A Minority-Women Ramp
Ste,-"Equal Pay" is the slogan of a comparatively small (but extremely vocal and largely selfish) minority of ardent feminists-in the main, the quarter of a million of them who are Civil Servants or teachers. But what of the nine million women who are wives and mothers-whose only "employment" is in the home, and whose only "pay" comes from their husbands' pay packets? What will "equal pay" do for them? There has always been the family element in a man's wages and it is still there -even though we have small allowances for the second and subsequent children. When these were first introduced, it was stated for the Government that it was still the intention that men's wage rates should recognise that he had a wife to keep, the first child to maintain, and to bear a large part of the cost of rearing each subsequent child. Occasionally we hear these agitators for "equal pay" speak of increased family allowances. but for the most part they demand it "without strings"-m eaning that "equal pay" must come without there necessarily being any change in the present allowance system. The call is for "equal pay" now-without allowances for either wives or children. This call can only be safely made by those who have only themselves to support; "equal pay" can bring nothing to mothers and children. Celia Kent admits that if Civil Servants and teachers are given "equal pay," the expense to the country will be heavy, and that "the rest of us will have to meet the bill." And Who will suffer there? In the main, the family, by virtue of increased taxes and rates. (Incidentally, while speaking of Celia Kent, she found it "significant" that "not one unmarried woman had a criticism." So do 1-but not, I suspect, for the same reasons! Either they are careerwomen, with everything to gam, or, if intending or hoping for marriage, they have just not looked beyond the easily uttered slogan to see the danger that lies behind it.) And what of the many women working in "wotnen only" jobs? Will they not cast envious glances at their friends in "mixed" jobs who are receiving such nice increases, and are they not likely to press for "sympathetic" increases for themselves? From industry this can only lead to a rise in the cost of living, and again the family will be the hardest hit.
Higher prices would mean very little to the women who had received pay increases, but a very great deal to the housewife with two or three or more to cater for each week, and whose husband had not received a penny more.
From any angle I fail to understand "equal pay," but from a
Catholic one. still less. The Church
teaches that the worker has the right to a just, that is to a living, wage,
and that paid to a man must surely
take into account his responsibilities. In conclusion, and still from the Catholic angle, may I quote from the salary scales paid to teachers under the Montreal Catholic Schools Cornmission?
In the first year of service: Women .. .. S1,700 Men (single) $1,900
Men (married) ,. $2,200 rising ery annual increments until at 19 or more years:
Women .. $3,000 Men (single) e3,700 Men (married) .. $4,300
May I suggest to the good contemplative (arid other) nuns who signed the petition that there is justice in a scale such as this-but none whatever in "equal pay."
IL W. Goullie 124 Perry Vale, S.E.23.
The French Record
SIR,NI r. Ronald Matthews is quite mistaken if he thinks that I wish to depreciate either the excellent task he has done in writing the deplorable history of the Fourth Republic, or his obviously sincere personal Catholicism. I repeat what I began by saying: that I regard his book as essential to the study of contemporary France. With regard to war, my point is that to trust blindly to military measures to settle moral or political questions only makes those problems worse. My own friends in France were more aware than Mr. Matthews of the whole moral and political complexity of Europe in 109, and the danger of trusting to Russia and its agents. I am aware that the Resistance had its good elements, but so cunning are the wiles of Communism that the Reds were able to turn it very much to their own purpose, as they turned the Roosevelt administration at the same time. 1 repeat that a little more attention to the Syndicats and the efforts that are now being made by the managerial class in France to achieve an economic integration within the country as well as with their neighbours deserves more notice than Mr. Matthews gave it in a book which is both honest and well informed.
SIR,-I hope your readers will not have been misled by the statement quoted from Paris Match that "our Bishops expect that the number of annual converts will be doubled this year thanks to the campaign" of advertising launched by the Catholic Missionary Society.
Neither the Bishops nor the C.athohe Enquiry Centre have ventured such a forecast.
Some 2,000 people are now rec,eiving our postal course. But no one can say what the outcome may he. What is needed now is a great volume of prayer that God will give the Faith to those who have opened their minds to the light.
May I ask your readers' prayers that where we have planted and watered God may give the increase? G. P. Dwyer, Superior, The Catholic Missionary Society The Mission House, 114 West Heath Road, N.W.3.
SIR,-SOrrld while ago I wanted a good book on the Bad Popes. Recently, and by chance, the very book wanted has turned up. It bears the alluring title No Popery! and the author was none other than Fr. Thurston, S.J. It contains an excellent chapter on the Bad Popes, and others in rebuttal of the worst calumnies against the Church, ranging from our old friend Pope Joan to a shameless attack on Cardinal Vaughan. Is there any chance of a cheap reprint? It would be a joy to see on our bookstalls a Penguintype edition with a flaming coverNo Popery ! By a Jesuit.