Untitled

Te Ao Hou, Spring 1954, Page 57

the Women's Division of the Federated Farmers of New Zealand, founded in 1925. Both have as a general aim the improvement of the position of women and children on farms, an aim shared by all rural branches of the M.W.W.L., It is only to be expected that these sister organisations have similar problems which they try to solve in similar ways. But there is a certain difference. Just what this difference is, how it gives the M.W.W.L. its unique character, and how it wholly determines the nature and scope of the League's work, we shall discuss at length in the latter part of this article. There is one other most important detail which should be mentioned in any comparison of the M.W.W.L, and European organisations; that is the fact that the League, like European organisations, does not stand alone, but has affiliations. In the first place it is affiliated to the National Council of Women, described as ‘a national co-ordinating organisation’, which represents 121 organised women's societies and is affiliated with 375 other organisations whose aims are to promote sympathy of thought and purpose among the women of New Zealand, to co-ordinate, both nationally and locally, organisations in harmony with their purposes, and to act as a link with women in other countries. In the second place, the

League is affiliated to the New Zealand National Branch of the Pan-Pacific Women's Association, which aims among other things to arouse and foster interest in Pacific problems among New Zealand women, and to initiate organised study. Through these two affiliations the League has gained the encouraging moral support and valuable backing of two large and well-known organisations to any innovations it may wish to bring about in Maori Welfare work, or to any general recommendations it decides to place before the government. It is abvious that the importance of these affiliations cannot be overestimated: but the affiliation should not be a one-sided affair. Both parties should benefit. The M.W.W.L. can offer to the Pan-Pacific Women's Association first hand information regarding the problems and progress of Maori welfare work, and may even submit case-studies of individuals or groups who have struggled with and finally solved some difficult problem in their living. (I believe this has been done already.) The case studies may prove to be relevant to conditions in other parts of the Pacific, and could serve as examples of obstacles overcome. But perhaps the best indication of the League's willingness to pull its weight in this affilation is the decision of the last annual conference to nominate a delegate to the conference of the Pan-Pacific Women's Association, to be held in Manila in January of next year. Each delegate of course, is financed by her own organisation. After this brief comparison of the M.W.W.L. with similar bodies we can deal with the question, what is the main difference between the M.W.W.L. and European women's organisations? The answer seems obvious: the M.W.W.L. is an organisation run by Maoris for the benefit of Maoris. But this is too simple, and when loked at more closely does not really account for the difference at all. The real answer can only be found by facing up to the position of the Maori in our society. In spite of what may be thought privately or said publicly, the Maori is in a different position from the Pakeha, no matter on what level of living you consider him—socially, economically, or educationally. And I think that statements like this should be made without any attempts to ‘cover up’ in case some one should suspect that a ‘colour bar’, or ‘racial discrimination’, or ‘anti-Pakeha feeling’ is implied. Any attention paid to those terms is in direct opposition to the best welfare work. The real difference between the European organisations and the M.W.W.L. lies in the position of the Maori in our society, a position giving rise to peculiar problems requiring extraordinary methods of solution. This seems to be the critical part of the League's work. Anything that can be done to make the Maoris' half-way position between two cultures a better one (not necessarily an easier one), whether it entails accentuating the difference between Maori and Pakeha in some cases, or minimising it in others, will give direction to all the ambitions and activities of the M.W.W.L. When I was preparing this article, some one asked me why are the Maori WOMEN in the vanguard of welfare work? Does this imply that the status of women in the Maori community at large has changed, giving them more say in all matters Maori? Frankly, I do not know. But I would suggest that nearly all the disadvantages of the Maoris' position are felt most acutely in the home, so that it is the women, not the men, who have to cope with them daily, understand them more fully, and are most strongly moved to do something about them. If the explanation is more complex than this, if the Maori women today really have more vigour and initiative than the men, well, good luck to them!