|
Skip to comments |
Skip to comment form |
 Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
10 December 05
The
feminist agenda three decades on
Printer
friendly version (PDF) 
View >>>
Last
month, when the public furore erupted over an airline policy
that bans men from sitting next to unaccompanied children, I
wondered whether the feminists were celebrating. A few years
ago, the mere suggestion that a man on a plane could be a
likely child molester, would have been greeted with derision.
Now, however, not only has the concept been taken seriously by
the airlines, but some public servants – including the
Commissioner for Children - have said it’s a good
idea.
Stuart
Birks, Director
of the Centre for Public Policy Evaluation at Massey
University, explores the emergence of this worrying
trend towards the denigration of men, in our guest opinion
piece in this week’s NZCPD Forum (click
here to view).
The
unfortunate situation we are in today can be traced back to
the agenda set in place by radical feminists some thirty years
ago. While the key objective of most of the women who have
enthusiastically joined the women’s liberation movement has
been equality for women, the movement appears to have been
taken over by those who want to pursue a socialist agenda.
A
booklet entitled A Strategy for Women’s Liberation
produced in 1974, explains:
“The
socialist who is not a Feminist lacks breadth.
The Feminist who is not a Socialist is lacking in
strategy. To the
narrow-minded Socialist who says: ‘Socialism is a working
class movement for the freedom of the working class, with
woman as woman we have nothing to do,’ the far-sighted
Feminist will reply: ‘the Socialist movement is the only
means whereby woman as woman can obtain real freedom.
Therefore I must work for it.’
The
booklet outlined the rationale behind the feminist movement:
“The
oppression of women began with the origin of the patriarchal
family, private property and the state. Anthropological
evidence has shown that in the primitive communal society,
women held a respected and important position.
The basic economic unit was the maternal gens or clan,
in which the family as we know it did not exist.
In this clan, goods were shared among members equally.
Women played an important role in the providing of food
and shelter and were not tied to individual men economically,
nor was there any compulsion to remain with one sexual
partner.”
“With
the development of an economic surplus and the individual
accumulation of this surplus as private property, the clan
system gave way to the setting up of separate households.
This was the beginning of class society and the
patriarchal family. Women became isolated from communal
activity, and monogamy for the wife was strictly enforced to
ensure legitimate heirs.”
“Today,
the nuclear family unit remains as the basic economic cell of
class society and women continue to be isolated in individual
households, dependent on individual men for economic survival.
The family also serves to perpetuate capitalist rule by
inculcating in children the values of the private property
system.”
Radical
feminists believed that the only way to achieve true equality
for women was through liberating them from the bonds of
husband and family. Further, they could see that if women were
freed from the traditional requirement to remain loyal to one
partner, the whole system of private property rights - which
relies on the creation of legitimate heirs and is a
fundamental tenet of a democratic free market economy –
would ultimately collapse.
The
Labour Government of the day embraced these feminist goals and
introduced the Domestic Purposes Benefit as a vehicle for
change.
The
effect of the DPB was to pay women to separate from their
husbands and partners. It paid them more money to have more
children, and it didn’t matter how many different fathers
were involved. In fact, it was not even necessary for the
woman to name a father on a child’s birth certificate.
The
DPB also encouraged single women to have children on their
own, to the extent that the number of women now receiving the
benefit who have never married, has eclipsed the number of
women who were married but separated. This shows that rather
than helping women to adjust from failed marriages, the DPB
has created single-parent families.
Further,
as the DPB has caused parenting and inheritance lines to
become increasingly blurred, men have been prevented from
using modern DNA technology to establish paternity - unless
the mother agrees. But the consequence of placing all of the
power and control in the hands of the mother is a continuing
erosion of the fundamental rights of fatherhood.
Thirty
years on, with state funding what was essentially a radical
feminist agenda, the family unit has been significantly
undermined, transforming society in a way that is putting our
children at risk.
Throughout
the ages, the nuclear family has traditionally been the safest
environment in which to raise children. Yet, with the DPB
effectively incentivising family breakdown, child abuse and
neglect have escalated to the point where it is estimated that
almost 50,000 children will be referred to our child welfare
service this year alone. With literally tens of thousands of
children now living in dangerous family situations,
governments have clearly sacrificed the safety and wellbeing
of children in order to satisfy the on-going demands of
radical feminists.
And
radical it is. Back in 1974, feminist leaders warned: “With
its thrust against the family institution, the women’s
liberation movement is profoundly revolutionary”.
These
women put in place a well-organised plan of action some thirty
years ago (click here to view details
of their policy programme). The changes have been introduced
incrementally and they are now well on the way to achieving
their key goal which is the replacement of the traditional
patriarchal family.
Printer
friendly version (PDF)
View >>>
This
weeks poll. This week's poll
asks: Do
you think the feminist movement has gone too far? If yes, what
should be done?
To take part in our online poll
>>>
Clarification -
NZCPD
has been contacted by lawyers acting for Kay Goodger. They
have advised their client has expressed concern that a quote
extracted from a booklet entitled A
Strategy for Women’s Liberation
produced in 1974…
“The
socialist who is not a Feminist lacks breadth.
The Feminist who is not a Socialist is lacking in
strategy. To the
narrow-minded Socialist who says: ‘Socialism is a working
class movement for the freedom of the working class, with
woman as woman we have nothing to do,’ the far-sighted
Feminist will reply: ‘the Socialist movement is the only
means whereby woman as woman can obtain real freedom.
Therefore I must work for it.’
…
could be read as being attributed to Ms Goodger. The words
were not Ms Goodger’s – she was reporting the quote. We
have amended the text of the article to reflect the position
with greater clarity.
The
NZCPD did not imply or mean to imply Ms Goodger has used or is
able to use her position in the public service to pursue a
personal agenda.
Skip to top |
Skip to comment form |
Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
Your
Comments:
Why I fight in the
father's rights movement - Bevan Berg
If I said “I have protested
outside a Judges house” you would take a step back and
reconsider your association with me, I am sure. I have and for
good reason which I will explain later.
On one particular protest an
older women passing by asked why we were protesting in a
suburban street. Our reply of course: we were protesting
against the family court. To which she replied, “well if you
had to go to court you must have done something wrong.”
This is a perfectly
acceptable middle NZ value, but here is what people are not
seeing.
I will give three examples of
situations I have come across.
1. A father asked for
evidence he had to be produced in the family court to support
his case. His solicitor would only represent him if he did not
present that evidence.
2. A father facing criminal
proceedings for breach of a protection order (the breach was
arriving at the mother' s place to collect the child for
access when she had changed her mind - no violence). He was
refused legal aid unless he pleaded guilty.
3. A father who had developed
cancer and was recovering from major surgery, suffered a
further blow when his brother committed suicide. He was called
into an administrative review, where the officious officer
would offer him no assistance at all.
He said to me “I reached
breaking point and sat there and sobbed uncontrollably in
front of him”
In the first example I am
talking about the Family Court, in the second example I am
talking about the criminal justice system, and the third
example I am talking about IRD child support.
When we talk about the
feminist agenda we are talking about a regime that has hidden
its foot soldiers in the noblest of places. The judiciary, the
police, the legal profession, and government. They are
positions of trust, and respect, and it is in our need for a
secure society that we believe in them.
How easily we are fooled.
This is happening in our country now - I with many others
fight it on a daily basis, but the general public doesn’t
see the cause only the consequences. The child neglect, gender
violence, family breakdown, the valueless society.
It is only when enough people
say no, will we overcome the clutches of self righteous
indignation.
Much of this nonsense is
driven and funded by the UN and its various fellow
travellers.
Women should be forced to
name fathers of their children or be ineligible for the DPB.
Fathers must have access to DNA of their children with or
without the permission of the children's mothers. We have to
stop the constant vilifying and demonising of all men which
has led to the almost disappearance of men as teachers, early
childhood carers etc and which, at least, gave fatherless
children some contact with men. Let's get some balance into
society!
Return to the Moral codes and
status of the human beings set down thousand of years ago,
which give controlled social interaction, and protection for
both sexes. These codes are found in all major religious
practices, ie Islam.
But men have now become
too afraid. And quite honestly I personally dont blame them -
if I was male I would be too scared to look at a child let
alone help them if no one else was around, just for the sheer
fact of "What would people think".
The statistical data of woman
as a perpetrator of domestic violence needs to be recognised
in social policy.
It would be interesting to
know what the airlines policies are concerning contact with
unaccompanied children by male stewards or male airline
employees ?
Last
week I met the CEO of a major international airline at a
social function. He said they have no policy prohibiting
men being seated next to unaccompanied children and consider
such a policy to be sheer lunacy. He also said they are
picking up a lot of new business from former Air NZ &
Qantas travellers who do not now wish to do business with
airlines that automatically assumes they [or their husbands,
fathers, sons and brothers] are a danger to children. He was
sure other airlines were also getting business from travellers
boycotting Air NZ & Qantas.
More men should
forsake their hedonistic existence, exercise self leadership,
leadership in their families and get actively involved in
groups and organisations that will influence the minds and
hearts of youth (particularly boys) who will re-shape future
society. Decent men also need to make it a priority to get
informed and start to speak out in any forum they can.
Feminists should
leave the family alone and channel their energy into
more productive/constructive modes of social change - the
elimination of the glass ceiling, international women's rights
movementsand soon.
Aussie Family
Courts now require shared custody of children as first option.
This should happen here ASAP.
Cut off funding
to politically inspired "research" and to subject
ALL such work to proper academic scrutiny. If any work is
found to have not been done properly or as described, then
those researchers should be made to repay the original grant
out of their pockets and should additionally be barred from
receiving any more govt grants for any research at least 10
years.
How sad that
women cannot take pride in their place in the societal set-up
as the nurturers and carers of their families including their
men; I hate to tell you this but it actually works very well. Most men support
the concept of equality irrespective of gender. The feminist
movement denies equality of natural justice to men.
More publicity
needs to be given to the feminist agenda and the detrimental
effects it is having on our society through public forums such
as letters to editors, talk back radio and the like so
that more NZers are aware of the situation.
Remove all
financial incentives for women to become solo parents.
No benefit to be payable to women who will not or cannot
correctly identify the father of their child.
Restore equality for men with regard to taking care/having
access to children in the case of marriage breakup. Make
discrimination on the basis of sex illegal (such as the recent
airline seating scandal). To label all men as
paedophiles or rapists is no different to claiming all women
are prostitutes. Encourage men back into the classrooms
as teachers and role models in equal proportion to
women.
It is a real
shame when male contractors get second looks at schools - I
won't even walk alone in school grounds without a escort. The
male teacher at one kindergarden I know refuses to be on his
own. There is nothing to do but leave, when white,
educated, skilled males are not wanted in this country.
It does not
matter how far any movement goes - it does matter how we as a
society cope or respond to that movement. In the case of
radical feminism, which is outdated and perpetuated by an
embittered few, society's reaction should be to ignore them
and look forward for the good of all.
A huge mistake
at university was to introduce (female) gender studies as
these types of departments allow the festering of feminist ideals.The
upward movement of women through business, education,
administration, sport is well documented, studied and reported
through the normal channels of academia without special
departments.
DPB should be a
hand up not a hand out. Flat rate...No increase dollars
because of numbers of children. Time limits of benefit, no
renewal of term if another child produced when original one
goes to school. Shared parenting and custody for estranged
couples, no assumption that mother is better parent.
DNA proof of paternity before Liable parent contribution is
extracted from father. No discrimination between women and men
on aircraft.
Scrap Ministry
of Womens Affairs (or, although not my preference, introduce a
Ministry of Mens Affairs to try to balance things up).
Abolish the DPB
to teenagers and make the families responsible for them again
(provide hostels if they are rejected by their family). Doing
that would encourage families to take more interest in their
children.
The DPB should
be restricted to women who (a)name the father of their child
(b) have been married for not less than 5 years (c) have been
through a marriage guidance counselling session (d)are over
the age of 25 years. Exceptions to this rule would be women
whose husbands had met with an untimely death or a severely
violent relationship creating a dangerous and irreconsilable
relationship. If this sounds a bit tough, well it needs to be
tough. There is no good reason why decent, law abiding, hard
working kiwi's should be liable for the upkeep of the issue of
an enlessly proliferating, criminal underclass. Generously
supporting such an underclass is one of the reasons we have
burgeoning criminality and irresponsibility.
As a single
professional never married,childless woman I applaude the
feminist movement for breaking down the traditional
patriarchal family. They have paved the way for me to have
freedom and choice that my mother never had.
I am afraid we,
as a society, have come a long way down a one-way street and
we are all to blame ; after all we have voted in an openly
feminist-controlled government three times.
The end game of
the feminist movement should be equal rights not special
rights. for example the promoting of women into
"male" professions like medicine should stop at
equal access, not quotas and worse still even when there is
over representation continuing to behave as if there is
not.
Equality - yes -
for all including men. Example - cancer detection. Repeal 12
weeks paid maternity leave. User pays - no freebees. Cut DPB
by 30% and offer this 30% to business to hire solo parents
part time.
Replace the DPB
with simple unemployment benefit. There shoud be no
extra because they have kids - they should work like the rest
of us.
I could comment,
BUT any comment a male makes would be seen as either sexest,
anti feminist, politically incorrect or I would be a male
chauvinist.
More males
should be encouraged to become teachers in our schools, both
primary and secondary - primary particulary.
Socialism is a
religion that is being pedalled in schools,
universities, teacher training colleges etc etc. We need more
independent learning institutions where truth, justice and
integrity replace political correctness, socialism is shown up
for what it is, and men in particular, along with real women,
are trained in leadership.
Most definitely,
this is the singularly greatest cause of many of our problems
today and has far reaching affects. This path will
ultimately be self-destructing on us as a nation.
A complete
overhaul of the benefit system, in particular DPB. If a
woman goes on the DPB it should be limited to the number of
children she has at the time. If she chooses to have
more children whilst on the benefit she and the child's father
provide that support. Alternatively, there are couples
who are desperate to adopt babies and the babies are not
available because the DPB provides a more lucrative lifestyle
option for the birth mother. I was adopted and having
met my birth family I certainly can say without doubt that I
had a wonderful loving child-hood provided by my adopted
parents that my birth siblings missed out on. We need
more loving couples as parents.
People in power
with media attention should stop all this PC crap and speak
out strongly against it. Looks to me as all males in the
beehive are wimps.
Just get rid of
the DPB and PC, also make fathers responsible for the children
they create.
Name fathers and
don't pay for additional children after the first unless in a
permannet relationship when DPB shouldn't be necessary. Give
men the same rights as women in health as well rather than
just let them die early. We now live in a matriarchal society
and men have no rights apart from being sperm donors.
Light is a good
steriliser: media exposure of lies e.g greater exposure of
family court proceedings; jounalists - male and female - who
are prepared to dig up truth rather than assume that the
propaganda is right; articles on the motives, progress and
current standings and career placements of the feminists who
helped to establish the feminist manifesto in the first
place.
Dismantle the
present day DPB system, and make people more accountable for
their situation and actions. Bring Fathers back into the
Family equation.
Get rid of our
feminist Labour Govt would be a good start. Bring back some
good old fashioned morals and standards by elevating the role
of the family and the importance of the father. I
believe most thinking people in NZ want this.
Aussie Family
Courts now require shared custody of children as first option.
This should happen here ASAP.
Skip to top |
Skip to comments | Skip
to this weeks poll
Skip to comment form
Send this
page to a friend:
Extract
from a submission to the 1974 Parliamentary Select Committee
on Women's Rights by the Social Action League.
"What
must be done?
A
policy programme for removing discrimination against women
should include the following measures as initial, essential
steps:
(1)
Full legal, political and social equality for women.
There
must be no discrimination whatever on the basis of sex, in any
sphere of social life. Provision
must be made for women to take legal action against any
instance of discrimination without incurring financial loss.
(2)
The right of women to control their own reproductive lives.
Women
must be given the sole right to choose whether or not to
prevent or terminate pregnancy, with no government
interference.
(a)
Government restrictions on abortion and contraception must be
abolished.
(b)
Every woman who decides to end her pregnancy or to be
sterilised must be guaranteed
the right to have that decision carried out under the best
medical conditions and at no cost. There must be no coercion
of women to have sterilisation operations as a pre-condition
for granting abortion.
(c)
Birth control information and devices must be free and widely
disseminated. The
government should promote and finance more research on
improved methods of birth control as a priority since
present-day methods are not satisfactory for everyone.
(d)
Factual sex education, including information on birth control,
should be integrated into the education system at all levels,
and should be readily accessible to the community at large
through government-financed clinics.
The government should initiate a public education
campaign to overcome ignorance, fears and illusions about
contraception.
(3)
An end to coercive family laws.
(a)
De facto marriage should be considered to have the same
status, legally and socially, as marriage by legal contract,
with no discrimination against either partner or their
children.
(b)
An end must be made to laws given a husband rights over his
wife’s body, condoning actions, which among unmarried people
would be termed “assault” or even “rape”.
The concept of “conjugal rights” must be abolished.
(c)
Divorce should be automatically available at the request of
either partner. There should be a state provision for economic
welfare and job training for the divorced woman.
Women’s lack of economic independence militates
against their seeking divorce, even though they may urgently
desire it.
(d)
The concept of “illegitimacy” should be abolished, not
only in word, but in deed.
All forms of discrimination against unmarried mothers
or their children must be outlawed.
(e)
The rearing, social welfare and education of children should
become the responsibility of society, rather than the
individual parents, upon whose limited resources all the
burdens presently fall. All
laws enforcing individual ownership of children should be
abolished.
(f)
Women should not be required to make known their marital
status
(by
using “Miss” or “Mrs”) in all situations (official
forms, etc) when the same information is not required for men.
“Ms” should be universally accepted.
(g)
All discrimination against homosexual men and women should be
outlawed. In
particular, the anti-homosexual laws should be repealed.
(h)
All laws victimising prostitutes should be abolished.
(4)
Full economic independence for women
(a)
Immediate implementation of equal pay for equal work.
Industries whose profitability depends on the
super-exploitation of women should be
nationalised. The
minimum wage for women should be raised to the level of that
for men.
(b)
Discrimination against women in any trade, profession, job
category, apprenticeship or training programme must be ended.
(c)
All women who want to work should be guaranteed jobs at union
wages. To counter unemployment, no workers should be laid off,
but rather the hours of all should be reduced, with no loss in
wages. This will
help bring an end to the practice of treating women as a
reserve army of labour, to be pushed in and out of the
workforce in accordance with the current state of the economy.
Both women and men have a right to work and earn an
independent livelihood.
(d)
There should be preferential hiring, training and job
upgrading for women in order to overcome the effects of
decades of systematic discrimination against them.
(e)
Paid maternity leave of 12 weeks with no loss of job or
seniority should be available.
(f)
Paid work leaves in order to care for sick children should be
given to men and women alike.
(g)
Compensation at union rates throughout periods of unemployment
should be paid to all women and men, including young people
who cannot find a place in the workforce.
This unemployment compensation should be available
regardless of marital status and has to be protected against
inflation by automatic cost-of-living increases.
(h)
Beneficial protective legislation (providing special working
conditions to woken) should be extended to cover men, in order
to provide better working conditions for both men and women
and prevent the use of protective legislation to discriminate
against women.
(i)
Women and men of all ages should be able to freely obtain
re-training and education in all subjects.
(5)
Equality in education.
Equal
educational opportunities must be established in order to
combat the education and conditioning that reduces women to an
inferior, second-sex status.
(a)
Special education courses and programmes should be set up to
encourage women to enter traditionally male-dominated fields.
(b)
All pressures on women to prepare themselves for so-called
“women’s work”, such as homemaking, secretarial work,
nursing and teaching must be ended.
All sexual bias should be eliminated from vocational
guidance.
(c)
The government should legislate an end to the portrayal in
textbooks and the mass media of women as sex objects and
stupid, weak, emotionally dependent creatures.
High schools and universities should establish courses
to teach the true history of women’s struggles against their
oppression, both in
New Zealand
and internationally. Physical
education courses should encourage women to develop their
strength and be proud of their athletic abilities.
Women should be encouraged to learn self-defence.
(d)
There should be no expulsion of pregnant students or unwed
mothers from school or any training course.
(6)
Freedom from domestic slavery.
(a)
The government should provide the finance for free child-care
centres, open to all children from early infancy for 24 hours
a day. These
should be available to everyone, regardless of the parent’s
income or marital status, and the child-care policies should
be decided by those who use the centres.
(b)
The government should systematically develop low-cost,
high-quality social services such as take-home-food and
cafeteria services available to all, and collective laundry
facilities.
(c)
The government should greatly step up its allocations to
housing development, in order to ensure adequate housing for
all. Legislation
should be passed to ensure that no rents exceed 10 percent of
a tenant’s income, and discrimination
by landlords against single women or women with children
should be outlawed."
Skip to top
|
