!
u u
Female credit
Credit. Almost everyone finds it necessary
to take out a loan sometime in his or her life,
whether it be to finance a car, a house, an
education or some other real or imagined
necessity. But, according to the National
Commission of Consumer Finance, single
women have more difficulty establishing
credit than single men. Apparently the
discrimination intensifies if the woman
marries.
The commission says banks, lending
institutions, credit bureaus and retail creditors
are biased against women in a variety of ways.
Among them:
Creditors generally require a woman who
already has established credit to reapply for
credit when she marries, usually in her
husband's name. Similar reapplication is not
asked of men when they marry.
-Creditors often are unwilling to extend
credit to a married woman in her own name.
Divorced or widowed women find it
.difficult to reestablish credit A woman
separated from her husband reportedly has an
especially difficult time, since the account
still may be in her husband's name.
When a married couple applies for credit,
creditors often refuse or are reluctant to
consider the wife's income.
Ono rpnnrt savs that about 45 of ail
women in the United States are employed,
not including homemakers. Accordingly,
working women comprise about 39 of the
nation's labor force.
It's difficult to understand why so many
companies persist in denying equal credit
opportunities to about 35 million female
workers, both married and single. It's
unfortunate and deplorable that legislative
bodies have not taken issue with the practice
and penalized agencies that persist in this
discrimination. It's even more unfortunate
that women's rights groups have not
campaigned and lobbied more vociferously
for the abolition of unfair credit policies.
Mary Voboril
iatht( ib brouhaha
abashes Britons
ft
, if
2 &r WftJlfi
m r gl""''i" ' in iij.ii i r ii mi ii iMWiiiini ii I, -n - i ii ri,'1''i'iiliii'"l1rtr1fflh'vr1"rifft.'
'""'"""'"'"Jj fj " '"" rr''T''-w. " - i i'... ...i.i -ii".,..
...MMMili'T -a-liW'aajaaJCJJ " """'"r"1T rr' Vl6
-iiVni iinilli . r gyJ""
.
"Well. Mr. Heath, this is a nice bit cf hot water you've gotten us into!'
to th
edi
Dear editor,
! am a UNL freshmen who is very
disappointed in our track program. In high
school I played three sports, two were cross
country and outdoor track. My classmates
thought I was pretty fast on the run. Against
my opposition, I placed second most of the
time; however, I ,knew my best times were
not nearly good enough to win a scholarship
from this University. This did not disappoint
me; I decided to keep running anyway.
When I first came here end joined the
cross country team, head coach Frank
Sevigne asked me what my best times were
In the mile-and 2-miie runs. After he found
out, he gave me an Idea of what my
competition's times were doing and then
ked me if I would even want to run
knowing this information. I did not see him
as particularly encouraging to continuing my
csreer.
After running several months on both the
cross country and indoor track team, I
noticed a pattern developing which I did not
like. Scholarship runners were treated with
care, concern and consideration. Not all the
time, but enough to make it noticeable
compared to a walk-on. Yet a waik-cn could
quit anytime and a coach would hardly
flinch.
Recently I spent a weekend in the
University Health Center suffering from flu.
- . 1 . . J .... -..... ...
titvt o iiui o vvi iu vva r-tiuif it iamui
Dan Moran's wife, and I expressed my views
to her about the track program.
Apparently she told her husband, and he
in turn told Sevigne what I had said.
During practice last Tuesday, Sevigne
pulled me over and told me that he did not
like my criticisms of his proyam and that he
didn't have to explain any of it to me. If I
didn't like it, I could turn in my equipment
As I was listening, just ahead of me was Dan
Moran, who had a smirk on his face.
Thus, Sevigne apparently thinks in his
own arrogant manner that, after coaching
for UNL for many years, he has the
authority to suppress my opinions if they
concern him. Since I am oniy a waik-in, he
cannot tell me what I may say.
The last I checked, I was living in a
republic which allows dissenting opinions to
be expressed. For his last attack on me, I
think he should suffer the embarrassment of
(hip ftffr
I probably will be kicked off the team for
writing this editorial. If so, I will remember
an old saying: freedom must be paid for
from time to lime.
Mike Dennis
Our poor British cousins. Not only do they face strikes, 2-day
weeks and bankruptcy, but now they're embroiled in a raging
controversy that strikes at the very roots of the British system.
The cause was an advertisement by the state-run Gas Board on
saving energy. One method, the board suggested, was to share a
bath with a friend. An illustration was helpfully included showing
Britishers how to do it.
"Deplorably vulgar!" cried one
"DeyatfTngf 'thundered another.
member of Parliament.
To the uninformced American, the ad would seem the height
of propriety. The head of a young lady is depicted at one end of a
daw-legged tub facing the head and shoulders of a young
9ntlemtjpt jigroover, as politeness dictates, he
' has elaess tafpiaces tfteTtot water tap in his back.
&,m wtjkir fct,iifcliSMr "-f - , iii ;' .' f
What shocked every true Englishman, of course, was that the
young gentleman was wearing neither hat, coat nor tie.
Americans must realize the British do not practice sex as we
have come to know and love it. They reproduce in private by
mitosis. This explains why all groups of Englishmen talk, act and
dress alike.
There are, for example, clones of gentlemen in bowlers,
workers in caps and miners in helmets who are always justifiably
angry.
The British aversion to sex is not due to priggishness, then. It
is due to sex requiring one to remove one's clothes. Without
clothes, it would be impossible, of course to discern at a glence an
Englishman's class or clone. Thus the system would collaDse
orthuf hoppe
overnight. No EVkisher, therefore, has ever been seen without
clothes on.
(Ther) r in hit tHf twn ewroptinnc! in C.rnneA
Farquahar-Smythe, while trekking the Lesser Desert, sat on an
ant hill. He successfully appealed hit expulsion from the empire
on the grounds he had retained his topi and old school tie at all
times in the event he bumped into someone he didn't know.
(In the other case, Mr. Reggie Smathers, after reading a French
novel in 1933 was so overcome by a unique emotion that he
removed his clothes and entered his wife's bedroom without
knocking. She understandably didn't recognize him. "I don't
know what activity you heve in mind," she said frostily, "but I
certainly won't perform it with someone I don't know.")
So one can see why, in a nation that is cold, broke and on the
verge of going down the drain, the depiction of a young
gentleman's naked head and shoulders would cause such outrage.
"Wa ffppear to be going to Hades in handbasket," ss Sir Ate
Quash, O.B.E., so Eptly put it in letter to The Times, "but let us
at least do so with a modicum of decency."
Yet in its hour of peril, England may yet be saved. With their
admirable grit and fortitude, the English may yet muddle
thrni ah
-- & -
For, even now, the Gas Board is reportedly preparing a
pamphlet entitled: "Respectful Recommendations on the
Proper Costumes Our Customers Might Wish to Wear While Saving
Hot Water by Bathing with a Friend."
(Copyright Cluti.ic!? PublikMng Co. 1974)
' '"bruary 15, 1974
page 4
4
. , .,
d; j . if
C 4& .
