THE DIVINE RIGHT OF THE MALE.

White Ribbon, Volume 24, Issue 288, 18 June 1919, Page 9

THE DIVINE RIGHT OF THE MALE.

At the meeting of the Otago Brant!» of the Educational Institute, one of the women teachers had the temerity to propose that the salary of infant mistress <n large schools should be equal to that of the first male assistant. This natural and modest request called forth a storm of indignation from several of the male teachers. It is a long time since we have heard men argue so decidedly in favour of the divine right of the male tr receive an extra salary because he is a male, and not because he earns it.

The old argument (dead as the dodo) was advanced, viz., that men had families to support. Now, if the gentlemen had suggested that tea< hers should be paid according to the number of their dependants it would at least have been a logical proposition. The Methodist Church recognises this principle, and while their church pay a fixed salary to their ministers, a Church Fund supplements this fixed amount with a bonus of £<) per annum

for every child until it reaches the age of 18 years. Let the male teachers, if they wish, ask for a bonus to each teacher (male or female) of so much per head foi every dependant. Why should a bachelor draw a larger salary than the bachelor girl, who goes through the same training, passes the same ex aminations, and does the same woik as he does? All who know school work fr<>m the inside, will admit that the position of infant mistress demands skill, patience, devotion and training at least equal to that required for first male assistant. We don t hesitate to maintain that while many women tea< hers could do the wor! of the first male assistant, it would be very difficult to find a male assistant who could manage an infant room with skill and ability. Why then pay our infant mistresses a salary equal to third male assistant? One gentleman waxed indignant at any women, even after years of training, being able to draw the princely salary of a fir s ’ assistant. He would like these women teachers to go before a Committee of Mothers. So would we! The mothers of this Dominion are not so shortsighted as tnis gentleman imagines. They know that when their daughters compete in the open labour market, the only just law is “equal pay for equal work.” We quite expect that these male teachers wax eloquent to then pupils over the injustice of the Test and Corpora tion Act, which debarred all but mem bers of the State Church from serving as officers of State. I hey see the justice of “no sect in politics, can they not see the equal justice of “no sex in citizenship?" Differentiate salaries on the ground of ability, experience, etc., differentiate if you like for the number of dependants, but in the name of common-sense, don’t attempt to differentiate upon the ground of sex. W'c believe the highest office in the State (the Throne) pays equal emoluments to a King or a Queen. \VF should advise the male teachers to cultivate their sense of humour, and then they will see how ludicrous it is to argue for extr; pay, just because they are Men. (Spell it with a capital, Mr Printer.)