Meaning of success

Society thinks of “success” as having lots of money and being in the upper echelons of business (“The feminist capitalist who stole a march”, February 4). But it seems more and more women have realised that what is important in their lives is family, raising their children to be good citizens, being good wives, having sisterly friends and working when the children are in school.

Many women who have fulltime jobs are either childless, as is Theresa Gattung, or have to send their children to day care from as young as three months old. Those women who cannot get jobs or have low-paid or no husbands, and stay home with their children, often live in poor housing and are constantly concerned about having enough food.

When women marched for feminism in the 60s and 70s, we were looking for equality and equal opportunities, not to be denigrated or sexualised.

Joy Rising (Tauranga)

Theresa Gattung appropriately labels herself a feminist-capitalist. There’s a strong argument, which has even been broached by the odd feminist writer, about the intertwining of the feminist and globalised neo-liberal agendas. Certainly, co-option of the former by the latter is evident in the mainstream media and in government policy.

Max Thomas (Te Awamutu) LABOUR HISTORIANS HIT BACK

We are astonished at Mike Williams’ claims about our recent book, Labour: the New Zealand Labour Party 19162016. He says we “managed to entirely ignore the extraparliamentary Labour Party, reducing the book to a chronicle of the Labour Party caucus”.

This is false. Most of the first two chapters cover the background to the formation of the party in 1916.

Our book covers the growth of Labour as an organisation, including its structures, membership numbers and social composition. It discusses the struggles of Maori, women, youth and others for representation in Labour’s executive and council.

It is also wrong to say the history was commissioned by the party. It was our initiative to write the book. The Labour Party backed the project, including with some modest financial support, and agreed that, as established and reputable historians, we would be independent in our work. It is not an official history.

Peter Franks and Jim McAloon (Wellington) UNFREE TRADE

The editorial (“Trading places”, February 4) states that “more Americans might eventually work at car plants, but decreased purchasing power would mean that fewer could afford that shiny new SUV.”

Like the Economist article you cite, you miss the point. If you have a job and/or assets, the reduction in the price of an SUV from, say, $50,000 to $40,000 as a result of free trade is great news. If you have neither a job nor assets, it’s completely irrelevant.

If, however, you get a job as a result of protectionist policies that add $10,000 to an SUV’s price, then at least you can feed your family more comfortably and might even be able to buy a small secondhand car for yourself.

Peter Beach (Kelburn, Wellington) CROWN’S ROLE

Australians who think that the end of the Queen’s reign might be a good time to break constitutional links with Britain ( Bulletin from Abroad, January 28) are under a misapprehension and more than 30 years late. The 1986 Australia Act of the Australian and UK Parliaments abolished all such links.

There is only a personal link, not a constitutional one, between the crowns of Australia and the UK – and also with the separate and independent crowns of New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Canada, and 10 other realms.

Gregor Macaulay (Mornington, Dunedin) TREATY TROUBLES

As a school principal and

New Zealander, I enjoyed your Waitangi Day editorial (“Honouring the day”, January 28) and support the suggestion of adding recognition of outstanding Kiwis to the commemoration of the day.

Falling as it does early in the year, I would see it as a marvellous opportunity to highlight at assembly the achievements of the country’s bicultural and multicultural heroes. Best wishes in promoting this idea.

Tom Vanderlan

Principal, Waiuku College