The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1916-05-23
"FEMALE
A Fabian Veteran Denounces Present
Feminist Leadership.

To THB EDITOR or THE SuN-Sfr: In
a review of "Feminism' THE u makes
some unfortunate statements which the
misconstrued author would ask per-
mission. TO correct. THE book Is re.
plete with Inconsistencies" says the re.
viewer, who quotes in confirmation the
fact that while | voted TO refuse to al
low married women to hold their places
as teachers In the public schools" In
the book | say that mature matrons
should he substituted for epinsters
among the faculty" In women's colleges.
Wherein is the inconsistency in arguing
that while bearing and rearing their
children women should not try to do
another job, one job at a time being
enough, but that, their children grown
up and off their hands, they should be
eligible for the highest posts In educa-
ton. and that in women's colleges. where
the attitude OF the faculty toward mar
riage IL all important for the wise guild
ance OF the adolescent students, ma
turc matrons.' graduates from the home,
should predominant?
MIR. Martins statistics as TO tho
childrcn OF college graduates do not
quite coincide with those given out by
the colleges themselves Had the re-
viewer looked TO the footnotes 1t would
have been seen that "Mr. Martins sta
! ~tlstics' were not his at all. but we're
llflfAN NbIlfus q Va t'Npk illlpilH
the collated statistics of the colleges
themselves, as given in the Journal of
the American Statistical Association. No
wonder feminist advocates try TO befog
these statistics, FOR the proof that OF
the women graduates OF colleges In our
country one-half never marry and a
quarter OF those who do marry bear no
child, tina the fecundity of these. the
most highly favored women OF the ma
| stnp 4. ipaa han tho fecundifN nf the
least fccund class IN the diminishing
French population, Is SO staggering as
to challenge the whole woinan's move
ment as to-day IT is headed.
In contradiction OF my statement that
women are not admitted to the pulpit in
England your reviewer asserts that wo-
men there serve h~abitually as ves-
trymcn.' as IL vestrymeu were ever
permitted TO mount the pulpit stairs.
J The Church OF England, OF which |
wrote. would he shocked at the idea OF
a woman preaching.
Repeatedly the reviewer asks What
was IL that converted Mr.. and Mrs. John
Martin. Fabians. socialists. advanced
feminists"' In my days. which. let me
modestly add, were the palmy days Of
the Fabian Society. We repudiated the
oft made capitalist charge hat social
ism favored loose marriage relationships
or had, indeed. anything TO do with
marriage laws. The book "Feminism'
~ chock fun of Fabianism. for II sets
out an elaborate programme Of COM
munity aid TO mothers IN the discharge
OF their prime social function, the bear
ing and rearing % children.
Femlnism IL female anarchisnl, and
against anarChism We OF the early Fa-
bian days always fought. | remember
we'll the hot times at Zurich a quarter
OF "A century ago. when Bernard Shaw
and sydney olivier lnow Sir sydney
and myself, delegates TO an interna-
t.onal socialist congress-. sweated in the
work OF expell!ng the anarchists; not
that they were bad fellows but because
their political philosophy was the exact
contrary OF ours. Like the fem.nsts,
they set individual freedom. even from
governmental requirements. as the SUI
preme good. while We insisted that in
dividual whims must always be subor-
d.na;ed TO the public welfare, as deter
mined by the legal representatives OF
democracy. That is the gst OF the
tea 81 "feminisr.'
Mr.. and Mrs. John Martin have not
made IAN intellectual somersault.' but
are refusing TO run after iran gods
and are maintaining the same principles.
applied 20 new conditions, which for
long years they have espoused.
JOHN MARTIN.
SrAPLEroN. May 90.