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 > Childless females are voting for themselves > Comments

Childless females are voting for themselves : Comments

By Malcolm King, published 23/7/2008

Government should heed the warning signs: childless women are sick of the baby bonus rhetoric and will vote for themselves.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
I wonder when men will start voting for themselves, before they lose their children.
Posted by HRS, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 9:32:13 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
“The ALP needs to focus more on the many women and childless couples…”

What about single men?

I find it very strange that the author is really only concerned about women in the context of having kids later in life or not at all, or of not being willing to support the strong political bias towards working families.

But yes, it is high time that the ALP broadened its perspective and moved away from this ‘working families’ diatribe.

The amazing and utterly disgusting push by the State for women to have babies where they may not have done so, or to have more kids than they would otherwise have done so is….well…utterly disgusting.

As well as the fact that we most definitely do not need a boost in our birthrate, we most definitely need childless people and one-child families and single parents to be appreciated as being just as valid as the larger family.

I mean, how dare the State devalue those who choose to have no kids and place pressure on them to reproduce! That is downrightly disgusting….especially when there is absolutely no reason why we need to boost our population, and every reason why we need to stabilise it!

It’s time for the baby bonus to go….and perhaps be replaced by a reward scheme for those who reach the age of 50 without having bred!
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 10:11:37 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
Yet we all need the babies, who will become the service sector when we grow old.

Even those who have no intention of having children of their own should be able to see that life will be tough in retirement if there are insufficient younger people around.

What's needed is an public information campaign illustrating what life would be like in the future if we do not support families now.
Posted by Sylvia Else, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 10:13:33 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
I don't know who it was that sung it but 'It's all about me'
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 11:06:27 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
I would like to see proof that women – or anyone – actually votes Greens one, Liberals two. This voting pattern would really defy logic. The two parties a miles apart on everything, and it is usual to give second preferences to the party you would like to see in if your first choice doesn’t make it.

The idea of free markets and deregulation mixed with environmental concerns might be possible with the Coalition, or even Labor, but certainly not with the Greens. Anybody thinking otherwise clearly hasn’t got the message.

As for the really wild one about the Green vote getting ahead of the Liberal vote – well, what has this Black person been smoking? Does he think that so many Australians want to live in caves, rubbing sticks together to light fires?

It is very doubtful that single or childless women are as silly as this author seems to think. It is pure speculation that their voting patterns – and it is quite arrogant to deem that these women vote as a block – reflect what they think about ‘working families’, baby bonuses, or anything else but what private thoughts and beliefs dictate.

Australia had been overpopulated since the days when we had around 13 million people. It’s very strange that both major political parties, wanting to blame human activity for climate change, hand out baby bonuses and continue with large scale immigration. The Greens have backed down on their original population policy, and no longer seem different from the other two.

The baby bonus should be scrapped, and so should high immigration.

In the meantime, it’s good that there are women and men out there who are not adding to the population.
Posted by Mr. Right, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 11:24:01 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
"I would like to see proof that women – or anyone – actually votes Greens one, Liberals two. This voting pattern would really defy logic. "

It makes good sense if you don't think the Greens have any chance of taking the electorate you are in but you want to send a message to the Libs that you disagree with some of their directions but not enough to vote Labor. Not an ideal way of sending a message but pollies don't seem to care much about voter feedback except for votes.

The Libs (and Nats) seem to have been overrun by the religious right, a direction that many of their traditional voters are unhappy with but not so unhappy as to want Labor in power. Green first, Lib second is one of the more accessable ways of getting that message across.

Be more liberal in social policy but keep up economic management does not have a checkbox on the ballot paper so people improvise.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 11:37:14 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 has been shown time and time again that as women have more options than just being a baby machine, their priorities change more towards what men want.

While most of them want eventually to have kids, they leave it too late, or are not prepared to compromise.

This is the answer in a nutshell. If you want more babies, stop women working, take away their rights. Not really an option.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 11:53:47 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
"Yet we all need the babies, who will become the service sector when we grow old."

Not really. Guest workers from other countries where people are desperate for work can provide the raw material for the service sector.

Okay, that's the cynical view. But the point is, aged care workers don't have to be born in Australia to look after their clients. They just have to be suitably qualified.

In terms of the main point I say can the "working families" rhetoric and use "Australian people" or "Australian citizens" instead. After all, pensioners and unemployed people also vote,
Posted by DavidJS, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 12:18:27 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
Author is using women rhetorically to feed his Knight in Shinning Armour ego trip. Ya know, saving the poor little dears, who havent been voting for themselves since suffrage. Typically patronising Lance-a-lot, feeding them that navel gazing 'lm a victim' rubbish. It positions their egoes very nicely for the attention starved fella who wants to save the 'weak and vulnerable.' Plus, writing a fluffly, wishy-washy article that whispers sweet nuthins is a good way to be liked by those one will save. Oh, they're soooo greatful.

Then again, the average voter is a bit of a short-term blockhead, so by all means join the club. Only really focused on the short term, like 'why should we support working families.' Yeah, as a single, child-free male l can relate to that, but l like to think l've grown up a bit and can see past where l am to where lm going. To wit... someone has to breed and raise the future generations of kidults that will form the society that will support me in my old age. Even if l do still harbour a bit of that 'what about me' ressentment of being left behind as a political demographic. Oh, the horror of not being recognised and slotted into a glib political marketing group.

Otherwise, lm not sure what the point of the article was, other than to shove people into the arbitrary classifications that social commentators are so fond of and pretty much lost without. The article looks like a bit of muck racking agit-prop.
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 12:31:53 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
An article concerned about a political party’s prospects and how they might be improved. It regards as an irrelevance - the negative impact by population pressure upon society, economy, and the environment all is dependent upon.

It does not matter a damn which political persuasion rules the roost if all parties are going to frustrate society’s ability to stabilize its numbers.

Australia’s fertility rate needs to stabilize. That is about 2.1. Total numbers need to be compatible with the land and climate’s ability to provide reasonable lifestyles for them. Currently the fertility rate is a little over 1.8. However, births will continue to exceed deaths for almost a generation due to existing age cohorts.
Demonstrably we are already too many for continuing with current lifestyles within the constraints of our landscape.

Worse still, our political masters are dictating that we multiply more, and also increase immigration. Until two years ago, the net total of Australian births over deaths, plus net migration, increased our numbers by a million in about four years. Now we have speeded up the process, and are heading for that extra million in maybe three years.

The Author’s priorities, like our current life-style prospects, are up the creek
Posted by colinsett, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 12:42:03 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
Sylvia -

The idea that there is an ageing population crisis or that we won't have anybody to look after us in our old age is a lie. The population has been ageing since the end of WWII.

Remember the predicted crisis in the 1960's when everybody said in 2008, life expectancy will be 82 years (it was 70, then) and 20% of the population will be over 60 (it was 8% then) and that means that there will be nobody left to work and nobody left to look after us when we are old.

If you don't remember, it is because it didn't happen. There are probably some changes that have to be made, such as a higher age for pensions to kick in and more flexible working conditions so that older people will want to stay in the workforce, but those changes are nothing compared to the changes we are going to need to feed a world with 9.5 billion people and very little cheap fossil fuels.

There are many, many more difficult problems to solve than an ageing population and increasing the population makes most of those problems harder to solve.
Posted by ericc, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 3:16:52 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
When I was a "childless female" I still supported policies which supported families, as well as those that support unemployed people (when working) and those which support pensioners (even as a selfish teenager). I even supported increased hospital spending when I was not sick and increases to primary education well after I needed those services and well before I needed them for my own kids.

Crazy me!

Are we such a cynical electorate that we all vote with a tax-break in mind?
Posted by seether, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 3:41:04 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 Ludwig,

"I find it very strange that the author is really only concerned about women in the context of having kids later in life or not at all, or of not being willing to support the strong political bias towards working families."

This wanton greed by families is making single people sick (and even some families themselves).

It's a disease in our society and political system.
Posted by Steel, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 3:48:14 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
seether>"Are we such a cynical electorate that we all vote with a tax-break in mind?"

Ask all the families. They certainly DID NOT vote for your interests when you were single.

This is about a redress of balance. You have it backwards (extreme self-interest and greed by families is already in place).
Posted by Steel, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 3:50:35 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
Hi all

One comment in the article I found disturbing - that some women "settle" for not having children. I chose not to have children, for a number of reasons. Nor can I begin to imagine that I would follow my Green vote with a Liberal preference.

However, that said, I also am sick to death of the "working families" mantra, and the awful social ramifications I have seen of the dreaded "baby bonus". Women with whom I have been involved through working in areas of socio-economic disadvantage think it's just great; a new plasma TV looks pretty good. And add to that (now that they have to look for work) when the youngest child turns six, many simply get pregnant again. They left school before Year 10, and have children by several young men who have also never worked and no-one takes any responsibility. The only people these ghetto dwellers know who have had a job are the authority figures with whom they come into contact from time to time (teachers, police, staff of community organizations, etc)

It really is disastrous social policy, and certainly neither of the major parties have even come close to getting it right. Voting for the Greens does not mean living in caves either, but my preference was Democrat, where there were some intelligent, insightful politicians who thought beyond their own seats (and pensions).

Cheers
Nicky
Posted by Nicky, Wednesday, 23 July 2008 8:13:00 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 think someone should write a thesis on the social phenomina of hatred of poor people buying plazma TVs. The symbolism of the plazma constantly astounds me. It's the most maligned piece of electrical equipment ever.

I've remained of the same mind set post-baby as I was pre-baby. People don't have babies for the good of the community. That's such a load of tosh. Be responsible for your own decisions, kids cost money, get over it and stop whinging and saying how hard it is and asking for handouts.

Maybe childless people would want to have kids if the people with kids didn't keep telling them how hard it is and how poor they are. It's almost like they are the martyrs of society, these poor buggers who have to bring up children.

They chose to have children, money is about personal priorities, and children are heaps of fun. No compensation needed here.
Posted by Usual Suspect, Thursday, 24 July 2008 10:37:40 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
The Green Libs (or green libs). I'd like to see that! Some fab rants here. I'd like to see Black's stats.

Even so, there's no reason why some women, whether they have kids or not, wouldn't vote Green first and then Lib. I'm a fan of Bob Brown's but I also support a deregulated economy. So shoot me.
Posted by Cheryl, Thursday, 24 July 2008 11:18:24 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
What about single men? Well yes as far as society & Govt. are concerned as a voting bloc they don’t exist nor do their issues! Boy is the s—t about to hit the fan.

Increasing numbers of 30+ heterosexual women are not necessarily single or childless by choice but because these women fail to spend equal time developing meaningful relationships along with their meaningful ‘careers’ & become narcissistic as their t-shirts & tops state ‘It’s all about ME’ This type of woman fail to understand the difference between ‘strong’ & just me & me.

For these women having a disposable relationship attitude & leaving it too late for anything else,they wonder why men fail to find such women attractive & the baby clock ticks off.

Having such narcissistic women as a voting bloc both inside & outside Govt. is Rudd’s (Mr?) version of …….
Posted by DVD, Thursday, 24 July 2008 12:10:32 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 don't think Kevin Rudd has necessarily forgotten (or will forget) the minority groups such as single mums with kids, or single men, e.t.c But, given the limited amount of time that the media allocates for a Politician to explain their policies to the media and public and they need to get "bang for buck", it seems logical that some minority groups may not be mentioned during a speech to the media, e.t.c. That does not necessarily mean the Government is not/will not consider minority groups. That's my 2 cents worth ...
Posted by Ben Horin, Thursday, 24 July 2008 6:01:09 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
Hi all
Usual Suspect and DVD, the plasma TV was used as an example. Other items of choice are drugs, alcohol and cigarettes, in certain areas.

Choosing not to have children does not necessarily make one narcissistic or selfish - it simply isn't for everyone. What's wrong with focussing on a career? We pay taxes to support the "working families" (and non-working families and others). I would rather see my taxes contributing more to alleviating the poveerty of aged pensioners, quite frankly, who have to survive on a pittance.

If you choose to have children, you should make sure you can afford it. It is, after all, your choice, and you should only do it if you can support them.

Cheers
Nicky
Posted by Nicky, Thursday, 24 July 2008 6:25:14 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 am one half of a childless couple. Why we don't have children doesn't matter, but it was not our fear of world overpopulation. The world and Australia would certainly be a better place if those running for office did not assume that all voters, vote with their own self-interests in mind and stopped trying to target particular groups of any sort. I care about working families, I also care about over-worked families. I am sure there are female green1 libs2 voters, but I haven't met one yet. I am interested in urging people to vote at local, state and federal levels for those who will promote a compassionate, just and pluralistic culture for Australia providing services for many groups and opportunities for a range of special needs, even if I am not a member of that group or do not have that special need. I want a strong education system for the children of Australia, but have no children. At the local level, I want a good public library for the community even if I do not use it. The list goes on. I suppose I should just keep dreaming...
Posted by nettle, Sunday, 27 July 2008 6:12:06 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
'The list goes on. I suppose I should just keep dreaming...' I suppose you don't realise how good we have it!
Posted by runner, Sunday, 27 July 2008 7:09:37 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
Hi all

Runner, I think there would be a lot of people in the community who might not agree with you - regardless of how good we have it, I think we should always be aiming for better. Nettle, I'm with you. If politicians left their ivory towers, and maybe spent a week in the household of an aged pensioner who cannot afford to run their heating, for example, we might see more of the pluralistic society you speak of.

In poorer socio-economic areas in which I have worked, politicians have never even been there, yet they award themselves (very quietly) huge pay increases without any conception of how parts of the community struggle just to pay the bills.

I would like to see comprehensive libraries everywhere, better education for adults who for whatever reason cannot read or write, some civilized standards in prisons so that the people who go in there don't come out worse than when they went in - but it doesn't grab votes. "Working families"? Give us a break!

Cheers
Nicky
Posted by Nicky, Sunday, 27 July 2008 11:55:19 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
Nicky, I dont disagree with your statement that you shouldnt have children unless you can afford them. However, a few points to note:

1. Should having children be restricted to those that are "well-off" I am not convinced that this is a good target for society to have.

2. What you can afford today, you might not be able to next year. There are all sorts of reasons why the affordable might become a problem in future years.

Certainly I think at the moment there is excessive focus on working families by politicians. It must be remembered though that working parents are probably the most time-poor and tired group within the community. Those that are childless, or have been lucky enough to be able to afford to have one parent stay at home dont have the same concept of sheer exhaustion (particularly when trying to work with very young children). 5 hours (broken) sleep is a luxury. Does this entitle me (and others like me) to a hand-out? No, but it should entitle me to a little respect. I could always give up work (and the taxes I pay) and get parenting payments, sell the house and get rent assistance, have another baby in 6 years time so I dont have to go back to work, and carry on getting family tax benefit until the last child leaves home, get the dole for a few years because I am now unemployable, then qualify for the age pension the rest of my ife, all the time relying on medicare to look after any health issues. Hmm, maybe there is more depth to supporting families where both parents work ("working families") than meets the eye.
Posted by Country Gal, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 3:27:43 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
Nicky,

'1. Should having children be restricted to those that are "well-off" I am not convinced that this is a good target for society to have.
'

There's well of and there's well off. Money is about priorities. I know myself I can afford 0 children living in Balmain, 2 children living in Ryde and 4 children living in Guildford.

The argument boils down to a trade off between what quality of life you desire against how much you want children.

Support the genuinely poor with welfare, but incentives to breed are just dumb. It's the same as Maternity Leave; Why should a woman on 150k get full pay for 6 months to have a baby. If she wants a baby, she can budget for it or adjust her lifestyle. Everyone but the genuinely needy have this option.
Posted by Usual Suspect, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 5:19:40 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
People handing out How to Votes at polling booths can pick voting intentions by the voter's appearance, as well as by secondary behaviors like which How to Vote cards do they seek out and which papers are flung in the bin. The people handing out How to Vote will cheerfully get the Liberal or Democrat papers for those in need because if you don't it's a black mark against their own party. The author of this article is a Labor Party strategist and yes the Labor Party has lost the support of childless inner urban women.

The Usual Suspect's reasoning is flawed. A woman who is earning $150,000 may need paid maternity leave because if she takes 6 months off work to have a child she won't be receiving half her salary - and the chances are high that her high paid job is kept open for 6 months for her to return to anyway. If the Usual Suspect can live on $40,000 a year why can't this high achiever manage on $75,000. Perhaps Usual Suspect owns his house outright and the high earner has a mortgage in Sydney.
Posted by billie, Wednesday, 30 July 2008 6:59:05 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
billie,

'Perhaps Usual Suspect owns his house outright and the high earner has a mortgage in Sydney.'

That's irrelavent. Everyone has choices. She can sell her house and rent, she can downsise, move to a cheaper area, she can save up beforehand, forgo the new sofa and new car. It depends on how much she really wants a baby. As I said, the genuinely poor don't have this option, so welfare can kick in for those on really low income.

Are you saying that a woman on 150k should be kept in the lifestyle she is accustomed to when she chooses to have a baby, when a single working mum on $40k a year pays for it?

I can imagine her on her post baby holiday in the whitsundays, paid by the maternity leave and baby bonus from the taxes of the single mum slugging it out. That's just warped.

BTW: I own about 10% of my house in Sydney. I chose the area I wanted to live based on my means and my future desire to have a family. That's my point. So you're saying I should have bought a house in Rose Bay and asked the government to pay me to have babies because I cant afford it due to my mortgage in such an expensive area? Life's not fair!
Posted by Usual Suspect, Thursday, 31 July 2008 9:41:08 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
That's why we have proportional tax. The woman who earned $150,000 before having her baby has always contributed more to her own maternity leave and baby bonus than the woman who earned $40,000. Proportionally, the higher earner has funded the lower earner, not vice versa.

I agree there should be a cut-off point for the wealthy, however.
Posted by Veronika, Thursday, 31 July 2008 9:53:28 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
Veronika,

That's just churn though. Welfare should be for the genuinely needy. Are we taxing the rich so we can hand it back when they choose to have a child and not work? Let them plan for that themselves and save heaps in administrative costs and taxes in the first place.

It's as dumb as giving everyone a free car every 10 years, paid by taxes. The wealthy, since they have contributed more tax, can get a mercedies, the poorer people can have a ford fiesta...
Posted by Usual Suspect, Thursday, 31 July 2008 6:12:47 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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