Prejudices: Very Much Alive And Kicking
26 02 2007One of my readers sent me this link a while ago. Called Prejudices are difficult to kill by Gabriella Coslovich in The Age it’s yet another example proving that, unless you are busy breeding – oops – reproducing your view really doesn’t count one whit. Parents views, however certainly do. Many have tried to convince me that parents have such a hard time of it, have needs that we as childfree persons haven’t a clue about, and are entitled to whatever they want/need to make their lives (when having and raising kids) easier.
What I see is governments bending over backwards to stroke parents egos and make it easier than ever to have kids.
Why? Well, if you’re a politician, you’d probably sell your grandmother for the parent vote. And why not, when supposed people in prominent places can blithely say that, according to the writer of this article,
“the people who really count are those that are raising the next generation…”
No fence sitting there, that’s for sure. Not married? Childfree? Listen up, you don’t count. At least according to Kim Beazley in May 2006 quoted in the article.
You could have discovered the cure to cancer. To HIV. Solved world hunger. You could be the most powerful woman in the world for God’s sake. Does it matter? Hell no – not if you haven’t spawned. As the writer of the article says, I also do not begrudge the childed their choice to pro-create. I just wish that their choice wasn’t forever exalted as The State To Be, and wasn’t forever shoved down my throats The Choice To Make.
According to the article, Prime Minister Mark Vaile saw nothing wrong in saying from his myopic view point:
“Parenting is the great leveller he said, and being a parent equips one far better than any other qualification for political life.”
Such statements make me fume. And in this day and age they are plain stupid. Bad enough when they come from non-political figures,(of which we have no shortage) but much worse when they come from those that should know better or ignorant politicians who should at least pretend that they represent the voting public.
It proves there is still a fundamental lack of respect for any choices that do not parrot the status quo. Never mind that having kids requires no thought at all in many cases, or that childfree (or childless) people are automatically marginalised by this kind of backward and child-centred thinking. Or that being a full time parent and a full time politician is a full time juggling act where more often than not, the balls are dropped.
Could that be why there are so few women politicians today compared to men? Oh, but wait, the women will ask to work less hours or flexi-time so that the field can be levelled - down.
At a time when women should be encouraged into politics, here we are still measuring a woman’s value by whether or not she bears children.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Thanks RMS for the link to the story.
Just to clarify, that was acting PM Vaile. In Australia the Prime Minister (currently John Howard) isn’t technically a constitutional appointment, it’s just the person who happens to be the appointed head of the majority lower-house party (i.e. the government). The ‘acting’ PM is the next-most-senior person in the party who get trotted out to make speeches on the news or whatever whenever the ‘real’ PM is on holidays/sick/overseas/whatever. Vaile is from the National Party (the country/farmers’ party), part of the super-conservative majority coalition.
Kim Beazley was at the time the (conservative, male) head of the opposition; i.e. the largest party that does not currently have a majority in the lower house.
The ‘red-head from Ipswitch’ is Pauline Hanson, the woman who single-handedly put jingoistic racism back on the mainstream political agenda in her maiden speech to parliament about ten years’ ago now.
Julia Gillard, part of Beazley’s party (albeit the non-conservative faction therein), is youngish, reasonably popular and female. Like the article says, she made a few minor waves recently with her comments about motherhood and politics.
This was a bit of a storm-in-a-teacup ’scandal’ that happened a while ago and got a little bit of coverage. It’s kinda tied up in Australian ‘voter-factions’ like the “doctors’ wives” (upper-class, ’socially conscious’; and yes, pundits have occasionally wondered where the ‘doctors’ husbands’ went).
- D, the Australian pol-sci student ^^”
i think cf or childless politicians are better than parental politicians, why? well, the cf have no axe to grind, we do whats best for society in general, whereas some politicians with kids focus on how to change the world for the sake of thier kids. not thinking about other situations.
condi rice was bascially told she wasnt as good a person because she doesnt have kids, the cf politicians will make the hard choices, the parental politicians will make the decisions for the sake of the children.
Thanks for the clarification D! Even with Mark Vaile being the acting PM, he’s still a senior governmental figure right? And since he has the “governmental podium” as it were, it’s still quite galling him trotting out what he did. I’m just amazed that anyone in government can come out with that…even if it is what they believe. But maybe I shouldn’t be surprised.
Mercurior - Isn’t that rather a generalization?
George W Bush is a father yet he seems to have had no problem sending an ever increasing number of young men to great peril in foreign lands.
Condolezza Rice works for him, so we have to assume she is behind his administration’s polices or she wouldn’t be there. (Yes, I know what she was told in the episode you’re referring to).
I think that politicians are generally more interested in anything that is going to get them elected than pushing forward their personal agendas. Particularly when they get to higher levels of office.
And most people who vote have kids and/or grandkids.
Look on the bright side. We need a new generation of barristas and burger flippers
yes it is a generalisation, but i have seen childfree and parents, they have different goals, the politicians in the uk, they are going on and on about having kids, etc, look at brown when they announcned he had a kid, after he did his policies changed towards a more pro child stance.
i did say generally, i find politicians only want votes, and since parents vote most often, (young men are not voting, young women are not voting), so the policies will be aimed at the biggest group. now if these parental politicians, have a choice, they will create laws and systems that benefit them as parents, some create things for the best of everyone, but some, have a bias towards the pro child laws. as it affects them directly.
there are always exceptions, but i still have found its almost accurate, next time look atthe pro family rules, and who introduced them.