I don't wish to drag this out, but
I would like to make a reply to the
letter of the Women's Liberation
Movement.
It's true that the Movement
made no attempt to stop my
reading their literature at their
table. But I hadn't the time - I was
on my way to work, late as usual.
That's why I asked to borrow the
pamphlet for an hour, since I only
had to work for an hour, and I
would be just one floor above them
at my job.
That they refused my request
makes the whole situation not only
a question of discrimination but
also a question of honor -
something the rest of the University
community takes for granted I
have.
It's also true that one of the
ladies behind the table, forgetting
her training, was kind enough to
suggest to another of the ladies,
whom I knew, that she lend me her
own copy. That lady agreed
(though, to my mind, reluctantly),
and I said, in effect, Great let's have
it! Unfortunately, she didn't have
her own copy with her, and I had
to settle for vague promises of
future encounters. That's why I
wrote my original letter.
I don't want to appear unreasonable.
I can see the Movement's
point about having limited supplies
of literature, and wanting that
literature to reach members of its
own sex first. But it seems to me,
then, ridiculous that the Movement
should be offering its literature
within an area in which at least
eighty per cent of the population
does not qualify to receive it. Since
this is an affront to that eighty per
cent, may I suggest to the Movement
that it withhold its literature
from this area until it has an
adequate supply for the whole area.
One other point: the Movement
claims that it does not want to
"deny enlightenment to interested
men." Why is it, then, that the
course which it is offering within
the Experimental University this
semester, while it has no class limit,
requires that its members "must be
female?"
What "limited supplies" are
involved here? Space? I'm sure that
a large enough room could have
been secured to accommodate all
who wished to join the class. I can
only conclude that the Movement
does not so much wish to "enlighten
interested men" as to create
an enemy (i.e., all men) and then
focus upon him.
It's sad, because I, for one, am
not the enemy. I've always thought
of myself as wholly sympathetic to
any movement that seeks to combat
discrimination. But I surely
can't be sympathetic to a movement
that seeks to combat discrimination
by practicing it. I'm not that
schizophrenic.
