… a-hunting we will go!
Australia’s nice people have found themselves a new quarry this week. This time the unfortunate vixen is Clare Edwards, a 20 year old single mother who recently advertised in the Subiaco Post for a sperm donor so that she can conceive a second child. Clare’s declared ambition (according to Bettina Arndt in The Hun) is to have 11 children in total. As she’s a single mum, she’s already got one for her, so if she goes the full 11, there’ll be ten for the country. Under any other circumstances, this would be a laudable achievement.
But not in Clare Edward’s circumstances, which is why Bettina - surely one of Australia’s nicest people - has called “Yoicks, tally ho!” on her. Clare is the welfare so, far from being a patriotic contribution to the future economic health of the nation, in the form of 11 taxpayers to help out with the cost of Peter Costello’s parliamentary super, Clare’s 11 sprogs will start their lives as a burden on the taxpayer. And, since their mother has shown herself, on Seven’s Today Tonight - the epitome of probing, investigative Australian journalism - as basically a shiftless sponger, there’s no question about it; they’ll be a burden on the taxpayer throughout their lives.
And it’s not as if Clare is unique - we all know that there are plenty more out there just like her, an ugly truth that is the subject of a sordid bureaucratic and academic cover-up and soft-headed denial:
It’s really difficult to obtain statistics on how many Clares are ripping off the system.
Peter Saunders, from the Centre for Independent Studies, cites research showing most women who receive the sole parent pension after having a baby have already been on welfare.
Seven out of 10 women who end up on this pension, as a result of having a new baby, have previously received the less generous Newstart unemployment benefit.
More than half of these women go on to have further children while still on welfare.
Yes, it is true that most women end up on the sole parent pension as result of relationship breakdown, but there’s another steadily growing group where pregnancy triggers better benefits.
It’s all proof that we’ve gone too far - as Bettina laments:
In our efforts to rid children of the tag of illegitimacy, we now steer clear of any public discussion as to whether it is a reasonable and legitimate course of action for a woman to deliberately choose to have children she can’t afford.
The solution - simple really - bring back the stigma! Let’s have no more children born on the wrong side of the sheets:
All the research shows growing up in poor jobless, fatherless families means children are disadvantaged. It’s shameful that women like Clare would choose this for their children.
And worse still that our society lets them get away with it.
Can’t stand Bettina Arndt and those CIS results look dodgy to me, however, young Ms Clare is being irresponsible (sorry if I sound like a dinosaur and a Today Tonight viewer). Not on my tax dollars, sister. Get an education and don’t have another child until you’re in a committed relationship.
Living in a country town I can vouch for the undercurrent view among bogans that the BB (baby bonus) and the single parent allowance is an attractive option for some. And the role of grandparents is possibly overlooked in the rush to fulfil the Costello quotient. Mums who don’t REALLY like the fact of being grandmums, just seem to like the idea of minding another tot for struggling daughter. Maybe it helps keep them feeling young and possibly it’s a case of life repeating itself. But like Darlene I wouldn’t want Bettina to be quoting the research on it back to me.
Yes it’s true. Unlike their sisters who have a baby, and who receive Family Tax benefit A and B. That’s not welfare. It’s reward for the effort of finding and keeping a spouse! Go Peter and Betty! It’s time the old fashioned values were re engineered. Perhaps the punishment for being young poor and feckless could be compulsory adoption, with the option of being able to keep any additional babies, once you have passed a certian tax threshold. Now there’s an idea that combines appropriate deference to established values plus the thwack of good old fashioned incentivation eh!
Just as union bosses is only bad when the union represents lower paid workers, welfare is only bad when it is paid to the undeserving poor.
It’s so simple. They’re just not the same as us you know.
I too cannot stand Bettina Arndt, who seems determined to maintain a patriarchal society for as long as possible on all fronts. Trust her to put her finger on the weakest possible reason for objecting and go after it hammer and tongs.
But I’m with you on this one, Darlene, on feminist and environmental grounds apart from anything else. This kind of willed dependence isn’t good for any human being and especially not for women — the opposite of ‘empowering’ or any other buzzword you care to name — and nobody on the planet in its current state should be popping out 11 children.
There’s a discussion on another thread about arts funding including the usual bleating about opera, elitist, whine blah yak etc, but I’d far rather my tax dollars went to fund a production of The Magic Flute or Dead Man Walking (anything but Wagner, really) than to feed and clothe a clutch of heartlessly, cynically conceived bambini created for the exclusive purpose of rakin’ in the white-baby federal dollars. If Australia wants another 11 citizens then there’s a much quicker and simpler solution than having some immature and greedy young woman grow them for us.
“It’s so simple. They’re just not the same as us you know.”
That’s just not true. They are the same as everybody else, which means that like everybody else folks like Clare have rights *and* responsibilities.
Well said, PC. Remember when Arndt used to say things that mattered?
“Willed dependence” is a wonderful way of putting it. It’s a dangerous trap to fall into for the parent and the off-spring.
And yes, I am sure Today Tonight put its own little creative flourishes onto the issue.
Also, it seems terribly anti-feminist to erase fathers from the parenting picture. If a mother has got to do it all by herself it hardly seems fair or equal.
a clutch of heartlessly, cynically conceived bambini created for the exclusive purpose of rakin’ in the white-baby federal dollars. If Australia wants another 11 citizens then there’s a much quicker and simpler solution than having some immature and greedy young woman grow them for us.
Why is what she’s doing heartless and cynical? I’m sure in her mind, having the babies and being a mother is to the forefront, not the issue of how she’s going to pay for them - yes, that means she’s assuming a certain level of welfare support, but I’d strongly dispute that that means she’s conceiving them for the exclusive purpose of raking in the dollars. She won’t be raking in too many dollars, for a start.
And what makes her greedy? She won’t end up with any disposable income, so she can’t be described as greedy for money.
She’s 20 years old. I’d bet anything she doesn’t end up with 11 children. I’ve known quite a few people in couples who stated that they wanted to have six kids and who stopped at two, when the reality sank in.
Also, it seems terribly anti-feminist to erase fathers from the parenting picture. If a mother has got to do it all by herself it hardly seems fair or equal.
She’s single and wants to have children. Maybe not the decision you or I took at age 20, but I think it’s quite moralistic to criticise her as ‘anti-feminist’, as though somehow one 20 year old in WA is responsible for putting men/fathers out in the cold. Taking on single motherhood doesn’t equate to “erasing fathers” (as neither does lesbian motherhood “erase fathers”).
Careful, darlene, you are showing way too much of your social condescension. WTF does ‘cynically conceived mean’? Is that different from the way I learned? And ‘immature and greedy’ eh? Do ya reckon once she isn’t 20 anymore, and reaches, oh I dunno, 30 maybe, she might be a bit more mature? Or do you think someone who wants to have and raise babies for a living is beyond the pale?
Really. While it is far more lucerative, and in my view more satisfying not to raise babies for a living, I simply don’t understand the boundless contempt for women who think it might be OK. They may be wrong about its charms and attractions, and certainly are about its financial possibilities, but what’s wrong exactly, with wanting to have and raise babies? And spare me the ‘what about the environment/planet’ claptrap please.
Who needs ratbags like Arndt and CIS Sanders, when self described left liberals carry one like this about a silly and imature young woman, who, even if she succeeds in having 11 children, will be contributing young people (aka labour supply) to an economy apparently groaning for the lack of it. She is wrong about getting rich on it, and she would be better advised to get some skills and training along the way, but she does not deserve this kind of shite.
This diatribe ‘reads’ just like those panicked articles blaming poor dark skinned woman who have lots of babies for all the ills of the world, including poverty, bad governance, and of course environmental degradation. Spare me.
Yeah, no way she’ll end up with 11 kids - she does sound silly and immature. But then all the fuss about the welfare cost misses the point - the health and education of the kids will take more taxpayer money than the meagre welfare payout. And its safe to assume that the kids will on average more than repay it in tax eventually anyway.
The Costellos of the world don’t rabbit on about that when they talk of “one for the country”.
Just goes to show - if you want to encourage behaviour then you subsidize it.
Willed dependence or learned helplessness? One of the great social and cultural achievements of this Government has been to create, and over ten years maintain, an entire underclass of people who have learnt, via Centrelink and mutual obligation, that no matter what they do to improve their situation, they’ll get screwed by the bureaucracy.
A not entirely unrelated achievement has been to convince the rest of the population that these people deserve this treatment. Clare Edwards’ belief that she has no other choice may show a lack of vision - is that because of innate tunnel vision or because she needs a hand getting the blinkers off?
Amused, I presume you meant to direct those questions to PC as she is the one that composed those comments (although I agree with them).
“And its safe to assume that the kids will on average more than repay it in tax eventually anyway.”
Heard of inter-generational welfare dependency?
It’s a very strange world when it’s regarded as aok for a 20-year-old without an income or a partner to give birth to even one child. There’s nothing empowering about being on welfare (and I’ve been on the dole at certain stages of my life, and I’m not proud of it).
Careful, amused, you are showing way too much of your careless reading. That comment was not Darlene’s but mine.
By “cynically conceived” I meant “deliberately conceived by sperm bank (yes, it is different from the way you learned; obviously you didn’t read that bit either) at 20 when you’re still plenty young enough to have a good chance to give your kids a father and a half-decent childhood”, as distinct from “fifteen and accidentally pregnant because she couldn’t concentrate in Year 7 sex education because she hadn’t had any breakfast”, which I understand is a very common problem in the classroom and which I would be more than happy to fork out for. No doubt you think this is ’socially condescending’ as well, but frankly I’m not sure why I’m bothering to engage at all with someone who hasn’t read the thread properly.
If by ‘for a living’ you mean ‘on welfare’, then the answer is yes. Single motherhood on welfare is not something anyone should wish on themselves or on their children.
Why should I care what you think is claptrap?
How would you know what it reads like when you obviously haven’t read it? I don’t hold that many correct-line positions on things, ‘amused’; most of the positions I hold are fairly nuanced and thought-out, so spare me the knee-jerk crap responses to positions you think I hold because you haven’t properly read what I said.
I don’t see what the big deal is. The woman wants 11 children as a single mother, which might not be the wisest thing in the world, but right now, TEN of those children only exist hypothetically. I mean honestly, all this story amounts to is “Woman plans to make potentially unwise decisions in the future”.
Can’t we find someone more evil to demonise?
It’s a good question, isn’t it. I think I’d argue there’s a large degree of overlap.
I certianly don’t think the poor misguided young woman deserves the full force of commercial “current affairs” even without the added horrors of Bettina Arndt, and I would very much like to know who it was who drew their attention to her in the first place, and what their motives were in doing so.
To my shame, I must admit to having seen this on Today Tonight (*hides*).
The woman in question did not strike me as especially stupid, or greedy. She sounded like someone utterly enchanted with her baby, as many new mums are, and wanting as much of that baby-rush as possible, hence “I want eleven!”
She IS young to be embarking on single parenthood, and doing so purposefully, but somehow that purposefulness seems more empowering than a person who accidently became pregnant to someone they don’t particuarly like, and stay with only for form’s sake.
She clearly adores her child, and that is surely an important factor as to whether or not her actions are appropriate.
Well, much as I hate to find myself agreeing with anything published in Quadrant, it looks like Tom Switzer might be onto something.
Trying to raise 11 kids on your own is a stupid idea under any circumstances.
“I certianly don’t think the poor misguided young woman deserves the full force of commercial “current affairsâ€? even without the added horrors of Bettina Arndt, and I would very much like to know who it was who drew their attention to her in the first place, and what their motives were in doing so.”
Heavens yes, in the years to come (not unlike the Paxtons), Ms Edwards will regret appearing on a current affairs program. Forever more she will be known as her 20-year-old self.
If she was that “purposeful” she could of waited until she has the moolah to match the purpose. Honestly, if there’s one thing that almost as bad as creepy programs like Today Tonight with their horrible beat-ups, it’s “la la la everybody can do whatever they want la la la” beliefs.
Well of course, they can’t, unless they have the moolah. Apologies darlene for wrong attribution.
I am not a libertarian at all, PC.
But tongue clacking disapproval directed at a young woman who wants to have babies as a career, strikes me as a pathetic target for ‘moral disapproval’. First, because it is such an easy target (ACA anyone?) and secondly, the real outrage should be directed at a situation where it just possibly could be seen by a young woman, to be a real alternative to learning, earning and having lots of babies, if she wants to. And spare me crap about ‘fatherlessness’ please. Of course it is better for everyone, parent and child, if there are two (good) parents. But what about some tut tutting directed at potential fathers, who don’t protect themselves from this kind of ‘feminine exploitation and idiocy’ by using a condom?
This is pathetic.
This is getting friggin’ ridiculous. So if we assume that it’s not OK, because ‘we’ know what’s best for these people, then what do we do about it?
Force people to go on the pill until they have an income and a partner?
Withdraw or make unavailable welfare payments until a mother has a a partner or income?
Compulsory sterilisation, because you know, these people never change.
Or is OK to think it’s not OK, but do nothing about it except whinge?
By “cynically conceivedâ€? I meant “deliberately conceived by sperm bank … at 20 when you’re still plenty young enough to have a good chance to give your kids a father and a half-decent childhood
I fail to see what’s cynical about her actions. To me, cynical would be having sex with a man in order to get pregnant without telling him. She’s not tricking anyone. She’s deliberately asking men if they’ll co-operate with her to help her get pregnant.
I also don’t see why anyone should assume that her already-existent baby and any others won’t have a decent childhood.
As for “giving your kids a father” - would that also be a criticism of a 40 year old single woman deciding to go ahead and have a baby? Sounds awfully like Howard and co’s “a child deserves a father and a mother” to me.
Hey gummo, that Switzer riff was excellent! Wonder how he will feel in a couple of years time. Yaiirs. We won the ‘culture wars’ because, look at all the conservatives who have gotten jobs telling everyone how right they are! But but but, still the slide into social anrchy and post modern relativism continues! I mean, look at the electorate! Seduced, seduced I say, by a glass jawed phony, who everyone knows, is just a media creation. Oh God! If only we had had the time-the time to bring back the real cultural heritage that the ‘marchers through the institutions’ have sought to smash in their maoist frenzy!
Perhaps we could prevail upon Dear Leader to er, extend the electoral cycle, just a teensy weensy bit-you know, for a decade or more. What do ya reckon?
Once you’ve pre-judged someone on the flimsiest of evidence you’re at liberty to assume anything you like.
I’m sure there would be plenty of that, and not least from me, if that was what this thread were about.
Or as the federal gov has it “mutual obligation”. Once the youngest child is at school a sole parent is obliged to show proof of job seeking, or attend 15 hrs pw of approved study or training and they cannot leave their locality unless they are moving to an area of higher employment etc etc. In other words they are treated little differently to the regular unemployed. I’m appalled that this woman is being described as greedy and cynical. Women’s work is never work is it; only self indulgence for which they are to be pilloried and insulted. Especially if she is young and naive.
As for the CIS’ grab bag of woman blaming statistics. I assume that they would include everyone who has ever received unemployment benefits for any period of time and then been subsequently separated, divorced or widowed with children? Way to blame the woman and give men a free pass.
Beppie
Wins for the best summation of this “news” story in the fewest words.
My better half used to be a member on a forum for a womans magazine. One of her friends online was a young single mum of 2 who had met 2 dropkick blokes and had a bub to each. They both did a runner on her as well. She now lives for her kids, both of whom have a genetic disorder passed on through her which causes learning difficulties. Apparently she has about a 80% chance of any other kids she has having the same disorder 9I think it was fragile x).
Just as a stir she posted on this site she thought she wanted 5 all up and didnt care if the fathers were on the scene or not.
I have never seen such vitriol and hate as she recieved from these “caring” ladies. It eventually drove her and my lady off the site alltogether, one even went so far as to hack her computer and call childrens services to “check her out”.
There is definately a stigma to single motherhood, esp if the lady is ‘doing it herself”.
mole
a better summation of the story might be ‘man bites dog’
Personally, I think it’s a shame that young women still feel that the best they can do, both as a personal achievement and as way of ‘earning’ money is to have babies. What does it say about how these women are educated and what they feel their ambitions can be? I think it’s a sad remark that having kids is the be all and end all for so many single and partnered women. More money should be invested in helping girls to see themselves as valuable and able to contribute to the world in many many ways.
I am not saying that having kids cannot be part of that parcel, but surely that is not all there is? I am a single mother, and helping my daughter gain the confidence and skills to go out into the world an ambitious and fulfilled woman is the best gift I can give her.
And anyone who thinks ‘living on the welfare’ is a great ride is welcome to come and try it, thanks very much.
Oh to be able to root your way to MIDDLE class welfare. The dole 20,000 grand of off farm earnings plus 170,000 for a new life!! And no rugrats .
I think Suz and Amused have made all the relevant points here.
I would add, however, that people, we are talking about a Today Tonight story, here.
This is the same Today Tonight that loses literally dozens of court cases for slander, defamation, and misrepresentation every year.
The fact we are
a) discussing this at all
b) acting like the story in question was _at all_ related to reality - any reality, and c) Making some kind of judgement, based on something we saw on Today Tonight - TT, for the love of god!!!!
surprises me.
Actually patrick, I haven’t seen the Today Tonight report - just the Bettina Arndt article where she uses Edwards as an excuse to slag off all single mothers on supporting parents benefit - because, deep down, we all know that they’re just like the Clare Edwards shown on Today Tonight.
Allowing Today Tonight into your home is rarely a sign of intelligence.
In the future, everyone will have 15 minutes of notoriety on current affairs TV.
What, so I’m supposed to be utterly crushed by ‘You sound like Howard’?
Apart from anything else, I don’t. Howard was slagging same-sex parents, and to imply that I was doing the same is not just inaccurate but bloody insulting. I doubt if anyone here would seriously deny that two parents are better than one and that is the point that I was making.
Exactly.
Look, the solution to all this is BirthChoices:
“We decide who gives birth, and the circumstances under which they’re allowed to.”
I don’t think even Bettina Arndt thinks that, adrian, much less anyone who’s been commenting here.
Howard was slagging same-sex parents, and to imply that I was doing the same is not just inaccurate but bloody insulting. I doubt if anyone here would seriously deny that two parents are better than one and that is the point that I was making.
Yes Howard attacks same sex parents but when he says “a child deserves the opportunity of having a father and a mother” (as he has said on several disparate occasions) he is also criticising single mothers. I believe he first made that kind of statement in relation to the Leisa Meldrum case some years ago - the single heterosexual woman who was seeking to be allowed to do IVF in Victoria. He has very recently reiterated this position at the National Summit on Marriage, Family and Fatherhood and as that name implies, it is part of an ideological package which posits heterosexual marriage as the ideal state for having children - this is not just an attack on homosexuality but on single parents and ‘cohabiting’ heterosexuals.
Bettina Arndt’s attack on Clare Edwards is quite clearly part of the same ideological package and some of the comments here have surprised me with how much they buy into the elements of that package which denigrate single mothers.
I hadn’t read this thread before. Let me just say that I don’t think it’s appropriate to judge this woman’s choices, either on grounds of principle, or more specifically because what a lot of commenters on this thread are doing is turning her into the same thing that Arndt and Today Tonight are doing which is reducing her no doubt complex story and her individuality to an object of cultural criticism and debate and denigration rather than treating her as a human being with choices, however constrained and even unwise in some people’s eyes they may be.
Suz, that is a very scary link. At the “National Summit on Marriage, Family and Fatherhood” (mothers apparently optional):
Wtf is this fringe crap being dignified by being hosted at Parliament House?
Suz, unless you’re suggesting that Dr Cat shares the views of Howard and Arndt, I don’t see how it was at all helpful to make such comments. You quoted PC, not Bettina Arndt, so I think it’s only fair to address what you think she was arguing.
I shouldn’t be, but I am shocked at some of the rudeness directed at Darlene and Pavlov’s Cat for saying things that should be fairly uncontroversial: that young women should be encouraged to aim for more than a life of welfare and that fathers should, and often do, play an important role in the life of their children. And I think both of them deserve far more respect than what they’ve been shown here.
Just because some people use certain language as a “dog whistle” it doesn’t mean others using the same language to argue in good faith should be punished for it.
Well, if I for one have given that impression then I certainly haven’t meant to. My beef is with the very deliberate choice and stated intention here in 2007 of a healthy 20-year-old woman to become permanently welfare-dependent and not to see any kind of personal or political problem with that.
Given that it’s on feminist grounds that I find this willed dependence so depressing, I’m hardly likely to be denigrating single mothers. Saying two parents are ideally better than one isn’t ‘denigrating single mothers’, any more than saying it’s nice to have a reasonable amount of money is denigrating the poor.
By whom should they be encouraged, Anna?
I disagree. I don’t see that at all. Far too sweeping a statement.
I agree with Suz. With respect!
I also disagree. I have seen many cases where one parent was demonstrably better than two. In fact, I would go so far as to say the abundance of lack of parents is quite independent from the quality of life a child receives.
Certainly, the two things may overlap, but I think people are seeing a causal relationship where one doesn´t exist.
Regardless of whether one sees the report, or reads it, it´s based on a no-doubt highly spurious Today Tonight piece, misrepresenting shit left, right and centre - and thusly, none of us can´t state with any certainty what the real facts behind this story are, and as Mark alludes, I´m sure they are larger than either the screen time of Today Tonight, or anything the Australian would deign to print.
By their schools, their parents, society, strident feminists… A life of welfare dependence isn’t much fun for anyone and isn’t much of a life’s goal.
But my point wasn’t to defend PC or Darlene’s arguments, but to reinforce that just because they don’t agree with others on the thread doesn’t mean that therefore they obviously agree with Howard. Surely there are more alternatives and opinions to go around.
What irks me is the knee-jerk if you think this choice is better then you obviously disapprove of those who don’t make it. Which is true of Howard and Arndt, but I don’t think anyone would dare suggest is true of Darlene and PC. They can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think either of them were suggesting economic sanctions or public shaming…
I haven’t read the whole thread carefully, Anna, but I don’t see Suz as having suggested that Darlene and Dr Cat are “obviously agree(ing) with Howard”.
Suz wrote:
That seems to me to be true. I don’t believe she’s been rude in saying so, although perhaps you were referring to other commenters as well. It is helpful to point it out IMHO.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/10/02/heigh-ho-the-dairy-o/#comment-408240
But it isn’t fair to suggest that it is only one person - there have been a few with similar responses, and I’d simply invite them all to reflect on the difference between a discussion about what’s best for children and their (young) parents, and a despicable attempt at demonising lesbians and single mothers. Sometimes the language might sound similar, but that’s the fault of Howard and co for being sneaky with their words, and well-intentioned allies shouldn’t get the blame for that.
Your comment was addressed to Suz, Anna. I’m not commenting on what others have said. If they’ve been rude, then they ought not to have been.
It seems to me that stating that:
is indeed:
That, to me, is just a statement of fact. I don’t believe that Darlene and Dr Cat buy into the whole package, but along with Suz (and this is all I think she was saying), I’m surprised that they do buy into aspects of it, with which I disagree. It’s important to see this cluster of beliefs - and I don’t believe that the statement can be supported empirically or even ethically - do form part of one particular set of norms which are often used against people who don’t conform to one aspect of them. Of course, they’re so common just because they are norms but I am also surprised that people who I would normally regard as critical thinkers are being highly uncritical in this instance.
I think, with respect, you’ve misread what Suz was saying.
Ps - down with heteronormativity!
I’d also repeat what I said earlier. This young woman’s response is highly likely to have been elicited by the reporter. I find it most unlikely that the situation is as straightforward as Arndt etc. have been making it out to be. It does appear to me that people have been treating it as if it is, and I think that’s problematic. I also think that it’s ethically unwise generally to start discussing someone as if they were exemplary of some broader alleged phenomenon. In this case, much as people might try to generalise the discussion, because of the context it’s inevitably a discussion of (and a judgement on) a named individual.
I just think people should reflect on that. That’s all.
Thanks, Anna, particularly as I can no longer speak for myself; I am by now almost completely speechless at the notion that a feminist view of a young woman’s choosing voluntary welfare dependence should be regarded as somehow demonstrating that I am Teh Evil Conservative, but that’s ‘ideological packages’ for you.
That also seems to me to be a remark made with a degree of bad faith, Pavlov’s Cat, with respect, certainly if it’s a response to the arguments I’ve been making which have neither suggested that nor been personalised and which I think deserve more respect than that snark, if I may say so with respect.
Your comment also completely ignores the point I was making, and which I take Suz to have been making (and which I’ve gone to the trouble of explaining) (and patrickg’s comment), and I think it’s “unhelpful” for that reason.
Oh c’mon, Mark, perhaps I arrived at the view that ‘two parents are ideally better than one’ (NB note use of word ‘ideally’) using my critical faculties. Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I’m not thinking straight.
It’s an instance of what Anna means about the Rodent and his, erm, weasel words, I think; when I said ‘two parents are ideally better than one’ I was actually thinking of what I’ve observed in many families over many years: the harmless and incontrovertible truth that where there are children to be fed and clothed and taken to ballet and soccer and nursed when they’re sick and cheered on at cello concerts and hockey, it’s quite useful when there’s more than one person to do it. Yes, I believe two parents are better than one, for the same reason that I believe three parents are better than two. Down, as you say, with heteronormativity.
If we really have arrived at a place where none of us is allowed to say anything that might be regarded as Rodentitude, for fear of its being regarded as symptomatic of the ‘package’, then the federal election really cannot be called soon enough.
It wasn’t; it referred further back.
That’s not what I’m suggesting at all, Dr Cat.
The other person or persons doesn’t have to be a “parent”.
I’m also a bit sad that the battle which I used to think had some chance of being won against the use of the term “welfare dependence” (which is a term with huge ideological overtones and very deliberately introduced to sunder benefits and rights from each other and to introduce aspects of normative and ethical judgement of individuals into common parlance) has been lost.
Words are important. I know you understand that!
Ok, thanks for clarifying.
I linked to the comment that was the reason for mine, Mark. I don’t think I misread anything.
I’m at a loss to understand how the idea that it’s better for women to be able to afford children, and to have someone (male or female) to partner them in raising the kid, is so terrible. It was always made as a general comment, aimed at the majority of cases. Most of this thread has been a generalised discussion, not a specific one about the woman in question. As Dr Cat said:
If encouraging women to aim for more than a life dedicated to birthing children that someone else has to pay for is unfeminist then call me unfeminist. That says nothing about the need for a safety net for unforeseen consequences. But choosing to have kids and knowingly walking into a life of complete dependence on the government is no more empowering than choosing a life of complete dependence on a husband.
I agree with Darlene as well about the dangers to feminist goals of saying that children don’t need fathers. Of course there are parents that are so deficient that kids are better off without them, and of course kids can still thrive if a parent leaves, or dies. But if we’re all about sharing the burden, rather than leaving it to women, then it should go without saying that feminists should embrace fatherhood rather than leave it to the Bettinas of the world. (I’m not suggesting feminists aren’t doing this, btw.)
It bothers me that having such a discussion leads to suggestions that we are playing into the culture warriors’ hands. The opposite of their hatred and ignorance isn’t an all-choices-are-equal stance. And more importantly, expressing a view about people’s choices shouldn’t be assumed to imply a desire to shame or starve the people making them in order to enforce the correct behaviour.
Mark, I used the expression ‘welfare dependence’ in its denotative and value-neutral sense of being, you know, like, dependent on welfare. If there is an acceptable equivalent I would be glad to know what it is.
Or even much less so. At least you can negotiate with a husband and do deals and trade different kinds of dependency with him, which is more than can be said for the government.
Are children a commodity, then?
I haven’t been calling anyone unfeminist.
Isn’t this rather a false dichotomy?
As is this.
Really? Always? To what degree? From what position? There’s a very benign view of marriage being expressed here. I (dare I say it?) am surprised.
A former s/o of mine chose to bring up a child without the father even knowing of its existence. I think she made the right choice, from what I know. I know of another similar instance. The reasons are complex, and particular to those individuals’ situations, but the principle should be comprehensible to those who support a woman’s right to choose, I’d have thought.
And - aren’t there some rather enormous assumptions being made here about the necessity of male involvement? Where does that leave women who don’t choose to have a child by conceiving with a male through sexual intercourse? Where does that leave lesbians? And there are women who want to have children and who are straight but don’t want there to be a “father”? All these choices are being implicitly devalued - and in the name of a very (hetero) normative understanding of what constitutes “family”.
I (dare I say it?) am surprised.
No, it shouldn’t. But there are definitely some adverse judgements being made about such choices. It might be as well to be upfront about that.
I don’t question the good intentions, but I’m starting to wonder about the second bit!
“Welfare” was originally an American term, and its introduction into Australian political discourse was a direct result of its demonisation by neoconservatives in America in the 1970s and 1980s - see, for instance, Reagan’s (false) tales of “welfare moms” who had multiple babies to collect the dosh. (Sound familiar?) As a result of the ideological discourse popularised by Charles Murray and other neoconservative propagators of the “underclass” notion (some of whom also specialise in overtly or covertly racist and class based distinctions between who should be and who shouldn’t be “breeding”), the idea of “dependency” was introduced to suggest that “welfare” was akin to a “drug” (and the link is very deliberate in the associations it has). People are to be weaned off it, this pestilence doled out to them by the nanny state (and there are a range of interesting tropes about “family” at work here too), through “welfare to work” policies. As we know, welfare dependence is transmitted cross-generationally and breeds “dysfunction”. Mark Latham was probably the most blatant exemplar of the judgementality and authoritarianism inherent in the choice of these terms, perhaps because of his, shall we say, lack of subtlety.
I don’t think that it has a “denotative and value-neutral sense”. Just as with assumptions about the desirability of two parents as opposed to one, the sense in which it’s used cannot be neutral as it’s informed by the context in which its sense has always already been inscribed. Language can never be neutral, and political language particularly not.
In Australia we used to refer to social security benefits and people who received them as recipients.
I’d settle for “citizen”.
Btw, personally, I support a guarenteed minimum income and I’m not in the slightest bit troubled by whether people choose to work, or surf, or bring up babies. In a society where the incentives are as strong as they are for most people, most will choose to work. But it doesn’t worry me in the slightest if people don’t, and how they choose to spend their lives.
I question the degree to which work is seen as an unalloyed good in and of itself. For many people, in a society such as this, it’s going to be characterised by exploitation and alienation not fulfillment and self-development. Within the context of this discussion, the “choice” between “welfare” and “work” is usually one between being denigrated and existing on an insufficient paltry dole and being exploited for a sum hardly more (and in some cases less) sufficient. That ought to have been made crystal clear by the current government’s agenda with regard to moving single parents off “welfare”.
I can well understand why someone might resist making that “choice”.
Choice and dignity ought to be rights (and responsibilities) accorded to all. That’s my view of social democracy. I’ve previously argued that in the current Australian context, it’s a very radical notion. Evidently, that’s right.
“And spare me crap about ‘fatherlessness’ please. Of course it is better for everyone, parent and child, if there are two (good) parents. But what about some tut tutting directed at potential fathers, who don’t protect themselves from this kind of ‘feminine exploitation and idiocy’ by using a condom?�
I absolutely agree on both counts.
“This is getting friggin’ ridiculous. So if we assume that it’s not OK, because ‘we’ know what’s best for these people, then what do we do about it?
Force people to go on the pill until they have an income and a partner?
Withdraw or make unavailable welfare payments until a mother has a partner or income?
Compulsory sterilisation, because you know, these people never change.�
Nobody would want to children to suffer. I think I have said in relation to another issue that education is the key, but also it has to be understood that we live in a rights *and* responsibilities culture. Crikey, there seem to be a lot of middle-class guilt being expressed here, and also a lot of middle-class assumptions (oh, these poor folks are too stupid to think they could be good for anything but birthing them babies so we can’t possibly say it is wrong). Spare me.
“As for “giving your kids a father� - would that also be a criticism of a 40 year old single woman deciding to go ahead and have a baby? Sounds awfully like Howard and co’s “a child deserves a father and a mother� to me.�
What about supporting the notion of fifty-fifty parenting so women can be truly equal (and I don’t mean the kind supported by those repulsive fathers’ groups who only care about such things after a marriage breaks up).
“Personally, I think it’s a shame that young women still feel that the best they can do, both as a personal achievement and as way of ‘earning’ money is to have babies. What does it say about how these women are educated and what they feel their ambitions can be? I think it’s a sad remark that having kids is the be all and end all for so many single and partnered women. More money should be invested in helping girls to see themselves as valuable and able to contribute to the world in many many ways.�
Here, here.
“And anyone who thinks ‘living on the welfare’ is a great ride is welcome to come and try it, thanks very much.�
Indeed.
“I shouldn’t be, but I am shocked at some of the rudeness directed at Darlene and Pavlov’s Cat for saying things that should be fairly uncontroversial: that young women should be encouraged to aim for more than a life of welfare and that fathers should, and often do, play an important role in the life of their children. And I think both of them deserve far more respect than what they’ve been shown here.
Just because some people use certain language as a “dog whistle� it doesn’t mean others using the same language to argue in good faith should be punished for it.�
Thanks, Anna. The rudeness doesn’t worry me so much, but I am surprised because they are uncontroversial beliefs. There are young women out there who still think that mothering is all they can do because they lack self-esteem, resources and an appreciation that there are other choices that can be made. It’s actually really sad.
“Given that it’s on feminist grounds that I find this willed dependence so depressing, I’m hardly likely to be denigrating single mothers. Saying two parents are ideally better than one isn’t ‘denigrating single mothers’, any more than saying it’s nice to have a reasonable amount of money is denigrating the poor.�
Absolutely true, and mine is on class grounds as well as feminist grounds. Try being a member of the underclass and see how empowering you find it, and see how empowering your kids find it.
“What irks me is the knee-jerk if you think this choice is better then you obviously disapprove of those who don’t make it. Which is true of Howard and Arndt, but I don’t think anyone would dare suggest is true of Darlene and PC. They can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think either of them were suggesting economic sanctions or public shaming.�
No, of course we weren’t. Gee whiz, I know what I’m voting on election day and it isn’t for John and Co.
Really, why’s that?
I can only think of two possible reasons: either because you think it’s part of the ‘ideological package’ of being a feminist that one must be anti-marriage, or because (given that I’m sure I’ve mentioned the unfortunate episode of the Child Husband at this site in the past; I’m a one-husband woman and I’ve had mine, thank God) you think that one personal experience ought to determine one’s attitude to the entire institution for life?
I’m a bit surprised myself, Mark; if you think as mild a remark as ‘one can negotiate with a husband’ adds up to ‘a very benign view of marriage’ then your own view of marriage must be very malign indeed.
And if we are expressing surprise, dare I say in my turn that I am a bit startled by the number of men on this thread who are eagerly championing the right of healthy young women in 2007 to choose to spend their adult lives barefoot and pregnant at home, coping alone with a bunch of children on a tiny amount of money that could be withheld (or even claimed back from them) at any time, gaining none of the education, training, skills or experience that could secure them a decent amount of money and a bit of presence and influence in public life.
That’s a distortion. See:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/10/02/heigh-ho-the-dairy-o/#comment-408373
I’m not “eagerly championing” anything. I’m pointing out that this woman’s choices are understandable and not necessarily deserving of condemnation. That was the point of the thread, I thought.
These statements are denigrating to single mothers. They are in no way a critique of the society in which a woman may have restricted educational opportunities or a narrow view of her own possibilities.
And my god, the idea that anyone can “rake it in” shows a complete lack of knowledge about the amount of money involved and the ‘mutual obligation’ provisions which now accompany that money. Every time people go off half cocked about single mothers they contribute to the very classism that you say is a concern of yours, Darlene. The ubiquitous shaming of women who parent alone, whether they are employed or not is something you obviously have not experienced.
You don’t say what the other one is.
I’m quite conscious from both recent and past experience that to critique marriage as an institution is difficult, because people literally can’t hear what you’re saying.
It’s a “discourse” in the correct sense Foucault intended - a structure which enables some things to be sayable and others not to be - and a complex of affects which are very strong indeed.
Yes, I have a malign view of it.
However, I don’t particularly seek to explain why now. For three reasons.
(a) I have to go to work;
(b) It’s a side issue insofar as this thread is concerned;
(c) The critique - articulated for more than a century by libertarians and anarchists as well as feminists - is well known, I’d have thought. Or perhaps not.