The boutique readership of Melbourne's pacifist, feminist Woman Voter couldn't possibly have included the great British commentator and science fiction writer H. G. Wells. This was a shame because 100 years ago this week, the feisty weekly gave him a (figurative) slap he should have had to respond to.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
"In a new newspaper article, H. G. Wells puts forward some reasons to show that the war is not a catastrophe. He points out that millions of men have exchanged their civil occupations for the army, wherein the conditions of their lives are much improved, since their womenfolk are assured of separation allowances and they [the enlisted] are no longer liable to dismissal at short notice.
"On the contrary, we cannot help knowing that they are liable to dismissal from life itself at extremely short notice, once they get into the clutches of the military authorities. But if continuity of service is all the workers want, why not try a system of slavery?
"Mr Wells does not remind us that the separation allowances and pensions for wives and mothers of privates and soldiers are so small that they and their children must be amongst the poorest and most wretched of our fellow citizens. A pound a week for a wife and four children means for them a life of slums and of half-starved wage slavery.
