I am again appalled by an article in the hand-[unclear: book] (again, because it was there last year!) [unclear: which] leads me to question the credibility of [unclear: ts] editorial staff.

The article, (on pages 34 & 35) is simply entitled "Women". It seeks to establish that women are at an economic, social and academic disadvantage at university by asserting, what I will politely term, untruths:

1) "It is not only more difficult for women to come to university, it is also more difficult for them to stay." Why is it more difficult for them to come and stay??? It strikes me that at every turn the difficulties for men and women are the same.

We are told that women must supplement their "paltry bursary allowance" with at least $800.00. Well, where's the problem? - 3 months working will in most cases achieve this sum, man or women. True, men tend to get some better-paid jobs, such as in the freezing works and the Wool Stores. So what? Good on them; not everyone's cup of tea, and the jobs demand more strength than moat women have.

2) What is this rubbish that women are subtly encouraged to take arts. From my school (a girls' school) as many girls took arts, More took sciences, some took commerce and law etc... Were we more intelligent and able to discern this arts-con? I think not, rather that this subtle encouragement does not exist.

To cut a long letter short (ahem!), there particular assertions are unadulterated rubbish:

That women must wear particular clothes to be "Normal". (What is normal by the way?)

That they must have an exclusive male companion.

That they're not after seen speaking at SRCs.

That they avoid political involvement because they are dominated - maybe they're just bored, like me.

Finally, that the Abortion legislation should seriously affect them. In plain terms one night filled with sin and debauchery makes one very tired, a state which is not conducive to good work output. The availability of abortion would, it seems to me, merely encourage the frequency and energy of debauching, thus making one even more tired - leading to an even shoddier work output. Plainly, the Legislation aids the female student rather than acts to her detriment.

3) The statement that women suffer an academic disadvantage is an outrage bordering on libel!

In conclusion, this article is so false and pathetic that I am forced to conclude that it was written by a Male Chauvinist, trying to undermine the self-respect of gullible readers. I can but hope, if this is not the case, that if a woman wrote it, she was having a laugh at the expense of the lunatic fringe of the Women's Liberation Movement.