Discrimination Against Women (Press, 9 March 1984)

A series of letters published on 6 and 7 March 1984 in response to an article by Arthur May discusses the portrayal of various viewpoints in the media, particularly concerning women's rights and religious beliefs. Gillian and John Canham express their agreement with May’s observation that Christian perspectives are well-covered, but they critique the media for also providing space for minority viewpoints such as those held by communists and extreme feminists. They argue these viewpoints challenge elements of society, such as justice, freedom, love, and family stability, which they believe have benefited many outside the Christian community, asserting that their goal is to defend these "God-given aspects." The Canhams raise concerns about the potential implications of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women. They warn that it might lead the government toward endorsing practices they oppose, including abortion on demand and legal recognition of same-sex marriages, which they fear could further curtail individual freedoms. On the following day, Eelen Priestley responds to the Canhams, noting the historical use of the Bible by fundamentalist religionists to justify the subjugation of women. She asserts that the Bible has been wielded as a weapon to impose severe conditions on women throughout history. Priestley argues that women should have the protection of law to ensure their security and dignity, emphasising that even well-meaning husbands often make binding decisions that affect their wives’ autonomy. She calls for women to assert their right to equality and encourages more individuals to actively support the ratification of the United Nations Convention to eliminate discrimination against women, which she believes would silence the fundamentalist rhetoric. These discussions encapsulate the ongoing debate in society regarding women's rights, the influence of religious beliefs, and governmental policy. The letters highlight a clash of perspectives: on one side, the defence of traditional values and the potential risks perceived in progressive movements; on the other, a demand for legal protections and equality in the face of historical injustices perpetrated against women.

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