Salient welcomes correspondence on any topic provided the letter is not libellous, sexist, racist or in extreme bad taste. Letters must be short and to the point, typed, double spaced and on one side of the page only. Pseudonyms are acceptable provided the author's name is attached. Letters can be dropped into the box just inside Salient, in the Salient basket in the Studass Office, or posted to The Editor, Salient, VUWSA, Private Bag, Wellington. Letter deadline is Tuesday 5.00pm. Because of severe space restrictions, it may not be possible to print all letters.

Meatless Restaurant

I would appreciate knowing why the restaurant is now only serving vegetarian meals. I am by persuasion a flesh eater, in fact a meal doesn't really satisfy me unless it contains meat, or at least fish, so consequently I find the food now served in the restaurant most unsatisfactory.

Last year I found it quite convenient, after my last lecture, to stay at varsity and work through until about 10pm, taking three quarters of an hour to go to the restaurant and have say Wiener Snitzel and a glass of wine, all for about $2.50. This year I can't work late at varsity because I find it difficult to work without a proper meal.

Of course you say that I could go down to the Squash Centre for my meal, but at approximately $5.50 for a steak dinner (not unreasonable when compared to town), my bursary wouldn't go very far.

I've even tried getting a few people to chip in for some steak and brought along an electric frypan to cook our meal in the Union Hall, wasn't allowed.

So I've now had to break a good study habit.

Demanding my Pound of Flesh,

Francois Dubonnet

Campaign Announced

How unenlightened Cathy Wilson is. Firstly, there is provision for conscientious objection to payment of the Students Association fee (the Association may also grant total or partial exemption on the grounds of hardship) and further, a student aggrieved by the descision of the Association may appeal to the Vice Chancellor, who finally determines the matter (see VUW calender 1981 page 53). As to the cleanliness of the cafeteria, who the hell does Cathy think is responsible for the uncleanliness?

She may certainly be able to buy cheaper food downtown, but I wonder if an analysis would really show better value for money. Furthermore, Cathy Wilson does not seem to be aware of the fact that prices have risen considerably since the 60's. For the clean right-front incisor from the left earlobe of a Mongolian long bearded oxen migrating south for the summer, if there were subsidised food as Cathy imagines the Union fee would be grossly larger than it is now. Take heart Lorna Conway, at least some of us appreciate what you are doing and give you our full support (except, perhaps, for making us climb upstairs to get chips - however we now realise that we can send just one of us up each lunchtime to bring down four or five pottles to the cafe, where we can consume them like old times, so really all is forgiven).

All I can really say is that it might be just as well that Cathy Wilson is ex-Woman Vice President. One good thing though, she hath inspired me - if she was WVP then surely there could be hope for me in the Executive elections at the end of the year.

T. Sutherland

There is only one provision for total or partial exemption from payment of the Students Association fee: an application based on hardship to the VUWSA Executive. The Calender is incorrect on the matter.

Ed.

Fit to Kill

So they were going to review Dressed To Kill I saw as I casually looked through last week's Salient. So I read this review. And what did I find. What I always find - an academic glossing over through a parade of aesthetically, trendy words of a movie which is basically about one thing - the brutalisation of women.

While SD and HM go on about 'stylised courtship ballet', the 'De Palma touch', 'chocolate boxes' 'inane plot', they are reviewing a film of rape and murder of women everywhere - and they seem to be disappointed that they could only find two exciting bits in the whole movie. Fuck, I can't believe it almost. Perhaps SD and HM didn't realise they were treating themselves to a form of snuff movie and were meant to be excited. If all you find about the murder and rape of a woman is that it's like a soft centre chocolate, then I suggest, SD and HM, that you do not understand that brutal violence to women is far from being a soft and entertaining matter.

C.M. Tracey

In Reply

We are film reviewers not film critics. In reviewing a film our aim is to present a reasonably balanced view that will help people decide whether a film is worth the $3 it costs to see it, and to cause them to think about their reactions to the film. We try to present something of a counterbalance to the publicity that goes with the film itself - if you look at our review of Dressed to Kill you will see that it does not support the "violent, erotic, sensational" view of the film that can be seen in its publicity material.

If C.M. Tracey has actually seen the film, she will know that in Dressed to Kill "the brutalisation of women" is presented as the action of an abnormal and disturbed mind, and intends to evoke horror rather than to provoke emulation. If we were to look for reasons why this film is objectionable, then it is the inane plot which we would say most intelligent people would find offensive, particularly any bisexual or transexual people who happened to be in the audience.

Our reviews attempt only to make a general comment on a film, viewing it through the eyes of the average hard up student who cannot afford to waste $3 - minority opinions such as the ones in this letter are better suited to the open forum of the letters column rather than to a review.

HM and SD

Getting Rid of Oppression

This is a letter of complaint to the Executive and to NZUSA (or how to make enemies and irritate people). It is a complaint not so much against the people themselves (not all of them anyway) as against their treatment of those that (more or less) elected them.

Why is it that all student newspapers run the same type of articles year in, year out. All we get is the same rehashed shit from NZUSA. If it isn't oppression in the far east it's oppression in the near east or oppression in South America. Either that or it's oppression by the government, racial oppression or most irritating of all the "dialectic oppression" of the sexes. Moral: vote Socialist Unity Party. Fuck off.

You learn more in the media than you do from student papers. Why? Because Marxist-Leninism is a faith and you can't argue with it. You especially can't argue with it when it plays tricky Dicky's dirty tricks game by not publishing letters and putting disparaging comments and pictures around counter-policy articles as we saw last year.

So what do I want? I simply would like the criteria for article selection to change from oppression and injustice to dynamic optimism. We only have so much sympathy and after a while it all gets deadly dull. I don't want to ignore the world, just not see the names of the people that sell Socialist Action in the Union as such regular contributors.

On a high note, Salient's campus service this year seems much better - what with Activities, Health and things cultural emerging with what appears to be greater prominence. Who knows, we might see something (dare I suggest it) intellectual. (Sorry).

Women Harassed on Campus

Public harassment is punishable by a court conviction, however, it is a law seldom implemented.

I say this because all women are frequently subjected to harassment. This harassment takes the form of both physical and verbal abuse, although more prevalent is the derogatory verbal abuse of which I am concerned here. Women will be aware that verbal harassment occurs in many different situations. My letter, however, was prompted by one particular situation - that is, harassment by the men presently working on the Cotton Stage II development.

Whilst passing this site women have experienced constant verbal abuse. Women have been propositioned, jeered, degraded and made to feel embarrassed and uncomfortable.

This situation should not exist. Women are not sex objects despite what films, TV and advertising acclaim (male orientated media at that).

The men I am referring to, and men generally, have no right to belittle women, viewing us superficially and not as individuals in our own right. This blatant harassment can not be considered complimentary but must be seen for what it is - masked aggression towards women.

This same aggression taken a step further is explicitly documented in our newspapers and courts daily, under the headings 'Women stabbed...', 'Women Raped...'.

Referring back to the situation in question, I realise many women have experienced similar verbal harassment. If you are annoyed about it, I think it would only be beneficial for yourself and all women if we were to consider organizing a suitable response to this type of harassment.

If you are interested please ring 846-706 and ask for me.

Glenda Stone

Pro-Life Feminism

"We never hear anti-abortionists talk about women's needs." - Salient, March 30 1981.

As feminists ourselves who are concerned about equal rights and opportunities in a largely male dominated society, we are distressed, as pro-lifers at being categorized as people "not caring about women's needs."

We are concerned about the woman's needs as she faces pregnancy. Groups such as Pregnancy Help, Society for Protection of Women and Children, the Society for Protection of Home and Family, the Home of Compassion and the various Church run homes for unmarried mothers, which oppose abortion, show that support and concern is given to provide these women with centres that they can turn to if they need help.

We are feminists and therefore we do care about our needs; but we can't forget the needs of the child.

Sonja and Joanna

Sexism and the Facts

I was very interested to read in Trish Hall's and Victoria Quade's article of the investigation of the position of women at Victoria University last week. However, I was extremely disappointed with the lack of evidence on which they based their conclusion that sexism exists at university. "The evidence shows that it does" -I could find little.

They claim that despite the superior performance of women at undergraduate level, fewer women continue on to higher studies. They omit to say that there are fewer women at university. Perhaps the study did prove that as a percentage fewer women went on to postgraduate levels - I wish they had made it clear.

Another complaint is that they present two reasons as being major in women's decisions to continue studying: lack of confidence in their academic ability, and financial difficulties. Fair enough, if the survey of third and fourth year students is representative. Is it? The writers don't say how many students they interviewed or whether it was a completely random sample of female students. Neither do they say what "financial difficulties" or "lack of confidence in their academic abilities" are defined as. For an example of how misleading such terms could be: Is a student who says she is sick of being poor and wants to be able to buy as many clothes as she wants when she wants classed as not continuing her studies because of "financial difficulties"? Or is a student, believing that first class honours is necessary for a job and knowing that she hasn't the ability or diligence to do this, classed as not continuing her academic work because of "lack of confidence in her academic ability"?

Another criticism is of the statement "Most women academics felt pressure to out-perform their male colleagues in order to achieve recognition" - as if this implies sexual discrimination. Don't most male academics feel the same pressure that to achieve recognition they must out-perform their male and female colleagues? And what of the claim that women who were more successful "often felt that this was perceived by male colleagues as threatening". How often is "often"? And how did they know that their colleagues felt threatened? Did they ask them? What does "threatening" really mean?

I appreciate that the writers did not have a great deal of space for detail, but if you're going to make such a damning conclusion that sexism exists at university, you should provide facts.

P.M. Shone