Woman on Women

I feel that the article in the last "Salient" on the Women's Liberation Conference, is comprised, in the main, of uninformed comment and hearsay. Cathy Wylie writes as though she went to the Conference expecting the word of God to descend, and was suprised when She did not deliver the goods

I shall consider the uninformed comment first. "Who is the enemy?" is a non-issue. Women are not an army, nor do they have organised enemies in a military sense. Instead, they have a number of problems, which are caused by men, by society, and by women themselves. The Women's Liberation Movement is concerned with attacking problems, regardless of who creates them or where they arise.

In her discussion of consciousness-raising groups Wylie says "They appear to be...." and then gives an erroneous picture of something she admits to never observing, let alone experiencing. Consciousness- raising groups do not resemble group therapy. Group therapy assumes that psychological problems are innate, and that they can be explained and cured by free physical interaction and the catharsis of baring one's soul. Consciousness-raising groups assume that the problems of women are not just personal, but that many of them are social in origin, and thus "soul-baring" is only used when necessary as a technique towards a greater understanding of how the individual women affects and is affected by society. Self indoctrination is a contradiction in terms. It is theoretically possible that a consciousness-raising group could talk itself out of political action, and I believe that some groups in the States have done so.

I agree that using the term "middle-class" as an insult is stupid, but that is because there is some good in the middle-class, not because we are all middle-class. Despite Wylie's assertions to the contrary, all women do have personal experience in common in their relations with men, even though social relations may differ from class to class. Although as far as women are concerned, even social relations aren't too different - middle-class or working-class, Ph.D. or illiterate, the woman stays home with the kids. All women know the fear of unwanted pregnancy, and even Varsity women have the bitter experience of unequal pay in their holiday jobs.

The Women's Liberation Movement has only been underway for the last 5 or 6 years (2 or 3 in N.Z.) and already Wylie expects us to have educated masses of women about their exploitation and oppression. Perhaps she would prefer that, like the Bolsheviks, we should skip this stage, and take over without trying to reach the masses. Or that we should do nothing at all.

I agree that society is sick, but its treatment of women is a part of its sickness, and the whole cannot be cured without consideration of the parts. As the slogan quoted by Simone de Beauvoir in the last issue says: "No revolution without woman's emancipation, no woman's emancipation without revolution."

As a heterosexual, I am not especially interested in or concerned about lesbianism, but as it is a subject which is obviously important to a number of women, it therefore warrants discussion. (Maori women are a minority too - should we ignore them?)

Finally, I would like to ask if Wylie ever had a nasty experience in Christchurch. It would seem so, by her comments on the place and the people. Firstly, Ngahuia Volkerling has no experience of Christchurch consciousness-raising groups, so it would seem that Wylie's report is hearsay of hearsay. As someone who has been to these groups since their inception, I can say that most definitely are not, and never have been, a place for personal antagonism. If they had been the movement would never have begun, let alone have grown as it has done.

Secondly, Wylie's comments about her neighbour at the Conference exemplify the kind of unconstructive cattiness which women in the movement are trying to get away from.

Like the writer, I am somewhat suspicious of idealogical movements. But Women's Liberation has no ideology, no party line. It encompasses a variety of action towards a number of aims. Ideas differ from town to town, from group to group, and so do the aims and methods of their action. We're all just one means to an end - giving women the right and the abilities to choose how to live their lives. If you think that other groups, such as the Nation Council of Women, serve this end better, fine. If you really are interested, go and join them. Only don't sit on your arse and pike at other people's efforts if you're not prepared to do something yourself. It doesn't help you, them, or women in general.