was evidently not abbreviated in any way. Stand- ’ ing with her arm linked through her husband’s—and they looked the personification of good com- ' radeship—she said with a smile : “I obey my husband —perhaps because he never wants me to do anything I dislike, and because we think alike on all subjects, but I should not ob?y him if I did not respect him.” We cannot find space to quote from any more of these extremely Interesting little interviews, but might add the words of the poet, Bernard O’Dcwd, in conclusion; “Marriage should be a mating of two individuals who allow their personalities to merge. There should be no question of one side demanding more than the other. If there is understanding between husband and wife, there will be no question as to who should obey and who should be obeyed. It will all follow ‘as the night the day.’ That, anyhow, has been the result of my personal experience, and I must add, that has been a very happy one. In our home we regard ourselves as two consuls in one republic. The power is equal, even if it be expended in different departments,”

In addition to the aforementioned, there is a very lively interview with Miss Adela Pankhurst, in which she explains the position and the aims of the fighting suffragettes. There is also a talk with Lady Helen Munro-Fergusou, >..aich she discusses her position as the wife of Australia’s new GovernorGeneral ; and a chat with Lady Baden-Powell on the subject of the Boy Scouts, with particular reference to the youngest Boy Scout, who is her baby son. Ellen Terry, who is now in Australia, also contributes an article on the “Art of Dress.” A new serial begins, and there is another of the lamous “What Happened to Mary ?” stories. The Domestic and Literary Departments are, as usual, crowded with good things, and, to repeat a well-worn phrase, Everylady’s Journal gives better value every month.