CASHMERE WOMEN'S MEETING

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20957, 11 September 1933, Page 7

CASHMERE WOMEN'S MEETING

TO THE EDITOR OP THE P8833 Sir,—"Jupiter" must be an oddity if he—l am sure no woman indited the letter—can derive any amusement from reading the letter by "A-Woman Elector." However, as the interjector to whom he refers, I can assure him that I am not the writer of the letter, nor do I know anything of its origin. Nevertheless, I envy the writer her ability to castigate so thoroughly the caveman qualities of the speaker and can heartily endorse her remarks. It is inevitable that a Cabinet Minister speaking in the party stronghold of the electorate should be surrounded by a coterie of admirers, ready to rush in any direction at the barking of party hacks; but I venture to predict that under the peculiar conditions of the by-election—the fate of the Government not being at stake—th« rpen and women of Cashmere will show their disapproval of the Government's attitude to women on the unemployment question. They will vote for a woman whose record in public life has proved her ability to stand up against a politician who, blind to the fact that the world is materially rich, would sacrifice women on the altar of scarcity because there is no money. Mr Ransom did not want to answer questions about where money comes from, and no doubt he was thankful to be relieved of the task through the timely aid from his fair but unfair admirers, who imagined that the rights of women were at stake when a mere man should question a Cabinet Minister on the vital question of where the money comes from.—Yours, etc., _ , , la. wilson!' September 10, 1933. TO TH-? EDITOR OF THE Sir,—France is apprehensive; Germany seems to be arming; Austria is uneasy; Roosevelt is grappling rightly or wrongly with problems of currency and unemployment. Conversations are proceeding in London and in Paris on disarmament; hopes and fears are at work in reparations and war debts; Ireland is like to be in the throes again. Does "Woman Elector" (See her letter, September 6) really think that the eyes of the Mother Country are upon the Lyttelton election? That she is preparing to despise us, or applaud, as the event of the election moves her? Surely exaggeration discounts rhetoric? And i& so, in one particular, why not in others? —Yours, etc., PLAIN THINKER. September 9, 1933. TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Si r> —Your correspondent "Jupiter" on Saturday calls the letter of "Woman Elector" of last week "stupid." The word in such a connexion is utterly astonishing. The sentiments expressed in the letter relating to social service are shared by the foremost thinkers of the day, irrespective of sex, race, or country, everywhere. The manner in which this able writer marshalled her words and co-ordinated her various thoughts must have won the appreciation of readers accustomed to Genuine literary expression, apart

from mere press controversy, anywhere. To add. a word on the'criticism of the meeting itself, the letter could hardly have been too strong. For fair play is as desirable in a woman's meeting as in a public meeting of any kind; and it was most distressing to hear an organised stamping for the purpose of hurriedly ending the meeting and drowning the voice of one polite though persistent objector with obviously a real question to ask. But the Coalition has no case to offer to discriminating women electors, however their political opinions might lead them to wish that it had—Yours, etc., PIONEER'S DAUGHTER. September 9, 1933. TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir,—The letters of "Another "Woman Elector" and of "Jupiter," in Saturday's paper, help to justify my im-' pressions of the Cashmere women's meeting. The Hon. E. 'A. Ransom so much elated his supporters thalj soon they were applauding everything he eve t" £ om P ] ,ex financial statements which could not possibly have been understood without reflection, inat the applauders were themselves ashamed of their excess in helping forcibly to silence the unpopular questioners was shown by the strained and sudden silence which fell when the lady who had placed written questions i asked permission to read them aloud. Her embarrassment was the result of the spirit I have described, and the existence of that spif't is proved by "Jupiter's" letter, which, both by its tone and its methods of attack, exemplifies the attitude I described as jeering," and since Jupiter" was present, that spirit was present. She does not attempt to answer one of my arguments, but only makes sweeping and abusive assertions, as sure a sign of the absence of a convincing case as was Mr Ransom's attitude to his interjectors. There were two of these, a man and a woman, and neither of them could be said to have been abusive or offensive in anyVway. Both merely asked awkward questions, which were overridden with the excuse of lack of time, and a speaker with a thoroughly sound case could have used them to his own advantage. I accused Mr Ransom of "cowardice to his questioners," but I think that the imputation is a compliment rather than otherwise, "for conscience doth make cowards of us all," and I am convinced that it is his sensitive awareness of the weak spots in the Coalition's policy that makes him so greatly fear his questioners. As such, it is a sign of grace, and so is "Another Woman Elector's"

remark that we want a "strong and sanr government, with or without Labour.' 1 Does this latter straw suggest that the wind begins to blow from a new direction. and that the Coalition is hankering to steal or share some planks from Labour's platform? As for "strong and sane governments," that is, governments more concerned with vested interests than with human welfare, internally they stand for maintaining a wasteful, unjust, and illogical distribution of work and wealth, and internationally they are heading for another world war. Fihally, I am glad of the opportunity to explain that when I wrote of "smug and superior ladies," and likened them to those who opposed freeing serfs and slaves in the past, I was no longer referring to ladies of the Cashmere meeting (about one third of whom, I understand, were outsiders, in any case), but to that type of mentality anywhere. One can understand the deprived and weak hating the prosperous and strong, but why should the prosperous and strong bate the deprived and weak? The reason with which some people pronounce the words "these Labour people" is astonishing, and for the reasons which I gave in my previous letter, as unintelligent as it is unbeautiful. I know that the all-important questions of national finance are intensely difficult lo understand, and hardly any amateur is qualified to judge which side is right in its claims. But it is only fair that Coalitionists should hear the Labour speakers as well as their own, and at least try to understand the ideals which animate them, and what authority they have for their views.—Yours, etc., WOMAN ELECTOR. September 10, 1933.