Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. Vol 35 no. 8. 27 April 1972

Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor

What a Darling

Sir,

The talk was entitled 'History of Society' and it was to be delivered by the eminent Professor Darlington - the "biochemical philosopher." or "philosophical bio-chemist." Being an ignoramus on the above mentioned subject, I ventured into LB1 last night, to be enlightened, so that the next Cafeteria 101 lecture I could tantalize my listeners with the intricacies of " the evolution of race, class and culture."

Alas! it was not to be so. My intellectual capacity being nowhere near that of the pedagogue (I am 21, 56 shades darker). I was completely overwhelmed by the exuberance of his vubosity and the waving of his wand. However, even a state of dementia did not make me unaware of the sad but tragic fact that for an hour I listened to the History of the European Society. It was either, that in my ignorance I thought society existed in China and India at that time, or Professor Darlington is a bigoted racist.

I must say that I did gather the following pearls of wisdom:-
a)Islamic Jews all inferior to the European Jews because the former intermarried with Africans and Arabs. Professor Darlington apponently gathered this but of juicy, gossip from the European Jews. NB— He is a scientist.
b)The Pope prohibited incest in the 11th Century.

My lack of the power of retention prevents me from remembering anything else of significance. (if there was something that could be thus catagorised).

Question time arrived with much trepidation/cold sweat/ consternation. I apprehensively asked the revered gentleman a question— it was short and sweet, I assure you. A supercilious smile on his face, the savant replied, as he replied many others, "Read my book." My nascence is such that the only title that kept recurring in my infinitesimal brain was, "20 ways to be Evasive when encounted by a vociferous and belligerent audience" On that note, I left the illuminati's presence — a sadder but no wiser fool.

Shalima Jayasundary Wijeratnam-Wilson.

Political Science Society

Meeting to discuss activities for the year and to elect officers.

Friday 28th, Lounge, 12-2pm.

Sir,

Byron Buick-Constable states in his letter, cost rationale, that "there will be ham in all rolls in future." The future must be a long way off, as luncheon sausage was still in the rolls on Monday 24 April. Also the Post Office runs its other food lines at the same price as the University Union catering, although admittedly it is not such a large scale undertaking. Just because the previous caterers charged 2c for a ladle of gravy does not mean that this situation has to continue indefinitely. Regarding roll-your-own tobacco, according to my information, Rothmans make only Virginia Gold and Pocket Edition, leaving 3-Castles, 2 brands of Greys and Black and White as reasonably popular brands, which the University Union Cafeteria should have been stocking at the time.

Your correspondent.

Dear Sir,

I wish to inform readers of the dangers of ego-confusion which may result from attempts at self-categorisation in terms of your all-embracing (Evergreenian) so obviously unbiased catalogue of The Liberal'.

Being an unbleached flour eater of the Eastern Bays, I was obviously a dyed in the (natural) wool Liberal. This momentary sense of ego-identification rapidly crumbled as I realised that while loathing plastic flowers and topless dresses, I nonetheless consume jars of instant coffee, and intensely dislike Amphora and archy and mehitabel.

While generally blind to Freudian slips, I am nonetheless liberally enough aware to recognise your article as one great Fruedian fuckup (and I don't call it premarital intercourse, either......)

Miss Days Bay Wharf '72

Air New Zealand transport Salient's to University of South Pacific for nix.

Correction

Sir,

I am very disturbed by the statement published in your issue of March 22 at the head of Dr Mann's article on 2,4,5-T, saying that a reason for the article's rejection by the N.Z. Farmer was that the Dow company might withdraw its advertising.

This statement was completely false and it could do, and almost certainly has done, serious harm to the reputation of this publication.

When discussing the question of publication of this article with Dr Mann, I explained that the only reasons for not doing so immediately were that; (a) I regarded the issue as ethically, though not legally, sub judice while the expert committee was still considering it, and (b) that by the time the article could appear in our pages the committee's report would almost certainly have been made public.

I emphasised (and cited examples of past experience to support my statement) that the Farmer was not influenced by possible withdrawal of advertising in making its decision on such important matters.

I also made it clear to Dr Mann that after the committee's decision was published, I would be glad to consider an article from him if the committee's recommendations were not, in our editorial view, the correct ones.

The N.Z. Farmer is the only independent farming publication in New Zealand, and we regard this as an important advantage over our competitors, and feature it prominently on our masthead.

So it will be clear to you that any public statement like the one you have made, which could discredit this claim, is bound to be regarded by us very seriously.

In addition, your statement implies a very real imputation against me personally. I am very widely known in all branches of the farming industry as editor of the Farmer and my reputation could very easily be damaged by your mis-statement.

I would be glad if you would publish in reasonably conspcuous form a correction of this mis-statement in as early an issue as possible, to avoid further action.

Yours faithfully,

Ron Vine,

Editor. N.Z. Farmer.

Salient published the earlier statement in good faith but accepts Mr Vine's statement and is pleased to set out the correct position.

Woman on Women

Sir,

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.

Christine Dann

On the last Sunday of every month Mr M. Rodman, Flat 32,

Hanson Court,

9 Hutchison Rd,

Newtown (Next to Winter show buildings) tel. 894-446

holds an open house discussion on anything at all, (trying to avoid theology). Anyone is welcome to turn up and participate.

Overheard outside Athletic Park on Sunday before last. "Let them (South Africa) solve their problems in their own way like we did with the Maori Wars".

Sir,

When are those gutless wonders on human and United Nations issues, Professors and lecturers going to declare in print under their own signatures their total opposition to Apartheid sport and Apartheid in other forms. They should be giving leadership to the students.

John Shaw

Ed,

Fraid Victoria's Remainder Reminder requires a rejoinder. If that one man was also a young man, she would still have been at school when 'different to' became acceptable as a viable alternative to 'different from'. Time will probably come for the interchanging of the sexes. Nothing more different than those, is there?

John Hales.