LETTER FROM J. SANDS, NOTTINGHAM
I would like to bring a meeting on Equal Pay for Women to the readers' attention. This meeting will be held in Room 8, House of Commons, Tuesday October 22 at 6.30 p.m. It is open to delegates from all unions and interested organisations. This is initiated by the National Union of Vehicle Builders, the union of the Ford Women strikers and promises to be a very important conference with the aim of a "follow-on" womens' conference on equal pay. HEADLIGHT the newsheet of the NUVB says, after referring to the Private Members bill on equal pay, "We hope to see Mr. Norwood (proposer of the bill) and many other M.P.'s, along with the representatives and delegates who have been elected by their organisations, supporting our meeting which will be one of ACTION FOR EQUAL PAY." I feel that this meeting will be significant and hope that all women trade unionists, shop stewards and activists will attend. Yours etc., [signature illegible] P.S. For details of the conference write to: National Union of Vehicle Builders, East London Office, Progress House, 76, Rainham Road, Rainham, Essex.
[illegible] "I have just seen the letter from Sid [illegible] late date someone should try to teach Sid the difference between walking in front of a march and leading it. Mr. Bidwell may well have walked in front of the July 7th, anti-racism march, but over 80% of the march, answering the call of other leaders, remained in Whitehall to fight; while a rump (following Mr. Bidwell?) [illegible] out of the line of fire. Yours etc., Sean Reed.
LETTER FROM FRANK GORTON, NOTTINGHAM
Comrade Lloyd's article "Women as Mothers" seems to be written from a "status quo" position. Its main stream seems to justify the contention that "women's place is in the home". It seems that if we need well-adjusted children (as if that is possible in a capitalist society) they will have to be not only planned but personally tutored by the family in general and the mother in particular. If this is to be [illegible] the argument runs logically that home life should be enriched and the family strengthened, to allow the mother to feel socially useful and fulfilled. Doesn't Leonora recognise the historical need to weaken the family unit? Doesn't she recognise the family unit as being the basis of capitalist stability and exploitation? Is it not possible to generalise from previous and contemporary experiences and pose the question of social and not [private] control of the rearing of children? Surely we should fight for the collectivisation of child care under carefully trained nurses and specialists. Some of the benefits from this would be the elimination of alienation between children at a very early age, the release of the mother into a socially useful or creative role, and the release of children from the generally amateur care of its parents. The "family" freed from the multi-tensions imposed on it in capitalist society would take on a new look, a new feel, where the parents and the children would come together freely as the precondition for mutual enjoyment.