WHAT IS WOMAN'S WORK?

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 5, Issue 231, 1 December 1916, Page 8 (Supplement)

WHAT IS WOMAN'S WORK?

Is it too much to hope that this war may lie the last lesson the world will ne-ed to teach it common sense ? Martial victory will be ours because the principles of justice, honour and righteousness arc our inspiration in battle. No man doubts that tile Empire and her Allies will, in the name of civilisation, beat down this excrescence of barbarism, but will there not be a further gain to the world in our or vision of essentials? Where'are all the petty whims and' fancies that three years ago we would have dignified i.s "principles"? How many of the edifices of piejudice and tradition, built on the sands of wont, have not already come clattering down about our ears? It is inconceivable that we should ever set them up again or 'hark back to the servitude of a didactic status quo. For thirty years before the war women fought with the organised weapons of reason, common sense and example against a solid, insensate prejudice f or the recognition of their worth in the economic life of the community. Their claims were tinned aside with a sneer. There was man's work —plenty of it — and woman's work —little of it and ill paid. The line of demarcation was a.s definite and as wholl yarbitrary as the equator. We had in the world so many million of "superfluous" women. No matter what powers, what gifts, what capabilities these women had for any of the hundred other services in life, because they were not exercising the one function of physical motherhood they were all classed together as "superfluous," and left to scramble for the crumbs that fell from their master's tab'.e. But " surplus" women are surplus only to those who have no other ideal for woman, no other conception of her value to the State apart from her physical relation to man an wife. The war has taught us the blindness of this folly . France and England are at the height of their industrial productivity, yet practically everv able-bodied man is, to all intent and purpose, out of the country. Without training, without experience, without hereditary preparation, women have stepped in and taken man's place. It began with a scratching of wise heads and a wondering "Now, what light jobs could women do?" And it his ended with women steel workers, women sliip builders and women coal heavers. The outcome of the revolution is hard to prophesy, but is the e not enough before our nose to make us think before we say of anything, "This is not a woman's work."

Tho Episcopacy of the Church of England has decided that it is not a woman's work to preach the gospel of Christ from a Christian pulpit. Should the Episcopacy descend to reasons (which it has not), it is to be presumed that it wffUld say, first, thnt women should not, and second, that women could not. The argument would, be conclusive and complete—were it true. The second authority on women's place and service in tho Christian church is the Apostle Paul; the first is Christ Himself. We need not quote precept and example here, but let Christians face the attitude of the founder of the faith and compare it with the attitude of the Church today, where not only is the preaching of the gospel forbidden to wom'en, but in every church action or ceremony they are permitted to take little more than a negligible part. Suffice it to s.ay that in the attitude of Christ there is no trace of relegating woman to tho place she holds in {Tie Church to-day, and no suggestion that women were to be excluded from the highest ministry. The first Easter message was given to women, given, be it noted', that they might pass it on and instruct the other disciples. There remains the possible contention that women are not fitted for the ministry of the Church. That can only mean that there is some inalienable attribute of womanhood incompatible with the mission of religious instruction. What can it be? Certainly no physical disability. There might have seemed sonie ground for saying that women were not physically fitted to be ship builders, but even that has been disproved. The bodlily superiority ot a man which, after all, is only a slight average superiority—ls not essential in the pulpit 01 »iJi>ut the parish. Can tho lack be oratorical? Public oratory is a comparatively recent art among women, but there is nothing to suggest that ten women picked at random could not speak as eloquently on a subject next their heart as ten men. It is certain that there have been, and are, women quite as capable as men of swaying large audiences. Can it be mental? Surely not at this late day. There is no branch of studied or intuitive knowledge in which women have not proved themselves as apt as men. Can it be spiritual? It is true that the early Christian fathers denied to women the possession of a soul, but tho English episcopacy has not. Women are definitely more susceptible to spiritual appeal, and therefore more careful and continuous in religious observance, than men. On£ out of every twenty churches existing to-day would amply serve the community were women only as spiritually conscientious as men. How is it, then, that women, who are recognised in the education'il sphere as capable of teaching, who form three parts of every church congregation, who joyously give their time and work for the furtherance of religion, who study Scripture closely and intelligibly, who are susceptible to religious impressions and tuned to spiritual enthusiasm, who have sympathy with suffering and understanding of heart — how is it that women are rigidly excluded by episcopal decree from the highest sphere of service in the church? She may speak "with tho tongues of men and of angels"; she may know her Bible in the original with critical accuracy; she may be full of "faith and good works"; she may be as swayed by the spirits as John the Beloved; yet she may not preach the Gospel from the pulpit of the church. Can it le that there is 110 logical cause or spiritual reason in the objection, but on'v the fact that man is a sublime monopolist 3 —"Melbourne Argus."