By SHEILA LYND

Should mothers go out to work? -

That's the controversial question

Nepean mothers go out to

work? Merely to pose this question is to stir up a contro- versy in which everything from outright prejudice to the very real difficulties facing working mothers will be raised.

A famous British doctor has fanned this controversy anew by asserting that it is better for children to go hungry than for their mothers to work to feed them properly.

Today thousands of mothers are compelled to work to aug- ment family incomes and it is obvious that they have a motive for working far stronger than any argument about the psy- chological needs of: their child- ren,

Influential people would be much better employed in work- ing for more and better nurs- eries, to give the children the best possible care while their mothers are at work, than scold- ing the mothers, and threatening that their children will become delinquent.

They would be better employ- ed backing up the fathers’ wage claims, if they truly want the mothers to stay at home: but ie is the last thing they ever

oO. e

Surely the only sane answer to the question “Should moth- ers go out to work?” is that mothers should be free to choose whether they go out to work or not. For most women today this choice does not exist.

Many who long to be with their children are compelled to find work, if they are to féed and clothe those children pro- perly.

They tear from home to plant or store or office, spend their lunch hours. shopping, dash back to get the family supper and then start their round of cleaning, washing, ironing and mending. ~ ec

They want the: right to stay at home, and that is a right we don’t need to argue about. But we have to fight for it, by cam- paigning for higher wages, high- er family allowances and other things that will maké it pos- sible. :

: eee aaa

There are many other women who had jobs they enjoyed be- fore they married, who, how- ever much they love their child- ren feel cramped and horribly lonely when they find them- selves, for the first time in their lives, alone all day and every day, with these small, depend- ent, endlessly demanding crea- ures, ,

Even those who don’t have very interesting or skilled work get pleasure and_ stimulation from the companionship, the bustle, the jokes and battles that go on in every plant and office.

Men take these pleasures and interests outsidé their homes for granted, but sometimes seem to feel that for a woman actual-

ly to enjoy her work is an ag-

gravation of her crime in tak- ing a job.

The right of women to enjoy these things too is still strug- ‘gling for recognition, and so we have to defend this right as well as campaign for the things that would make it possible for a mother to go to work without perpetual anxiety about her children, and interminable chores when she gets home.

For this we need nurseries and nursery schools, labor sav- ing homes, and shorter working hours. 4

Some claim that going out to work cannot be a pleasure to any working mother, because the job she is offered is usually unskilled and monotonous.

Others have sneered that it is only the “middle-class career woman” who wants to go out to work, and what is “progres- sive” about her? ’

These two arguments them- selves illustrate the inequality under which all women still labor—yes, all women, not just mothers. But when we have children we give those who don’t want equality for women a stick to beat us with. —

Se ee

Was there really “nothing pro- gressive” in the wonderful, gal- lant fight of women in the past for the right to be doctors and lawyers, to have decent schools for girls, and to’ go to univer- sities?

The fact that in our. present society only a minority have the chance to follow a profes-

OPEN FORUM

Praises Mrs. Zucco

NORMAN PRITCHARD, Courtenay, B.C.: I enclose a re- newal to the Pacific ‘Tribune. I am thankful we have one paper with convictions plus courage.

Let us hope for more mothers like Mrs. Zucco, who deserves the gratitude of every worker’s family.

More On Log Salvage

ELGIN NEISH, Victoria, B.C.: A short news item in a recent issue of the Pacific Tribune told of log salvage men petitioning against recent Social Credit government legislation concern- ing new salvage laws for logs.

I have done a little research work in relation to this matter and I will go one step further and charge the Socred. govern- . ment with direct collaboration with some of the biggest. money interests, namely the log insur- ance underwriters, in formulat- ing a piece of: legislation that extends the rights of these underwriters far beyond the realm. of provincial law. It turns the log salvage branch of the forest industry directly into the hands of. these underwriters, lock, stock and barrel. Here are some of the facts. To date there has been only one log receiving station license issued and that is to Gulf Log Salvage Cooperative Associa- tion, 601 Denman Street, Van- couver. This said co-op, shortly after its registry (and the pass- ing of the log salvage regula- tions) altered its constitution closing ,its membership to all but those persons whose busi- ness is marine insurance on forest products, or persons hav-

6

ing from time to time owner- ship, care, custody or control of forest products exposed to marine risks.

To put it briefly, here is a monopoly of log insurance un- derwriters that has been given complete control over the sal- vage and resale of all salvaged logs in B.C. coastal waters be-

tween Vancouver'Island and the mainland (whether these said salvaged logs were ever insured or not by these said underwrit- ers) and sets the rate the sal- vage men shall receive for their salvaged logs as a small per- cent of — not the prevailing

market price of logs — but “the -

price of logs sold previously by their own log receiving sta- tion” (operated by the log in- surance underwriters in the name of Gulf Log Salvage Co- operative Association).

All this in spite of the fact that the log salvage regulations, Section 165 of the Forestry Act, states: r

“No person who is engaged, or has any interest in, any busi- ness carried on in the province

of B.C. having as its object the

manufacture of, .utilization of, or dealing*in any timber, tim- ber product of the forest shall be eligible to receive a log re- ceiving station license, but any such person shall be entitled to own not more: than 10 percent of the shares in a log receiving station business.”

To put it briefly, the provin- cial government has passed le- gislation making it illegal to operate in a federal field, under federal salvage laws. No one can sell these logs to the highest bidder on the open market, as provincial legislation demands

a Bee set ee ee Seber ee

$50 for a license, and upon tak- ing such license logs must be sold to a log receiving station operated by a group of log in- surance underwriters at the price they paid for the last logs they bought or sold.

McEwen on Kenya

J.C.M.H., San Bruno, Califor- nia: I want to compliment Tom McEwen on his column on the

Kenya question which appeared _in the issue of January 20, Need-

less to say, I am in entire agree- ment with his views.

For a long time I have been writing to. newspapers in de- fense of the natives of Kenya, a sort of hopeless one-man bat- tle against the bull-headed, ig- norant and inhuman attitude of almost every newspaper.

_ The figures that McEwen re- vealed are staggering. Recently I got into a very heated argu- ment. with an Englishman over this very subject, and although i quoted the incident of the sinking of the ship carrying African prisoners to the island

on Lake Ukerewe (better known

as “Victoria”) I had no figures to give him.

McEwen’s column should be widely reprinted in newspapers and periodicals.

The situation in Kenya gets very little mention in US. papers, and the peaple of the U.S. believe that there is now “peace” in Kenya. The English papers in Scotland (which I read) seldom -mention Kenya, and when they do it is usually to raise a big noise because some native of Britain got hurt in the mess. They never consider that Kenya is the property of the Kenya natives.

\

sion must not obseure the fact that in winning these rights we won a glorious victory, for some day all women will be free to exercise them.

I wonder how people who ar- gue like this are bringing up their own daughters? Not on equality with their sons, pre- sumably, if higher education only turns a girl into a “career woman.” .

And dd those who assume that because a woman goes out to work she cannot have her children, deny that fathers love their children, and are very necessary to them?

One thing has astonished me in all this controversy: the blithe way in which the advocates of mother’s staying at home have ignored the problem of: her eco- nomic dependence.

It takes a very closely united and happy couple to share an in- adequate income fairly between them, if one earns it all and the other spends most of it—parti- cularly in times of rising prices.

Mothers should be free to choose whether or not they go ost to work — but*for most women today this choice does not exist |

thing to call her own?”

How many wifely wage clai™ have been fought since the of living began to soar? how many claims were final | settled by the wife finding a jo so that she could have “som®

A state of economic depend: | ence is not a basis for equality: | in marriage or any other ca | tract.

Therefore I look forward ¥ the time when we take it granted that both men and ¥” men will use their brains, hands and their talents outsidé the family as well as inside *

Shorter working hours ¢ vastly expanded social se: will then make it possible | combine a job and a fan : without drudgery, and marriaé' and motherhood will be all t® happier. a

Till then the fight is ° against drudgery, and for mother’s right to choose whe fs to go to work or stay at hom | But we need many more ¥7 men in the fight.

AMERICAN actors can come i to Canada as often as they please and get top-fee contracts in TV and other productions, such as the Can- adian National Exhibition. But Canadian actors aie now being barred from the U. Ss by an interpretation of the McCarran Act, originally designed and used most fre- quently, to prevent trade union or left-wing labor olf- icials from entering the US. The issue arose when two Canadian actors, Robert Christie and William Shat- ner, both leading men in their fields. in Canada, were re- fused’ permission to take part in New York TV pro- ductions. They were told they were not acceptable under the McCarran Act which says they must be “outstanding artists” — which of course, they are in Canada. But U.S. immigration authorities define “outstanding” as mean- ing “international acclaim.”

Canadian octors barred

_U.S., he or she must apply

The Canadian branch 9 Actors Equity, the organ! zation of Canadian and US:

actors affiliated to the AFL CIO in the U.S., is protestins the discrimination.

A few weeks ago, the Cama: dian production of Tambur-- laine was showing in NeW York, being withdrawn aftet a short run. Most New York critics lauded the work © the Canadian company. 2? there were many offers of jobs. This, say Canadia® actors, caused considerable alarm, among U.S. perform ens

Equality in Canada say§ actors from across the bordet are welcome here and “al ways will be.” But for # Canadian to perform in th

for alien residence, leavi8& thetn open to U.S. income taxes and the possibility being drafted into the U.S army. AB

_ » ‘MARCH 16, 1956 — PACIFIC TRIBUNE — P.