The daily morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1883-1899, 1896-05-15
THE MAIumA0E RELA rioN,
Antlpathy to Motherhood an Expressed
In Modern Books.
New York Herald

Antlpathy to Motherhood an Expressed
In Modern Books
New York Herald
John Graham brooks, In his lecture at
tho berkeley Lycoum on tho Literary
ana BocialiHtic Views OF Marriage keln-
tlonB.' preached u cruHHde against the
new free thought style Of novels, which
some critic has called "erotlc. neurouc
or tommyrotlc."
Some of tho writer's" he aAid. Say
that women are too afIcctionhto ana ro-
mantle. that II they could only get over
their affection they could master the
world. Yes. perhaps. but Just exactly
Aa the dryll masters a. one strong
characteristic Of this style Of literature
h the antipathy 20 motherhood expressed
by the women who nguro Ia the btokH
Their children arr borv 10 them. ana
they take no interest In tho cares OF
homo,
'Oi one woman. about whom I rcad.
the author said she was one week car
riud away by Tolutoi'H theories of ccli-
bacy. the ncHt week ibaon'H 'Hrdda' was
her patron. ami. again. a few days later.
she had a new cult II In a good de-
ncription Of the prevalent craving after
nuw ;atcllcetual ana emotional exp ri
cnccH II IN what produces cheer cnnul
and boredom at the old-fRHhioncd duties
OF lifo. the wandering hunt OF lost
noui a dingust with the old homely
duties which bind the family together
and which are an necessary aa bread TO
our life. We can't get on without them
any mote than We can do without bread.
Il heard q Boston woman say lately.
I do Just hate healthy food. Il re-
minded me Of this class OF literature.
There authors arc all dealing with
problcma which have never neen solved.
When they got any point which would
trouble them they XIII on tho characters.
II these problems are 10 diffieuit. why
talk about thomY people say But We
cannot ignore them. We must ,acr the
situation The time has gone by when
wo can put our heads In tho sand and
say those things do not exist.
Tho literature Of which | speak IL 30
widely spread. II 20 ubiquitous. that We
must meet Il everywhere. Tho good
publishing houses are taking Il up be-
cause II pays. and the magazines which
one fDda on every family table aru print
Ing H. Tho best reviewers. Rt home
and abroad. arc bringing II moro widely
IT won't be stopped until women real
lac their responsibility and power ana
SEQ that whatever they demand as the
ideal relations OF life will be what they
viii get
You may ask what this has 10 do
with socialism II In this 1 lind that
many OF these writers arc socialists, or
think they are. You will ind the rank
est socialist Nay that their theories have
nothing TO do with these subjects. hut
to man who said that to me ! proved
by sentences scattered through twenty
leading socialist books that they have.
The men who say that do not know. they
have simply nibblcd on the edges of the
subject and not gone 10 the heart OF
II and It's logical conclusions.
Now why should IL be dangerous TO
the monogamic family TO take away the
private rights. interest. rcnt and pronty
It has been said by many people that
the family institution II too well cstab-
lishcd 10 bc upset by any such thing.
do not believe II II IL "A historical
fact that In all cases where property
has become common sociaistic. the .am-
ily has followed by becoming also COM
The law OF hereditary prop
crty keeps families together, Ask any
Judge who has had much to do with di-
,occ courts. and he win tell you that
the property rights are one OF the strong
cst factors In preventing divorces
"A socialist who WAS here At my first
lecture wrote me that | had been talk
Ing arrant nonsense; that they wanted
not only property divided. but also abll-
lty: that because u man happened TO be
born with unusual ability II Nas no rea-
son why he should enjoy alone the fruits
VI that ability; that he should share II
with his fellows.
THE brute argument OF the extreme
socialists Is that IN, family ccntrallEcs
property and ability. and Is, therefore.
A mistake. They want these things dis
lributcd, one socialist writer tays,
Marriage gives to tho possessing classes
hereditary character as well as property.
and is therefore dangerous to our prin-
ripleS.' Another says When property
Is distributed. as We will eventually have
Il, marriage will pass away And yet
another, a great obstacle TO freedom OF
ls the present system OF mar
rlaEc,' can assure you that that
iruthfully stands for the logical conclu-
slons OF this line OF thought Christian
socialists do not carry 1t to this eN-
,remc. In England the socialists are
working out better system than the
French and Germans, which viii pre-
serve the monogamlc family.
Another writer says: There will he
no real emancipation for women until
is made much freer relation,
No matter what your opinions are YOU
must know how you stand and what
we are tending to, This is the point
1 3
Socialists say divorce is Increasing
everywhere. II may be so. and divorce
Is probably necessary In many cases. al
lowing for the frallitles OF human en- O.
lcter. but at the best II is n confession
of failure, and let us guard against II
by prevention and not look to the cure.
Let us do all we can In the school, the
home and society to cause delays ana
these awful mistakes"