Feminist agenda reaches fruition
There is a little old lady in Auckland with whom Helen Clark would not be very pleased. If she knew who she was, that is.
Back in the 1970s, when the little old lady was much younger, she used to go to feminist meetings. Not because she was a feminist, but because she and her husband were concerned at the sorts of things being discussed.
“So I would go off to all these meetings around the country to monitor what was going on,” she says. “I remember there was an outcry at one conference because a woman had brought along her baby son. He wasn’t wanted in the room because he was a male.”
She also remembers many of the women who attended or addressed these events, among them Helen Clark, Sylvia Cartwright, Marilyn Waring, Cath Tizard, Ros Noonan and Margaret Wilson.
For decades she has watched as the young feminists of the 70s became some of the most powerful leaders in New Zealand. And for decades she held on to a couple of documents which outlined, all those years ago, a long-term feminist agenda to change New Zealand society by attacking the traditional family unit.
Those who work at the coal face of discrimination against men will not be surprised at the contents of this article written by NZ Herald writer Sandra Patterson. What never ceases to surprise me is the ability of men to bury their heads in the sand thereby allowing the destruction of the family unit by default. As for who to vote for…..Buggered if I can see a clear policy in any party that will reverse the trend over the last 30 years. It will take BALLS to do that and I dont see too many politicians with those!!!!
Comment by triassic — Sat 14th May 2005 @ 5:30 pm
I agree that there isn’t a politician that has the guts to stand up against the powerful feminazi’s. What a pathetic bunch of scared jellyfish – dad4justice would like just 2 minutes in the Beehive to sort these creaps out for once and all – maybe it will come to that??? – as the normal kiwi bloke and his good lady say enough is enough!!! We all want a family friendly government. Our children deserve that -don’t they?
Comment by Peter Burns — Sat 14th May 2005 @ 10:09 pm
We sure do deserve a family friendly govt. Who the hell do we vote for though? National seems focused on collecting the the millions of outstanding CS$$ rather than focusing on the root cause of the problem that causes so many liable parents to bail on NZ. It seems to me that any other vote for a minority party runs the risk of being lost if the party doesn’t make it into parliment. Act is all but gone in the polls……….
Comment by Mark Lloyd — Mon 16th May 2005 @ 8:34 am
ok, so i’m new here, but could someone tell me about this ‘family unit’ idea and why it is so important? pretend i’m really stupid, like a loony lefty or something, and outline it to me.
Comment by damian — Tue 17th May 2005 @ 4:39 pm
Hi Damian
The “family unit” generally is defined as Mum, Dad and the children. Mum has female genitalia Dad has Male Genitalia and in a state of love and marriage through sexual intercourse they produce offspring. Saying that does not exclude other forms of family units as unsuitable but it is important to note that the traditional method has ensured the continuance of the human race for a least six thousand years (depending on your beliefs) In my opinion tinkering with tradition over a short space of time can create huge ramifications on society. See colonial history.
Hope this helps….what are your thoughts on this?
Comment by triassic — Tue 17th May 2005 @ 5:04 pm
cheers
what about non-western traditions of family? in pre-contact maori culture for example, children were brought up in the context of an extended family. mum and dad were involved, sure, but so were aunties, uncles, grandparents, older cousins; neighbours, friends, and basically the whole rest of the community.
also, thinking of the stereotypical portrayal of non-English speaking European cultures – i’m thinking Italians here – it’s quite often the case that the entire extended family played a role in bringing up the children.
Comment by damian — Tue 17th May 2005 @ 5:39 pm
also, one could argue that with the advent of birth and conception-related technological advances we are for the first time in thousands of years capable of continuing the human race without this biological basis for parenting relationships.
i believe that one of the things that is damaging to our family relationships at this point in time is the predominance of the very nuclear nuclear family – the family that involves mum, dad, the kids, and /no-one else/. rather than focussing inwards and trying to protect the family by shrinking the family unit i believe we should be trying to open the family up, heading back to an extended-family situation (if that is indeed possible).
Comment by damian — Tue 17th May 2005 @ 5:48 pm
I agree with you that the extended family provides a greater degree of security for children than the nuclear concept. I think that societies today have become fragmented by becoming insular in the way we choose to entertain ourselves. The Television has been both a blessing and a curse. Where once we went to visit our families and spend time together we now gather in small cells around the box and consider we are socialising due to the broadcast being seen by those we know. If it isn’t the TV it’s another BOX in the form of the internet.
There is nothing quite like meeting and touching other people yet this form of communication is seldom experienced by children outside their immediate home environment. The power Communities bring breaks down eventually and children pay the biggest price. I believe that creating communities is the only way to bring many values back into society. Most of the problems we face are due to the individual losing a sense of identity in the community.
Comment by triassic — Tue 17th May 2005 @ 6:06 pm
yeah, you’re totally right.
are you familiar with the anarchist movement? there are many different flavours of anarchism but one of the unifying aspects of most if not all of them is an emphasis on two things:
1 – organising society around communities
2 – taking complete responsibility for the actions of yourself and of your community – you make your community a part of your extended sphere of conscience
anyway there are many aspects of anarchism which people find distasteful, but regardless of whether you agree with it as a political/philosophical perspective or not, it certainly has some thought-provoking ideas driving it.
Comment by damian — Tue 17th May 2005 @ 6:14 pm
Angry Harry has just quoted from this article in his Men’s News Daily commentary: The Trojan Horses Of Feminism.
A.H. is somewhat more hardline than me:
Comment by JohnP — Wed 18th May 2005 @ 7:40 pm
umm, i’m sure there are some flavours of feminism that ‘fuel male-hatred’, but note that word some.
Comment by damian — Wed 18th May 2005 @ 11:59 pm
I have only just become aware of the Paterson column where the feminist agenda is discussed. As anyone who has read my research will know, I am at the very moderate end of the “fathers” movement. I am not anti gay, I do believe in equality for men and women in both paid work and the household, I support sex education in school, subsidised childcare etc – many of issues high up on the feminist agenda of the 1970s.
But I also think that there is a group of boys who are doing badly in a schooling system that have, until recently, been somewhat overlooked, that very often men are treated unfairly in the Family Court, that the Govt discriminates against fathers in paid parental leave (and I am currently taking a case against the Govt on behalf of the Father & Child Society) etc.
What disturbs me about the Paterson column and some of the subsequent discussion is the attack on the person rather than the ideas. This seems to be a classic New Zealand way of running debates. While politicians like Clark and Wilson are fair game, I am particularly disturbed by the attack on Kay Goodger. I have known Kay for a number of years (professionally not socially). Kay works in the research section of the Ministry of Social Development. While people outside of Wellington have an idea of analysts in such positions having much power in government policy is not correct. Kay analyses social and demographics trends that feed into the policy making process -she is far from actually making the policy.
In addition, the ideas attributed to her were written many years ago and are taken out of context. The views in the documents were those of a group that she belonged to. She wrote the introduction in the pamphlet they were published in. That is clearly stated on the back: “Two documents of the Socialist Action League with an introduction by Kay Goodger”, and that is how libraries have catalogued it.
Over the years, Kay has been very helpful to me in my research, sending me data, answering questions etc. She has known all this time I have an association with “men’s rights” issues. From my experience, she is certainly not anti man or anti family. As a public servant, Kay cannot defend herself which places her in a difficult position in this debate. I don’t think this type of personal attack is helpful to moving forward debates about men and women.
Comment by Paul Callister — Fri 20th May 2005 @ 1:32 pm
I think it’s unfortunate that Kay Goodger was used in this article to illustrate the issue of people in powerful positions secretly running an extreme feminist agenda which would not be supported by the majority of NZ’s if it were done openly.
If I was to search my hard drive for the names of radical feminist activists I have noted writing shonky reports, undertaking ‘advocacy research’, spreading anti-male propoganda in the media etc etc, Goodger’s name would not appear. I think there are a number activists who do richly deserve to be ‘outed’, but Kay wouldn’t feature on my list.
In addition, this document is very old. Many of us held views in our youth which have changed significantly as we gain life experience. I know of no current policy where Goodger could be accused of exerting a malign influence. Perhaps she has realised the error of her ways?
If you contact her Paul, please tell her she is very welcome to respond here.
Comment by JohnP — Fri 20th May 2005 @ 2:34 pm
I too would like to comment in support of Kay Goodgers character.Her beliefs now were the same as at school,but I never saw any evidence of animose toward males,yes,she was for the betterment of women,but not at anybodys expense other than society as a whole.Life wasnt always that great for women in the working class suburbs of the Hutt Valley during the 50s and 60s and something had to be done about it.Pauls post above is absolutely correct,Kay Goodger is a good person
Comment by Rex Howie — Wed 1st June 2005 @ 4:58 pm