Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-08-09
FRENCH WOMEN
SAY OBEDIENCY
LINE is SILLY
Brand Marital Clause in Law
Useless and Humilat-
ing.
SUPERIOR MEN ARE FEW

PARIS. Aug. "a husband owes his
wife protection. woman owes obedi
ence to her husband" These two SEN
fences figure in the marriage code of
French laws and around them fierce
battle now RACES in all society circles in
France.
The trouble came when Senator Martin,
II supporter Of women's suffrage, intro
duced an amendment in the Senate to
have the second sentence suppressed or
modified. NJ Martin considers the SEN
fence as too humiliating to women and
think that such terms are unnecessary
IN the marriage laws. He believes that
that affection a woman has for her bus-
band should suffice to call for obedience
without the law treating married women
as though they were school children.
IF MEN SUPERIOR
WOMEN OBEY.
Opinions Of well known FRENCH wom-
en- have been sought on the subject and
here are some Of their answers:
Madame Miropolsky, a French woman
by birth and an extremely capable
woman lawyer, says: Article 213 (the
one containing the above two cIauses) is
quite harmless. 1t carries no penalties
There are happy married couples who
believe in it and on the other hand there
are happy married couples who are quite
Of a contrary disposition Law is power
less to fix the rules of marital intimacy"
In the opinion of Mile. Fanny Heldy,
of the Paris Opera: IF the husband is
really superior to his wife then the lat
| ter obeys him out Of pleasure and not
because the law say So If the contrary
| is the case-and it Is not rare to find it
tso-then no law on earth will make a
I l.
band. AS for husbands protection, VS.
! are quite capable Of protecting ourselves
and think we have proved that Article
/ 213 should certainly be banished."
VIEW OF ONE WHO
! NEVER HAD HUSBAND.
! The celebrated doctress, Mile. Pelletier.
| is much of the same opinion. Although
! ! have never had husband" she said Il
also find Article 213 very humliating for
women. Our country is very much behind
| the times. In Russia the general eman-
cipation Of women is far advanced There
I marriage has been sOcialized-not wom-
en-. All domestic work is done by pro-
fessionals and the education of children
/ is given by the State A woman can
| thereby live inteIligentIy and indepen-
IDENTIFY"
! Secretary OF a section Of the Union for
/ Women's Suffrage, Madame Bach Gre
! mieux, finds the incriminated article "ab-
solutely iniquitous" ITO think" she
says, that a married woman is consid-
cred incapable of properly conducting
/ herself! Marriage is an association:
there is no chief. In practice, happily.
the law does not exist But on prin-
ciple think it should be abolished"
HUBBY LIKEWISE
! OWES OBFDIFNCF
Mile. Madelein Roch, the famous
French tragedienne, would merely change
Article 213.
There is no need to suppress the
article she said. Simply change it
around and make it read that q husband
owes obedience TO his wife"
Madame CoIette. a we'll known writer
who has been married twice, when asked
Tor her opinion replied: L had forgot
ten all about it although it must have
rbeen read to me twice. As such text
never existed in my married life I feel
absolutely Indifferent whether 1t is sun
/ pressed or not"
Even sporting circles were not spared
in the search for opinions on a subject
which Is interesting France so greatly.
and Mile. Helene Dutrieu. Frances fore
most woman aviator thinks: Woman
Is made TO obey man. / don't think the
law so badly constructed and. after all
1t is so simple not to get married if Won
do not want to accept the Inconvenience
as well as the advantages of married
life"