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 > Did you want children with that? > Comments

Did you want children with that? : Comments

By Tracy Crisp, published 31/1/2005

Tracey Crisp argues that Julia Gillard was damned for not having children, and she would have been damned if she did.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Timkins, in response to your second remark to me, and I do not see what I said to provoke it -
The father of my 3 children was a student when we met, I worked an office job in the day and waitressed at night to support us both, and when we bought our first home 1974 in Brighton Vic., I provided the entire deposit myself. I have never viewed men as 'paypackets'as my ex-husband has never actually received a salary, being a professional musician.
Posted by Brownie, Sunday, 6 February 2005 1:30:33 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
Brownie,
I don’t want to get into an argument, but you will notice that the author of the article never mentions fathers at all in her article. Only "herself" as a mother or a parent, and this is typical of most articles that are written to a certain recipe or formula. The author obviously regards fathers as being irrelevant.

In your post you seem to regard single teenage mothers as being a necessity. They are a significant % of mothers in our society, although I don’t believe that teenage single mothers are a necessity to increase the birth rate
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 6 February 2005 2:21:46 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
WOMENS WORK and MENS WORK
Well that is as much of a myth as people want to make it. Its just a plain reality of how u run a footy team or a marraige. You use your gifts and abilities to cope as best you can with the environment u are surrounded by. When u all go camping (if anyone does) and there is a tent to pictch and fire wood to get and clearing around the selected area, and food to setup etc, it make simple common sense to divide such work according to relative strength. There is nothing wrong culturally with the concept of Male/female roles. They should be as equitable as possible thats all. Last time I checked, when 2 people try to do the same task, it doesn't go down that well. So, why not have agreed boundaries. Washing, She can sort and throw them in the machine, he can hang them up. She or He can cook, the other can washup or.. why not do it together. Or basically however you want to divide it.
I did hear on ABC of a some research which declared the vast majority of women would PREFER to be at home and avoid the stress of trying to manage work AND young kids, and if there is no desperate financial need which would dictate otherwise, why can she not use that time to enhance her own education, explore home based business etc etc.. which generally would be much more fulfilling than working for some boss. c'mon u mob.Oh.. and if anyone things I'm talking like an idiot, its because all I've said is based on Biblical principles. Did it sound like it up to the point where I actually said that ? :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 6 February 2005 3:20:28 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
Boaz.
I too have seen a number of studies that indicate that the majority of women prefer not to work in the work place much at all. I’ve also read of studies showing the avg housewife in the US, spends 5 hrs per day watching TV. Obviously taking a break from their oppressive housework.

However these types of issues don’t get heard about much. Maybe “certain” people don’t want to talk about them, like abortion or IVF.

Maybe Tracey Crisp could give some comments on how she sees the division of work between a father and a mother (without relying on some type of biased social science research).

She didn’t mention fathers in her article, only talked about herself. Maybe she doesn’t think fathers are all that important
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 6 February 2005 4:36:19 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
trade215,

A birth certificate purports to certify the birth of a child and names its mother and father. It is not an adoption document as such. I would just like to see it do the job it was designed to do, by using the available technology of the time, without being overly concerned about some sinister, futuristic, conspiracy theory.

Children have the right to an accurate record of their birth. Fathers also deserve to know. Too often, fathers only begin to suspect something is wrong at the time of marriage break up. If new information only comes to light at that time (not too strange, for it is often the cause), and they wish to contest paternity, the courts will most often say – tough luck – you are only doing this now because of the break up. The father is deemed to have been aware and has adopted the child. How wrong is that?

I agree with you that the state could legislate to report on the DNA results, then discard all records. Personally, I would rather the state had my full DNA records and that of my children, if that was the only way to ensure the above scenario does not happen. I, along with most men, would find it impossible to voluntarily request a DNA test be done at the birth of my children. Especially, if I thought we were happily married, and had no reason to suspect infidelity.

But then, we’re only talking about fatherhood here, and perhaps as you say, there are interests in keeping the status quo. For me, that alone, would be more concerning then government storing DNA records.
Posted by Seeker, Monday, 7 February 2005 1:15:05 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
Tim... ^5 yes.. absoloutely.

Seeker.. the much bigger problem here in my humble opinion is that a child is a human being who needs a strong sense of identity.
I may have many failings, but one think I sense in my heart of hearts beyond most others, is that a child needs a balanced identity of mum and dad. The thought of a child coming into this world without that just to satisfy some craving by people for 'THEIR' fulfillment, boggles the mind. The thought which enters my mind rather forcefully is that when said child grows up and has been also craving that full sense of identity, and sense of ultimate belonging, and finds out that they were brought into this world for selfish reasons, and the biological dad or mum has been 'structurally' denied them.. makes me think of a few horror movie themes.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 7 February 2005 7:30:29 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. All

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