IS IT ENOUGH?

Putaruru Press, 5 January 1928, Page 5

IS IT ENOUGH?

LOVE AND MARRIAGE. (By Helen Rose). Who shows that ‘ ‘love-matches” are often the most improvident unions. “A marriage has been arranged. . ” It all sounds eminently practical, bui, as a matter of fact, marriages in this country are very rarely arranged at all. We’re the most casual nation in the world with regard to marriage. Nearly every Mary has her little iamb in the shape of a dot, dowry, linen chest or goats except the English girl. We are the most sentimental people in the world. Directly two people say they’re in love, vve respect the heaven ly fire that has descended upon them, and allow them to get married. * ‘ It’s a love match,” they say benignly, and upon that very slender foundation they proceed to find a room and rear a family. No forethought, no pre-vision, no provision. They’re iu love. That’s enough. And sometimes enough is not as good as a feast. A love match is often only a little flame, but it’s got to keep the years. A love match, as generally understood, means a marriage with every other ingredient wanting. Apd love is expected to flourish on pinchings and scrapings, shabby clothes, no holidays, and unpayable bills.

As a matter of fact, love is rather a dainty feeder, and probably people speak of love matches in awe, because no one can see how they are possibly going to succeed. A love match means the sacrifice of everything for love—the most difficult thing in the world. People have to be very noble, very unselfish, very unworldly, to count the world well lost for love.

i. curious enough, people who make love matches expect much more of each other than people who marry for money or position. A rich husband doesn’t expect half so much of his wife as a poor one. A woman who marries for love is much more exacting than a woman who marries for rngney. People sometimes look askance at the dowry system. They like to think that it is love that makes the world go round. They don’t like lovers to be preoccupied with mercenary considera-* tions.

Yet it is in countries like England and America where easy marriage *s admired, that marriages are the most discontented. That is because, marriage is plunged into without any forethought. A wise mother once said to he/ sons: “Don’t marry for money, but go where money is.” The other mother might have retorted “And bring a little money with you! ” Marriages may be made in heaven, but they have to be carried out on eartn and our social system gives the leas: possible hope of success for the love match. As a matter of fact, it’s grossly an fair to allow young people to wreck their lives by marrying “on love.” It may seem unfair to look a gift horse in the mouth, but it’s far wiser in the long .run. It’s not the fault of the young people. It’s the fault of the foolish national thriftlessness and sentimentality. We are pounds wise and pennies foolish. We like to step into dead men’s shoes, hope for a bit of luck. We spent money in foolish entertaining, luxuries vve can’t afford, things vve could easily go without. It's not the national habit to save. So many girls earn their own livings now that many of them could put by a little dowry. They don’t. They spend it on clothes, the pictures, sweets, cigarettes, anl gewgaws. A smart hat may catch a nice young man, but a little banking account may keep him. But they’ve never been taught to save. Their parents haven’t saved The young man who has often the same chance of saving money spends it in much the same way as the girls. When they fall in love they get married .»n nothing, feeling perfectly happy. But they’d feel happier still, really, if they knew they had a nice little nest egg in the background. You can’t blame them. It is hard on young people to go without, when all round them money is being spent recklessly. They can’t see what a difference it’s going to make in the future. But if only they were obliged to bring each other some kind of dot or dowry, if only their parents had to provide some sort of security, marri age would be a very much happier thing than it is. The nation is so wise with its old age pensions, its infant welfare, its creches and its clinics, but it never troubles about the young people of the nation, who are the potential fathers and mothers.

Why doesn’t someone start a marriage portion scheme, oi* an engagement bonus or something of the kind? If there was something of this sort there would be fewer helter-skelter marriage* that end in disaster and disillusion, and a better chance for the marriage that may still be a love match.