The Married Woman

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 68, 11 June 1927, Page 24 (Supplement)

The Married Woman

Her Right to Work VIEWS OF BRITISH AUTHORESS “I was glad to come back into school, for I always loved teaching; but I can confidently say that I never enjoyed scrubbing a floor in my life.” The present writer remembers seeing a film some time ago in which an elegant heroine is represented as elegantly scrubbing a floor, and the caption ran: “Woman’s happiness!” The sentiment quoted at the beginning of this article is not so much unpopular as hardly intelligible to thousands of honest male citizens, excellent husbands whose hearts are warmed by the kinema caption, as illustrated. Yet if the secrets of female hearts were revealed there would be found a remarkably large number to echo the words, * I was glad . . . for 1 always loved teaching.” This question

/ays laved teaching:.’' This question >f whether a married woman, whether in actual necessity or not, shall confine her activities in principle to the four walls of her home, or if going outside to unpaid work only, seems to rouse emotions stronger even than those aroused by party politics, or even by religious polemics. Mr. Hutchinson’s “This Freedom” has been immensely popular. Many people have indulged in an orgy of rejoicing at the disastei., which the misguided wife who claimed “freedom” brought thereby upon her entourage. There must be some reason for the violence of feeling aroused, and this reason surely is the uneasy conscience of men. So many men, good fellows and excellent husbands, hate the thought that there is anything which might rival, in the eyes of their wives the attraction of their own personality The instinct of self-protection is deeply embedded in animals, human and others, and one of the best ways of protecting oneself from anything unpleasant is to pretend, consciously or unconsciously, that the obnoxious thing is against morals or decorum. Hence civil services and local authorities composed largely of middle-aged married gentlemen enact that no woman

lucky enough to have a husband shah continue in their employment. The New Bill In order to enable these gentlemen, with the few ladies like-minded, to obtain release from the inhibitions of fear, a Bill is to be introduced shortly into the House of Commons described as “A Bill to Prevent the Refusal to Employ Women in the Public Service by reason only of their being married.” At present, in the Civil Service and in the great majority of local authorities, the regulations are (1) that no married woman shall be employed, and (2) that all women shall resign on marriage. Most of these authorities permit the harmless married charwoman, because, it being obviously a woman’s work to scrub stone floors and staircases, a dilemma is created. But the L.C.C. have made the supreme sacrifice to consistency, and they have doomed themselves to do without their charwomen.

Simple-minded persons had supposed that the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act of 1919 provided a charter for the married woman in the words “a person shall not be disqualified by sex or marriage from the exercise of any public function. * Cf., from being appointed to, or from entering or assuming or ca7:rying on any civil profession or vocation.” Yet high legal authority declares that in the sonority of its phrases is to be found the only comfort it offers, for of practical protection it offers none.

The reasons for allowing a married woman to decide this matter for herself are overwhelming. Many women will decide to stay at home, some will decide otherwise. Some are better teachers or doctors because they have had experience with their own children. Some prefer to give their children a better chance in life than they had Some have sick or unsteady husbands Some have an absolute vocation for a certain career that is not to be repressed. Freedom of Choice

There are those who would admit a woman’s right to engage in an occupation other than the domestic scrubbing and cooking, but it must not, they say. be “gainful.” Two salaries, they say. ought pot to go into a house. But this argument has the fatal objection that it proves too much. Just as the father of a family is not forbidden to become an explorer or a sailor, though it may mean years of absence from his home neither is he forbidden to be a solicitor or a judge, though he may have married a rich wife, nor a miner, though five of his young sons may be miners. The common sense of ordinary people is sound when it say's, in spite of an anomaly or even an injustice here or there, that these things are best left alone; not all fathers become explorers, not all marry rich wives, not all have sons. The women who support the forthcoming Bill “to prevent the refusal to employ women in the public service by reason only of their being married” do not themselves all desire to go outside the home and engage in a gainful occupation; many wish to stay at home. But whatever their choice may be they claim that it should be a free choice —that the home should not become a prison. No one loves a prison, but more men and women than might be supposed love their homes. (A. Helen Ward in “The Manchester Guardian. ”)