Sandra Paterson: Feminist agenda reaches fruition

12:00AM Saturday May 14, 2005
By Sandra Paterson, apology at end of this article and * See retraction




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.

Lately, however, concerned at just how much of the agenda was being accomplished, she passed the papers to a friend, who in turn sent them to me and to journalist Ian Wishart, as covered in this month’s Investigate magazine, which you can be sure is not on the coffee table at the PM’s house.

The documents in question were written by another regular at the 1970s women’s meetings, Kay Goodger, who is now a senior adviser in the Ministry of Social Development.

Goodger called on the radical feminists of the day - Clark and co - to do everything they could in their spheres of influence to replace or sideline the traditional family.

"The family distorts all human relationships by imposing on them the framework of economic compulsion, social dependence and sexual repression," she wrote. "Our goal must be to create economic and social institutions that are superior to the present family."

She then outlined the steps which needed to be taken to overhaul society. They included making abortion free and on demand, integrating sex education into all levels of the school system and ensuring birth control was freely available.

Coercive family laws should be abolished, she wrote, adding that "the rearing, social welfare and education of children should become the responsibility of society rather than individual parents."

De facto relationships should have the same status legally and socially as marriage; all laws "victimising" prostitutes should be abolished; and 24-hour childcare should be introduced to free women from "domestic slavery".

It all sounds very familiar and you have to admire the dedication of those who have devoted their careers to seeing these goals achieved. Quietly and systematically, a radical feminist action plan, set in motion around the time I was born, has all but been completed.

Of course, the feminists of that era also fought for some worthy causes, such as equal pay, for which I am grateful. And might I say I consider Helen Clark to be an extraordinarily capable and intelligent politician. She is also unfailingly polite.

But from what I hear on the street, there are increasing numbers of ordinary men and women who are wising up to the fact that her values are not theirs.

Many of them would like to see a change of Government at the coming elections. But the trouble for conservatives is that there is a critical aspect of MMP which most voters do not understand.

It is this: if you vote for a minority party which does not make the 5 per cent threshold or get anyone into Parliament, your vote could end up helping a party you would not wish to support.

At the last election there were about 99,000 votes for parties such as Christian Heritage and Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis.

These votes were discarded from the total pool, thus boosting other parties’ shares. On the night, for example, Labour won 41.26 per cent of the votes, but after the "wasted votes" were eliminated, that share went up to 43.28 per cent.

Big deal? Well, it gave Labour three more seats, which enabled it to pass the Prostitution Reform Bill, for example. So whether they realised it or not, everyone who voted for an unsuccessful party effectively gave Labour more power.

The little old lady who used to go to feminist meetings wants a change of Government this election because she dreams of a more pro-family society for her five children and seven grandchildren.

There are several conservative parties to choose from. But unless she votes for a party with a realistic chance of getting in, she risks wasting her vote or inadvertently supporting a party she does not like.

I just hope more switched-on little old ladies take to sending interesting documents to the press.

* Sandra Paterson is a Mt Maunganui freelance journalist.

Retraction and apology

This statement is in relation to an article by Sandra Paterson entitled "Feminist Agenda Reaches Fruition", which ran in the 14 May 2005 edition of the Herald.

The Herald accepts that Kay Goodger was not the author of the words attributed to her in the article which came from a Socialist Action League submission to a select committee on women's rights in the 1970s published in a booklet along with an introduction by Ms Goodger.

The Herald also accepts that Kay Goodger is employed as a Senior Analyst in the research section of the Ministry of Social Development, and that her position was misdescribed in the article as a senior adviser in the Ministry.

The Herald accepts that the description of Ms Goodger as a senior adviser carries with it an implication that she has been able to influence government social policy through her employment. The Herald regrets any implication in the article that Ms Goodger has been able to use, or has used, her position in the public service to pursue the goals attributed to her in the article.

The Herald unreservedly apologises to Kay Goodger and her family for any distress caused by the inaccuracies in the article.

Perhaps the Herald Editor can assist by printing this Kay Goodger's address so that a few good chaps can go around her place and give their personal apologies.

That was a pretty illuminating article, Jools. Did you have a hand in it somewhere? I guess the little old lady is the one you call your mentor. Good for her.

No, Percy this was back in 2005. But I have a feeling I know who did. This is a team, a group, a whole group of groups, a Nation, a World.

This is another side to the Men's Movement.

I had met this older lady before. She came to a meeting I held. I was one of the speakers on Human Rights but lost my notes because I organised the meeting. Anyhow, I spoke about stuff I had learnt off counterfem site and rob fedders site and christainj's.

She loved it. What we have on these sites is a compliment to what others have known for years. We have a world of knowledge now. And I mean so many groups, not jut men's groups.

But walk this way with me, sir .. and let me show you how far this is ahead....

The latest book .....

Absolute Power - The Helen Clark Years

http://www.ferrit.co.nz/10687853.html


This has hit best-seller but no-one will write about it because it is raw unPC. Oh, there is a few on the net with the advice - buy it before they ban it!

This older lady was not the only with information. But she was a pioneer. She worked endlessly to teach the media. There really are angels on earth!

.................................................
Ian Wishart agreed to an exclusive blogosphere interview with WOBH.
http://tinyurl.com/47qyuc


WOBH: Why did you write this book?

IW: I realised last year that Helen Clark was vastly underrepresented in the book market, in comparison with other forceful leaders overseas. If New Zealanders are going to engage with politicians, they need more in-depth coverage than the daily media can provide. The pace of news and news developments these days is so fast that it is beyond the capacity of a magazine, newspaper article or TV documentary to truly join the dots and show past events in context.


WOBH: People will say there is nothing here and we should move on because Wishart wrote it, What do you say to them?

IW: The price of living in a democracy is that people with sub-100 IQs still get to vote, or comment on blogs. I can lead the horses to water, but cannot force them to drink. As an investigative journalist, it was drummed into me to ignore the noisy attempts by the ignorant to reassure themselves, and instead focus on the core issues regardless of popular mood or pressures. Those who waste their time attacking the messenger, but failing to address the message, condemn themselves, not me. My work can be judged on its merits. In this case, the book overwhelmingly measures Helen Clark against her own words and promises, and finds her guilty. In reality, there is so much scandal attached to this administration that people have become desensitised to it. Labour supporters have become so terrified of the National “bogeyman” painted by the Clark administration that they would prefer the Devil himself to lead NZ rather than National. The ends justify the means. In contrast, during the height of scandal regarding the last National Government, grassroots Nat supporters disavowed the corruption - thus showing a moral compass sadly lacking among many on the Left currently.


WOBH: What exactly is the main thrust of this book?

IW: In a paragraph, Absolute Power is a spiritual successor to Geoffrey Palmer’s Unbridled Power. Thirty years ago, there were major concerns that New Zealand’s democratic processes were being gradually weakened. The warnings that Palmer and others sounded back then have become personified in the fifth Labour government, which has abandoned any pretense of respect for the constitution. The academic principles that Palmer talked about can be seen in action this time around…the abuse of the law being a classic example. The Left denies that Clark has absolute power, but this is true only inasmuch as no modern ruler has absolute power. There are always limits, but the limits on Clark are far fewer than those on Shipley or Bolger before her, and the readiness of her core team to engage in criminality as well indicates the limits exist on paper only.


WOBH: What outcomes do you expect from this book?

IW: The sun will continue to rise, life will go on. But in truth, tens of thousands of people will read this book and be better informed about the abuses of power, and the duplicitousness of the current administration. How they vote is over to them, but at least they can no longer say they didn’t know. In the longer term, if it generates constitutional discussion and reform then my work is truly done.


WOBH: Are you really saying that the top echelons of our Police are corrupt?

IW: Yes, that is what I believe based on the evidence I’ve accumulated from many former and current police officers. Flawed individuals are inclined to give others in top echelons the benefit of the doubt…and the system starts to lose its integrity. If we are now accepting self-confessed drink drivers as the top road safety officials in the country, then we may as well all plant bananas and stop pretending.


WOBH: Which chapter do you think is the most explosive?

IW: I think the Broad and Parkergate chapters are the most constitutionally significant in terms of Applied Misconduct, although of course Theoretical Misconduct is wrapped up in the constitutional chapter at the end. I think people will find the chapters on Helen Clark herself absolutely fascinating, but the book is nearly 150,000 words long and designed to be absorbed in totality, in context. Any one of the chapters would be sufficient to end your political career in many European countries. But not here.


WOBH: Why did you write a chapter on Helen Clark’s sexuality and rumours that she is a lesbian?

IW: Helen Clark raised this issue herself in the official biography. Her decision to do that, rightly or wrongly, fueled the whispering campaign to unprecedented levels. Everyone has an opinion on it. Try as I might, it was impossible to deal with Clark in a biographical sense without tackling these issues, hence “The Elephant in the Room”. If I had failed to address it, many readers would wonder why - particularly, as I point out, Helen Clark’s own eagerness to discuss these issues previously. Secondly, and more importantly, I believe Clark has lied to the public about her personal life.


Something you need to understand here. It is one thing to keep your sexuality private and leave people guessing (Cliff Richard being an example). It is another to trade, to make political capital, out of a false image of your sexuality, which is what I believe Clark has done. I couldn’t care less about Clark’s actual sexual orientation - and left wing critics who try to paint it as ‘homophobia’ or some kind of fundamentalist obsession are running dangerously close to getting a lawsuit up the jacksey for defamation. I have repeatedly made the point that my only interest is in Clark’s honesty with the electorate. There is also a substantial hypocrisy issue for any gay or bisexual Labour MP to be allowed to remain in the closet whilst using sexual orientation as a political weapon and proudly raising votes via a “Rainbow Labour” wing. Hypocrisy and dishonesty in elected public officials remain serious issues for voters.


WOBH: Have you had any threats of legal action over publishing this book? or attempts to prevent it being published?

IW: I kept the contents well under wraps. Although there was a large increase in hacking attempts, I’m unaware of any security breach and the proof of the pudding is that the book is now successfully on sale.


WOBH: If you were threatened with court action can you back up every claim in the book?

IW: That’s certainly my intention. The book has been analysed for legal risk, and I am ready for a court fight if I need to.


WOBH: In the book you talk about some of the key players over the last nine years, why do you think previous loyal Clarkist’s like DBP and TPF were cut so decisively when others have done much worse as you show by providing evidence are still sitting in cabinet?

IW: DBP’s umbilical cord to Helen Clark was not so much “cut decisively” as chewed slowly by a demented, senile pit bull with no teeth - it took two years of idiot behaviour and incompetent handling of his portfolios before Benson-Pope finally walked the plank. However, the thrust of your question is really about the tolerance level for corruption within this administration. Like all ideologues, including those on the extreme right or extreme left, Clark’s team genuinely believe they are on some kind of divine socialist mission that is good for all New Zealanders whether they like it or not.


Most despots convince themselves they are really benevolent rulers. This mentality breeds an “end justifies means” approach. Labour are ideological zealots, just as dangerous to the country as any religious sect given access to the halls of power, and perhaps more so because Labour believe in no higher power than themselves, and THAT is a very dangerous conceit indeed. Labour tolerates corruption because the Prime Minister herself is corrupt. Trickle-down theory at its best.

...........................


The book before this was ...

Ian Wishart's Eve's Bite, the most un-PC book ever?

5:00AM Friday May 04, 2007
By John Roughan






The dust jacket claims this to be the most politically incorrect book ever published and it might be. Journalist Ian Wishart, breaker of the Winebox, scourge of David Benson-Pope, hounder of Helen Clark's husband, has unloaded the whole sweep of his suspicions this time.

Be warned. The West is doomed. Wishart watched the attack on the Twin Towers and wept for Christendom.

It is doomed not by Islamofascism but by its fatal weakening from within, poisoned "by seductive and destructive philosophies and social engineering that within the space of a generation have intellectually crippled the greatest civilisation the world has ever seen".

Goodness, as Sharon Crosbie used to say.

Wishart takes on some big targets: Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins and many easier ones: gay rights, safe sex, abortion, the anti-smacking campaign, liberal education, the mainstream media.

They are all infected by the rot that set in when the theory of evolution challenged God's creation and unproven Darwinism was adopted by science and education much as religion had been accepted previously.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/s...0437680&pnum=0

Unfortunately, it was very religious. Started the divide between 2 groups, 2 ideologies.

Many take it seriously and many don't.

By Jove, I think he's onto something.

WOW!