SIR,-This problem is so vital to thousands of people that it should not be allowed to become a slanging match between people who have become "converts to doctrines" and who refuse, either to see the other man's viewpoint, or to compromise.
I think we all agree to the principle of equal pay for equal work as an ideal but it is not a moral issue (cf. the parable of the sowers in the vineyard). However, our world as we run it is by no means ideal and thi,s particular principle must not be allowed to interfere with the principle of a living wage, which is a moral issue. This living wage varies according to the number of people it is keeping alive (no matter how much they may "earn the right to a fair share" of it) and until there is enough money available to make possible a basic wage to all teachers which is large enough to enable a reasonably large family to live on it, there must be an uneven distribution of some sort.
One fairly good approach to this problem is to pay the man more at the expense of the woman. There might be fewer anomalies if a substantial child allowance were to be granted, i.e., the teacher with children gains at the expense of the childless teacher (this system is used by many universities).
Whatever is done, someone must be the loser and I suppose it is too much to hope that he (or she) will not complain. Let us, therefore, fight for more pay for both men and
Continued at foot of next column