That 70s show
By Rosemary McLeod
Feminists are out in force this weekend in Wellington, and they’ll be crowing. The Janus Women’s Convention celebrates 30 years since the United Women’s Convention in the capital in 1975, a Great Leap Forward into success.
…
I don’t blame them if they’ve come to gloat. There’ve been victories un-dreamed-of 30 years ago that warrant war dances of victory.
The ’70s feminists gathering in Wellington have achieved more than they ever dreamed of, all in the time it took to abandon crimplene flares and take to designer black. To be a woman has become an advantage anywhere near policymaking and power; to be a politicised lesbian a passport to success. The suffragettes of the 19th century wanted only votes, but women who attended the 1975 conference wanted nothing less than social revolution. And amazingly, they got it. For some.
…
“They don’t have families. They’ve got nothing but the ability to plot. I’ve gotta take my kid to soccer on Saturday, they don’t. So they just go and have a parlez-vous francais somewhere and a latte, whereas we don’t get to plot, we’re just trying to get our kids to synchronise their left and right feet,” Tamihere complained of today’s clubby female power elite in an interview with Ian Wishart of Investigate magazine.
Many women, sidelined by demands of home and family still, would agree. They may look up to the four aces of power as they’d look at Martians: three of them are childless, and the fourth is independently wealthy. Feminists may run the country, but childcare is not tax deductible. There are creches at Treasury, parliament and universities for elite workers – but not for female cleaners and factory workers. How come?
…
Parenting can now write fathers out of the script, and not just through the domestic purposes benefit. Future generations will rejoice at being the turkey baster products of gay men and women who never had emotional ties. I know women, fanatical about animal rights and genetic engineering, who’ve dashed with warm sperm in teaspoons – or turkey basters – to their waiting girlfriends. They say teaspoon conception is spiritual and romantic, when done with incense and candlelight, but I’ve noticed that all-female “parents” separate as often as anyone else, and someone’s still left holding the baby. The middle class women who dominated feminism in the ’70s have done very nicely, it’s true, and experiments such as the teaspoon one have been fun. But what of less advantaged women from the wrong side of the tracks, less interesting heterosexuals? What of women who were too busy pushing carrot puree into babies’ faces in 1975 to sing along with Helen Reddy?
…
Feminists choose strange poster girls. I still don’t understand how killers Gay Oakes, who poisoned her partner, then buried him in her garden, and Tania Witika, who stood by while her two-year-old daughter was tormented to death by her de facto husband, became heroic figures to the sisterhood. Yet saintly figures they were for the defence of battered woman’s syndrome in the ’90s: Witika left prison in a limousine. I saw their stories as a sign of how feminists often want it both ways: power without responsibility. Just blame men. Even if you killed them, it’s their fault.
Rosemary appears IMO to offer yet more reasons for men to demand the male pill pronto.
The sooner men get as much control over thier fertility (as women have had for approximately 40 years now) the sooner they’ll be on a level playing field.
Think about it this way. Chances get reduced massively that you’ll have to deal with paternity fraud issues.
Young, impressionable and testosterone-fueled males will be be hugely in control of whether they want to father children or not without having to secumb (sorry about the pun) to wearing those ‘orrid desensitising seagull’s gumboots on thier dicks.
All this despite the massive efforts of women’s porn/prostitution industry to seduce them into sexualising women and as too often seems to be the case then subsequently getting screwed over further down the line by a matriarchal family law system.
So it looks like sometime soon women who want to advance thier DNA (evidence suggest that’s the vast majority)will fianlly be meeting men more equally empowered to them.
Best of all men will be able to hold out for years and years until they sense they’ve found a really loyal young woman with good eggs
(unlike many of today’s obese mall guzzling narcisisters who’ll dump a man in a heartbeat and crucify him to boot – think Kill Bill meets Sex in the City as cultural icon – it speaks reams here).
Moreover these men will be able to assert themselves further as fathers with solid pre-nuptial agreements protecting themselves and thier children in the advent of a relationship breakup – Upheld by a new generation of legal beagles who’re father sensitive having realised how much they missed out on by being alienated from thier own fathers in thier formative years by the formerly misandrist family law systems they then work within.
Now Push brothers, push.
Your time is coming, and maybe sooner than you think…………
Comment by Stephen Gee — Sun 12th June 2005 @ 1:27 pm
“Parenting can now write fathers out of the script, and not just through the domestic purposes benefit. Future generations will rejoice at being the turkey baster products of gay men and women who never had emotional ties”
We have to be very, very frightened that The Family is given so little regard.
Rid politics of the “queers and tossers” (John Tamihere, 2005). Bring back a “family friendly” New Zealand we can all be proud of!
Comment by Ethos — Tue 14th June 2005 @ 8:46 am
Ethos,
Your comment is nice enough, but it is high time someone told these people where to get off the train (a very high bridge would be good).
When children are denied a father or mother, they lose a role model from whom they learn to be productive adult members of society.
Why are our crime levels so high?
Why are males under-achieving in school?
Why are so many more children and young adults committing suicide today than 20 years ago?
Simple: either no role model or inappropriate role models.
For example, one particular member of our parliament is part of the 2% minority. His “partner” is a male primary school headmaster (you have to wonder how good a role model this is for the children at that school). These two men are “fathers” to a daughter of two “mothers” – you don’t need a great deal of imagination to figure out how that artificial insemination occurred. How balanced and productive do you think their daughter will be with 4 parents?
Even though these people make up only 2% of our population, we are forced by politicians with warped agendas and impoverished childhoods to pander to these queer people (refer to the dictionary: “strange or unusual”).
What has gone wrong with the New Zealand we all wish for? Somewhere along the way we failed to see the pendulum swing past the balanced middle-ground and out into the extremist feminazi area that sees The Family systematically dismantled and children and parents devalued and minimised.
Gone is the idyllic country I grew to love as a child; in its place is a Gestapo state headed by a feminazi with some BIG childhood issues.
Get rid of the Anti-Clark, her funny-boys, her funny-girls and her worshippers. Bring back balance and clean values to New Zealand society. It has to get better or there will only be “wimmin” left here; that will be a very sorry day.
Comment by Sparx — Tue 14th June 2005 @ 8:59 am