She's barren, that's true, so what's the problem?
May 3rd 2007 06:35
Hey. There's a lot of self-righteous chest beating over Senator Bill Heffernan's remarks that Juila Guillard is unfit for leadership becasue she is barren. I don't see why. The senator is entitled to his viewpoint and frankly, it is a valid point in some ways. I don't agree with it but that doesn't mean that it should be tossed out altogether from the public discussion. Leadership is after all about choices and the lifestyle choices of the person do show what the person is about, how trustworthy he or she is and all. If Julia Guillard has intentionally opted not to have children, I applaud her for that. That's her decision, for sure but she can't ask others not to consider that fact in their decision making whether to choose her as their leader or not. Bareen is not an epithet or a racial slur, it's a fact.
Leaders in public sphere inspire others to imitate them. So if a major woman leader in the country doesn't want children by choice, that does inspire other women in the country to make a similar decision. This might be inconsequential for some and profound for others. Therefore, it is a legitimate talking point. Julia shouldn't try to brush the comments away; instead she should explain why she made the decision she made and whether she would like other women to follow her lead.
The liberals are moaning that this remark has diverted the attention from the bad policies announced by the Labour team. Well, so why are they fanning it and hoisting their own petard? They should have simply said that they disagree with the remark (if they do) and get on with focusing on the incompetence of the Labour agenda.
This incident also shows the double standards of the left wing politicans in general. Condi Rice has been attacked for being childless by Barbara Boxer and others and for being a "brown sugar". But when it comes to them they can hide conveniently behind their sense of victimology. The country should elect them because somebody said something mean about them; the fact that their policies are inane doesn't matter at all.
Leaders in public sphere inspire others to imitate them. So if a major woman leader in the country doesn't want children by choice, that does inspire other women in the country to make a similar decision. This might be inconsequential for some and profound for others. Therefore, it is a legitimate talking point. Julia shouldn't try to brush the comments away; instead she should explain why she made the decision she made and whether she would like other women to follow her lead.
The liberals are moaning that this remark has diverted the attention from the bad policies announced by the Labour team. Well, so why are they fanning it and hoisting their own petard? They should have simply said that they disagree with the remark (if they do) and get on with focusing on the incompetence of the Labour agenda.
This incident also shows the double standards of the left wing politicans in general. Condi Rice has been attacked for being childless by Barbara Boxer and others and for being a "brown sugar". But when it comes to them they can hide conveniently behind their sense of victimology. The country should elect them because somebody said something mean about them; the fact that their policies are inane doesn't matter at all.
| 128 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by David
You are very welcome to delete this comment ... (It's neither here nor there to me ...
The Cure of Ars once said ... If you knew the amount of women who go to hell for not having the children they were predestined to have, you would live a life of penance like I do to save them from such eternal misery ...
I honestly didn't post this comment with any intention to offend anyone okay? ... (Every now and then, I feel like I feel I have as much right to put forward my opinion as anyone else ... but I will take no offence whatsoever if you delete this comment ...
I just find that Julia Guillard is hardly a woman whom feminists should look up to as a role model ...
The women I admire in life are the ones who make real mothers who love their children (regardless of whether they are barren or not ...
I find corporate women repulsive ...
David ...
Comment by Promachus
Promachus
Comment by Suburban Boy
Oz Politics and Kulture!
Why should Gillard have to respond to the mutterings of a disgraced senator who has a history of labelling people something they are not. Her own lifestyle choices are simply that her own choice. She does not have to explain her decision anymore then John Howard should have to explain why he did have children. Although I think you would find that she has already explained her choice on "Australian Story" last year anyway.
Gillards response was perfect I thought. She highlighted the fact that so much of Howard and his lackeys live in the past and choose to judge people on standards of the 1950's and lack any understanding or tolerance or acceptance of difference of people who do not fit in to their picture of the white picket fence 3 children family that they think we should all inspire to.
Lastly go ahead attack politicians for double standards but don't try and suggest that it is only left wing politicans who have double standards. I don't think they have a monoply on that kind of behavoir.
Comment by Bhumika
Political Minds
tell that senator that we are out of stone age..will ya!!