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 > Don't be rattled by the baby guilt trip > Comments

Don't be rattled by the baby guilt trip : Comments

By Nina Funnell, published 17/2/2010

Why do we, and Kevin Rudd, assume it is the obligation of all women to reproduce?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Young women today are sociaised to be very thin skinned. I don't think that encouraging this quality does anything to make them better people, or helps society as a whole to get along. While Mr Rudds comments about Ms Furnell's studies(if true) appear to be out of line, there is nothing wrong with asking young women or anyone else, to think of the nation. Asking people to think of others does not equal being controlling.
Posted by benk, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 11:50:23 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
did he really say that? what a prick
Posted by nelle, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 11:57:20 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
go Nina..a few right wing ALP hacks at various blogs are saying you made the whole thing up or they seem so surprised someone as conservative as he could make such a statement and that you must have "miss-heard" or "miss-interpreted" him.

They seem to forget that Rudd is a rabid christian moralist regulator. His blatant sexism comes as no surprise at all to me.
Posted by E.Sykes, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 1:00:00 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
How crass!

"Rudd rolled his eyes and in a terse voice lacking any sense of irony remarked that is the "excuse" that "all" young women are using nowadays to avoid starting families."

It is starting to filter through that Rudd has a few personality attributes that are less than picture-perfect. This would appear to support those mutterings.

But if we step back for a moment.

There are two distinct groupings in this discussion.

The individual. And "Society"

(Yes, I know Col Rouge, I know. But let's park Maggie for a moment).

The individual has every right to be indignant that the Prime Minister should suggest they are somehow shirking their duties.

But what of "Society"?

Apart from the fact that it is (there you go Col) made up of nothing more than a bunch of individuals, should there not be, somewhere, a collective will that a particular society should, somehow, survive?

I guess all I am saying Nina is that - crassness (and it was appalling) aside, Rudd's is a relatively understandable position for a political leader to take.

Let's face it, that's what the exhortation to "lie back and think of England" was all about.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 1:01:02 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
Yes Nina, we understand you met the PM. Well done you. Even better you fitted this into your rant. I can imagine if he asked you to pass him his coffee he'd left on a table behind you you'd launch into a rant about women being considered domestic slaves.

'But there was a deeper message: young people (women in particular) are failing in their civic duty to reproduce.'

The messages in your head you mean? Please recite the actual quotes.

'Why do we assume it is the obligation of all women to reproduce? And why do we label them as selfish when they don't? We never label career-driven men as selfish.'

Who is we?

Ask yourself this question. Are the leaders of today expressing singular personal opinions that are taken out of context and extrapolated into 'deep messages' about gender double standards that will be reflected in policy, or are the feminists becoming more touchy or more desperate for some relevance than anyone ever imagined.

Tony Abbot irons badly and tells us he'd rather his children (who happen to be female) think about who they share their bodies with, and that Kevin Rudd makes a friendly (if true) jibe about a young person (who happened to be female) delaying a family for the sake of a PHD. Those dastardly misogynist scoundrels.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 1:16:55 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
Do you young women have any alternatives to offer when it comes to who is going to have children?
Would you prefer that us mere men had babies instead? Any good ideas as to how that could be accomplished?
When I see the way that human beings have fallen for the global warming hoax I get to wonder if all of us should stop bearing children.
Posted by phoenix94, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 1:40:20 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 really get tired of the idea a lot of men and I must add women have, that women were put on this earth only to pop out babies.

I am in my 50's and have never wanted and never had children. I am also damned proud of it and make sure other women know that they don't have to go down that road if the don't choose to.

It's also time governments started looking for other ways of handling the aging crisis that is coming. Instead of increasing the population.
Posted by Cassiel, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 2:16:57 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
Nice article. I have always wondered why an aging population is even a problem. I can see the simple argument that the working population will, slowly over the next few decades become a smaller propoartion of the total population, but that doesn't necessarily make it a problem. For a number of reasons.
1. This aging trend is known decades in advance, therefore governments, businesses and individuals can prepare for living in such a society.
2. The human population cannot grow indefinitely, so at some point we will be facing this dilemma.
3. People at work are far more productive then they used to be, therefore we will need fewer people at work to maintain the same society wide standard of living.

Also, isn't the author's (or any woman's) choice to not have children, or delay having children, actually solving the 'workforce ratio' problem by keeping women in the workforce in a highly productive capacity instead of at home caring for children (who, by the way, will also age over time).

Anyway, a good read. Thanks.
Posted by Cam Murray, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 2:34:36 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
What is really interesting is that feminists can and often do, point out all the short comings of men. Existant and nonexistant.

However don't they get into a hissy fit, when men make comments that they object too. If men complain it is because they are being too sensitive etc etc.

Now I think Nina has an abundence of eostrogen, and needs a bit more oxytocin to counter act the effects of too much eostrogen.
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 2:41:02 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 woman I have never felt society regarding me as a baby incubator - it has always been a personal choice. The fact is we possess the womb and the eggs. Men possess sperm. It always takes two. Men might argue they feel they are just sperm providers.

What is disappointing about Mr Rudd's purported comments is this obsession with growing the population using the furphy of the ageing population. This is nothing about women's roles but about economics.

He is becoming the man of the unfortunate phrase but perhaps it is his way of trying to be friendly and injecting some light hearted repartee.

I love the double irony that pervades - on one hand Mr Rudd (and Mr Costello) wants us all out there earning money and contributing to productivity then turns around and makes comments that suggest we should all be out having children for the country. Here we all are with a workforce characterised by longer and longer hours, then in our spare time we ares supposed to be popping out children for the country.

Who is looking after all these children we are supposed to be having? We are certainly not encouraged to be at home caring for our own kids, that would be unproductive.

Bottom line is do what you want to do - whatever feels right for you.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 2:45:35 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
Yes, good on you Nina, what an insult from the social-engineer-in-chief. It is absolutely none of the government's business whether you have a baby or not, and those who worry about "who's going to reproduce?" can go and reproduce themselves all they like, no-one's stopping them.

As for childless women making a contribution, Julia Gillard would have to be the worst example you could think of. We would all be better off if she were doing something constructive and socially useful like cleaning toilets; or even if she were just rocketed to the moon and left there as a kind of anti-decoration.

Now that you've concluded that women's uteruses are not public property, bravo, and you need to take the next step: neither are the labours of men or women whose wages and profits are taken by the government to "give the right support" to mothers to look after their own children. Democracy should not be used to make everyone feel free to treat their fellow citizen as their subject or slave.
Posted by Peter Hume, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 2:49:08 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
pelican,

Now that Col's away, I designate you my new favourite poster. This has been attained by constantly saying stuff I agree with over a long period of time even though not being as entertaining as Col.

You give me hope. The contrast between the shrill cries of feminists like Nina and others in the media are soothed by your rational and sensible opinions.

'This is nothing about women's roles but about economics.'
Yes indeed. It needs a rabid feminist with an axe to grind to twist and contort it into the rant above.

Peter Hume,

'no-one's stopping them. '

It is also your choice to work and hence pay taxes, and disqualify yourself from the goodies the socialist state provides.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 3:04:08 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
LOL Nina,

Obviously you have been rattled.

But never mind. Nobody is forcing you to have children.

What interests me is this:

WHO IS HAVING BABIES?

It is they and their children who are going to shape the future so I'd like to a bit about them.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 3:07:49 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
What a pity I didn't meet more like Nina, in my younger days. I never wanted kids either.

However, despite my wife's tendances to pick up most of the bad things about feminism, avoiding having children was not one of them. In fact, the only way of stopping her cluttering the Whitsunday area with kids, was to move elsewhere. That didn't stop her, either.

I suppose there was one other, but that did not appeal to me, [or her] at the time. Her sister, an avoid feminist once asked her, "why she kept taking seriously, that which was only poked in fun, but she did not see the joke.

However, I do think Nina would be happier, if she did not take herself quite so seriously. She would most probably enjoy life more if she took her self as seriously as I take her.

Still, it must be hard, trying to be a meaningful journalist, when you really don't have anything to say.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 4:26:12 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
and the idiotic media always painted Mr Howard as a man of the 1950's. Serves the voters right for being so naive and ignoring obvious facts. The spitefulness and hatred of John Howard prevented any light being shone upon Mr Rudd.

While Nina makes a good point about women's worth not being measured by how many children she produces it is worth noting that for decades now many feminist have tried their upmost to diminish the importance of mums who take up their responsibility to nuture and raise their own children. These women who sacrifice their own lifestyles are the true heroes of our nation. Instead of dropping babies off to creches and elsewhere they are prepared to follow their instincts in loving and caring for their offspring instead of listening to feminist dogma.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 4:31:19 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
Mr Rudd was likely defending his 'Big Australia' policy to nearly double the population with migrants by 2020. 'Big Australia' has rightly come under fire through the government's lack of a mandate for it and concerns about sustainability and loss of quality of life. Dick Smith had this to say:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/25/2800081.htm

Nina is very welcome not to have children, however there are many couples who do want to have children but are being forced to delay or maybe even forgo children because of the cost of housing. The cost of housing is being forced up by demand with supply and infrastructure always falling behind the record numbers of migrants.

On the other hand there is a lot of prejudice evidencing itself against women who have or want children - they are referred to by the insulting 'breeders'. The connotation of the term is that these women regard breeding as their sole purpose in life - that they are no good for anything else and have no other worthwhile aspirations.
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 7:06:44 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
As the husband of a woman who left having children until it was too late, due to her search for self-actualisation, and who now feels bitter about all that all I can say is that I hope that you continue your journey of self actualisation and don't have children.

If they are not wanted, then they are not wanted.
Posted by Dougthebear, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 9:08:12 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 with Pelican on this one.
Rudd is only interested in ensuring the effective financial future of Australia by increasing the birthrate.

Maybe he would rather naturally increase our population than bring in all those pesky immigrants that have given him so much trouble with the voters?

Nina needn't bother herself with children if she doesn't want them, but many couples do want children and many women do want to stay home and care for their children too.

If past Governments, and the present one, managed our economy more effectively, then maybe more couples could afford to have more babies and one of the pair could afford to stay home with them.
Too late now.
Posted by suzeonline, Thursday, 18 February 2010 2:00:04 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
If Nina Funnell doesn't want children then that should be interpreted that she fully intends to rely on our children supporting her in her later years.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 18 February 2010 6:12:23 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
How do you grow vegetables? Do you throw a few seeds in some scraggy patch of dirt and instruct them of their productive duty? Do you subsequently berate them for their failure and get your produce from a shop?

Cornflower is correct in pointing out that the decision of women to have children might relate to economic factors. It then seems ironic that politicians are encouraging a higher birthrate with their utterances, yet the policy of high immigration and the severe restrictions on land development are encouraging the opposite.

And it is nice to see the aging calamity being questioned. Surely with forty years to find some answers it might be possible to think of actual solutions: More kids and more migrants delays the problem a few years, but then you have an even bigger problem to deal with. A healthier lifestyle and better treatments for chronic diseases could make an aging population a non-issue.
Posted by Fester, Thursday, 18 February 2010 9:48:24 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
Assuming Nina is reporting things accurately, it seems both men offering themselves up as leaders of the nation have managed to prick the thin skins of some of our women folk with their homilies.

With luck it means they are fairly matched in that area, and the competition will instead focus on matters of substance.

Sorry, I was just day-dreaming. Fat chance, I know.
Posted by rstuart, Thursday, 18 February 2010 11:03:29 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
We probably could get the fertility rate up even more, up above replacement level, if we gave people even more encouragement to have children, but why would this be a good idea? As of last June, the ABS puts Australia's fertility rate at just below 2 children per woman. Replacement level is 2.05 or 2.06 for a developed country like Australia. Even a very modest rate of net immigration would keep the population stable with current fertility rates. There is no evidence that there are any economic or other benefits to the average person from further population growth and considerable evidence of environmental damage, growing inequality and restrictions on personal freedom, water shortages, etc., etc.

As Cornflower said, Rudd's Big Australia policy, his lust for more and more people, is driving this, essentially to please the business elite, who want bigger markets and more sales, a cheap, compliant work force, and easy profits from urban real estate. This graph from Club Troppo shows the share of national income going to the top 1% of the population since 1900 in several countries, including Australia. Note that it tends to be larger in the high population growth countries and that the US was most equal when it had essentially zero net immigration (from 1924 to 1965).

http://clubtroppo.com.au/2006/08/24/policy-and-perhaps-culture-matter-for-income-distribution/

Rudd may also pick up votes from the religious fundamentalists, who tend to believe that God wants more human souls, at any cost to human welfare or the environment. He may even share their beliefs.
Posted by Divergence, Thursday, 18 February 2010 11:30:50 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
Replacement level is 2.05 or 2.06 for a developed country like Australia.
Divergence,
I suppose the question we must ask ourselves is, if we don't have children then whose children do we expect to give a hoot about us ? We see some of this happening now. Our pension & social security funds are seriously jeopardised by people who didn't contribute & now we are told by Government to work longer to make up for the shortfall & hopefully fall off the perch before we get to claim anything. Maybe I'm more odd than I think but I can't envisage the next generation worrying too much about us in ten years from now.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 18 February 2010 7:32:12 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


Anyone who has children for political reasons or to care for the aged or to keep Australia populated or to continue the human race has children for the wrong reasons.Children are not tools or solutions or expediencies to problems that exist in countries or economies.

There is only one good reason to have a child and that is because you want to have the closest possible relationship with a child. Those who become parents for any other reason should never become parents and anyone who suggests any other reason for having children including politicians should be called to account.

We should have children for the right reasons or not have them for the right reasons and any economic or social problems should be addressed on their own terms. If we cannot solve our problems without destroying the integrity of parent-child relationships then it does not say much for our capacity as human beings.

Having children only for the right reasons or refraining for the right reasons may well lead to solving some of those social and economic problems but having children as a means to an end other than a loving relationship will only exacerbate those problems.
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 18 February 2010 9:26:35 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
Well said Phanto.

I ensured I had no children when I found that the man I married was abusive and controlling. I knew I could never be free of him if I had children, nor did I want a man like him producing children - well at least not my children.

To be coerced to breed for country, capitalism or consumerism is beyond reprehensible.
Posted by Severin, Friday, 19 February 2010 9:07:05 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
'To be coerced to breed for country, capitalism or consumerism is beyond reprehensible.'

Nobody does. That's the stupidity of the whole debate. I love telling people I'm having another child because I want $5000 baby bonus. People lap that stuff up. They want to believe me. They probably tell their friends they met someone who's having a baby just to go shopping at Harvey Norman.

On the other hand, women have been know to have a baby to trap a man. Couples have been known to have another baby to 'save the relationship'. Lonely single girls with low self esteem have been known to have a baby so someone will always love them. Rich guys have been known to want a son to continue the family fortune and business.

These scenarios are much more realistic then the idea that $5000 would tempt a young woman to go through labour and be pregnant for 9 months and raise a child for 18 years on their own and reduce their appeal to future perspective partners. Much more realistic than someone listening to anything Peter Costello has to say or even Kevin Rudd.

Only a rabid feminist with an axe to grind would make such a proposition that people listen to politicians in this way or be at all worried about such statements.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 19 February 2010 10:39:40 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
Individual,

We are very close to replacement level already with people having the number of children that they want, so that even if we didn't quite get to 2.05 and took in a small number of migrants to keep the population stable, the overwhelming majority of the next generation would be our own children, not the migrants. There is absolutely no reason for Kevin Rudd or anyone else to browbeat women (or men) into thinking that they need to have more children as some kind of civic duty. Further population growth is no longer of any benefit to the vast majority of us and puts extra pressure on the environment and resources. Back in 1994, the Australian Academy of Sciences recommended stabilisation at 23 million, and they haven't updated that figure since.

If you are saying that we need population growth, not just stabilisation, specifically to look after the old people, then you are really calling for a Ponzi scheme. What happens when that large generation of children or those extra migrants grow old themselves and also need pensions and health care? Do we have still more population growth to the point of collapse? European countries with little or no population growth are somehow managing to provide their old people with retirement incomes and basic health care.
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 19 February 2010 3:32:07 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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