class of income the man with a family should not be in a
worse position economically because he has a family than the single
man in that class." They demand that "the standard of living be not
lowered by children." The authors of this plan declare that in the
present system "The mother is still the uncharted servant of the
future who receives from her husband at his discretion a share in his
wages." They want the mother to receive from society, through the
Government, "a weekly allowance sufficient in amount to cover the
primary cost of physical subsistence, paid to the mother for herself
and for each of her children, throughout the period when the care of
the children necessarily occupies her whole attention." They claim
that such a plan would, in the first place, make "equal pay for equal
work" for men and women really possible, since the argument that "men
should be paid more because they have families to keep" would be
outgrown. They claim also that such a plan would remove economic
restrictions on parenthood which now often work social harm. They also
claim that the health of children requires this public allowance for
their care.

The authors of this plan, although frankly stating objections to this
point, claim that the payment of this allowance should be directly to
mothers "as the first step toward raising the status of women and
blotting out, in what has been called the noblest of professions,
those conditions which compare only with the worst of sweated
employments." The whole discussion of this plan is worthy most serious
attention of all interested in preserving the family from injury
through economic inequalities.

=Does This Plan Make Too Little of Fathers?[9]=--There is one
question, however, among others, to be asked of the authors of this
plan, and that is, Can not some means be devised to make the father's
share in the care of the children more definite and better rewarded,
less often shirked or incompetent, in any scheme for state subsidy for
the care of young children? The difficulties that inhere in all
subsidies for children are chiefly those that make people of small
intelligence and little conscience trade with the state for larger
subsidies for larger families, begotten by the less fit for parentage
and with an eye on the public purse. This catastrophe, not unknown in
the past history of England, must be avoided. If there shall develop
any scheme for equal sharing by all the community in the