TWO ATTACKS

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 476, 9 March 1933, Page 2

TWO ATTACKS

THE MODERN WOMAN SYDNEY WRITER DEPRECATES "IDIOTIC CARD PARTIES" FOR CHARITY. MEANINGLESS SOCIAL EVENTS. In the following afticle a ispecial .writer of The Sunday Sun expresses the considered opdnion that some memhers of the many women', s organisati'ons in Sydney are- mjalcing! their f eministic activities a . f arce instead of a, worthy force in the community. At United Associations (which is the amalgamation of the Women Voters' Club, the Women's League and the Women's Service League) during the week two prominerit women made tsweeping statements which irresponsibly reflect upon a large numher of women who have virtually no chance toreply. Speaking on the subject "Are- Women's Organisations Worth While?" Mrs. A-lbert Littlejohn said: "At least 75 per cent. of women to-day do not join women's organisations to take part in constructive work, but to act as p-resident or viee-president of some idotic card party which detracts from rather than assists the feminist movemerit." Help Charity. Many of the "idiotic card parties" to which Mrs. Littlejohn -refers are held to raise funds for some deserving charity. Hospitals, Chlidren's homes, convalescent hom-es and other worthy institutions henefit from their proceeds. ■ "There is a great danger," in the opinion of Mrs. Littlejohn, "of our womien'is organisations losing isight of thedr true objective an'd indulging in meaningless social events." No card party which. raises funds for a deserving charity is "meaningless." Whatever the true objectives of women's organisations are, aecording to Mrs. Littlejohn -they should not he mentioned by her so as to appear to dnclude the snpbbish' viewpoint that all of womens' social work is futile, except that which emanates from the feminist elect. It has been far too easy foii platformers to belittle the fine work dome hy women who do not specialise in working by woi'ds. "Self-Expression." The second sweeping statement to which objection can be taken on the gi'ounds that it is no more than a half-true piece of controversial clacking comes from Mrs. Ruby Duncan. "Comtrary to the general male opinion, the average woman does not marry her husband merely for love of him, but for children, companionship and home." No man with any balance to his brain imagines that his wife loves him to the exclusion of her children and her home. That she wants children, home-life and companionship, and that she loves theni deeply when they are hers, he takes for granted. What good purpose can be sorved by Mrs. Duncan's discordant and purely provocative statement? Mrs. Duncan adds: "Women find through their womens' organisations the self-expression they cannot get in their own homes." Many people are likely to come -to the conelusion that if the above statements are samples of the "self-ex-pression" that women cannot get in their homes, then the organisations where they can get sueh "self-expres-sion" might well be scrapped without any loss to society. Should Take Heed. Thatn of course, is wrong. But it is, time that some members of these organisations realised that they can only be taken seriously so long as they show serious thought in what they say. If they deal in public statements that are belittling and discordant, and nothing more, they must be told that they cannot "get away with it." If what they say is simply inverted banality well, we have enough exasperations already.