AS A woman worker in a traditionally male industry - the railway — I was particular v interested in lenny Davenport's letter (12 March). Lne only woman on the platform at my station, my experience has not been one of sexual harassment.
Yes, sexist remarks are made, and do sense resentment that I should aoingd traditionally male Most of workmates wives domestic chores, but as a socialist i'm in tavour of all workers going home to find the domestic work done. Domestic labour must be socialised.
What worries me about Jenny's letter is her claim that male workers materially benefit from the oppression of women. assume that she sees these Hennes terms oine right to work as a Post Office engineer, miner, railworker. In other words, she sees the right to work in certain areas as a privilege and nol a nignt.
I'd like Jenny, as relatively well-paid skilled worker, to come to Fellow workers that they and tell are privileged to work long Never more hostile conditions, for £58 Paddington station a week! I don't think that they'd agree with her and I know that I don't.
The right wolak is just that — a right and not a privilege.
As socialists we must fight the OODICSSIOD women because it weakens and divides 'I'm the only woman working on the plattorm... ment. That is why Socialist Challenge has consistently fought for a woman's right to choose on abortion. and why we are taking up the campaign tor positive ac tion and a woman's right LO WOlK If we follow Jenny's arguments to their logical conclusion, we might as well give up now. If men materially benefit women's oppression they ai c unlikely to take up women's rights LUC labour movement. And we can effectively dismiss the possibility of male workers ever participating in the revolutionary socialist movement.
Why should men fight for socialist society which will eradicate all their material privileges? HAZEL MACPHERSON, Paddington NUR