FOUR VIEWS OF WOMAN

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8355, 15 February 1913, Page 6

FOUR VIEWS OF WOMAN

"Woman and To-morrow/' By W. L. liOOl'ge. "The INaLure of Woman.” By J. Lionel Tayier. "Woman in Modern Society.” By professor Bari Barnes. "Marriage and tne Bex Problem.” By L. U . Loerster. The feminist controversy is not going to be sealed without; some lusty give-ana. take, and the four books before us are only snatches of the joyous conflict that vs toward over the position of woman Isays the London "Übserver"). If it came to a vote tne writers might pair. Mr George with Br Taylor and Professor Lari Larues with fieri’ Loerster. But the process would bo attended ivuh some loss of individual outlook on the part of all lour, most notably cf Mr George. Whether or not ‘■ woman and To-mor-row" is, as the publishers.declare on the cover, “the book that women have been wanting for,” it is ceitainly a very striking one, easily the most persuasive piece, of writing tnat feminism lias produced in this country. Common fairness makes us admit that there is nothing unlovely in the ideal which Mr George sets before his traders, whatever, misgivings we may have as to the steps towards it. “Beauty and I>uty," he tells us, is the motto of the feminists, and, like even feminist Professor Lari Barnes, ne dissents sharply from the earlier pioneers of the movement who thought that the sexes could or ought to be assimilated. Tne wo an of the future, it is comforting to . .ad. will still bo enormously concerned with the business of child-bear-ing. "One of the incomplete emancipations will assuredly be from the thraldom of child-bearing, which 1 do not suppose sue will band on-" Lor which relief niucn thanks! though the rearing is to be handed over to creches, as “it stands to reason that while it takes one mot Her to amuse one child it does not take ten mothers to amuse ten children.” And it amusehient were all there is In it, doubtless Mr George would be right. But we fancy that tbere are few mothers who could not enlighten Mr George on that point without the learned help of Mr Tayler, whose opinions we refer to below. With her children safely bestowed in the civic nursery, the mother of the future is to be free to pursue any employment she thinks fit —nursing, teaching. and such clerical work as will survive the besom of progress. But these are not desirable occupations for woman, who. in Mr George's view, should do no work at all outside the crafts where the joy of working would answer to Morris's definition of art. Yet the crafts must be a free-will choice. All other occupations must be open to woman if she chooses. Bhe must be a legislator, or a doctor, or a lawyer, even though she prove a failure at all three. On this point Mr George has none of the customary delusions. "I think it doubtful that clients will readily employ women barristers and solicitors, even at blackleg prices: but we wish to attain the right.” . , r _ That is the essence of Mr George s case: Not the exercise of power, but the right to exercise it. The suffrage agitation is only a side wind. Temimsm is to Suffragism what Socialism is to trade unionism.” As a method of coercing the councils of the Bar and of the solicitors it has its material meaning. As symbolising woman’s revolt against her servitude it will serve. But it, is the merest baggage action in the feminist campaign. feminism will only be satisfied when man’s entire attitude towards the other sex is changed to a recognition of its equality with its own. As the proud Romans tossed their last loaves to the besieging Gaul, Mr George makes handsome concessions to the enemy; T do not believe women ore fit to have the vote. That is why X wish them to have it.” Still, “the addition to the register of a number of women will herald in an era of cruelty, sentimentality and meanness.” "Woman has the cult of the pink drawingroom.” ”U would be absurd to contend that woman are at present the equals of men.” (Here Mr George interposes the rather

lame argument of defect of opportunity.) The majority of women are “inaccurate, petty, caluminous, dishonourable and vain." At which most anti-feminieta would probably protest. However, it is only fair to Mr George to add that all is to come rigid in the end when the sex has sloughed its servitude. It is curious that while Mr George insists that “the home is the enemy of women," and Mr Tayler declares it to be her true sphere, both agree that woman must be freed from the bondage of the labour market. Mr Tayler rests his case on what he calls the "biological demand," which he urges with considerable power. Ho is as concerned for tha future of the race as any Eugenist of them all, and instancing the woman who marries at twenty-three and has three children, he -develops, with close reasoning, hie point that not until she has reached the mid-fifties could she be free from household when her desire for the industrial struggle would bo gone. Marriage, says Mr Tayler, is an occupation in itself, excluding other occupations, and the wage-earning market must be closed to the married woman. At this point he skilfully skirts the endowment of motherhood, but concedes the claim of the wife to a Hen on her husband's wages, and is even willing that she should be able to have him shut up in a labour colony if nothing short will bring him to a sense of his duty to herself and their children. The case of the “superfluous woman” is ingeniously met. There is no material difference between the numbers of the sexes, at birth, and the greater mortality of male children arises from a defect of attention. Such errora repaired, the marriageable balance wiU right itself. While all those writers stress the differences of sex. Professor Earl Barnes urges these very distinctions as a reason for woman's enfranchisement: — Tliis volume has been written in the belief that men and women alike will achieve greatest freedom and_ happiness, not by minimising sox dilfcreuces, but by frankly recognising and using tnem. If we could reduce men ana women to sameness, we should destroy at least half the values of human life. Tliey are not alike; but they are periccuy supplementary. “ Woman in -Modern Society reviews the causes of present dihconient and presents much vaiua-bre on women in education and industry. The antuer demands that “all tne doors of opportumv" shall be opened to women, nut, with Mr George, te a mds that step as only the beginning of tne end that has to be accomplished. On the subject ot mania go he is naturally mree tnoronghgomg that Mr Taylor, who, as wo have seen, properly insists on concern lor tun children. Mr Barnes would leave the form of ceremony to the contracting partios. who should, however, be required to satisfy the State of their fitness for parenthood. , ... Though Herr Foerster’s position is nearer the orthodox than say of these writers, his presentation of it is the least attractive. Beared in an atmosphere of secularism, he has been converted to he view of Christian monogamy ns the ideal condition as well for the individual no for the State. His book is vepy outspoken, and the eeotion dealing with tha education of the young is valuable for the emphasis it lays on the part that must be played by indirect influence in moral training. But the atmosphere of the book is strained with polemic, tbs quotations are too plentiful, and Brrr h’oariter indulges overmuch in the stem controversial trick of advancing bald assertion under cover of some such phrase as “he (or she; it is generally she! forgets" that or "fails to recognise the other. Still the book has value, though we need not share the opinion of many of the first educators of the day that "this belongs to the very best literature that has appeared on this difficult subiect"' (the education of the young). Jt win do to say that Herr Foerster e book, will he welcomed by all whose instinctive belief in things as they are us visited by doubts of the logical soundness of their position.