Discrimination Against Women (Press, 16 February 1984)
This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.
Summary: Discrimination Against Women (Press, 16 February 1984)
In a series of letters published in response to Dr M. Viney's commentary, B. P. Lilburn challenges the notion of sex differences being a justification for limiting the roles of women, particularly in contexts such as firefighting and childcare. Lilburn argues that while women disproportionately shoulder the burden of unpaid childcare, men have greater societal privileges in shaping children's character and values, questioning whether this arrangement is fair. He also refutes Viney's assertion that highlighting sex differences is necessary to prevent children from becoming homosexual, suggesting this view undermines children's intelligence and trustworthiness. Lilburn advocates for women's individuality and respect, stating that true equality is necessary to avoid patronisation. He contends that freedom cannot be preserved by resisting change. S. M. and M. C. Neame from Kokatahi respond to Viney's claims against the United Nations convention, stating that the Bible supports the idea of individuals utilising their unique talents and promotes the notion of a supportive community. They argue that a diverse society, where roles can be freely chosen regardless of traditional gender norms, leads to fulfilled individuals who positively impact their families. The Neames dismiss the concerns about disorder arising from non-traditional family roles, advocating for the encouragement of personal development in a Christian context. Janice Fishwick adds another perspective, expressing concern over radical feminists attempting to remove so-called sexist literature from libraries. She argues that while alternative viewpoints should be welcomed, the existing literature should not be erased. Fishwick perceives this movement as an encroachment on the rights of individuals to access a diverse range of ideas, suggesting that the majority is being overshadowed by a vocal minority. She calls for a wake-up call for New Zealand to address this erosion of freedom of choice.
Important Information
The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact
The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand