Sandra Paterson: 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.

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.