I am curious about the confused sincerity and depth of understanding which would cause a film reviewer to rubbish so utterly a film like 'Stand Up and Be Counted'. Ok—so its a 'fucking bad film'. Forgive my suspicion that Any film dealing with such subject matter would be found fucking bad by Any critic whose human values had enabled him to identify with the male-supremacist ideologies of countless films which many of us have had rather to suffer. No amount of cinematic brilliance can make such ideologies tolerable to the numbers of females who are painfully rediscovering themselves and their self-respect after years of seeing their distorted images in the humiliating mirror of the cinema.

Perhaps an analogy will help. Blacks are now people in films, more or less — women are not. There is a genuine attempt at understanding and solving the racial problem ('Watermelon Man') But women are still seen in roles as clinging, passive, beautiful, servile, supportive nonentities to be used or abused or even loved and happily enslaved ever after — or — alternatively they are seen as a threat or a challenge to be met and put down to their proper level. Did you get the message of 'Chastity'? There was Cher playing the free independent woman, at last, or so we thought until she fell foul of the Lesbian Monster and ended up a suicide under a truck. It had become obvious that not only her nasty end but also what we'd thought was her nice freedom, was actually the 'sick' result of her chaotic socialization. It was the permissive upbringing and the lack of a fond father's love which had caused her to stray from the straight and narrow and go wandering off along the highway in the first place. This is what happens to 'uppity women' in films — they come to a sorry end if they fail to submit. Remember the mockery of Hot Lips in that great film 'M.A.S.H.'? A parallel parodying of the male in 'Carnal Knowledge' was not so acceptable to the critics.

It is more than merely interesting that films and books are so regularly found to be turgid 'messes' when 'conceived' by women. It seems that critics (male) are incapable of swallowing the smallest dose of their own medicine — although admittedly 'Stand Up and Be Counted' was a large dose.

Modern films and literature show that the basic power relationship in our society is the relationship between the sexes and that this relationship is still, invarying degrees, one between powerful and powerless, exploiter and exploited. The reversals of 'Stand Up and Be Counted' are not meant as ideal situations to be emulated by 'new women' — they do not wish to imitate the sickening power struggles of this male-dominated world — that is exactly what they desire to change.

I found it sad that our reviewer was unable to find one redeeming feature in this film but it seems a hopeful portent that the audience reactions, observed by this writer, were seen to range from chauvinistic contempt to delirious delight — and that, from bom sexes. And no-one slept or walked out.

In conclusion, we've seen fucking far worse. Don't miss it — do see it.

You missed my point. The question was would you stand alongside one whose actions you disapprove of. The action disapproved of was Lee's physical assault on another. It is accepted that he has a supportable cause (racial discrimination is illegal in N.Z.), but I maintain the view that it is unjustifiable to employ unlawful means to achieve one's end. Lee took a different view when he assaulted. You termed my non-submission as "gutless". Give me one good reason why I should follow his view of employing unlawful force to acquire a goal?

I support the freedom of expression. The law upholds it. If Lee wishes to express his reasons for his cause, he must do so within the legal boundaries.

Think again. Think hard. And maybe you might wish to withdraw your original comments.