The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > To baby or not to baby > Comments

To baby or not to baby : Comments

By Tania Andrusiak and Daniel Donahoo, published 14/5/2007

Half a century past the feminist revolution and we’re being sidetracked by quibbles over babies.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Malcolm Turnbull was right when he said Heffernan's comment was appalling. Why is a person who would say such a thing still sitting in parliament?
Posted by healthwatcher, Monday, 14 May 2007 9:50:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bob Carr also copped flak from John Hewson (remember him?) for being childless. More recently, John Brogden made an outrageous comment about his wife Helena being a "mail-order bride". It was sexist towards her but also an insult to Carr's masculinity. Carr has also had questions raised about his sexuality.

Germany has elected a childless woman in the top job but it would be interesting to know how men in Western countries who don't conform to social norms - such as an openly gay Prime Minister or President - would be accepted.
Posted by DavidJS, Monday, 14 May 2007 10:04:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Healthwatcher

It is probably because he is one of John Howard’s close friends. Howard thinks the same - only his monkey can say it while Howard hides behind the organ. Otherwise he would be sacked by now.

The comments offend all women - and Howard does too by his inaction, (as well as the Liberal Party as whole for not calling for and ensuring his resignation).
Posted by Billy C, Monday, 14 May 2007 10:10:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's becoming more difficult for professional women in the large cities of Melbourne and Sydney to juggle the demands of child rearing and career. Professional women often take 6 years to establish their career after leaving university, are expected to work 10 hours per day, and can't take more than a year off work without having to retrain. Because house prices are so high, median house price is $340,000, average full time male wage is $58,000, two incomes are often vital for the family budget.

For example, a young woman in working in Melbourne CBD would probably be looking to buy an affordable house in Beaconsfield, would leave the child in child care, travel 90 minutes to work, work for 10 hours, travel 90 minutes to child care - problem you can't leave kids at child care for more than 12 hours.

The Workchoices legislation that allows employers total flexibility in their employment practices will effect Australia's fertility rate.

The effect of the mish mash of child care policies is that professional women have fewer children that their less well off sisters. Its sad because professional women probably breed cleverer children and nurture them more effectively than single mum's struggling in poverty.
Posted by billie, Monday, 14 May 2007 10:43:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When I was in my late 20's I was teaching in Sydney. I began to notice that many of the young mothers who were teaching at that school would come to work crying from the stress of trying to cope with their housework, their children and their school work. And I also noticed that many of the children that I was teaching seemed to be unhappy. Then I spent some time in Sri Lanka and I noticed that women there had cooks and teenage girls and boys to look after their children, do the shopping,etc. I noticed how happy the Sri Lankan children were with so much attention. And I noticed that the teenagers who were employed as servants were learning basic home-management skills. Meanwhile the Australian women teachers who were crying from overwork were paying taxes to keep unemployed Australian teenagers lazing around at home. I realised that it was Australian men - men in unions - who were making this choice that their wives would "do two shifts", leaving the men free to attend union meetings, engage in debate and make all of the decisions. If intelligent, professional Australian women were able to employ servants in their homes - like women in many Asian countries - they would have more children. And Australian children would be a lot happier. http://www.badapplebullies.com/ supports teachers dealing with workplace issues.
Posted by Dealing With The Mob, Monday, 14 May 2007 10:56:01 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am concerned that your article still seems to be coming from the premise that all women want children. Not all do, and many have been coerced into having them for reasons that could do with an examination. Yet we accept much better the notion that a man may not want children and therefore will remain childless without question. Should a woman choose this option she is severely questioned and then censured whatever the reason. Or have I missed the point?
Posted by arcticdog, Monday, 14 May 2007 11:04:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Women are painted in the image of either the barren, selfish, unfulfilled childless type, the “want-the-best-of-both-worlds” Is this just a painting or is it reality? Has anyone written an article of the rights of the kids to have a mother fulfilling her natural role.
Posted by runner, Monday, 14 May 2007 12:16:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
maybe the nuclear family is not such a good idea? from the point of view of maintaining the race..

there are alternatives, but corporation culture doesn't want to know about them- "socialism" involved.
Posted by DEMOS, Monday, 14 May 2007 1:00:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner a woman's natural role is to reproduce the next generation. So following the biological imperative women should flock to strong athletes men for a good quality sperm donation. If survival of the species is measured by the number of grandchildren produced then women must nurture their children so then rich and powerful men become valuable in the gene pool.

There is nothing natural about living in an isolated nuclear family pitted against your neighbours in the fight for scarce car space, space on the commuter train, child care place. Since when is a woman less of a mother to use a nanny or child care? Hmmm well maybe not the quality of care provided by ABC Learning Centres.
Posted by billie, Monday, 14 May 2007 1:23:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
H'mmm, interesting Dealing With The Mob. I assume you believe servants/nannies in every middle class household aa la most of Asia is a great idea-this would only be possible with mass import of cheap nannies usaully paid low wages which are then repatriated back to the Phillipnes, Indonesia,etc. Your response underlines a problem with this article-the choices women have or do not have are a product of class,income and education. Educated women usually have a choice to work full or part time in well paid careers and are almost certainly partnered up with well educated,career men. Poor women with minimal education often don't earn enough to work after paying for childcare. Others want to work but are locked into welfare traps that result in them loosing benenfits with only earning a tiny wage. I believe a major cause of soaring house prices in Australian capital cities is the effect of the high earning professional couple(with or without children) which are finacially miles in front of the lower income families or single homeowners. The doctor now marries another doctor, not the nurse!! Anyhow off the topic. Women will be successful in AOz politics and I am betting on Gilard as a future Prime Minister, maybe after Kev Rudd. The world is changing-smart blokes are hooking up with smart women- the result smart familes, smart kids. I think the future for men and women is really bright-climate issues are the thing we need to concentrate on.
Cheers
Posted by pdev, Monday, 14 May 2007 2:37:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with everything you say.

Having your own children is a tidal change in your life .

You are a different person after children .

Remarks made about your children by single people and people with only one child sharply contrast the difference between Babies or no Babies people and it is no accident that this statement is a generalisation .

Julia Gillard is a bad example for you to choose for a philosophical debate like this . Julia is damaged goods , she is a fanatic frenetic left wing extremist , the middle ground is icily bare , uncompromising .
Julia type people are disenfranchises , the correct or less lonely place for Julia is in the Public Service , the Education Dept is full of Julia's , we send our Kids to School to be educated , then we find left wing dogma in SOSE for example or we find our Kids debating "Who Are We", we have to apologise to Aboriginals for having an Assembly on their land ? Are we really invaders , trespassers or Infidels ?
We need people in Gov. who can control the Julia's of our world , sample the razor suggest to Julia that OBE should be exited from all schools because too many parents and Teachers want that to be so .
Posted by PortoSalvo, Monday, 14 May 2007 2:39:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Port Salavo,

Can you make me clear as to what you are on about?? From the weird disjointed rant against left wing teacher bias I'm guessing your a disaffected soul from the burbs and you are really unhappy you do not have enough cash to send your kiddies to a proper private school to escape the brainwashing communists at the local high school. Let me guess, you think Pauline Hanson should be PM, you believe what you hear on ACA and TT and the last thing you read was
A New IDEA??
Posted by pdev, Monday, 14 May 2007 2:49:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Personally I thank Bob Carr for being childless if he has remained so. One less politician's child can only be good.

Women don't have a choice. They have the babies. Who looks after them is another matter but let's not change science. Just yet.
Posted by DavoP, Monday, 14 May 2007 3:13:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In response to pdev,
Yes, nannies from places like Indonesia would be great. It would give Aussie kids a terrific chance to learn an Asian language and Asian values in a natural way. Think what a huge advantage that would give those children in their careers. Or we could look at allowing students from overseas to combine studying with child care and housework. In Indonesia churches organise for country kids to stay with church families in the cities and "earn their keep" by doing housework. In return for their housework, their school fees are paid.
And Aussie kids who want to leave school or home early might do better working in a family situation, being fed properly and learning how to cook and run a home rather than being paid the dole to laze about all day drinking, etc. It would also make the relationship between school and future income more obvious to students. At the moment many Aussie children are not motivated to try to learn. Compare this with a Indonesian teenager working as a waiter for $2 a day and eager to practice speaking English, Japanese and Italian.
Rudd is Ok but Julie Gillard and the rest of the Labor gang - no. I didn't like the way Gillard threatened employers. Under the smiley veneer there are some pretty nasty, thuggish people in the Labor Party.
Posted by Dealing With The Mob, Monday, 14 May 2007 3:15:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dealing with the Mob , Mon14May

"Yes, nannies from places like Indonesia would be great. It would give Aussie kids a terrific chance to learn an Asian language and Asian values in a natural way."

Why not go the whole hog delete Nannies and insert Surrogates , class AAA restaurant food is an unsuitable diet for gestating woman especially considering the bile and hatred that accompanies people like Julia who have to force ordinary humble humans to do what they know is good for them .
Posted by PortoSalvo, Monday, 14 May 2007 4:15:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't you think the fact that Heffernan, quite possibly the most intractable politician in the country, has been forced to make an apology, (however equivocal,) is an indication of just how far attitudes in Australia have changed? Heffernan’s comments have done and will do far more damage to himself and the Liberal Party than they will to Gillard or to women in general. The fact that he has been roundly condemned by friend and foe alike shows that such comments or attitudes are completely unacceptable.
Posted by dozer, Tuesday, 15 May 2007 12:55:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dozer

I don't think that Heffernan's forced apology by friends indicates that those attitudes are unacceptable to them. I suspect it's more a case of Heffernan demonstrating Coalition attitudes towards women (as if we hadn't worked it out already) at a time too close to an election. They just don't want to upset poential voters who find their misogyny unacceptable.
Posted by Liz, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 7:27:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a mother and grandmother I will never vote for men or women who have not had children regardless of their political persuasion. Mothers in this country need all the help they can get and they are more likely to get it from family politicians if at all.

Professionals cleverer? Not necessesarily. Educated in one specific area maybe.
My daughter duxed grade 10, left school with my permission because I said all you need is drive and persistance to take you to the top. Some people with university degrees just dont have that drive and persistance and some do. My daughter is 30 has four beautiful children earns as much as any GP AND has five rented properties and has a marriage that is working.

She also acknowledges that she couldnt have had four children if she hadnt had Grandma (me) as backup. Those kids have never been in daycare. Between her husband who does have a university degree as a teacher and myself who both worked part time we rostered the kids between us. I understand that some people dont have Grandmas available and so must use daycare. I also understand that some Grandmas refuse to give their children this back up becase they want their freedom which I dont agree with but to each his own choices.

To the people who choose not to have children. I hope you are prepared to go and fight in the army if war breaks out because you dont have any children to fight for you so you should have to go yourself. When you get old and you need some strong fit nurses to look after you if you go into hospital I hope you will be prepared to lie there without being attended to by other peoples children. The only reason you can make the choice to not have children is because other people are having them to provide the community and services that you will need around you to survive in coming years.
Posted by sharkfin, Friday, 18 May 2007 1:29:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sharkfin, you don't seem to have thought about your comments very much re people who chose not to have kids. Every choice is valid. While people who chose not to have kids may not be making the next generation of soldiers and nurses, they, like me, may be using their 'child-free' time in their lives to do volunteer work, to contribute to society in other ways they perceive to be more personally satisfying than parenthood. I know I make a better worker/volunteer/friend etc as a childfree woman than I would as an unhappy mother.
Posted by jeane, Sunday, 20 May 2007 5:28:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At least women can have the choice of staying home with the children or having a career - men only have the option of career.

Last I heard 87% of professional men supported their partners 100% financially - perhaps professional women's reluctance to do the same is a factor? (I think it is something less than 10% for female professionals).
Posted by Rob513264, Monday, 21 May 2007 9:52:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So sharkfin, what about those of us who can't have children?

Are you saying that as a non breeding member of society that we don't have any value?

Who pays the pension for those like yourself who stay at home to look after the grandkiddies? Or pays the childcare subsidies for those who can't stay at home? Who pays for the baby bonus, travel and pharmaceutical benefits? Who pays for their schooling and their unemployment benefits when they need it? We as taxpayers do, and I will spend much more time working and paying tax (and not getting it back)than many women (yes I know not all) who choose to combine work and parenting do.

By not taking time out of the workforce and not being elligible for tax relief that families are elligible for, by giving back in voluntary work and assisting my friends and relatives to raise their kids, and being able to look after my parents better because I don't have kids, how dare you point to people like me and make us feel that we are not worthy of cleaning your boots. We all contribute to society which gives back (or supports in advance) when the time is due.
Posted by Nita, Monday, 21 May 2007 1:27:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rob, I had to ponder over your figures a bit to come to any conclusion. Why? because I have found many professional women who are the main income earner, and who share the responsibility for child-rearing with their husbands.

But thinking on it a bit, I would suggest that perhaps there are also more single professional women than professional men (although this is only a guesstimate). This would help to skew the odds in favour of men looking more supportive financially. Also by and large men earn more for doing the same job, so would generally make more financial sense for the man to go back to work.

Me, I dont get a choice. I earn significantly more, so I support my husband.

Men can have a choice, just as women have a choice. Much comes down to negotiation with your partner.
Posted by Country Gal, Wednesday, 23 May 2007 2:12:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Country Girl
'Main Income Earner' and '100% financially supported' are 2 quite different things to simply substitute them is highly misleading.

Bring on equal wages - I am fully in support of it however it must be equal wages for equal work. I notice that men still do all the really hard, dangerous and dirty work in the culture.

Research I did indicated that men have a 2560% higher chance of dying at work than women do - should men be paid nothing for the extra risks they take? And do they only take the extra risks because they have the pressure of supporting a family.

All women have to do to get equal wages is take on these jobs too. Research indicates that the reason why women's average income is still below men's is because women consistently prioritize life-style considerations over income and men consistently prioritize income over life-style considerations in choosing their career path. Since so many more men are supporting women than women are supporting men, men need more money to have the same standard of living do they not?

The existence of a small number of exceptions (of which you are one) does not refute any general rule. You will always have some individuals going against any trend.

This culture only recognizes a man staying at home as legitimate if that is 'what his wife wants'. If his wife wants him to be working and he stays at home he is regarded as a bludger. If a woman wants to stay home while her husband wants her to go to work she is regarded as a homemaker. In either case it is 'what his wife wants' that is regarded as legitimate.
Posted by Rob513264, Wednesday, 23 May 2007 3:13:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NITA-; Who pays for the baby bonus, travel, and pharmaceutical benefits?

My daughter who has a very well paid high positioned job does and her husband who has a part-time job does. Incidently their taxes go towards the pharmaceutical benefits for you too. I actually save the government and you money by doing childcare. The daughters could pay the grandmothers and save the country a fortune in taxes for child-care. But some of the Grandmothers who already owned homes have decided to upgrade to more luxurious homes and overseas trips and so they have big debts at a time of life when they shouldnt have any debts at all or they just want to be free so they wont do the child caring is the point I was making.

I sympathise with you not being able to have children but dont talk to me about all the extra work you will do in a life time until you've had to come home from full time work at night or on week-ends and holidays and spend hours looking after four young children one a two month old baby. She often says she would prefer being at work on week-ends because of the workload at home, You only ever hear mothers say that not people without children.

By the time she does retire she will have done double the time you put in every day.

I'm sure you like to see single women who you feel can understand your needs more, representing you in parliament and I am saying I prefer to see people who are married with children representing the interests of my children who do have children, in parliament. I make no apology for that.

When you can no longer work and provide taxes for your own pension it will be my children,s children who will be doing this unless you are selffunded but you will still get pharmeceutical benefits.Also people on pensions pay tax because of the GST.
Posted by sharkfin, Thursday, 24 May 2007 12:31:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NITA

I too have an elderly parent to care for.

I didn't say anything about you not being fit to wipe my boots that was your hysterical conclusion. Typical of single women when anyone suggests trying to improve things for mothers.
Posted by sharkfin, Thursday, 24 May 2007 12:40:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rob, you have a very limited understanding of pay equity. While you say that it's women's 'life-style' choices which make them have a lower average income then men, you also fail to recognise that there is a wealth of research which also shows that women are streamed into these jobs - through socialisation, educational choices at school, vocational guidance which channels girls into traditionally 'female' jobs, through to hostile, male-dominated work cultures rife with sexism and sex discrimination. Women's 'choices' are constrained by the society we live in, just as men's are too, to a lesser extent, but at least men are socialised into higher paying jobs, which compensates somewhat. Women do make up the majority of part-time workers, which decreases average weekly earnings, but they are also clustered in lower paid industries and occupations. If men decided to become more involved with parenting - and I think your argument that men only stay at home when this is 'what his wife wants' is spurious - then men too could work part-time. And wouoldn't it be a nice world if both parents could work part-time, and raise the kids?
Posted by jeane, Friday, 25 May 2007 9:48:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jeane
How unfortunate. It is just a coincidence then that women happen to be 'streamed' away from all the hard, dirty and dangerous work - what a disadvantage, I wonder how you cope.

I have been a stay at home dad and I know that I was viewed by many people, including a judge at the Family Court, as a bludger for taking that role and it played a pivotal part in my ex being given custody of both of our children despite the fact that she worked full-time away from home and I worked part-time at home, both children preferred me as their custodial parent and she admitted to abusing the children.
Posted by Rob513264, Friday, 25 May 2007 10:35:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah Rob, that explains some of the attitude - you are bitter from your own experience. Yes, there are more men than women that work in dirty and dangerous conditions. Are these men capable or working elsewhere? If so, why the heck arent they? These are not the professionals that you were referring to in your earlier posts.

Another point to ponder - is the reason that there are more men in these jobs because women are generally excluded from them, mostly by the men in there? These situations are changing though, as workers become more scarce in general. My sister is a dump truck driver in a gold mine that runs 12 hour shifts. She loves it, and within 18 months of starting has been asked to train for the position of Leading Hand.

yes I take your point about 100% financial support and main income earner being generally different. Depends on what you class (or the study classed) as 100% financial support. I class it as paying the household bills. I am the main income earner in my house and also financially support my husband 100% (in that I not only pay for the house bills in entirety and the childcare, but also pay some of his business expenses as well).

A lot of the problem with dad's being at home, is other mens perceptions of it. One of my husbands mate was a stay at home dad for 2 years (and will be again once his wife goes back to work after having another baby). The response from most of his mates (including my husband - go figure), is "bludger". Now, if all he did was do as he pleased, then yes he would be a bludger. BUt anyone who has run a household while being the at home parent is not a bludger. There is more than enough to keep even the most efficient person very busy, even before you get into the realms of taking the kids to the park, playgroup, doing tuckshop duties etc.
Posted by Country Gal, Friday, 25 May 2007 10:54:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy