The Forum > Article Comments > The vilification of fatherhood > Comments
The vilification of fatherhood : Comments
By Warwick Marsh, published 29/1/2010What exactly did Tony Abbott, father of three beautiful teenage girls, say to get him into so much trouble?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 7
- 8
- 9
-
- All
Posted by BBoy, Friday, 29 January 2010 10:17:53 AM
| |
Suffices to say I find it difficult to accept moralising on sex before marriage from a man who got a girl pregnant and then dumped her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott#Early_life_and_family Posted by rstuart, Friday, 29 January 2010 10:31:14 AM
| |
"What exactly did Tony Abbott, father of three beautiful teenage girls, say to get him into so much trouble?"
Tony Abbott, like any of us are entitled to his opinions about all things. I think the comments he made that caused the most flak was the idea that a girl's virginity was a "gift" to a male and should be perceived as precious (for him). The idea that virginity was still viewed under some sort of paternalistic ownership of a woman's virtue. We were discussing this at work today and it was the men who spoke up most against Tony Abbott's comments. Personally, Tony Abbott can think what he likes, it is a free country. His daughters will make up their own minds regardless of dad's personal opinions. I am not sure how or why Marsh has turned this debate into a discussion about villification of fatherhood just because someone disagreed with Abbott - they are free to do so. For me, Abbott's comments were a personal opinion, nothing to do with fatherhood in the broader sense. Strangely when reading this article all about "villification of fathers" the only villification I could detect was towards single mothers or single mothers living with or re-married to another man who was not the biological father. I agree with the statistics in regards to non-biological fathers and sexual abuse of children, however, one thing seems forgotten. There is a strong implication, unless I am misreading it, that somehow women or mothers are to blame. This is regardless if the biological father was the one to take off and abandon their families. Where is the discourse about the lack of responsibility of those fathers who have run off and don't seem to give a toss about their kids? Or the praise for step-fathers who have taken on the financial and emotional burden of raising another deadbeat man's kids. What about those fathers? Biology does not necessarily define goodness or suitability for parenthood for either gender. Posted by pelican, Friday, 29 January 2010 5:20:34 PM
| |
Tony Abbot as a father certainly has more rights as a father to speak to his daughters about morality that the godless secularist who want to impose their amoral views that lead to cheap nasty sex, bitterness, divorce, suicide and many other nasty things.How quickly the feminist who claim no absolutes are quick to demonize a man for being a decent father. They fail to see their own hypocrisy claiming they are absolutely within their rights to spew their venom. At least Mr Abbot is man enough to admit his mistakes unlike many who gloat over their sexual trophies and pass on their immoral ways to a lost generation.
Posted by runner, Friday, 29 January 2010 6:28:10 PM
| |
What Abbott said had nothing to do with fatherhood.
Would you publicly embarrass or use your children's personal decisions as a political marketing tool. Suppose, one of his daughters has already slipped the light fandango made a mistake. What sort of pressure is she now under? And the boyfriend , money in the bank and who suffers? The Mad Monk? no the teen aged girl. One can only imagine some of the probable comments they may get. He is entitled to his private views but in private. As I said elsewhere, his probable motivations are limited. I choose to think, after all those years in parliament a rush of blood an unguarded moment, isn't credible. I favour ambitious political grandstanding at the expense of his family and ask either way is this Possible PM quality hmmmm. You decide. Posted by examinator, Friday, 29 January 2010 7:00:56 PM
| |
What mother wouldn't also advise her adolescents and teens to be cautious about those who might take advantage of their innocence, vulnerability and trust? Would the advice of mothers or that given in women's magazines always pass the political correctness test of feminists?
Of course young women should have their first (and every other) lovemaking with someone who cares for them and will not betray them. Caring, responsible parents also wish the same for their sons. It is a joke that Tony Abbott's critics are accusing him of sexual politics, when that is precisely what they themselves are up to in their personal attacks. It is reprehensible that in their eyes there is no forgiveness for Abbott's mistake as a student, notwithstanding his repentance and will to do better himself and have better for his children. The Victorian Labor state government is admonishing its electorate and youth about showing respect and has even appointed a Minister for Respect. Meanwhile at the federal level Ms Gillard, the star woman of the Labor Party and Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, is vilifying an opponent and disrespecting him for showing fatherly concern. They can get away with hypocrisy where commentators are partisan and play to the peanut gallery. The media should be upbraiding Ms Gillard for hypocrisy and opportunism, but in the case of tabloids like The Australian where daily circulation is the first priority, that is not very likely. Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 29 January 2010 8:26:53 PM
| |
Great article Warwick. And look at the comments... nobody can actually criticise 'what' you actually say, they criticise how and why.
You write well-researched truth, well. I wasn't aware of some of the research showing how much girls who miss out on their natural fathers suffer and are sexualised by the hormonal effects of not having their natural fathers in their childhoods... If you google "University of Arizona, ellis, premature puberty" you can download more studies that show that girls who grow up without their natural fathers (and ESPECIALLY those who live with another man who is NOT their natural father) suffer from premature puberty (18 months early, often during primary school age 12 - imagine primary school girls getting pregnant!) and are 5-8 time more likely to become mothers as teenagers (After controlling for race and socio-economic status Posted by partTimeParent, Friday, 29 January 2010 10:17:44 PM
| |
Always a pleasure to read the total anti-feminine sentiments spitefully spewing forth from the pen of this author.
I have read the Women's Weekly article about Saint Abbott and his holy views. I was annoyed to say the least. I don't really have a problem suggesting that young girls should wait as long as possible before attempting their first sexual experience. It certainly doesn't have to wait for marriage though. That is asking them to go back to the dark ages indeed. However, I would also expect this advice to be given to young men too. Again, like many Catholic men, Tony Abbott has one standard for women, and another for men. Didn't he have a pregnancy scare with a former girlfriend? I assume he wasn't married to her? What a hypocritical man he is. God help us all if his political career goes any further. Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 29 January 2010 10:25:18 PM
| |
Runner,
"cheap nasty sex, bitterness, divorce, suicide and many other nasty things" Have always existed, even and particularly in societies ruled by nominally "moral" theocracies. Maybe disproportionate punishment meted out by hypocritical judges is the reason for abortion in times of yore. Maybe suicide was and is considered better than facing a bigoted bible-bashing father, maybe divorce really would be better than living with you. The means of avoiding pregnancy are simply that, means, and all religions and athiests are able to adopt such means without recourse to your particular johnny-come-lately version of religion. Obviously you, runner, wouldn't bother to not kill or steal if it wasn't in your bible. Some of us are just made of better stuff to begin with. Rusty Posted by Rusty Catheter, Friday, 29 January 2010 10:29:05 PM
| |
How our society has fallen.
Fatherhood is most definitely under attack when feminists would have us believe that a father not only has no right, but should be vilified for expressing his love and protective concern for the sexual choices of his daughters. If a mother made the same comments, this wouldn't have been an issue. Nothing more needs to be said to expose the chauvinism and hypocrisy of those who would attack a loving and caring parent for being protective of his children. Indeed, they take great pleasure in attempting to level the same attack on Warwick Marsh, for daring to defend Tony Abbott's right as a parent to hold such an opinion. His article, exposes the truth about the importance of having biological fathers actively involved in the raising of children and the negative consequences on children by their absence. The point being made is that children, including daughters, achieve much better outcomes in life by having fathers such as Tony Abbott holding such opinions and expressing them in the best interests of their children. Sadly, we now live in a society where such parenting is vilified. Fathers are no longer the irreplaceable foundations of our families, who provide and protect, but optional extras, whose welcome runs out as soon as they dare to hold an opinion contrary to the latest ill-conceived feminist insight. Sadly though, there will be those who will hold fast to these ill-conceived insights. The traditional protectors of our children will be further ostracised and vilified, and as we descend further into a "Lord of the Flies" type society of narcissism and self-indulgence, ultimately it will be our children who will suffer the most. How our society has fallen. Posted by Brett Kessner, Friday, 29 January 2010 10:36:16 PM
| |
I don't believe that fatherhood in general has been vilified by anyone, least of all, mothers. Fatherhood after a breakdown in marital or defacto relationships has been dealt some blows though.
Gone are the days when women and children were considered to be the 'possessions' of their menfolk. Women can now provide for and protect their children with or without men. This does not mean that men are not necessary or wanted by most women. They should now be considered equal partners in all aspects of caring for their children and spouses. When marriages or defacto relationships break down, and there are children involved, the needs of the children must come before the 'rights' of the parents. It is bad enough that the children must endure a breakdown in their parents relationships, but to also be wrenched from place to place just to suit the needs of their parents is a tragedy. The latest new data from the nation's family courts, as reported by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (in todays newspapers) suggests the 'shared parental responsibility' in child custody cases has caused more problems than ever for children of broken relationships. Some parents have taken this 2006 change in law too literally and have demanded 50/50 custody of the children, no matter how the children felt, or what was best for the children. Many warring parents forget about the needs of their children in their mad rush to demand their 'rights' as a parent. How sad for the children. Posted by suzeonline, Saturday, 30 January 2010 12:39:47 AM
| |
I agree with BBoy. I would like to think that a boy's virginity is as valued as a girl's. I would like to think that all people have more 'gifts' to take into a relationship with a loved one than sexual innocence (or inexperience, depending on one's personal morals and perspective) - like a good heart; personality; mind; generous spirit and any number of other personal attributes.
Interesting how an issue that echos centuries of valuing women for the condition of their hymen has somehow been co-opted into a portrayal of fathers/men as victims. "Men aren't allowed anymore to tell girls what they're worth! Wahhhhhh sob!" pffft. Posted by Pynchme, Saturday, 30 January 2010 2:25:17 AM
| |
Suzeonline:"Fatherhood after a breakdown in marital or defacto relationships has been dealt some blows though."
And you regard this as a Good thing? Suzeonline:" The latest new data from the nation's family courts, as reported by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (in todays newspapers) suggests the 'shared parental responsibility' in child custody cases has caused more problems than ever for children of broken relationships." No, it doesn't. It suggests that some lawyers are upset that their easy "nuclear option" of claiming that Dad is violent or abusive has been taken away because if they advise their client to make the allegation, she can be hald liable for costs if she cannot substantate it. Needless to say, this is not popular with the ambulance-chasing Family Court lawyers... In that report and in the Chisholm report there is much mention of violence, but not a single reference to any research into the actual rates of violence experienced since the Howard Family Law reforms as compared to before. How can recommendations be made in the absence of any evidence at all? The only reference to rates is a claim that 5% of shared care arrangements have a context of violence. remember that violence may include a mutual argument and it becomes obvious there is no genuine problem. Chisholm suggests some minor changes to make the law's intent clearer but specifically recommends that the status quo remain and that lawyers and other parties to the Court should be better educated as to their role and the significance of violence allegations. I've read both and the message being put in the media by the usual self-serving twits like Barbara Biggs and her ventriloquist's dummy, Adele Horin, is not a reflection of any of the content in the reports. Suzeonline:"Many warring parents forget about the needs of their children in their mad rush to demand their 'rights' as a parent." You're absolutely right. Mothers have been keeping their children from having decent relationships with their fathers for years. Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 30 January 2010 8:34:42 AM
| |
Of course, this obsession by fathers about their daughters' sexual purity is much the same motivation as we see in the appalling phenomenon of 'honour killings' of women and girls by male relatives in the patriarchal cultures that emanate from the Mediterranean region.
It's not a religious phenomenon - supposedly 'Christian' men kill their daughters and sisters for exactly the same reasons that Muslims do - and it's all an extension of the patriarchal idea that women and girls are the property of men. Under such ideologies, a girl's virginity is a 'gift' given by her father to another man. That's why Abbott's comments in 'Women's Weekly' were controversial. It has nothing to do with vilifying fatherhood, regardless of Warwick Marsh's bleating. Quite sensibly, women rather like the fact that they are no longer regarded as some man's chattel in our society. Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 30 January 2010 8:50:43 AM
| |
Well articulated CJ.
Further along into this discussion, no-one has provided any logical reasoning as to why responses to Tony Abbott's comments villify fatherhood in any way. Questions for the men: Do you agree with Tony Abbott that girls should retain their virginity for their husbands? If so, why? Do you think the same should apply to boys? If not or if so,why? Can you explain why this subject has anything to do with fatherhood or good/bad parenting? Is this a personal decision for the individual and no-one else's business? This article is nothing to do with fatherhood at all, but another excuse to villify women no matter the reasons why they might find themselves forced into single parenthood. Why do we slap men on the back and praise them when they are left to fend on their own (abandoned by a deadbeat woman) to raise their own kids, but somehow the reverse does not apply. I must admit I am a bit old fashioned myself and I like femininity and I like masculinity and gentlemanly/ladylike behaviour but I find this really a highly ungentlemanly hyprocrisy. Women and men in these single parent situations need our support not our censure and self-righteous bleatings. Posted by pelican, Saturday, 30 January 2010 10:14:52 AM
| |
I follow the flight of Pelican's comments.
They are very pertinent. And yes, they include a great conclusion about women and men - Long live the difference; what a lousy world it would be without that. Blind subservience of one gender to the other is something civilised society has been striving to divorce itself from (and slowly succeeding) since before women got the vote in New Zealand. I give no support for politicians with a penchant for a return to those early days. Posted by colinsett, Saturday, 30 January 2010 12:48:43 PM
| |
the usual spew by those who have failed to honour their word in marriage or any vows. They then decide that decency is outdated.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 30 January 2010 1:31:10 PM
| |
Pelican,CJ
I find your faith in peoples motives (particularly Politicians) perplexing. Sure MM has the right to his views but as I said put "his" girls under such predictable pressure and embarrassment by publicly involving them? Given his years in parliament and Obvious ambition I don't think his actions have anything to do with fatherhood. I found the article's focus on Tony Abbott's preaching an excuse to have a rave. On the basis of what author said surely it all boils down to horses for courses. I think it's a long bow to draw with Abbott's as a potential PM's methods i.e. public lectures that pressures, impinge on his girl's rights and others who don't agree with his views. I see the MM Freudian (hubris) slip as more a miner's canary incident. If he's like that now, in power? Core and Non core promises, and lifetime stance (ala Howard and IR)? Where is his line going to be between mandate and HIS paternalistic "I know best" ? His personal fatherly inclination are none of my business unless they potential impinge on my and others freedoms hence my focus not to moralize on his moral stance per se. Posted by examinator, Saturday, 30 January 2010 1:35:50 PM
| |
Well, I must admit the lefties, greenies, woman's libbers, & the ratbags are all much better at grabbing a non event, & blowing it up out of all proportion to it's importance, than the right, libs & religious.
Does Gillard ever do anything else, apart from upsetting the teachers, a mob who do need it more than most, in my none too humble opinion. Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 30 January 2010 2:16:59 PM
| |
I am glad I am too old for all that s%&t.
I would not risk my sanity and financial future on any sort of relationship these days let alone children. Any young person who gets into a long term relationship, especially one where kids are produced is asking for trouble and would be best advised to steer well clear of it. Oh hang on... They are arent they! Living at home till they are middle aged almost, social sex and non-commitment are rife, it takes a $5k bribe to even get the poor to procreate. Reaping what was sown maybe. Posted by mikk, Saturday, 30 January 2010 3:59:21 PM
| |
The problem with this author is that he is not so much concerned about the welfare of young women as he is about promoting his own religious fundamentalism. He has shown before that he is quite prepared to twist any issue to that end.
He presents pre-marital sex, co-habitation, pre-nuptial birth and the dissolution of a marriage as all being absolute negative experiences for all women. He ties this in with a totally irrelevant issue about absent fathers. Maybe studies do show a link between fatherless girls and those experiences but they are only relevant if you think it is a negative effect. Where else would you get a blanket condemnation of such experiences except from a religious fundamentalist? Many women have had some or all of those experiences and it has had little or no negative consequences for them. Many have become much better people for those experiences. If we are concerned about the welfare of young women then the most important thing is to protect their freedom to make their own choices. Religious fundamentalism cannot allow women this freedom and seeks to dictate how they should feel in response to those events in their life. For fundamentalism to flourish it needs to make people feel guilty whenever they follow their own natural responses to experience. This guilt is instilled by parents like Warwick Marsh and maybe Tony Abbott when their children are young and they have power over them. They are not good fathers because they are trying to protect their own dependence on religion rather than protect the fundamental value of freedom for their daughters. They have a right to their opinions and they have the right to father in their own way but let’s not call them loving parents based on this evidence. Sexual and marital experiences are not of themselves either positive or negative. The same cannot be said of the deprivation of freedom of choice in childhood or young adulthood. Perhaps a study should be done on the damage caused by present but over-bearing fathers who would deny freedom of choice. Posted by phanto, Saturday, 30 January 2010 6:20:06 PM
| |
Because of their dad's comments, the Abbott girls have become a target for every smooth-talking sleaze in their neighbourhood.
Posted by benk, Saturday, 30 January 2010 9:28:17 PM
| |
Well, as a father of two beautiful, bright young girls (shall I say women, considering that one is 26 and the other 22 yo), I find this article and Mr. Abbott's remarks a bit unfortunate and offensive, to say the least.
It is entirely up to the girls to decide where, when, how, etc., they have a sexual relationship, and with whom, as it was up to me to decide the same matters some 28 years ago, before I met their mother. What is good for the males should be good for the females too, right? I don't see the author or Mr. Abbott advising young men to be careful and thoughtful how they do it the first time, or it this something to do with their religious beliefs? Bunch(duet) of hypocrites... Posted by stan_nesta, Saturday, 30 January 2010 10:19:18 PM
| |
Firstly I am a mother & I agree with what Tony Abbott says!! To those saying why doesn't he say something about males in a relationship- well, he only has daughters & was stating his desire for his girls - not a national statement!!
I say it is actually refreshing to hear a Dad being protective of his daughters & only wanting the best for them without negative consequences [ which is what sexual diseases are for the promiscuous!!Tony seems very respectful of his wife & girls & as they all posed for photos & were very supportive of their father I don't think anything he said would have embarrassed them [ he has said a lot worse in the past & has admitted to being wrong sometimes!!] I also want to thank Warwick Marsh for his article & keeping us abreast of what is actually happening in the real world regarding parents !! I have seen within my family the hardship put on fathers who separate - an emotional & monetary cost even when the mother has a new relationship & job!!No wonder so many fathers have suicided when they can't keep up the payments- its too one sided!! Its not about Mothers against Fathers- it should be a mutual effort which is what the "shared Parent responsibility "is about. Yes sometimes one of the parents is the abuser- but its not always the Father - the Mother can be as well !! However in most cases it should be shared parenting. I have seen this working really well with a number of people I know & the children adapted to this really well as they saw both parents equally !! Posted by Ausjude, Sunday, 31 January 2010 9:35:52 AM
| |
Hasbeen,
Which one is you then? you seem to do a lot of that. Some of you BBQ comments are far from thought through and trivial. Posted by examinator, Sunday, 31 January 2010 1:59:33 PM
| |
stan_nesta, "It is entirely up to the girls to decide where, when, how, etc., they have a sexual relationship, and with whom, as it was up to me to decide the same matters some 28 years ago, before I met their mother."
So you are in favour of laisse faire casualness with no boundaries at all and at any age?! How 'progressive' (sic) of you! What absolute bollocks and reason enough for any parent to doubt your storytelling. Of course children need advice, guidance and firm boundaries. To do otherwise is to guarantee problems for them and yourself. Accepting that your children exist, they must been fortunate enough to found a better role model than you. Posted by Cornflower, Sunday, 31 January 2010 8:09:07 PM
| |
Clearly loving caring fathers everywhere want their daughters' first sexual encounter to be a wonderful and loving event.
Waiting till the first night before exploring her sexuality, a doting dad may be sure that his daughter will experience a night something like this devout couple from Charleston, South Carolina. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39100 <<<< John and Linda McCue, joined in holy matrimony Sunday before friends, family and their Lord at Holy Christ Almighty Lutheran Church, said the incredibly awkward wedding-night consummation of their love was "well worth the wait." "I'm so glad we waited until we got married—it made it so much more special," said the 26-year-old Linda, who is "pretty sure" John's penis penetrated her vaginal opening during the brief, fumbling lovemaking session. "I can't imagine what a letdown our first sexual experience would have been if we'd done it at some point during our five years of dating."..... ..."As with millions of young newlyweds who haven't yet had sex," John said, "there was some nervousness and confusion at first. But after a couple of minutes, we figured out that it would be easier if Linda separated her legs to facilitate entry." ... ..."Toward the end," she said, "I was almost relaxed enough to enjoy myself, and then, of course, John ejaculated." Linda declined to elaborate on her new husband's sexual climax, but said, "I can definitely say that the encounter, which yesterday would have been an unforgivable sin in the eyes of God, was noticeably pleasurable, and probably even somewhat erotic in nature." >>>> A blissful event - every dad would be proud. Posted by Severin, Sunday, 31 January 2010 8:25:49 PM
| |
Severin
Onion beat-up a salacious story to give its adolescent voyeurs some jollies and the trash is dutifully spread to other sites. So what else is new? It is really a waste of time asking, but where did the 'story' mention their respective fathers? Garbage in, garbage out. Posted by Cornflower, Sunday, 31 January 2010 9:10:44 PM
| |
Runner sez: "the usual spew by those who have failed to honour their word in marriage or any vows. They then decide that decency is outdated"
I believe monty python has said all that need be said about virgin birth (Life of Brian, since you don't read outside the church). What is your excuse? (besides ignorance, lack of education and a reprehensible lack of respect for the knowledgeably investigated and genuinely held beliefs of others) Rusty Posted by Rusty Catheter, Sunday, 31 January 2010 9:13:49 PM
| |
Cornflower
Satire not your strong suit? A cryin' shame. Thinking things through isn't exactly a strength of Abbott or Marsh either. Posted by Severin, Sunday, 31 January 2010 9:16:11 PM
| |
Your views are exactly the same as mine regarding Tony Abbott's comments Suzie and I have noticed on quite a few other subjects. You are a highly intelligent individual WITH people and life experience as you possess also a great deal of common sense.
I was about to key in the same points you have raised and I thank you as I do not need to repeat! Enjoy your week. Posted by we are unique, Sunday, 31 January 2010 11:33:40 PM
| |
Warwick Marsh publishes a regular newsletter, via his Fatherhood Foundation website. Anyone who’s interested can sign up for it here: http://www.fatherhood.org.au/newsletter.html
However you should know that every time Warwick writes a piece for OLO, he’ll be begging you to come here and write in his support. The current newsletter contains this: > Yours Truly has got himself into hot water again. The above article has > been posted in Omline Opinion. www.onlineopinion.com.au [link provided to OLO main page] I > need a few friendly comments amid the accusations of my usual detractors. If the comments here are any indication, the strategy isn’t working. In a previous discussion http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9402 at least seventeen loyal followers sallied forth under Warwick’s flag. This time I can see only two. Of course Warwick is entitled to invite people to join in here, but I do object to his underlying assumption that being right is a numbers game – if only he can gather enough yes men, then he’ll be right. The fact is that ideas have to stand on their own merit, and Warwick clearly thinks that his don’t. Posted by woulfe, Monday, 1 February 2010 7:33:35 AM
| |
woulffe:"if only he can gather enough yes men, then he’ll be right. "
It's worked for feminist activism, why not for Warwick? Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 1 February 2010 8:00:29 AM
| |
Wow! what a lot of negative comments to an article sticking up for good. This is my first time using this forum and it took a lot of effort. I see Tony Abbott and Warwick Marsh as being open and honest. How many of you would be so open about your life? "Whoever is without fault cast the first stone." We live at a time in history where much good is called evil and much evil is called good; as is predicted. Tony Abbott has every right to say what is best for his children and of course this advice would be for his sons if he had any as well. He has learnt from his own life experiences as well as other places. As no doubt your and my opinions are from our life experiences as well. Warwick Marsh and the fatherhood foundation is about promoting the best for children i.e both a mother and a father. We probably all know of good and bad examples from shared and single parenting and he has every right to comment on the recent articles criticising Tony Abbott's parenting.
My own pre marriage experiences affected my marriage by my not being able to give my whole heart to my husband because I had given it to another until after wonderful counsel it was made know to me that it was a problem and I could apologise and rectify the situation. Let's look for the good in people! JennyM Posted by JennyM, Monday, 1 February 2010 12:11:41 PM
| |
The issue is not support but validity. You can always muster support for any cause - Hitler managed it all too well. The continuing posts and articles which do nothing more than villify women always manage to attract the usual cast of characters, even if it is spun and dressed up as villification of fatherhood.
Not a lot of self-awareness out there. Posted by pelican, Monday, 1 February 2010 4:28:22 PM
| |
This smacks of wimp histeria to me. What is the big deal?
We work so hard to tear down anything that says there is a right way, or a better way. We tear down the very things that try and build a stronger society. The "whatever feels good for you is OK" ethic system doesn't work. And we know it. I'm glad to see someone saying something different. Abbott using his kids for political mileage?? Give it a break. He's a politicianbeing asked questions. If he said different you'd call him 'wimp' or 'hypocrite'. And by the way, it isn't hypocrital to advise someone against something you DID but am NO LONGER doing. Think it through. A hypocrite is STILL doing it! Some one who knows they blew it and stays silent is the perhaps the worst of failures. This is my first ever post ... anywhere ... Like many, I've been too busy trying to be a husband, pay the bills and raise kids right. There are lots who would agree who don't even have time to read articles like this, let alone respond. Truth is, most of them are too busy doing things of significance with their lives. They are living their lives to help others, not ignoring others welfare in order to defend their pleasures. In all seriousness, if you can't stand the existence of a challenge to your morals .. you need some serious spine development. Society is a mess! It isn't working! If you're feel-good-yet-justify-myself world means you can't see it, then I say bring on more like Abbott and Marsh. The passionate denials and rebutttals screams to the validity of their point. I think thee defends too loudly! The statistics are clear, evidence is all around. We are self-destructing. The definition of foolishness is to keep doing things the same way yet expect a different result. Or does it feel sooooooooooo good that you want this carnage to continue?!? Posted by Spock, Monday, 1 February 2010 10:31:46 PM
| |
Cornflower: your writing skills, terms, language and thought processes seem identical to that of Leigh's. You judged poor Stan on his parenting skills and boundaries set for his adult daughters LOL! Stan stated his daughters are 26yrs and 22yrs respectively. Why on earth would a father be questioning or setting boundaries for two adult daughters? Read peoples' postings very carefully prior to judging them. Stan in all probability, like many fathers, has really 'been there' for his daughters and/or is currently. I agree with you Stan; after morals and values are instilled into teenagers, support and guidance given through their teenage years; it is then their decision either way.
Or there may be many "young people" in Australia with a big problem. "Oh no Mum and Dad, once on our honeymoon, Richard and I attempted to consummate our marriage, and GUESS WHAT? Richard's p...s did not fit. He is way too large for me Dad! And it was you Dad [and Mum] who advised us 'to wait'. Dad looked down at the floor, scratching his head, Mum looked away with a sad expression on her face. Daughter with tears in her eyes asked "Whom intends paying for poor Richard's medical costs for his operation"? Posted by we are unique, Monday, 1 February 2010 10:40:48 PM
| |
woulfe: Thank you for that information and for the link. I was preoccupied elsewhere back then and didn't see that thread. Interesting reading, and sad.
The thing that made me cringe most was that I'm a Christian myself and yet I don't want to associate with the kinds of people who would write many of the things I saw there. Nevermind. We're supposed to know them by their froots. Posted by Pynchme, Tuesday, 2 February 2010 1:03:55 AM
| |
Spock
I understand your concerns about where we are heading on some fronts but let's not replace the current self-interested mess with another dressed up in different clothing. There is absolutely nothing wrong in Abbott voicing his opinions. They are just that - his opinions. We are all adult enough to form our own conclusions. If you put your opinions out in the public arena expect some reaction. There are some great things about the good old days but there are some things that are better now. We have to acknowledge what is better and what is not, but not throw the baby out with the bath water. The Christians I know are not advocating for women to become 'gifts' to men but individuals in their own right in loving, caring and mutually respecting relationships. If a woman or man finds themselves left as a single parent what does Warwick and his ilk believe we should do with them. A Chrisitian or humanist would seek to assist them not villify them, in my faded book anyway. Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 2 February 2010 8:03:06 AM
| |
First thing is to say "Shame, shame, shame" too all of you for reading the Women's Monthly, it's correct name.
Then, the author wants to know what's wrong with Abbott saying whatever he did say. Give us a break pal! If Abbott said it, it's offensive, Howard's opinion by proxy and always, yes always, saiod for no reason at all. No thought involved. These are his real opinions you see. As told to him by Howard during all those years of cringing at his feet. He's still doing it and is now speaking for him. That's what is offensive. Forget the hypocrisy of him doing the opposite of what he espouses. Forget his claiming a child that wasn't his, thus revealing a girlfriend, out of wedlock, was two timing him. Loser Abbott. Posted by RobbyH, Tuesday, 2 February 2010 4:00:33 PM
| |
Spok "Society is a mess! It isn't working" - compared to what?
There is plenty of room for improvement and some things which appear to have gotten worse but your claim is at a different level. If you are comparing to an idealised version of society then it's going to always be a mess and not working. If you are yearning for the imagined history of the past when people kept their shame out of sight then you have to ignore a lot that we have learned about our past to imagine that things are overall worse. If you are looking to an imagined society where some religion's moral codes are genuinely held by most and enforced on the rest then you have to ignore much about how followers of religion tend to treat the teachings of their own faiths when out of sight. We can do better but we have also done much worse. R0bert Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 2 February 2010 9:38:42 PM
| |
we are unique,
You silly little sausage, your attention span and comprehension are woeful. Stan was contrasting the way be raised his girls with that of Mr Abbott. Stan is so libertarian (he thinks) because he gave no advice and Abbott is supposed to be an interfering curmudgeon because he did. You don't really believe that Mr Abbott or Stan would be giving grown women of 26 and 22yrs sex advice do you? Think about it child, you are mind reading and speculating about how Stan might have raised his daughters when he has already told you. we are unique, "I agree with you Stan; after morals and values are instilled into teenagers, support and guidance given through their teenage years; it is then their decision either way." Where did Stan ever refer to "instilling morals and values into teenagers (etc)"? He didn't say any of that, did he and you made it all up. These words and sentiments are unique to you (pun intended). Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 2 February 2010 10:58:49 PM
| |
Thanks RobbyH. Reasoned and reasonable. Reaction goes with public life, and many things are better. We should not throw out the baby with the bath water.
So lets not throw out love and counsel demonstrated by a man for his daughters because of word interpretation. Do you really think he meant that his daughters should be packaged “gifts” to men? If there was ever a time when women have been a pre-packaged “gift” for men it is now!! Our culture tells little girls (and I mean little) that they need to look sexy because that is where their value is. Our culture tells sons you are a man when you can handle your piss and get laid. The gift is not an “unblemished and holy vagina”. The gift is commitment to love-making rather than erotic appeal. It is a gift of character and commitment to wisdom, choosing counsel of time honoured wisdom against the wisdom of the age (slickly packaged and easily sold) . This gift speaks of character, stability and commitment! Even laying “religious” or faith based motivations aside; exercising restraint is deciding that a relationship with good boundaries improves the relationship, and when they do make love (rather than have merely have sex) they are building on foundations of respect and friendship. A man and woman who can’t or don’t want to “wait” will spend the rest of their lives knowing they didn't want to or couldn’t then, so where is their reason for trust now. Those who build on sexual appeal will find it later lags as the rest of us sags. There must be more. The “gift” is wisdom not mere restraint. The “gift” is demonstrating respect and value for self and partner, knowing that what might “feel right” may not be right for the relationship. A gift freely given with thought and effort does not devalue the giver but enhances them, and the incredible value the giver places on the person they are giving to is clearly demonstrated. Who wouldn’t want a gift like that? Posted by Spock, Wednesday, 3 February 2010 6:09:57 AM
| |
Spok "will spend the rest of their lives knowing they didn't want to or couldn’t then, so where is their reason for trust now"
The reason for trust is in the character of the people involved in a relationsip and in the health of that relationship rather than in choices made while they were not part of that relationship. If I've understood your comment correctly it appears to be a suggestion that those who have made the choice to have sexual activity prior to entering a specific relationship are somehow less trustworthy than those who made a different choice. Not a particularly credible view if that is what you are suggesting. R0bert Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 3 February 2010 6:54:30 AM
| |
Cornflower,
Don't try to put words in someone else's mouth. If you can not understand something just ask or keep your mouth shut, it will be better for everyone here. Reading all your musings on this forum and attacking people that you do not know convinces me that you are not very bright, so I'll simply ignore you from now on. Stan Posted by stan_nesta, Wednesday, 3 February 2010 2:10:30 PM
| |
Hi Robert (and all)
I believe you are right in suggesting the reason for trust lies in character and health of relationship, and that choices made prior to a current relationship shouldn’t impact TOO much on trust levels within a current one. I agree. Trust is a choice that has an “amount” measure in it. We trust some more than others. It is foolishness to do otherwise. Everyone has been untrustworthy and everyone has been abused. We are more trustworthy in some areas than others. The reality of being human challenges me to honestly love someone even with their untrustworthyness. Visit an AA or similar meeting and you will find open admonition and confirmation of untrustworthyness by people who love each other. They essentially say “I am not strong. I have not been in the past. Though it is (so many) days since I last indulged, I need your help. Watch me, question me, and even disbelieve me at times. Probe beneath my facade. I know I am weak, so PLEASE, PLEASE don’t trust me 100%. Instead love me, support me … and I will do the same for you.” Do I rate the sexual faithfulness of someone more highly if they have exercised restraint previously? I do. No apology. Just as I rate the honesty of someone who has turned down temptations to steal previously. But we are all weak. We need to exercise caution with love. I have an increasing level of trust for someone who has turned and walked differently for a good season. Intentions come easy. Words are cheap. Demonstrated character is hard. As the season lengthens, trust increases. It’s called being human. People need people. On that I expect we agree. It’s how we need people and what is healthy for people that we seem to differ in opinion. Posted by Spock, Thursday, 4 February 2010 8:17:39 AM
| |
stan_nesta
You intemperate response proves something does it not? Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 5 February 2010 3:48:26 AM
| |
Spock I'd make a change
"Do I rate the sexual faithfulness of someone more highly if they have lived by their stated values previously? I do" Those who believe that sex should stay within marriage yet act otherwise have shown a weakness, those who hold a different view have not done anything to compromise their integrity. If you want to use theft as a comparitor then rape is a closer equivalent than consentual sex. The rest gets down to what you believe about sex. In the context of believing that sex outside of marriage is wrong then a history of doing so may well cause problems. On the other hand having had only one partner may cause a lot of frustration and speculation if the experience in that area is less than satisfactory. Look at how much time and effort one of our nastier fundy posters seems to spend speculating and commenting on the sex lives of unbelievers - clearly unhappy with his own lot and it's dealt with by endless specualtion about what others do. The trust part should be based on how well people live the values they claim rather than how well those values match your's or my values. R0bert Posted by R0bert, Friday, 5 February 2010 7:00:21 AM
| |
Hi Robert (and all)
I agree again that integrity over time is good. By integrity I mean behaving the same as you profess to believe, or behaving the same way whether someone is watching or not. Changing the wording from "restraint" to "living by their stated values" is fine, however, the topic of concern was "restraint" and "the value of virginity". The change puts the focus back on Abbott, not his words. It is easy to shoot the messenger to ignore the message! It is practiced on all sides of debates to avoid honest searching and evaluation. I assume by your prior words that evasion wasn't your intent. Re the "restraint" issue, Abbott and Marsh, many older folk, as well as those SOMETIMES destructive religions people proclaim restraint as valid and positive. Yet many of these people lived wild and loose when young. They most likely DID practice what they preached at THAT time. Few things are as common as young people and stubborn people ignoring or shouting down other voices. I did it. Some of my uni lecturers wanted me ousted because of loud and defiant anti-religion statements. I found reason to change (on issues if faith as well as sexual practices). If a person can change their mind, is there really a danger in exercising caution? Changing the analogy from theft to rape is also fine, except that like shooting the messenger, it allows opportunity to evade the issue. I chose 'theft' because it points at all of us. We are all 'bad' in measure. And 'bad' does exist. The challenge is in knowing what is 'bad' and protecting the vulnerable (especially kids) and those we have a responsibility to protect (such as OUR KIDS). We are all vulnerable. We all change our mind at times. We don't always get wiser ... many of us become more entrenched in old pleasurable, insulating or addictive habits. If more conservative voices don't speak, who speaks. Go and visit China and see what happens then. Posted by Spock, Friday, 5 February 2010 1:06:28 PM
| |
I find this current debate about the importance of father hood refreshing.
As a Gen-x young woman, I was assured that a career and eventual marriage were my birthright. As an adult Gen-x, I see neither were. The men of my generation were enthusiastic about co-habiting, but remarkably negative about any type of genuine marriage or commitment. Until, it seems, they hit 30, when they finally got over the threat of nuclear war. I feel infinitely grateful that at the age of 32, my darling husband (aged 35) finally met me. We were married within six months and I embarked on a new life of optimism, happiness and meaningful love. Hopefully my own three children will be raised without the cynicism, selfishness and pessimism that surrounded sexual love for my own generation in their youth. Posted by floatinglili, Saturday, 6 February 2010 5:45:49 PM
| |
Absolutely on the money Warwick. What indeed would Joelia Gillard know about raising children and daughters in particular! Keep it up and hopefully McClelland will see the light and not allow the current laws to be changed...
Posted by cmpmal, Tuesday, 16 February 2010 1:18:46 PM
| |
Oh yeah, and by the way, I was 27 and a virgin when my wife and I got married. It was ABSOLUTELY worth waiting for sex.
I now have a 4 year old daughter (as well as two boys) and even though I can't control what they do, I'm definitely going to encourage all 3 of them to wait for marriage too. I can't recommend the concept highly enough. Oh yeah, and even though my wife and I didn't have any 'experience' before marriage, we've worked out what to do since then all right. :) ;) Posted by cmpmal, Tuesday, 16 February 2010 1:39:59 PM
|
Quite plainly it suggests a commodification of women's sexuality - teleological purposing them for male appreciation. Why else would it be her greatest gift? Calling it a 'gift' is degrading because it devalues the mutually of the relationship formation and intimacy, and completely ignores the women's own personal sexuality.
Also, your comments denigrating Gillard for being childless are pretty pathetic. Do you honestly think as a modern women she knows less than you about the issues encountered by young Australian women? The Liberal Party has got into trouble attacking this before, and I doubt you will convince any modern person with this attack who isn't already a highly conservative. religious hater.