U.N: convention on women

Press, 7 September 1984, Page 16

U.N: convention on women

Sjr,—ln all the controversy about the United Nations convention on women, it is sometimes overlooked that in New Zealand change is occurring and will continue regardless. My daughters would never accept being stereotyped in a certain role solely because of sex. My mother’s generation generally did accept this, my own began to question the waste of human potential and the inherent injustice to both sexes and the incalculable harm to society in having such rigid attitudes. I know many young couples where the male is equal in nurturing and caring for their chil.dren. I would recommend “The Cinderella Complex” by Colette Dowling to those interested in further exploring the limiting effect of stereotyping. — Yours, etc., JILL WILCOX. September 4, 1984.

Sir,—l am grateful for Anna Stolk’s reply to my request for evidence of what happens after ratification of the convention. In the light of what has happened in Australia, rio-one of right mind would sign. Surely there are better ways of helping the women in under-developed countries and our own, than taking Bibles and certain books out of their libraries and interfering with their choice of work. It has much more to do with self-esteem and knowing their self worth than what job they are doing or the school books they read. The same goes for men. Both men and women need liberating. We are only half the population. The men are still here and most of us want them to share our world. It is only the truth that can set us free, not laws and regulations. — Yours, (Mrs) MARY H. BROUGHTON. September 2, 1984.

Sir, — B. Roberts claims to seek the elimination of discrimination against women, which is laudable. If she believes that women are equal with men, which they are of course, she should also believe that men are equal to women. In her two letters of August 23 and 30 she discriminates against men by seeking to impose conditions of eligibility on men who wish to comment on the convention. The convention is of concern to the whole community both women and men. As fathers and husbands men are concerned by the changes proposed by the convention which will radically change the concept of the family unit and the sort of society as the heritage foisted on us for our children to inherit. The convention therefore should not be ratified until there has been full discussion by the whole community and that includes discussion by men’s organisations. — Yours, etc., MARGARET BUCKLEY. September 5, 1984.

Sir—A careful reading of my letter of September 3 shows that it was about the meaning of words and consistency of action, not who is responsible for teen-age sexual activity. Evasiveness over the wording of the convention on women and possible Government actions resulting from ratification gives good cause for rejecting it. The Humangßights Commission

"hoW maintains that' 1 Article's' “implies nothing more than the need to change attitudes which inhibit the opportunities of either sex,” when what Article 5 actually says is that the Government shall take all appropriate measures to achieve “the elimination of . . . practices based on . . . stereotyped roles for men and women.” Biblical teaching on family structure involves clearly-defined roles for men and women, which could be regarded as stereotypes. Even though many in the community do not consider themselves bound by this teaching, why should the Government interfere with the freedom of those who do? — Yours, etc., Dr M. VINEY. September 4, ,1984. ?