Sandra Paterson: Overflowing mailbox and a civil emergency

Well, no dead rats turned up in my letterbox this week but I would not have been surprised. Last week's column on feminism resulted in more correspondence than anything I have ever written, some of it a tad disgruntled.

"If she so ardently believes women should return to the house and tend the family, what is she doing as a journalist?" wrote one woman. "She is just another example of feminist backlash hypocrisy."

Right now there is a state of civil emergency in my town and the only thing I'm feeling ardent about is making sure there are enough buckets under my leaky ceiling.

But last weekend's newspaper is still dry and, as far as I can see, my ramblings did not include the suggestion that women return en masse to the kitchen sink.

I do think we should have the choice. If a woman wants to pursue a career, let nothing stand in her way. If it were not for the effects of gravity and breastfeeding, I'd be the first to burn my bra in support of anyone wanting to succeed professionally.

But if a woman wants to stay at home and raise her children, she should be equally valued and supported. And this is clearly not the case. Staying at home is rapidly becoming socially unacceptable and financially impossible.

Of course I am grateful for much of what the feminists of the previous generation achieved. I am grateful that I am not paid any less than a man for my work; that I can get a mortgage in my own name; and for the respect and opportunities that women now enjoy and expect.

But I agree with my correspondent that there is now a feminist backlash. Why? Because many of us are not grateful for the rest of what the feminist agenda has seemingly achieved, intentionally or not.

We are not grateful that prostitution is now a legitimate career option for our daughters or that our 13-year-olds can have abortions behind our backs.

We are not grateful for the graphic sex education our children receive or that we are now the chlamydia capital of the universe. And we are not grateful that some 200,000 children are growing up in fatherless homes, or that the suicide rate for our young men is the highest in the world.

Of course, feminism on its own did not necessarily achieve any of those things, the good or the bad. There were many other factors which contributed to the changes we have seen in society over the past half-century.

There are also, according to people who study such things, many different kinds of feminism - post-colonial feminism, lipstick feminism, post-modern feminism, lesbian feminism and so on - and they do not necessarily share the same beliefs or objectives.

The feminists of the 1960s and 70s were, in the main, adherents to what some call "gender feminism", which holds that men and women are essentially the same and that any attempt to recognise or celebrate our differences amounts to oppression.

But whatever label you use, there is no doubt that the key feminists of that era - many of whom are now New Zealand's most influential leaders - believed the family unit was a hindrance to women and should be sidelined or destroyed.

In 1974, one feminist from the Socialist Action League addressed Victoria University students, saying: "The entire family system, together with the laws and official morality associated with it, is a block to the achievement of women's rights. The women's liberation movement is demanding alternatives to the present family set-up."

Well, they certainly nailed that one. Alternatives to the mum-and-dad family are now common, usually to the detriment of the kids. In terms of child abuse statistics, for example, children are safest by a mile when they live with two married parents.

The old girls today in positions of power would deny they have anything against the institution of the family, but New Zealand's domestic and international voting record says otherwise.

Take, for example, how we voted at the United Nations late last year on the Doha Declaration for the Family. You're unlikely to have heard of it because it received virtually no local media coverage.

The declaration called on the governments of the world to strengthen the institution of marriage and give the family unit the "widest possible protection".

New Zealand's representative voted against the declaration, saying it "promoted one model of family at the expense of others", but it was adopted at the last UN General Assembly, with 139 out of 192 countries in favour.

New Zealand MPs will soon vote on whether to amend the Marriage Act to define marriage, once and for all, as the union only of a man and a woman. The Australian Government did exactly that last year, with huge public support.

But as we have seen many times in the past few years, our leaders pay little heed to the wishes of the people when it comes to strengthening the family. Meanwhile, once the weather dries up, I might need to get a bigger letterbox.

* Sandra Paterson is a Mt Maunganui freelance journalist.