Salient. Official Newspaper of the Victoria University Students' Association. Vol 44 No. 9. May 4 1981
Letters
Letters
Maniac Makes it
Dear Stephen,
Gosh it is hard to get an anti-tour letter published. My first letter was too passive and the second was libellous. Well, here goes for a third time. The Springbok tour should not go ahead for a number of reasons. 1). The tour, whether we like it or not, is seen by the rest of the world as support for apartheid. II). Isolation of SA from international sport will bring about change in their system faster than will be the case if we continue to play sport with them. III). Change will come eventually but the longer it takes the more blood will be shed on both sides. IV). The internal strife caused in NZ if the tour takes place will be lasting and damaging to us as a nation.
The apartheid system is abhorrent and must be opposed by everyone in New Zealand and the world. Efforts are made in other countries (France stopped the '79 tour of their country. SA was kicked out of international cricket the Davis and Federation Cups in tennis) to keep SA sports teams out. Surely we as people of this world should make an effort and attempt to stop the tour.
Gumboot Maniac
Capping Violence
Dear Stephen,
Capping Week got of to a ripping start last Monday, with one of the most senseless acts of violence and destruction that I have ever witnessed. The foyer outside the Studass Office in the Union Building, became the scene of monomaniacal chaos, as one student saw fit to take out his blind anger upon the Anti-Apartheid booth. It seemed that he was quite 'distressed', as it seemed to him that its existence contravened the whole idea of Capping Week; namely, to have a good time, and fuck anyone else. His anger stemmed mainly from what he thought was an injustice; the setting up of the booth in an area which had previously contained Capping Week advertisements.
Unfortunately, he did not see fit to inquire why they were there, but decided himself that they would be moved. Thus he went to work, literally destroying the entire booth and surrounding area. Smashing beer glasses and one wooden form, he then tore down all the display, and threw pamphlet boxes to the floor, covering the area in masses of paper, glass, and beer.
He was not aware that the display had been organised for some weeks, and that the area had been booked for that display well in advance. Had he at least thought to question someone first, before acting, he might have understood. But as it was, his actions can only have alienated many other students (and visitors to the campus) from the activities of Capping Week. To those concerned, I would like to apologise on his behalf, if he will not do so, forr his senseless behaviour; and hope that in future, students will think before they act. It would have saved a lot of time and worry, not to mention the emotional upset it caused to several students.
P. Hassett
Who was Prettier?
Dear Gentleman Editor,
In accordance with our traditional policy of furthering the dissemination of truth, honesty and justice (no seriously...) we feel it our duty to inform you of our splendid victory against a motley rabble of indigenous (intoxicated) trendy, left wing, pinko, facsist, neo-bellicose, anti-pacifist bi-partisan ruffians, maskerading under the name of "The Cappering Band' or some such similar pseudonym.
I) | We were prettier |
II) | God was on our side |
III) | We were prettier |
IV) | They ran away first |
V) | They had no battle standard |
VI) | There is no reason VI |
And we shall rounce them again should they see fit to challenge these facts!
Is this Man a Threat?
Dear Sir/Madam,
I recently attended (24 April) a forum on rape, in the Union Hall. For about an hour I was told that I was not only responsible for the actions of all male rapists because I was of the same sex, but also that I was, in effect, a potential sexual threat to my sister, mother, grandmother, my girl friend's grandmother, and even the President of VUWSA!
A fellow member of the human race, who also happened to be a member of the male branch of that race, dared to question these accusations, and their result. He felt that many sympathetic males (a contradiction, you think?) were alienated by such silly talk.
I agreed, and for the first time that afternoon I found myself clapping sincerely. When the ladies on the dais had finished with my unknown friend, another male (gasp! horror!) spoke up. However, he ended the forum on a sour note for me, when his remarks questioned my motives for clapping and cheering the previous speaker.
I should have thought that appreciation of common sense was motive enough.
Anyway, my unknown friend was right. As I walked past the group of seven female protestors at the Cenotaph at 9 o'clock, on Anzac Eve, I felt no temptation to join them. Neither, so it seems, had the small, mainly female, group that had so eagerly clapped these same seven people earlier on that day (24 April).
Here's to People's Lib. Yours,
Oscar Wilde
Stop Alienating Men
Dear Sir,
This letter is composed in a moment of anger, so I mean everything I say. I have become more and more incensed by the attitude taken by "feminist" groups around this campus. I speak, with special reference to the rape forum and the various articles that have appeared in this newspaper. Apparently in my very being I am automatically to be condemned as a potential threat to any and all women.
I categorically refuse to assume the guilt of other men. I refuse to be alienated from support of the women's liberation movement because of my masculinity. Furthermore I deny the "fact" that I and most men are really capable of intentional rape. Sure it is a physical option, but is it an emotional one? In order to carry out any act there is an acompanying emotional state. If this emotional state is not present the potential physical act is not real but imaginary. The emotional state that is required for rape is not a common feature of anybody's life.
Of course these "feminist" movements don't seem to care a fuck what I feel. I am a man therefore I am a threat seems to be an automatic equation in their heads. This is nothing but pure cowardice. In this cowardice comes affirmation of the "male threat". If you refuse to be frightened of rape, or men, you affirm that there is no reality to this so called threat. Women must deny men the emotional prerequisite necessary for the physical act. This cannot possibly be borne out of a sense of threat and fear. You can't stop the loonies but you can "de-socialise" rape.
Depersonalization is the real threat. "Feminist" movements threaten me with it all the time. I am a person first, a man second. We have somehow inherited a myth that "man" is the opposite of "woman". This is total shit. The specific sex of a person plays (or ought to) a comparatively minor role in their experience. This was the whole point of women's liberation in the sixties and its been totally corrupted.
Germaine Greer introduced the real dumb concept of men hate women. She cites examples of obvious masochism and calls it male sadism. There are men who hate women (actually I've never met one, although I have met women that hate men). There are all sorts of loonies about. One thing I have noticed is the sexual arrogance of some women. If she offers it's an insult not to accept, but if he offers and she refuses it's too bad. Virtually all antipathy between the sexes is based in rejection either of oneself or of a parent.
What then is the pont of this letter? I want (and I'm not the only one) for the title "feminist" to go along with the whole concept of this Woman vs Man shit. Women must loose their fear both to say "no" and to say "please". Rape isn't a crime against women (there are women child molestors and homosexual rapes), it's a crime against a specific victim, a specific person (because it's the person part that suffers the most damage, nobody thinks of themselves as a representative of anything under such individual humiliation). Finally, women's movements must stop alienating men because the rejection results in antipathy.
Luv,
Peter
Big Time Radio Station Games
Sir,
For the last three weeks or more my enjoyment of cafe life has been seriously impaired by both the absence of music from Radio Active and the installation of the Space Invaders machine. If Active is supposed to be providing a student service, using student money, why don't they get on with the job? Sure, you might say, they are pre-occupied with their Capping broadcasting but this also is a waste of time. The signal strength is so weak that if you can cope with the static you might just be able to work out what they are playing. I've tried listening in Haitaiti, the central city and even Kelburn Parade, but the sound remains the same, terrible. Their primary aim should be to entertain students, not waste money on playing big time radio station games. I hope that resumption of broadcasting to the cafe is given a high priority, otherwise they should be closed down permanently and the money used in ways that the majority of students will benefit from.
As for the Space Invaders machine, its fucking noise drives me insane. If music isn't playing to drown it out I'm going to sabotage it, so be warned.
Pissed Off
Freshly Cut Grass
O Sir Omnivorious Editor,
Here at Vic we have to queue continuously for our food. I now wish to join the queue for complaints about said food. That's me, third from the end bent over, chundering.
The system of having frankfurters and so forth in the cafe, and chips and what not up two flights of stairs, is absurd and inconvenient.
The "Hamburgers" served in the Burger Bar resemble food as much as David Lange resembles a ballet dancer. Errrgh!
But my greatest grumble (apart from my stomach) is the so called "Restaurant". It should be renamed the "Sheep Pen Food Trough"! I felt like some sort of farm animal, sitting there chewing on freshly cut grass and lupin seeds, garnished with barley and oats. If I want a feed at varsity I want some bloody meat. Surely the two services, food and farm feed, could be combined.
Yours in hunger,
A Carnivore
PS If in extreme hunger, try eating Salient. That is what is called; 'Reader's Digest'.
If you do, I hope it chokes and poisons you, and the ink blackens your bum.
Ed.
Separating Fact from Slogan
Dear Editor,
In a recent article Victoria Quade used the argument, 'a woman's right over her own body', to justify abortion. If you examine it, carefully you will find that this is not an argument at all but a slogan.
None of us has unlicensed control of our own bodies. The laws of most countries place many restriction on us. We cannot, for instance, inject heroin into our bodies, sell our bodies, destroy our bodies nor can we mutilate them.
The new science of immunology shows that each time a foreign object implants itself into the human body the white blood cells will rally and mount a very serious attack on the foreign invader in order to destroy it and expel it.
The white blood cells have the capacity to recognise 'self and 'non-self'. The reason why our white blood cells do not destroy the heart or kidneys is that they recognise 'self'. There is no foreign person. When a pregnancy implants itself, the white blood cells of a woman's body recognise 'non-self and make a concerted effort to destroy the foetus. They mount a very serious attack.
The foetus, over the aeons in evolution, has been able to mount a counter attack or defence which is very effective. 90 per cent of the time it repels the mother's attack; it fails the other ten per cent of the time and this results in a miscarriage. So the mother's body recognises 'non-self, something foreign - it is not my body. In that sense having control over one's own body is a hollow slogan. The foetus is not one's own body; it is some other person.
Whatever conclusions we arrive at on the morality of abortion, it is essential that we try to distinguish facts from opinions, slogans, feelings, or assumptions.
Yours sincerely,
M. Lynch
Who Mentioned Hedgehogs?
Editor Person,
I am sorely distressed that you have stooped to publishing the purile ravings of poor demented cafe chips eaters such as Miriam and Madeline, who are apparently suffering from the little known disease of Germanitis and consequently should seek professional help as soon as possible.
I am also under the impression that these persons seek to take over the world and, while I can only wish them the best of luck, I do hope that they can do it without using that outrageous German accent.
How about that, my first letter this year and I haven's mentioned Hedgehogs once?
Arthur P. Hedgehog, Esq.
While I'm grateful for the hedgehog non-mention, I'm even more pleased that this is your first letter this year.
Ed.
Capping and the Rape Forum
Dear Sir,
On April 24 a forum on 'Rape' was held in the Union Hall. An interruption from two men advertising Quadrophenia was an unnecessary rudeness. However, I found it totally offensive when one of these capping promoters announced loudly "Capping next week! Rape will be legal then!"
Could I inform him that rape is never legal, and his ignorance is as appalling as his manners.
Jean Packman