From today’s Crikey: Bernard Keane:
Politics has to be, perhaps along with long-distance road transport, one of the least family-friendly occupations in the country.
Even your average backbench Federal MP works long hours. They’re away in Canberra 19-20 weeks of the year, and with a long schedule of electorate events and duties when they’re back home. Ministers, shadow ministers and swing vote senators, who have to get their heads around every piece of legislation and work out whether to back it or amend it, work even harder.
This time of year, the last sittings before the winter recess, are particularly intense.
Sarah Hanson-Young is to be commended for having her child with her in the chamber yesterday. It was for a division, not a debate, and her daughter was about to leave to return to Adelaide.
Instead there has been some remarkable vitriol, particularly on radio, and from at least one of her colleagues, Barnaby Joyce, who accused her of pulling a stunt. That was one of the lowest jibes I’ve seen in this place for a while. The distraught look on Hanson-Young’s face as a staffer took her daughter outside didn’t look much like a stunt.
You can accuse politicians of being greedy and self-serving all you like — after all it’s one of our national sports — but here are some views from the coal-face.
Greg Hunt is one of the youngest members of the Coalition’s leadership group. He has a young daughter and his wife is expecting a baby shortly. He thought the treatment of Hanson-Young was crazy. “The nature of the job is that it is very long hours, seven days a week,” he told Crikey.
“It is hard on MPs and their staff. But the flipside is that you do have some flexibility as your own boss. I take my young daughter around to electorate events where they’re suitable and she wants to go, and she behaves perfectly even when she’s a bit grumpy, so I get to spend time with her.”
Hunt also says Turnbull and Opposition Whip Alex Somlyay emphasise to MPs that family comes first. “On Sunday night, I was at the airport [to fly to Canberra], it was going to be a big week on renewables issues, and my wife called me to say she was at the hospital and maybe experiencing some early contractions. We let Alex and Malcolm know and they were happy for me to remain home until Wednesday (the new addition to the Hunt family decided the time wasn’t right yet). When I returned, the Speaker was very understanding as well.”
“They should have been delighted to have a child in the Senate, and let her play with the President’s gavel.”
What Hunt didn’t say was that, while he was absent, Kevin Rudd had a go at him for not being there to ask about renewables issue. Rudd probably didn’t know Hunt’s circumstances, but it shows how the rough-and-tumble of partisan debate can go.
Natasha Stott-Despoja, who was in the Senate for nearly 13 years, four of them as a mum, knows first-hand the family-unfriendliness of the Senate and was instrumental in having the Senate standing order on “strangers” — non-senators — in the chamber so that it didn’t apply to breastfeeding mothers. She said she’d been stunned by the vitriol directed at Hanson-Young on radio. “There was no question it was an overreaction by the President, as there is flexibility for this sort of thing to be accommodated. But it is symbolic of the family-unfriendly nature of Parliament when it comes to balancing work and family.”
“Politicians work extraordinarily long hours. Often I’d go into the building at seven and not leave till midnight. Every workplace is different but in that time, some interaction with your family is not unreasonable — in fact it’s humanising. I had full-time child-care, because it’s the nature of the job, but when you’re four minutes away from a crucial division it’s not unreasonable. To see this just breaks my heart.”
Stott-Despoja was unsurprised that Barnaby Joyce had attacked Hanson-Young. “I’m not surprised that politicians who are the biggest advocates of family value are the first to criticise. A lot of male MPs are happy to use their families for promotional purposes — in fact we’ve all done that — but not so interested in the pointy end of family life: breast-feeding, changing nappies, dealing with temperamental kids. But do we want mums and dads as MPs, or automatons who ignore or are ordered to ignore their families? We’re multi-faceted and human. And I know politics is not an environment you want to expose children to on a regular basis. I’ve seen plenty of bad behaviour and Senate antics. But when I needed to take my baby into the chamber it was always met with understanding from other senators.”
To his credit, President John Hogg put out a statement last night indicating that “he could have handled the situation in relation to Senator Hanson-Young this afternoon better” and welcoming a proposal for the Senate Procedure Committee to examine the standing order in relation to the issue, which he suggested is confusing.
The bottom line here, as Stott-Despoja notes, is what sort of politics we want, whether we want younger people, who are more likely to be in the their early parenting years, to play a full role in our political system or whether it should be confined to the childless and those who have older children, or men who aren’t interested in playing a full role in their children’s upbringing. The accelerating demands of the media cycle mean politics is becoming an ever-more demanding occupation, constantly consuming whatever politicians can offer and then demanding more. But our Parliamentary standards are still stuck in a Victorian era of old white male legislators. This is the place, remember that after a debate lasting an entire political generation, only decided to have a child-care centre on the premises last year.
There aren’t many young parents in politics and, judging by the reaction to Hanson-Young, we’re unlikely to see too many more. Our democracy and our politics will be all the poorer for it.
Elsewhere: Andrew Bartlett.
I can imagine what it would be like if every senator brought their children to work with them. The fact is that woman is paid handsomely to do that job, she shouldn’t be taking a child into work with her.
Jack, your a knob
best you go and pick your fleas….
Yah, Herr Jack. A very good reason to pay the wimmenz less– handsomely.
A child. Ewwww. How disgusting. Imagine if everyone had one.
If I or my wife regularly brought our young kids into our not-so high-flying or important jobs, our employers would not find that acceptable at all. Can’t really see a difference.
I’m not really sure what LP’s angle even is here. Do you all take your infants to work with you?
Gee, the vitriol has followed even to LP. Don’t think Jack, wilful or Yobbo even read the article.
People seem to have the impression that their pollies don’t work hard. Maybe they should try sitting through a parliamentary sitting.
If she didn’t have a child, the vitriol would all be directed at how “barren” she is…
If she left the child at home, the vitriol would all be directed at how she “neglects” her children by putting career first…
If her husband did all the child-rearing, he would be a hero. If she did all the child-rearing, well that’s just expected because it’s what nature intended, everybody knows that — what does she expect? A medal?
Isn’t it great how, as a man, I am free to criticise a woman for every aspect of how she raises her children? Or doesn’t raise them? Or has them? Or brings them to work? Or doesn’t? And then, I can also complain that as a heterosexual white male I’m oppressed and and endangered species.
Go Barnaby!
It is not as if she is a battling mother on minimum wages. She can afford a babysitter. I was also under the impression that Parliament House had child care facilities (based in the former non members bar).
It is parliament, not a playpen. It’s not as if parliament is supposed to have dignity and gravitas or anything. *snort*
Hmmm… The child being with here was a one-off during a division, not a debate, when she had to be in the senate at short notice (difficult to arrange childcare) and just before the child was to return to Adelaide. Quite reasonable to spend a few minutes with the child in such circumstances I would have thought.
Incidentally, since this comes from Crikey you might want to have a look at the companion piece by Helen Razer. I was amazed at the venom and viciousness with which she attacked Hanson-Young. Or maybe it was meant to be a satirical piece. Whatever, it certainly was extraordinary.
Mercurius: bingo.
Everyone else: seriously, you’ve all lost perspective. Wilful: we’re not talking about someone “regularly” bringing their kid into the Senate. She’s never done it before… she was spending some time with her daughter in the morning because she wasn’t going to see her (as she was flying to Adelaide, like it says in the post) and there was an unexpected division called. At that point, she had 4 minutes to run to the Senate chamber.
I seriously cannot believe the absolute intolerance expressed here to women, simply because they have a uterus. Have any of you actually worked in the Parliament? I know I haven’t, but I’m prepared to give a young female senator the benefit of the doubt.
Andos: You may wish to drop the rot about “abuse and intolerance to women” on the basis of them “simply” having a “uterus”.
A father (sans simple uterus) would, in the same circumstances, be on the receiving end of the same bile.
Helen Razer is getting stuck into the offender? (Razer, noted for knowing nothing beyond her own horizon -about 2km- but blathers on anyway – if that stupid acriminous bint is getting stuck into a senator, then I like the senator a whole lot more all of a sudden)
Wot Mercurius said.
The opposite of wot Mercurius said. Try this for pertinence.
I’m a woman and a feminist, but I don’t think she should have brought her child in. It’s the Senate not a creche. I admit I may be prejudiced about Hanson-Young, after seeing her on ‘QandA’, in which I thought she came across as an annoying twerp. She could have spent time with her child before or after the division, but why bring the child into the chamber? She wants to spend a few more minutes with her kid – bad luck. Someone else may have just as strong an argument to spend a few more minutes with their partner or another family member. Should those people be allowed in the Senate as well? What makes this relationship so special?
And I hate how this turn into a women’s issue. It isn’t. There seems to be this assumption that because she’s a mother she’s going to have a stronger bond with her child than a father has and simply have to spend more time with the kid. Why? It’s not a question of whether Hanson-Young has a functioning uterus or not. It’s a question of whether it’s appropriate for her to have her kid in the Senate. I don’t think it is. As for the line that the they should delighted to have a child in the House and let them play with the gavel! Get a grip – it’s the Senate not a child care facility. Whether it was a stunt or not, I have no idea. Hanson-Young maybe self-entitled enough to assume that she doesn’t have to follow the rules like everyone else.
Actually, considering she’s a Greens senator, the country would be better off if she left and the kid stayed for the division. I’d take the random capriciousness of a child over the determined stupidity of a Greenie.
BTW Hunt is a spineless PC idiot, and this just underlines it. I don’t agree with Barnaby that it was a stunt, but she was definitely putting her child on everyone else purely for her own convenience.
Fine, you seem to be the kind of feminist that only goes as far as making sure she has the same perks as the equivalent men (I wonder, of course, if in fact that is the case) but doesn’t question the underlying assumptions below the status quo of who is allowed into what space and when. It was pointed out above that Greg Hunt was allowed leeway for his family responsibilities, without a big deal being made of it.
Not a women’s issue? Really? It’s about the association of women with child rearing and the apartheid between that and the world of “work” as constructed by the Western white collar male bosses in the last two centuries. It’s very much a women’s issue and a man’s as well, if they want to break out of that mould. Remember not so long ago JG was criticised for being “deliberately barren”? And you say it’s not a women’s issue?
Just another point – the incident involved a brief few minutes with a child before that child was removed, but the hotheads on this thread are naturally conflating it with “all children in Parliament ALL THE TIME”. I call serious bullshit.
Thank you Mercurius, you nailed it.
Sorry, Craig McC, wot Mercurius said. Apart from anything else, as has already been said several times, it wasn’t that sort of situation. Yes it is impossible to get any sustained group concentrating on the work issue at hand done when there is a small child in the room for any length of time, unless said child is asleep. But this doesn’t seem to have been one of those times. And did Mercurius’s brilliant point that to many men, women simply cannot win no matter what they do, unless it’s stay chained to the sink, just go right over your head?
That Helen Razer piece was not decipherable by human hand IMHO. We all know that satire the most unstable of genres when it comes to deciphering meaning but that took it to new heights. I read it very carefully three times and applied all the known markers of satire in the literary armoury to it and I still wasn’t sure how to interpret it. If she was serious, more shame to Crikey for running it.
I’ve not been all over this issue but I’ve seen a lot of confusion and conflation, in reportage and discussion, between talkback reactions and the behaviour of Hogg and Joyce. Talkback is self-selecting — the crappiest end of it may be truly vile, but it’s not representative, just squeaky wheels with iss-ews.
Yobbo, do you seriously believe that there is some homogenous entity called “LP” that “believes” things, or are you just being an arse?
Why not, Andos? It’s not as if it’s unusual.
Would it matter if it wasn’t her child, but her parents etc.? Why should the mother-child relationship be priveledged?
It’s a workplace isn’t it? The nanny was apparently in the office and it wasn’t the first time the child has been taken into the chamber. I can’t see this as a “women’s” issue or “parent” issue per se, more as a “I should be able to have it all” issue and “everyone should allow me to do as I please issue.”
Fact: Hanson-Young was called into a division with 4 minutes notice
Fact: The child (sorry, don’t know her name) was with Hanson-Young as she was about to leave to fly back to Adelaide
I can only assume that people who think that either Hanson-Young took the child into the chamber as a stunt or that it was inappropriate have not had anything to do with children, especially small ones. You cannot, let me me repeat that, CANNOT say to a small child who is in the emotional space of leaving taking, Mum’s gotta disappear for she’s not quite sure how long, and reasonably expect the child not to be upset. Small children do not have the emotional experience to respond as you as an adult might. You have to gently guide kids through these processes, they don’t have a handy off and on switch. Unless of course you’re happy for them to be upset.
Toughens them up does it? Would you really say to a small child “get with the program?” From the broadcasts I’ve heard of the event, the child was not making a noise UNTIL she removed from the chamber.
The federal parliament should play a role in as much as is possible setting best-practice standards – having some sort of understanding of the emotional realities of a child and the demands this may make on that child’s parents are entirely within that gambit.
As for the self-serving verbage that corporate Australia wouldn’t allow such behaviour – well, sweeties, I don’t know where you work, but I think if you wander the corridors of most of our larger corporations, you would find a readiness to accommodate the situations such as this. Hanson-Young nor the Greens are not requesting that flocks of toddlers should be gambolling around on the floor on the chamber. They are requesting that the institution display enough flexibility to be able to accommodate the emotional needs of a child.
An entirely reasonable and mature request.
Barnaby made a lot of sense there. The Greens tend to enjoy pulling stunts to detract from the fact they have very little substantive policy (that would work in the real world).
Yup – perspective still being lost. Once. She did it once. Also, having the occasional child in the chamber is likely to raise the standard of discourse – provided they let the child speak.
Shift the picture a moment – a young male senator, who’s wife has just died leaving him in care of the children brings his three year old daughter into the chamber for a division – would there have been any negative comment?
No it nose-dived into the floor on launch.
Where do you draw the line? I can understand wanting to breastfeed a baby, but allowing a toddler in just because Mum doesn’t like saying goodbye? What about a six-year-old? Or a particularly precious teenager?
Grendel: if her husband had just died, then maybe your “shifted picture” would make for a sensible comparison.
“because Mum doesn’t like saying goodbye”
No, because the child’s needs in this situation have to be accommodated. A reasonable and mature response.
Depends if he makes a stink about being told to remove her.
Beat a quiet retreat? We wouldn’t even hear about it. I’d thank everyone for their discretion if I did.
Grandstand in the national media? He’d be getting the same treatment from me.
OMG ROBERT IT’S THE SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!!!!1!1!1
We’re all doomed, doomed I tell you.
Parliament will be full of irresponsible, noisy, juvenile little boys who don’t know how to behave!
Oh wait a minute…
Another WTF moment. As in WTF country am I living in?
As if utegate weren’t bad enough, now we have childgate. In any reasonable society this would barely rate a mention, particularly when we have enough real outrages to be getting on with. The death of a man cooked in the back of van is all but ignored, but the usual suspects get in a lather of indignation about this non-event.
Perhaps Ms Hanson-Young’s hit the trifecta – A woman, a green and a mother. For some apparently this is reason enough to be outraged.
” It’s about the association of women with child rearing and the apartheid between that and the world of “work” as constructed by the Western white collar male bosses in the last two centuries.”
Helen, the reason children are discouraged from workplaces is that less work gets done when kids are around. Sure, there needs to be exceptions when someone doesn’t have a choice but to bring their child to work on occasion. And it’s really noticeable how much less work gets done when that occurs. But this wasn’t an emergency. She wanted a few more minutes with her child. How is her desire more pressing than anyone else who may want a few more minutes as well for some other reason? If you want to argue for more flexible rules in general – no problem. But that’s a different argument.
You’re missing the point by a country mile Fine, but why does it matter so much to you?
Why do you think it matters so much to me?
OK, let’s say that we will ban children from all workplaces, even for (as in this case) a few minutes.
Does that mean that from now on in, we are allowed to ban all work from home? Down to, and including, the few minutes it takes to phone work to say I’m delayed or warn of a sick day, (quite a good parallel given the nature of the activity and the time taken);
No?
Thought not. It does all seem to work one way, doesn’t it?
What a retarded article.
Helen @ 32
That argument is bordering on desperation.
Helen, Fine and Rob have been around long enough that we know their values. I don’t think it that your response to them has been entirely fair. Feminists can and do disagree about the various solutions to the parenthood double standard. (As a side issue, asking where the line will be drawn is not a slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument is saying that it isn’t possible to draw one.)
I have worked in the Senate, as has at least one other person on this thread (but I’ll leave it to them to say whether or not they want to acknowledge that). And I agree with both Mecurius and Rob and Fine. It’s possible to understand that mothers have a very difficult time negotiating work and parenting a young child, but also acknowledge that all of the solutions to that involve putting some of that difficulty on others. Saying so doesn’t mean we think we should give up and send mothers back home. It just means we have to acknowledge and work around those issues.
Anyone who has worked for an MP will tell you that their boss bringing their child to work would have a massive impact on their ability to do their job, nanny or no. Does this mean we don’t allow it? Maybe, maybe not. But if we can’t talk about it amongst feminists who understand what’s most important then we’re leaving it to the shock jocks to talk about it, and their solutions won’t be pretty. Want to talk about slippery slopes? Where will that end?
Fine, the point is, it was a job “emergency”. She needed to there, when the bells rang, for a division that was earlier than expected.
Daphon
I’m pointing out that the workplace and the home are permeable, but only one way. Just throwing it out for what it’s worth.
Anna and others, once again let me point out that we are talking about a senator taking a few minutes to cope with a sudden situation. It is an edge case. It does not mean that the parliament will be filled with noisy children, except of course the ones that have been elected. But to read some of the comments here, and Razer’s spiteful Julie Burchill imitation, you’d think Hanson-Young had suggested bringing children in all the time.
The question for feminists is: do we content ourselves with raising our status in the context and the framework of workplaces and families which have evolved to suit the needs of men with wives at home and no domestic responsibility, which in practice ends up with distorted lives and a perception that women with children should be voiceless in government (thanks, Raze); or do we admit that the framework itself of work and family needs to be overhauled? That’s a thread for another day.
But yes, I stand by my statement that there is a slippery-slope argument going on in this thread. and I think there’s a bit of “Greens! Irrational!” in the mix, too.
The Greens are NOT talking about making Parliament into a creche!
Helen, we’re not just talking about a few minutes though. We’re talking about a Senator having her child in the office before and after that, and people are using it to talk about changing the rules to allow children onto the Senate floor, and about encouraging more parents to bring their kids to work and so on.
I’m not really concerned about the OMG Greens!!!11! response. I’m talking about genuine progressive feminist lefties being mocked or their feminism being called into question because they’re raising some problems with the proposed solutions. They are valid points, so let’s see if we can have that debate without putting everyone who has some problems with what Hanson-Young did in the same OMG GREENS!!!1! basket.
You may discount this immediately, as I’m a member of the Greens. But I’m also a manager, responsible for a team of about 30 people, and several of them have children. From time to time, childcare arrangements fail, and I’m left with one of three options. I can (try to) refuse leave for the staff in my area to pick up their child, which is unethical and counterproductive. I can allow them to pick up their child and take him or her home, using carer’s leave or rescheduling work hours, which is typically means no work will get done. Or I can let them pick their child up and bring him or her into the workplace. I choose the latter every time it’s available to me. It means more work gets done than any of the alternatives. It hopefully creates reasons for the staff in my area to remain rather than leave and go somewhere else. And the parent is less concerned about worrying about the wellbeing of their child, and as such is better able to focus on what they’re being paid to do.
I should note one thing here. I used the word “their” to describe the parents I work with who find themselves in that situation, but without fail the accurate word would be “her”. That’s what makes this a women’s issue, even though Senator Hanson-Young noted that it should affect fathers as well, it tends not to to the same extent.
I think the kicker for the vitriol is that she’s a Green. Being a woman with a child is enough for some, but – as is seen in comments on this post – Sarah Hanson-Young is incurring particular wrath by virtue of her political affiliation.
It does affect fathers in my workplace, Alister (mainlyGen X/Y). That’s why I’m quietly confident that this issue will progress in the future.
In my academic workplace, I’ve lost count of the number of people who’ve brought their children in at some point or other, particularly during the school holidays. For considerably longer than a few minutes, I might add.
Was this interfering with the workings of the Senate in any substantial manner? No. In which case, the appropriate thing to do was let it slide in my view.
Helen, I’m GenX, and most of those in my workplace are X and Y. But it’s still always the mothers who are left holding the baby…
“She has a strong political position on the need for more childcare, and she has every right to hold that position. But she should debate it through the chamber without using her own child as a prop ” said Barnaby Joyce.
Funny how the focus has been on Sarah Hanson-Young and baby, while the real drop kick, that inspired this thread, has not drawn much of a mention. His hatred of The Greens virges on the hysterical and he agreed with the original behaviour of the president when even John Hogg, himself, regretted it.
I think the President of the Senate made the wrong decision in directing that Kora be removed in the circumstances that prevailed but I also think it needs to be acknowledged that Sarah Hanson-Young is unusually fortunate to have the sort of family support structures she enjoys – a salary/allowances package in excess of 150K a year, free travel between Adelaide and Canberra, continuing access to the Parliamentary Childcare Service, paid staffers to assist in implementing work/life balance, a husband who provides ongoing childcare in her absence, etc.
It’s absolutely the case that a Senator’s role is demanding and that any perceived advantages should be viewed from that perspective but a lot of the animus I heard on ABC talkback yesterday came from people irritated by the fact that the privilege that Hanson-Young enjoys relative to most other parents wasn’t mentioned and that out in the real world people just have to get on and manage with considerably fewer resources.
Most parents accept that kids and the workplace are generally not an appropriate mix. They consequently spend enormous amounts of time and money resolving the resulting demands and tensions. It’s therefore not surprising that views will be decidedly mixed on Senator Hanson-Young’s travails.
Clearer guidelines may be needed as to when it is/isn’t appropriate for children to be present on the floor of the Senate and the House. A logical and overdue exemption is now in place for breast-feeding babies but I’m not sure what other circumstances should attract exemption.
It struck me yesterday that the Greens might have waived the necessity for Senator Hanson-Young to be present for a Division that the Greens were never likely to win if the priority was to farewell her daughter…maybe they need to check out their guidelines as well?
God some people talk crap. I can’t believe the froth a d vitriol about this issue. The Senate president made a mistake. The kid was silent as a mouse and making more sense than some senators I could name. The kid was only taken into the Senate because a division had been called and the mother had to vote. After the division which usually takes about five minutes they would have gone out. All these stuffed shirts and pumped up conservatives should get a life and understand that there is nothing wrong with kids. I used to take mine t work in a big office sometimes when child care had failed and the job got done. Sorry for long URL below but check it out Barnaby exploiting his family
Edit by AW: Link.
Anna writes that, “…but also acknowledge that all of the solutions to that involve putting some of that difficulty on others.” But this was a division. We’re not actually talking about a disruption here. You say that you’re not interested in the Greens-baiting issues around this, and I’ll take that at face value. But I am interested in that issue, and I can’t see how they can be separated here. As Andrew Bartlett noted, “This is far from the first time a baby has been brought into the Senate chamber during a vote.” So why now? Why Sarah Hanson-Young and not the Liberal Senator that Bartlett talks about in his piece?
“It struck me yesterday that the Greens might have waived the necessity for Senator Hanson-Young to be present for a Division that the Greens were never likely to win if the priority was to farewell her daughter…maybe they need to check out their guidelines as well?”
Geoff, if they were to take up that option it would be said they were not doing the job properly. Attendance at divisions is used as a serious measure of performance in both houses.
“In my academic workplace”
That must be me too Robert and I have the same feeling — I can’t understand why people care so much if it doesn’t interfere with anything. Personally, I have noticed that having a few kids around the drab hallways, the offices with university propaganda painted on them and the buildings that looks like bomb-shelters seems to cheer people up. So perhaps there is even the opposite effect.
Alister, as I said in a later comment, the kid didn’t vanish into thin air before and after the division. I’m talking about the staff in her office and in around the Senate generally. Perhaps it’s just because I’m more familiar with working there that I’m taking some things for granted, but most people who have worked in Parliaments will tell you that the actual Senate/House floor is fairly low down in terms of importance to one’s job. All the hard work happens outside in people’s offices etc, which is where the kid was for all but those few short minutes she was on the Senate floor.
It raises questions about the level of responsibility the staff have for the child. Can they all bring their kids in too? And it would absolutely impact on the ability to do one’s job. Being a staffer involves lots of reading, writing and having conversations. All of these things are more difficult when there is a young child around, whether because you like having them there or because you don’t. I’m not providing any solutions here, so please don’t assume I am. But these are important things to consider if we are to raise the idea of kids being more welcome in the workplace.
You* can’t have it both ways: it can’t be both “just a few minutes” and also about the wider issue of kids coming into the workplace more frequently.
*ETA I refer to a more general “you”, not one person in particular.
Anna it’s not clear to me that enough information has been published to know what was going on with Kora before the division bells were rung. All I can make out is that there was an immediate need to return to the Senate floor for a few minutes, with a few minutes notice. It seems like there was no time to organise a pair, and as the Senate President himself admits, this situation could have been handled better.
I am aware of the impact having children in a workplace can have. Most white collar work “involves lots of reading, writing and having conversations.” But as has been noted already, no-one’s talking about turning a workplace into a creche. The main point seems to be (leaving aside the idiotic Green-baiting demonstrated by Craig Mc above), can we consider making a workplace more able to accommodate immediate needs of parents who work atrocious hours, without making them strangers to their own children? I think this is a worthwhile goal.
“It raises questions about the level of responsibility the staff have for the child. Can they all bring their kids in too? And it would absolutely impact on the ability to do one’s job. Being a staffer involves lots of reading, writing and having conversations. All of these things are more difficult when there is a young child around, whether because you like having them there or because you don’t.”
Is this a joke?
I know political staffers have this delusion that they’re somehow more important than every other type of employee, but it’s a load of crap.
As other people have pointed out on this thread, taking children into the workplace is hardly unprecedented. Be it in parliament, universities or law firms. It’s particularly common in a lot of workplaces during the school holidays.
If thousands of parents across the country bring in their kids occasionally, for whatever reason (maybe they can’t get a baby sitter, maybe they just want to show them the office) and manage it fine, then I don’t think the country will collapse because the oh so important work being done by political staffers is apparently being impacted.
No-one seems to have asked – did having the child present compromise her ability to do her job? By all accounts the child was well behaved until the unfortunate ejection. As with having a child at any workplace, the same question needs to be asked – does it stop one from doing their job properly? The answer to that question should inform whether or not people bring their kids, not how “well paid” they are.
Its a seperate rule for pollies isnt it? Most working mums know that they’re going to work so they ARRANGE someone to look after their child. This was at parliament yet did not plan ahead for her child, just grabbed her and took her into the workplace. If this is the kind of foresight that greens senators display with their political judgement then I shudder for the well-being of this country.
“As with having a child at any workplace, the same question needs to be asked – does it stop one from doing their job properly? The answer to that question should inform whether or not people bring their kids, not how “well paid” they are.”
To be clear, the Senator’s workplace is Parliament and there is no particular injunction against bringing her daughter to Parliament. In fact, Parliament provides childcare on site.
The issue here is specific to the question of whether her daughter should be in her company when she is undertaking a particular aspect of her duties – attendance in the Senate – and if so, under what conditions.
Everyone seems to be talking as if the chamber is the only ‘workplace’ of a politician. No one would notice or mind a MP/Senator bringing their child into their parliamentary office. But it is a fundamental tradition of all parliamentary systems that only those elected to the chamber (or at the express permission of the chamber) are allowed into the chamber. Not even the Queen or Governor-General can simply enter the chamber at whim in the way in which Hanson-Young seems to think her child is entitled.
Secondly, even though a division, Hanson-Young did not actually have to be in the chamber. She could have simply missed the vote (it was a greens amendment on a bill on junk food advertising which went down 5-43), or as happens regularly when MP’s/Senators are unable to attend votes, arrange for a member of the govt/opposition to stand aside to ensure fair numbers. This happens regularly and without significant controversy. Hanson-Young has two workplaces, One is her office to which no one would have the slightest problem about her bringing a child. The second is in the chamber itself and for which it is an insult to the institution and its traditions to do so.
Sure Oz, it’s a joke. Ha ha!
First up, I’m not a political staffer anymore, I used be. Second, I don’t see how anything I wrote is delusional. But at the same time as we are talking about more flexibility to bring children into the workplace, we are also much more aware that the idea of children being seen but not heard is a bunch of crap. Which means that when children are there you can’t just tell them to shut the fuck up. Which means that they do actually require attention, and when the parent is a Senator with a full diary and frequent meetings and divisions and running around, it will sometimes fall to the staffers to be the ones to attend to the child. You can’t realistically argue otherwise. That’s just how it is.
Anyway, I just deleted a really long comment that’s becoming a post of its own, so stay tuned… maybe.
Actually, if you’d read all of the comments here, you’d find that some of us have differentiated between chamber and office, and I for one think that the office part is where it gets more complicated.
Also, that’s not how pairs work. Pairs are assigned weeks in advance. They aren’t figured out on a vote to vote basis and they aren’t assigned to people who are actually in Parliament House. They’re for people who won’t be there at all. And when you’re at the House, missing a division is a big deal.
I have to say that I’m competely surprised by some of the responses to this.
A very young child was in the chamber for bit – big deal.
Mercurius – spot on.
@ Steve: Parliament *is* a play pen. I don’t know what you think it is. Ironically the ejected toddler was probably the most well behaved in the joint.
Shorter Barnaby: “Every politician has a subservient spouse hanging around to which you can palm off your child. I’ve got one, so obviously this is a stunt.”
Short sociological observation: It’s not normally a white male politician that ever has to find childcare within a 4 minute timeframe, or in fact, within any timeframe. Maybe it should be. Equal involvement in raising children. What a radical idea. Shock. Horror.
I don’t understand why people are saying, “But it was a division, so they should have let the child stay.” I would have thought that it was during divisions that the rules against strangers in the chamber should be most strictly enforced.
John Hogg could take himself less seriously, everyone else does.
A kid or two on the odd, short occasion might help remind our pollies, and especially the denier/Barnaby/Fielding type, that they need to govern for the next generation as well as this, and certainly beyond the next election. I don’t include the Greens as needing this reminder.
Having kids around could tone down some of the behaviour, the angst and bring out some of the better human qualities which many seem to leave at home.
It’s not what you would call a hazardous place, probably less so than the average family home.
I would have trouble telling the difference between Barnaby Joyce and a petulant eight-year old. But he’s elected, so *sigh*
I ask in all seriousness: do the younger men in the conservative movement have a problem with women?
Look at the recent years’ record (in reverse chronological order):
* Barnaby all agog at the toddler in the Senate.
* This week, the Mirabella staffer breast-groping at the Winter Ball.
* Last month, the former young Liberal trash-talker compiling photos of all the hawt young Liberal women.
* Buswell the chair-sniffer.
* John Brogden and the mail-order bride “joke”.
* Costello’s “have one for the country”.
* Tony Abbott wanting ‘em barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
These are all men who’ve grown up (sic) during or since the 1970s. What is their problem?
And how could any self-respecting young conservative woman bear to associate herself with these clowns?
The older generation of conservative men might be unreconstructed troglodytes in other respects, but one can’t imagine Howard or Ruddock or even the excerable Wilson Tuckey behaving in anything other than a, well, gentlemanly manner around the ladies in the Associates’ Bar.
Seriously, I think Pru Goward and Bronwyn Bishop need to take the young fellas aside for a stern talking-to, and a bit of reminder of the basics. Otherwise those two might well be the last generation of women to rise to any prominence in the conservative party. Who with a uterus would want to join that crowd?
“but one can’t imagine Howard or Ruddock or even the excerable Wilson Tuckey behaving in anything other than a, well, gentlemanly manner around the ladies in the Associates’ Bar.”
Heffernan and “barren”?
“Helen Razer. I was amazed at the venom and viciousness with which she attacked ”
but Helen Razer – her name is venom. Always has been. Ignore her rants.
“They’re for people who won’t be there at all. And when you’re at the House, missing a division is a big deal.”
Come on. Bob Brown has been all over the media for the last couple of days asserting that there are moments when official procedure needs to acknowledge and accommodate a parliamentarian’s occasional need to prioritise her parental responsibility – particularly when it involves farewelling a 2 year old about to leave Canberra for Adelaide.
The division on the Greens amendment proposed was lost (as it was always going to be) on party lines and based on what he has said to date, Bob would have had no difficulty whatsoever had Sarah missed the vote, nor would he have had any difficulty in publicly supporting her reason for so doing.
Geez you lot took a long time to wake up today. Comment #1 sat there for ages. I was getting worried.
That’s a sad list Mercurius.
Anna maybe Kora spent most of the day in the Parliament House creche? They have one don’t they?
It probably would have been wise had Hanson-Young been given permission by the President to have her toddler in the chamber for the division vote. Granted he may not have given it. But I agree with Geoff, Hogg made a bad decision that caused a little girl to have a small emotional breakdown that everyone could hear and gave an already emotionally taxed mother reason for just a bit more anguish, none of which was necessary. Common sense comes a poor second again.
A small band of toddlers observing Question Time from the floor might have a good effect, a bit cruel I guess. But it could encourage the larger, brats to behave themselves better.
None of this would happen if we just brought back the eunuch and gave ‘it’ the job of governing us.
Robert @ 60: “I would have thought that it was during divisions that the rules against strangers in the chamber should be most strictly enforced.”
The stranger in question was a two-year old. A toddler. The likelihood that she would be mistaken for a Senator and permitted to vote is unlikely in the extreme. Had the stranger been a staffer, or some other non-elected adult who would be likely to be mistakenly miscounted in a division, then your objection would be reasonable.
Your assertion that the infant in question was a stranger is technically correct; ergo, it seems, the best kind of correct.
I read that Hanson Young was spending some time with the child before she was being flown back to Adelaide sans mama. Doesn’t sound as though the kid would have had a problem with four minutes in the care of a staffer with some toys in the pleasant, private little lounge (soft couches, plush carpet, doors to a garden) that abuts the chamber. It was disingenuous on the Greens’ part to present the story the way they did. Hanson Young created the distress – accidentally, to be sure, but entirely her responsibility.
I think there should be more kids in parliament both to remind the grownups of who they’re really working for in the long term and to raise the level of debate.
Oz, you’ve beaten me to the Heffernan example which slightly weakens Mercurius’s interesting observation. But is it just the rusted-on right wingers, of any vintage, who seek to demonise women and/or mothers at any opportunity? Knowing how other loosely feminist issues are treated by some LP commenters, my expectation that Hansen-Young’s plight would be met with intolerance from some males here was disappointingly vindicated.
Having recently sat through Madmen, Gruen Transfer and the Heineken ads featuring a skinny blonde robotwoman dispensing a keg from her torso (the ideal woman – desirable, no brain, only a beer receptacle?) it seems that even the creative end of the media zeitgeist is dominated by males whose snide, smutty remarks and representations of women reveal that sexual desirability and simultaneous hostility is the only prism through which women are viewed, at least by these alpha-male, writerly or talking head types.
So Mercurius’s reflection may be tapping into a sinister, contemporary trend: alpha males of the baby boomer and younger generations still wish women would go back to the kitchen sink, or the typing pool, and SHUT THE HELL UP.
While not wishing to deviate too far from the topic at hand, Mercurius is kind of on the money re older generations of men displaying more courteous, respectful behaviour towards ‘the fairer sex’, to use one of their terms! To that end, those sex-obsessed creators of the Madmen series are really kidding themselves. Their re-creation of a 1960s advertising office is much more a reflection of their own present-day disturbing, delusional fantasies which exaggerates how working women were generally treated in those times.
But back to this thread, Hansen-Young wanted to spend a few more precious minutes with her toddler, so the arguments around other staff being on hand to mind Cora are irrelevant.
Barnaby Joyce used to be a vocal anti-abortionist. Yet his family-friendliness doesn’t extend to making concessions to children once they’re out of the womb and he can score political points from objecting to their intrusion into his workplace. Ah, the putrid hypocrisy of family values politicians is interminable.
The venom directed to the Greens, as if their ascension and policies will bring the country to its knees, is ludicrous as Green-baiters would discover if they were sincere in examining local examples where Greens are in power. For example, the City of Yarra in Melbourne where they’ve held sway for about 8 years. They’ve shown themselves to be small capitalists, as interested in maintaining their power base by capitulating to market demands and self-interest as any other capitalist party. This has all been documented on a website that is unfortunately no longer operating.
Hanson Young created the distress – accidentally, to be sure, but entirely her responsibility.
Abs bullshit. Or maybe you didn’t read the news report; the kid was quiet as a mouse sitting there for the few minutes necessary, then Hogg kicked up a stink and it was only then that the kid squawked some.
Yes they have one, who knows or cares whether she spent time in it? I don’t see what it has to do with the debate, since I’m not actually discussing the particular case, only the broader issue of parents bringing their children into the workplace. I haven’t actually criticised Hanson-Young at all, because as everyone keeps saying, I agree it was a one-off thing and that the whole thing has been blown well out of proportion.
But it depends if you think the debate is about how rules may sometimes be broken in an emergency (of course they should), or that it’s about changing the rules to better accommodate working mothers. Both interesting and important debates, but my comments have been about the latter.
Wow. I just had a look at the youtube clip linked to at #14. Fascinating. I wonder if Dylan is still extant?
I wondered if the “stunting” was being done by the President, in an effort to push for a calrification to Standing Orders. From what I can make out, littlies have appeared in the Senate before and the world hasn’t stopped (unless they’ve been, gasp, breastfeeding!).
I haven’t found out when the division took place, but it seems to have been in the evening. Child care doesn’t exist after 6pm apart from rent-a-nannies, and they must be booked in advance by rather more than 4 minutes. I wonder if it was bedtime? At bedtime, there is a point where putting your child down just reboots them. Carrying a probably-sleepy child with you on an unexpected errand of short duration seems quite natural and practical to me.
There is a part of me that hopes to see the Senator write her story up for Take 5! or similar.
The Geek tells me that Helen Razer was once a metalhead with a quirky view of life, never a comedian. Going by her incoherent pieces to the SMH, she has never really recovered from the stalking. I haven’t read her latest effort, but assume it is similar.
. . Alister, as I said in a later comment, the kid didn’t vanish into thin air before and after the division. I’m talking about the staff in her office and in around the Senate generally.
I must have been mistaken. I thought you were making a point about the child in question being a disruption to staffers working in the Senator’s office.
As for not being able to tell the kid to shut the fuck up. Have a look at the youtube clip! I can’t believe it’s for real. But I think it might be.
All this focus on alternative arrangements is missing the point. The Senator WANTED to keep Cora with her for another few precious minutes cos she was about to hop on a plane for Adelaide, so mother & child were probably destined to be apart for the entire weekend.
I don’t think the argument is about whether the minutiae of parliamentary life is child-friendly or not, it’s about the lack of flexibility in that environment, as enforced by the Speaker on this occasion.
the clip at #14 appears to be a comedy act
The woman was saying goodbye to her daughter and didn’t expect she would be called into the chamber. So what was she supposed to do with the little girl? Dump her in her office? Leave her to roam the corridors? I’ll bet if she had there would be even more confected outrage.
Plenty of parents have been caught in the same sort of situation where they’ve been called into work with insufficient notice to get child care. I’m sure Hanson-Young would have preferred not to take her daughter into the Senate chamber, but sometimes these things are unavoidable. And FFS, it’s not like she’s in the habit of doing it. Give her a break.
Chookie @ 76, the division was at 4.45 pm, during normal working hours …
(I think) I’m the other person Anna mentioned as having worked in the Senate.
My view is that I have no problem with MPs bringing their kids to work. How they run their office is their own business, and child-friendly offices are a good thing.
But the chamber is not their office. I think there should be strict (and strictly enforced) rules about who can be in the chamber. MPs and ushers, with an exception for breastfeeding babies. There is a designated area for parliamentary staff to sit, and if the child was there I can’t see a problem. But the benches themselves? Off limits to every arse but the arses we’ve elected to sit in them. Why is that such a difficult concept?
Yes, it’s tough saying goodbye to people you love. Of course it is. But sometimes we need to say goodbye a few minutes earlier than we’d like, and, well, tough shit.
Perhaps some of the public opposition has been because they don’t see what happened as an emergency situation as she had staffers available to look after her child. Most working parents would love to be in such fortunate a situation that they have someone provided by their employer ready to take over with childcare when needed.
What happened to Hansen-Young in getting time with her child cut short unexpectedly would not be unusual for a politician with a family. Its just that in the past most of them accepted that it came as the part of the cost of the job. Its great that topic of children in the workplace is getting more discussion.
Rob, it’s fine to say “tough shit” to an adult, but try saying it to a two year old and see how you feel about yourself.
I can understand the elegant simplicity of your desire to exclude all but breastfeedig babies from the chamber – but what about a breastfed toddler, should that be the case? Or is that too difficult a concept?
Disclosure: this comment was written by a person who has watched the cot be moved into the desk behind her bosses’ HOR office and is breastfeeding a 2 1/2 year old.
I realise that those of us who don’t have children aren’t allowed to have an opinion, but I’ll risk it anyway.
Tough shit to the two-year-old, too. You can’t always get what you want.
And a breastfeeding toddler I wouldn’t have a problem with, but that’s not what we’re talking about, is it?
Pembo had a valid point. Quite a few actually. And I find it hard to cry over a woman who has separation anxiety while simultaneously arguing for mothers to kill their kids, even arguing for tax payer funded murder to be exported elsewhere. Let’s not go to all that we locals know about the vacuous Hanson-Young and her earnest, earnest husband. *cough*
The breastfeeding toddler example I raised because the only exemption category in your comment was breastfed babies, and because lots of people apparently think breastfeeding toddlers is squicky. Your comment expresses great certainty, which I wanted to explore.
Any parent of a two year old spends a lot of time telling them they can’t have what they want, and that’s not what this is about. I didn’t suggest that parents were the only people who could have or express a relevant opinion, I was just pointing out that your opinion required treating a child as if they had the resilience and resources of an adult. Which they don’t.
What a boring lot you are.What has this Green Senator got that is so representative of the failing reality of Womens’ Rights etc. in Australia for a very long time,that has anything to do with her at all!? This is all top down stuff,like the trickle down effect of economics!? I mean to say,if she represents the past and future of Australian Womanhood,my poor mother’s limited cliche’ vocabulary extended to….No rest for the wicked!? Work you Females and work HARD until you miss your lazy boyfriends ,husbands, and partners!? The Sky is Falling! Repeat! Because those words may be as close to a male voice you will ever hear again. Or send me your address..and I will send some smelly work socks you can wash by hand in a copper tub,and wring through the ringer.I like my socks starched!
Phillip, I think it’s past your bedtime.
Run off, and mum’ll be in to give you a BIG cuddle!
xxx
your opinion required treating a child as if they had the resilience and resources of an adult
No it doesn’t. It simply requires treating a two-year-old as if there are places they’re not allowed to go. Which there are, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable that a chamber of parliament during a vote should be one of them.
“Tough shit to the two-year-old, too. You can’t always get what you want.”
Oh, come on.
Robert @89, it wasn’t a vote, it was a division. Again, get off the woman’s back.
Come on, yourself, Zoe. My guess is — again, I’m not a parent, but my guess is that sometimes you have to say “tough shit” to a two-year-old who wants something they can’t have. I didn’t expect that to be a controversial suggestion.
Jane, a division is a vote.
“Which there are, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable that a chamber of parliament during a vote should be one of them.”
And in the context of what happened last week, what was Hanson-Young supposed to do with her kid?
No staffers available, no time to take her up to the office (and what, dump her there alone), and the creche is not a temporary garage.
Robert, I agree that there are times when a toddler has to cop what they don’t want. That is certainly not controversial, in particular I would think amongst parents of toddlers.
I’m harking back to the contextual points made by Bernice above. A large part of good parenting is anticipating and preparing kids in advance – as much as is possible – for what’s coming up. You can’t just radically change their understanding of what’s happening now, or next. You can’t just say “tough shit” and you can’t just expect them to “cope” – you have to cajole, and persuade, and explain.
I find it interesting that no-one has commented on the video from the Chamber which shows that Senator Hanson-Young jumped immediately to comply with the Chair’s orders before being instructed by Bob Brown to sit while he argued the point. Makes me think that perhaps not many people have actually watched it.
“My guess is — again, I’m not a parent, but my guess…..”
Robert, you didn’t need to say. From what you suggest about how you would treat a two year old, it shows up anyway.
This thread is an embarrassment to feminism. What a bunch of spoilt narcissistic brats. Firstly, the active agent Kim has chosen is a man, and Barnaby Joyce at that. Secondly, we have those women who are still stuck in that groove where ‘feminist’ means ‘women can do anything they like’.
Hanson-Young has not only abused her position of Senator – including its extraordinary privilege, salary, and comfort – but acted like a spoilt little princess who always had Daddy wrapped around her little finger.
The senator should have the appropriate book thrown at her. She is a grown woman in the senate. She needs to treat the senate with some adult respect, not as some plaything, where she can throw little tantrums to push Daddy’s boundaries.
Hanson-Young has acted more childishly than her little one, and deserves the condemnation of us all.
If she cannot act sufficiently like a grown up, then she should consider a career elsewhere.
Not Happy Sarah.
Not Happy Sarah?
Come and have a cuddle, and Mummy’ll tuck you in.
Would you like me to sing you our special song?
Personally, I could live with the more rigid previous interpretation of the rules that prohibited any ’stranger’ on the floor of the Senate.
(Although various visiting dignitaries do get invited to sit next the President from time to time with the concurrance of the Senate)
But the simple fact is this strict interpretation has been relaxed for a number of years now. Babies have been brought into the chamber during divisions a number of times in recent years. It doesn’t disrupt proceedings as people are just sitting there talking amongst themselves while their names are crossed off a list. (Which is also why a ’stranger’ would not be able to be accidently counted during a vote count, because their names aren’t on the list)
I am sure Senator Hanson-Young wouldn’t have brought her child in if she believed it wasn’t permitted. But it had been done before without complaint. I understand she had done it previously herself a couple of times without comment.
I’m sure her colleagues wouldn’t have minded her missing the vote on this occassion if she was farewelling her daughter. But given past precdent and practice, she quite reasonably believed she quite bring her child in with her.
The Senate can go back to the past stricter interpretation if it chooses – I don’t have hugely strong views either way – but it was unreasonable to suddenly return to a stricter interpretation without warning – and it is simply a slur to say it was a stunt when its been by others in the past without comment.
joe2, just be careful carrying your toddler with you while riding your high horse.
It’s hard to argue with Andrew Bartlett. I think the strict rule is the right one, but it could have been handled better by the President. And I don’t think there is anything to suggest it was a stunt.
(And I hope Zoe doesn’t lump me in with some of the other commenters who have disagreed with her. Philip Travers and “Not Happy Sarah” seem to have… issues.)
Thanks to Andrew Bartlett for his sensible and informative comment.
(And Robert, you are a person I respect and we have been online mates for far too long to have not had an argument yet
By contrast, I don’t know “Philip Travers” or “Not Happy Sarah” and think that they are probably complete gherkins offline as well as on.
“And I hope Zoe doesn’t lump me in with some of the other commenters who have disagreed with her.”
Good luck on that Robert, but you do come across as quite rigid and stuffy on this one yourself. Child rearing lectures are not your stong point, old pal.
Hey, look at that: Zoe can speak for herself. So good luck to you, joe2.
I love this holier than thou shit “you obviously aren’t a parent”, said or inferred multiple times this thread. Well speaking as a parent, my two year old was perfectly understanding that for four minutes at a time from time to time, he couldn’t have my attention and had to spend time with another friendly face. Really, he’s two, not one, there’s a big difference.
That said (god some of you are so smug), I will say that the comments in the thread have certainly expanded my understanding of this, and I’m now quite accepting that this was a potentially line-ball case which is dependent on lots of facts that people are interpolating from their own experience. I can’t decide whether she and/or the Senate President were right or wrong on this issue.
wilful, you SO obviously only have one child.
OK, “Too Cool Feminist”, when you stop being “cool” why don’t you start being a feminist? The assumption throughout this thread that women are always passive, innocent, child-like victims of men, the workplace, and the system, might have been fine in 1930, and even then it didn’t exist, but to push it in 2009 about a Senator is even more infantile.
Quite a few of you above who throw the line ‘oh, as a feminist my point of view is holy writ’ really need to grow up and live in 2009, not 1979.
Stop enabling the indulgent antics of this princess. She is making a mockery of the rest of us.
Oooh, touche.
Ahhh, too cool, wrong again.
Not buying it, darl. The core of every comment you’ve made is to put shit on the Senator – you call her a “princess”, “spoilt”, say she is “childish” and has had “tantrums”.
You can criticise my feminist chops when you demonstrate something worth arguing with.
I agree with #79. That youtube clip at #14 has got to be from The Onion. I nearly wet myself laughing.
Robert and Anna make most sense of this situation, both having a good understanding of the work place involved and the impact of a small child on others working there. It seems silly to argue the specifics of the case, ie the mother on the point of returning the child to its nanny to return interstate and so on. How could any of the observers and partipicants in the incident be expected to know those details and make allowances for them in that instant? That’s why there are rules of attendendance and access which make life easier and safer in a myriad social situations, particularly in work places whether they be law courts, parliaments, industrial tribunals. factories, board rooms, schools, child care centres and even creches!
And yes we can become hidebound with rules for rules sake and from time to time things need shaking up and rules have to change after due process but not ad hoc to meet the needs of any one individual at any time of their choosing.
I hate to be in Barnaby Joyce’s corner on any issue, but on this one I can’t be with Bob Brown.
My earlier “darl” was to poor not happy, Sarah, btw ,not wilful (to whom I concede defeat and curse the law of averages stuffing up one’s playful chancing it
) and certainly not to Anna.
Patricia WA, your comment was phrased in very moderate tones. It might have been a real killer had it made sense, for example, by demonstrating you had read the rest of the thread, and in particular Andrew Bartlett @ 99
Que? I was a feminist in 1979, and remain one in 2009, and anyone who’d said that in either of those years or any of the years in between would have been the subject of raucous mockery from most, if not quite all, sides.
What’s more, I can’t see that sentiment or anything like it anywhere in the comments thread. I can’t work out where you’re coming from at all, Not Happy, or even what sex you are (though I must say that is a particularly well-chosen nom de blog), but you sound confused.
Heck, they used to let George Bush run around without a leash in all the gubmint buildings, and that didn’t do no harm… oh, wait.
I doubt there’s a universal principle at stake here. Some jobs it’s fine to bring your kids to work, and some jobs it’s not such a good idea. (I’ve worked at both kinds.)
Back when I worked as a mid-level Bloodthirsty Dark-Ages Warlord, it was always a bit of a coin-toss whether the bairns shoulda been allowed to watch.
Is Parliament a job that’s kid-OK or not? Well I have no idea. Why don’t you all have a big open debate about it? Oh wait, that’s exactly what yer doing, innit. Sounds like the right way to proceed. Let the best argument win.
Exit question, just to be a nuisance: should abortionists be encouraged to bring their children to work?
And while we are here, we might as well throw in Sophie Mirabella’s groping staffer. Does anybody else think this has been overblown? I regard Tanya Plibersek as among the top handful of people in Australian public life in poise, intellect, political ideals, maturity and strength.
These women – Sarah and Tanya Plibersek – are among the most educated and powerful in the nation and they are running to the media because at an office piss-up some dork asks if he can feel her breasts. Tanya said, “it was appalling”! Oh, the poor thing.
Well ladies, I don’t know about you, but I have always found a drink in the face, or “as if” or “why don’t you call me in a few days when you’ve settled down a little bit” always diffuses the situation.
What concerns me is these very privileged women increasingly exploiting for career gain genuine feminist concerns that affect the more powerless.
[Waves] Spirit of Camille Paglia, leave your body, Sarah!
The common thread in your comments, Not Happy [x], appears to be that it’s always the fault of the woman.
Why ever would Tanya Plibersek want to suggest to some random drunken Liberal staffer that he call her in a couple of days “in order to diffuse the situation”? It makes no sense. And I wonder at the fact that you’re apparently decrying women for not laughing off some yob trying to grope them, and at the same time making apparently sanctimonious pronouncements about what feminists should and shouldn’t think or do or feel.
Notwithstanding “Not Happy”’s best efforts to suggest otherwise, I believe he is
a manmale.Yes, I think an identikit image is emerging here.
Andrew Bartlett is right: the playing field can’t be changed suddenly; if reasonable flexibility about letting parents bring children into the chamber has been the practice before, it’s unacceptable for it to just be withdrawn (and the order to remove that child was issued in a tone of voice that shat me to tears.)
Aside from every other consideration, those concerned about preserving the dignity of the Senate or whatever need to understand that arbitrary / random enforcement of rules makes it look like the very opposite of a bastion of democracy.
The larger question for me is what as a nation did we do wrong to end up with Andrew out of the Senate and Barnaby Joyce in there? Must have been something pretty heinous.
I want to know what the Greens Whip was up to and why she didn’t alert the Senators that they were likely to go to General Business early, and that would mean the Greens motion on junk food advertising would come up first. Should have seen that one coming and made sure the Senators were ready.
But Andrew Bartlett is right it is wrong to suddenly change the rules.
Oops -it was a bill, not a motion. And it would have been the Greens who called the division.
Without reading the gendered aspects of this thred, Hanson-Young basically misses the point and is lacking intellect..
She pretends to be Green but supports policies which will make it easier for the biggest per capita carbon criminals in the world (Australians) to breed.
When I pointed out the mathematically proven idiocy of her policy positions (in polite language) on facebook, she reported me and had my account barred. She has a problem with the truth and denies scientific green facts (as do most politicians).
I cannot imagine why your account was barred.
Taking a baby to work in a public place is asking for trouble with all the flu about! The baby was taken out eventually poor little thing by someone it didn’t know.
I would suggest Hanson-Young crosses the floor into ALP as there are some smart cookies in the greens and she is spongecake.. However, with 6.9 billion people on the planet the face of Australian politics will change for ever in the near future, it doesnt matter which way people turn
Yeah, until it’s your turn to get your tits groped uninvited, Not Happy Tanya @117. When some drunk with all the charm of severe diahorrea grabs you, you can share your reactions with everyone and we’ll tell you if it’s overblown. But, who knows you may think it’s a real complement.
Parkos your tale renews my faith in facebook
I just wanted to pick up on a point made earlier in a couple of comments on this thread about the privileging of the parent-child relationship over other relationships.
I actually think that particular relationship ought to be privileged above all others. I mean, when are we going to stop pretending that there’s some kind of parallel world where the physical business of humanity (having kids and looking after them, among other things)doesn’t impinge on the cerebral aspects?
I guess by keeping this false opposition going, we can continue to exclude women, who are still mostly responsible for all the messy business of having and looking after children, from the public realm by saying all that stuff should be kept separate.
Things need to be organised differently so that we can all get on with all aspects of the business of being human.
After discussions with friends and family, and reading around the rest of the blogosphere and MSM, the positions of the majority stated on this thread are largely disappointing, and have gone down hill since last night.
Not Happy Not Happy
The common thread in your comments, Not Happy [x], appears to be that it’s always the fault of the woman.
Sadly, it probably does “appear” that way to you because of the lenses through which you are receiving these events. I have discussed two incidents, but you want to turn these two into a giant gender war melodrama, where the baddies claim no matter the incident “it’s always the woman’s fault”.
You suffer from the same misguidedness as the OP. You jump straight into issues of “fault” as though we were discussing a traffic accident.
Why ever would Tanya Plibersek want to suggest to some random drunken Liberal staffer that he call her in a couple of days “in order to diffuse the situation”?
You are playing the same troll game. My suggestion makes it quite clear that a drink in the face, and/or “as if” are also among the many options a talented and powerful adult like Tanya could use.
It makes no sense.
I would like to respond, “it is your deliberate ignoring of details that does not make sense”, but now you probably actually do make sense.
And I wonder at the fact that you’re apparently decrying women for not laughing off some yob trying to grope them, and at the same time making apparently sanctimonious pronouncements about what feminists should and shouldn’t think or do or feel
I have no doubt this is the case!
jane
If you want to hear these tales, sure I’ll tell you. What would be an even wilder tale is you telling us this never happens to you.
Big Deal. You go to pissy parties, pubs, and clubs, what do you expect? Mr. Darcy?
We should just have children out of sight, out of mind, institutionalised so that they will be compliant, uncreative and emotionally retarded. Parents? Hah! Why should they allow responsibilities to children enrich their work life? They should just be productive automatons, doing what they’re told and without any other life.
I thought we were way past this kind of reaction to children and parenting, but it appears I’m wrong. Are there really bosses out there who could not tolerate a child in the workplace for a few minutes (assuming no safety issues)? I’ve had to have my children at my workplace from time to time, and I’ve also had court sit at different hours to accommodate my absence for special occasions for children – first time at kinder, school and the like. I’ve also had employees’ children at the workplace. In Senator Hanson-Young’s case, the child was not disruptive at all until removed – something a parent was in the best position to anticipate. Calling this a stunt is lower than a snake’s armpit, and I’m amazed it’s had any support or traction. All our work, when it is done best, is done for the next generation. It doesn’t hurt to see them there to remind us.
Get that, LP? Sarah’s Friends and Family have Spoken.
Consider yourselves told.
I think we should revisit this argument when it is a MALE MP who takes his child into the chamber when he has child care problems/separation anxiety … oh, yeah. When exactly do you think Hell will next be freezing over?
‘Sarah’ bears all the hallmarks of the slime in a thin disguise.
No, I think it’s probably our old friend jinmaro.
Not Happy:
Hey, Sheik Hilaly called — he wants his attitude back.
Helen:
Of course it’s the woman’s fault Helen! They go out in public and unchaperoned with no male escort, to places where there’s music and dancing and they uncover their meat — I mean, what’s a poor man to do but try to cop a feel? We’re only flesh and blood. I can tell with all that gyrating of the hips and batting of their eyelids that it’s me they want, and they’re the ones who are causing all these lustful thoughts and sinful actions – I was totally pure until they came along with their pretty smiles and laughing eyes. They’ve brought it on themselves!
“I thought we were way past this kind of reaction to children and parenting, but it appears I’m wrong.”
I must say I was quite surprised by the reaction to this, as well. I listened to a bit of talk back radio on Aunty and needed to turn it off. That we are talking about a mother just wanting to look after her two year old, lovingly, seems to have been lost in a sea of rigid, fuddy-duddy, victorian style thinking.
It is not hard to imagine, from their behaviour, the nasty little regimes that the majority of the loons in parliament, were subjected to, in their upbringing. Now they wish to happily perpetuate it.
there isn’t a workplace in da land* that’d raise a stink about someone having their kid on the premises for a flying visit or emerg pitstop – most places the boss’d be all over the parent, and the child
the speaker misspoke – and the loons have responded
* ok we can think of some egs but the senate on a dull day doesn’t make the cut
Barnaby is spot on. As he said there was alternative courses of action to take if she wanted to spend time with the kid. Such as getting a pair or asking a lib senator to sit out of bounds with her. Based on this you would have to say it was a stunt.
Such as getting a pair
What in the name of all that’s incomprehensible do you mean here Jamo? Did you mean Aus Pair? Or are you using the term “get a pair” in the American sense, in that she shouldn’t have been in the Senate minus a pair of testicles? I suspect the latter.
Mercurius, that comment wasn’t from me, it was Kimberella the Pirate queen.
Aus Pair = Au Pair
It’s already been explained that “getting a pair” isn’t as easy as snapping your fingers. Such arrangements (where another Senator who intends to vote the opposite way absents themselves from the vote) need to be made weeks in advance.
Helen @ 142. Sorry I thought we were having a serious discussion. Getting a pair means you organise for a senator voting on the other side to be ‘your pair’ for the division so both relevant persons don’t turn up but their vote gets recorded.
Please read the thread @ 144. I disagree. It’s as easy as phoning the opposition whip and explaining the situation and asking for a pair for the vote. All the whip has to do is contact someone from their own side and tell them to stay in their office. Pairs can be organised at very short notice, believe me.
Oh right. Getting a pair.
Please be aware, some of you, that this may be the first time some of us who (shock horror) aren’t parliamentary staffers or other insiders have heard this arcane term.
I find it hilarious that there should be a piece of jsrgon like this which coincides with US-speak for manning up and getting testicles. Says it all really.
Diving in at the long, Campari-soaked end of this thread: I don’t know how it is on the Hill as I’ve never worked in Canberra, but can minor-party whips really organise crossbench pairs division-by-division at four minutes’ notice? And would they really do it for childcare not just for absence?
If they can and would, they’re fucking superheroes and I will worship them as my new administrative Gods.
Helen, a ‘pair’ is fairly common general knowledge if you have an interest in politics. Nothing arcane about it at all. I knew what Jamo meant and I’ve never worked in politics. You were the one writing in the first place as though Jamo was being thoroughly stupid, when he was using a commonly understood expression. As for it’s relationship with testicles – oh please! It obviously has a different etymology. However as other people have pointed out, getting a pair is not easy on short notice. But of course, Hanson-Young could have missed the vote if she was that worried about her child’s welfare. The Greens were always going to lose it anyway.
What a lot of rot. This was either a typical Greens Party stunt or, she is incompetent in her duties and should retire from her position.
In no other position of employment can people tag their children along all the time. Imagine a police officer dragging their kids around? It would not work.
The Greens Party, the party that preferences the Labor Party, who kills of solar energy, murders whole Koala habitats. They can’t be taken seriously.
Bernice #20, Andrew Bartlett #99 and Tony Wright in The Age have written much that needs to be read and understood by anyone wanting to comment on this matter.
A pair wasn’t needed anyway was it? The greens knew they were going to lose the division regardless, it was just done to force a record of the vote – everyone knew how everyone else was voting. Part of work place flexibility is not making people turn up to things where they’re not needed just because its standard procedure. Not that I have a problem with parents bringing in children into the workplace as long as they’re quiet and there’s no OH&S concerns.
Possibly not, but cops don’t exactly have an average job.
There was an article in the Oz today (can’t find online) about a barrister who brought her 2 year old to court with no problems whatsoever.
I’m off to a work function in Noosa today and my lift is bringing her young son because the childcare arrangements we made fell through. I can’t imagine anyone will have the slightest problem.
As a university teacher, I’ve had students who are parents being their children to lectures and tutorials and again no one has had an issue for this.
I can’t understand the basis on which people are claiming Parliament is somehow different from any other workplace. It’s already been pointed out that there was no chance Kora would be counted in the division! It completely escapes me what this argument is based on.
‘It completely escapes me what this argument is based on.’
It’s based on hatred. Hatred of the Greens in particular. There’s also an element of envy, as in these politicians get all these perks, she could have afforded child care, it’s just a stunt etc. etc.
Other than that, I can’t see any basis for the argument either.
Indeed. Surely it would be easy enough for the tellers to differentiate a little baby from the big ones like Joyce, Fielding, Heffernan, Abetz, Fierrevanti-Wells, etc.
Perhaps its because children in the workplace is actually quite a bit rarer than our personal experiences? Is it something that is pretty much confined to the white collar workforce where there is little or no formal public interaction? Whilst having kids come into work where I am employed is not unusual and hearing children (especially babies) in the background on conference calls is quite common, people make other arrangements when clients are around or on calls.
Who knows if this was a version of Green street theatre.
Now, let me preface this by saying I support paid maternity leave and work arrangements that make allowances for family commitments – for women in particular. We’ve barely even begun to address the fact that 7 out of 10 women at child-bearing age are in the workforce nowadays.
But there is something about upper-middle class women – as soon as they have kids the whole world has to know about it. Working class and lower-middle class women just don’t seem to feel the need to draw as much attention to the fact that they’ve had kids (even though they usually have much less understanding workplaces).
But kids just shouldn’t be on the floor of Parliament. Are we going to have lego spread out on the floor and The Wiggles playing during a division. Give me break.
“It’s based on hatred. Hatred of the Greens in particular. There’s also an element of envy, as in these politicians get all these perks, she could have afforded child care, it’s just a stunt etc. etc.”
Yep , all that. I am also beginning to pick up a basic dislike of children, amongst some people. They just do not want them around and are making up a lot of excuses to exclude them.
I think Chris is right here. It does depend on the workplace and whether it’s the type that’s going to be disrupted by the presence of children. I wouldn’t mind someone bringing a child along as a one-off to a uni lecture, when they had no other choice. But, on a regular basis I would think it entirely inappropriate as it’s likely to disrupt other students and wouldn’t be fair to them.
As to a barrister bringing a child to court- with the amount they charge, no thanks. I’d want their full attention.
It also comes down to what other workers in a specific workplace want. If they find kids regularly disruptive of their work, then where do they stand on this?
Yawn. So now it’s a class issue, with upper-class women (presumably the Senator included)the culprits, wheras middle and lower class women are OK because they don’t go on about their kids all the time, and wouldn’t bring heaps of Lego onto the floor of the parliament and mind numbing videos to play, as they probably can’t afford them. Or something.
But most probably nothing.
…May I also add that I hope it’s possible to have a stoush on the merits of Senators bringing their children into a division, as well as on the general questions of childcare and divisions of household labour, or even on the Australian Greens’ long track record of using the floor of Parliament for stunts, without people being called an envious child-hater.
Maybe I am, but you know. I wouldn’t want that mud to stick to other people.
If you believe this is a stunt, you are accusing Hanson-Young of something pretty egregious.
It got media coverage largely because Kora and Sen H-Y were visibly upset, right? If Kora had been asked to leave and had trotted happily out, there wouldn’t be a story.
So if you think Sen H-Y engineered it, you must think that she knew Kora would burst into tears, and that she wouldn’t be able to comfort her. In fact, you’d have to think that was the point of the stunt.
That’s a pretty appalling thing to accuse a mother of.
With regard to the question of women who don’t have well paying jobs in white collar environments, perhaps the reason they don’t speak up is because they don’t have the option. Hardly an argument against Senator Hanson-Young. My job is neither important nor particularly secure, so I am afraid to make demands, but I wish that weren’t so and I hope that those who are able to can change things that I will benefit from too.
“…May I also add that I hope it’s possible to have a stoush on the merits of Senators bringing their children into a division, as well as on the general questions of childcare and divisions of household labour, or even on the Australian Greens’ long track record of using the floor of Parliament for stunts, without people being called an envious child-hater.”
Not a chance.
I think in the case that was reported the barrister was working pro-bono and her child was a baby that slept through the whole thing.
This is the most important consideration as to determining where and when children in the workplace are appropriate. And it depends greatly on the specific child – at one place I worked a brother and sister regularly came in after school. One would sit in the corner and read, draw and ocassionally give the employees a drawing and as a result not disruptive at all. The other was loud, run around the office and repeatedly asked to play computer games on people’s computers.
Many white-collar workers work based on the amount of work they do, not the amount of time spent at a desk. If you get disrupted for whatever reason it means that you spend longer at work. So there needs to be an appreciation that whilst flexibility for employees in being able to have their children around when they can’t find alternatives is a really good thing, it should be done with the realisation that disruption to other employees may cause them to miss time with their families and even cause them to have subsequent problems with childcare arrangements.
“Not a chance.”
Indeed.
Joyce is old-fashioned and outraged by ‘women’s business’ in what should be a blokey place. According to him. Look at Hunt’s reaction. Joyce is simply a relic. Back to the days when women made scones when the boys talked politics and business.
Let’s settle this democratically. The next half-senate election will make it clear whether Ms Hanson-Young or Mr Joyce have the most support among the electorate for their respective activities, hmmm?
Fine, your attitude was very strong from the outset on this issue, in fact you posted some pretty hyped up stuff early on.
Seriously, if you have to ask what is so special about the relationship between a 24 month old child and a mother, then you are basically admitting that you have absolutely no understanding of human developmental milestones, nor of any attachment and bonding theories, nor in respect of brain development etc.
Sorry, but anti-child stuff is thick on the ground with some people, but otoh, not one person has suggested that children should be allowed into workplaces on a regular basis, nor into workplaces that are dangerous etc.
Now, whether or not children should be allowed into particular workplaces and with what guildelines etc. should be dealt with workplace by workplace, including Parliament. And dealt with through proper processes, not because one or two or three workers etc. have a problem with children being in their workplace or either because some parents can’t be fagged organising alt. arrangements. I have a problem with venal, lazy and incompetent childless people in my workplace, can I get rid of them too?
An recent ex-Senator has put on the record here what has been the case – so in this instance it’s a beat-up.
And I stick with my initial comment Jo – bad luck. The child was going to be handed over to someone else in a few minutes anyway. She wasn’t going to be wandering loose in the corridors of Parliament house. Hardly damaging to the child I would have thought. I agree these issues should be decided through a proper process. But several people have implied that children should be allowed in work places on a regular basis. I’m not sugesting that any worker be gotten rid of, whether they have chlidren or not. What relevance does that have?
What Liam said. Lumping everyone here who has raised some problems with the idea of kids in Parliament as all child-hating, anti-Green hysterics makes you as unthinking as Barnaby Joyce.
“Lumping everyone here who has raised some problems with the idea of kids in Parliament as all child-hating, anti-Green hysterics makes you as unthinking as Barnaby Joyce.”
Who has done that Anna?
Actually I agree. Let’s ban kids from Parliament. They run around wild, they get into pointless fights over petty things, they throw tantrums, they lie, they’re always getting their hands dirty…
.
Um.
Yes it’s true: children should not be allowed to perform with Parliament. They can’t handle all the tricky time-signature changes. And besides, wouldn’t they have more fun performing with Gnarls Barkley?
Well there’s this, for starters joe2.
Fine, my response was to your question- “what makes this relationship so special?”
It’s obvious that this particular child is used to being separated from her mother for, I would assume, some quite long-ish time periods. And often it is the point of separation that is the issue as small children do not have the developmental abilities to understand abstract time frames, or process abrupt changes in respect carers without some anxiety and probably even more so in relation to a regularly absent mother, but that is besides the point.
You asked the question in respect of the relationship, not the situation, and further suggested adult relationships be judged in exactly the manner. This is what I was responding to.
As I said above, there are some serious on-going workplace issues that need to be worked through in relation to children being brought into workplaces or not brought in, (ie. where there are critical matters being undertaken ie. an operating theatre, the cockpit of a 747 and so on), however comparing adult relationships, even ones with your own parents or spouses to the relationship you have with a small child is where I have a problem with what you posted.
FTR: You are not legally or morally responsible for your parents (unless you are their carer/guardian etc) nor your spouse or your friends or any other adult or indeed anyone else’s child. You are however legally and morally responsible for your own children until they are 18 y.o., including the choices that you make as a parent 24/7/365 including handing them over to any other carer. And again I’m making a general point not in relation to this instance.
As has been pointed out in many similar discussions here in relation to parenting payments and parenting leave etc – the vast majority of women in this country now work and therefore every workplace needs to develop policies and practices in respect of children in the workplace.
In regards to my flippant point about lazy incompetent co-workers – I was responding to this novel and quaint idea that workplaces are somehow 110% efficient & productive, before you add children to the mixture…not in my experience.
Polyquats @ 7, Mercurius @ 8, Andos @ 11…
I can’t see anything I could even remotely describe as “absolute intolerance expressed here to women” in the post or in the comments.
Fine, as to “bad luck”, this what you get to say from about 8 years on depending on the kid. At 2 y.o. it’s “no, but look at the puppy over there”, at 5, it’s “no and this is why”…from 7/8 onwards – it’s “bad luck kid”.
So much parenting is just repetitive, relentless, thankless work and as my daughter aged 11 will tell you, as she did just this morning “You’re the worst mother in the world, I hate you and I wish I’d never been born”.
I think Barnaby Joyce is a clown, that working women with kids generally get a very raw deal. I know our misogyny is rife and that we tend to blame women for everything.
But kids shouldn’t be on the floor of the Senate. Full stop. If that makes me old-fashioned, so be it.
We’re tending more and more to blur the differences between adult spaces and places for kids. I’ve noticed since the smoking ban, pubs are often overrun with kids. I’m not one of these anti-children types, but occasionally adults need a bit of space. One of the great things about growing up is slowly being initiated into the adult world.
And anyone with a pretentious hypenated surname should be expelled from the Senate – that goes for Liberals like Fierravanti-Wells. Do people really have to advertise to others how non-sexist/posh they are? Don’t upper-middle class types know our irritating they appear to the rest of us?
…meant hyphenated.
Could people please stop talking about it as if it was supposed to be about bringing kids into work “all the time” and talk about the actual issue which was for a mother bringing her kid into a safe and fairly non-crucial work process for about five fucking minutes. Because that is what we had here. Did you read the newspaper report? Ginja? Wilful? Fine?
Thank you.
“fairly non-crucial work process”
Yep, it was only the senate for fuck’s sake.
I didn’t know we could say “fuck”
I like it….
And because it was a fairly non-crucial work process she could have chosen to miss the vote.
Sorry Helen? Division? Non-crucial? I’m fairly on-board with the idea of casual, irregular children-at-work, but divisions are the only thing Senators have to do.
Let’s have a debate about childcare in the workplace, by all means. To disclose, my own parents used to bring me into their workplaces when I was a child: adult classrooms, on both sides. I’ve taken—brief—care of other people’s children in mine.
Let’s not pretend that the Senate isn’t a special case of a workplace, though, or that Senators don’t enjoy immense privilege as employers and people who can simply vote to change their own conditions of work, or that the Greens Senators haven’t been known, over the past decade, to use the Senate frequently for media stunts. I mean—the whole place is built on a history of a hundred years of cheap stunts. Hell, Reg Withers would have slapped a toddler to make it cry in Question Time without blinking if he thought there were votes in it.
I don’t buy, finally, Bernard Keane’s idea that we’d be poorer for having fewer people of “childbearing age” in Parliament. Do we measure our democracy by the fertility of our legislators?
I thought it was stated above that attendance at divisions is considered an important performance benchmark for pollies?
WHILE, notwithstanding the above, the actual process wasn’t uncongenial as long as the kid just sat there, which she did.
Until the dude intervened, that is, and created the stink.
So who was “stunting” and making trouble there anyway? This is my
sandpitSenate!! You can’t be bringing this icky smelly thing into mysandpitchamber! Waaaaah get it out of here!(I also recall Julie Bishop simpering that Kevvie-wevvy was a nordy, nordy boy ! – but to do her justice that was mentally more about nine.
Not sure I can see anything there, that makes anyone as “unthinking as Barnaby Joyce”, Anna@174.
It’s an a big call you make with that branding, that seems to be in much the same league as that you think deserves criticism.
The President, I agree, threw the first one. However, conversely, who benefits from having had their child ceremoniously escorted from the floor? Whose supporters are firing up on the internet talking about anyone who has a problem with children in the House hating, in the first instance, the Australian Greens? It’s political—as the personal always is.
As Fine’s said, it’s a workplace by workplace affair. I trust that Senator Hanson-Young will be able to sort it out the way the rest of us do: with good faith, compromise, and if required, collective bargaining.
Hyphenated surnames may be a bit toffy but if only my mother’s parents had hyphenated theirs. Then my mum would have been a Walker-Ryder.
Sorry, Liam @ 183 – there’s a weird undertone of the sacrality of parliament as a space which lurks behind a lot of these comments, imho. If we want to be a democratic nation – in the true sense of the word – we need to stop treating parliament as if it were in some way hallowed.
Mark, I think you mistake me for someone who opposes the secular-sacred aspects of Parliament. I don’t, necessarily. The whole existence of a Parliament, in particular the presence of an Upper House, is a slap in the face for the any sense of a direct rule of the people. Those signifiers of dignity and moral uprightness, upon which Senator Brown trades, are central to the thing—it’s a leadership institution, first and foremost.
If children can be part of the secular-sacredness, and I think they probably can, why not staffers’ children, or staffers themselves? Why not the attendants’ children? Why not the children of the people who cook the MPs’ beef stroganoff?
Not that I’d necessarily oppose the direct rule of Soviets or a Government of revolutionary delegates in a people’s assembly covered in red flags and strollers, but a Victorian hangover is what we have.
Well, indeed, Liam. But if we have the thing, there’s still a division of labour and of role. One wouldn’t expect the beef stroganoff cook to be on the floor of the Senate. But that doesn’t need to be regarded as some pseudo-sacred right that pertains to somehow being a ‘representative’ – I’m sure you’re familiar, too, with the derivation of a lot of the sense in that role from incarnational theology in political theory of the Renaissance.
Saying it was a stunt isn’t necessarily an insult. Personally I think assuming Hanson-Young didn’t understand the possible reaction to bringing her kid in could have had is to sell her political nous short. That doesn’t mean she didn’t want to also spend time with the kid. It just means that she probably knew that doing it would get more attention to the work/life balance issue better than a bunch of press releases, in the same way that Rosa Parks wasn’t simply a tired black lady.
I don’t know, Anna. There’s a lot of supposition in that.
I bring my daughter to work when there’s occasional childcare handover issues and lacunae. Whats so special about Parliament?
Yes, Mark, just as I’m keen to have the Senate abide by the Gospel rule that a body supposedly universal and made up of the people, for the people, should suffer the children/strangers. Consistently, mind.
There are two points: one, having children in is a big welcome flag for everyone’s children, and what’s good for Senators ought to be good for all the workers involved in the running of the House, and two, that Senator Hanson Young’s situation is special just because her child enjoys special status as a Senator’s child.
I think you are onto something Mark. It is all a bit precious for my liking with those who tender to the delegates probably more in awe of the place, and how they think one should behave, than the pollies themselves. It’s probaly a case of good old, pukeworthy, aussie deference.
Oh, that’s what Mark was just saying. Well…. ditto! Hardly “representative” of Australian society is it.
Mind you: neither’s the Senate.
Well, yeah, none of us know for sure. I’m just saying, Barnaby Joyce is shouting “stunt!” like we’re all supposed to be shocked and offended. I’m just suggesting that maybe another way of responding is to ask “so what?”
Stunts are morally neutral, they can be good or bad.
I think it would not be a bad thing in a general sort of a way if Barnaby Joyce could be supplied with a little mirror with a bell on it, like budgies have in their cages. Keep him busy.
“Unrepresentative swill”, I believe, Lefty E, is the watchword for the Senate around Keating Towers.
I don’t disagree in general, Anna, but I suppose the implication in this case is that it’s exploitation of Kora if it is a stunt.
Indeed Mark – from the sacred texts of the Great Man.
Lets face it, if Fielding’s allowed, its clearly not restricted to democratically elected representatives.
I’m saying reclaim it. Otherwise Barnaby gets away with exploiting people’s misunderstanding of what politics involves in order to criticise anyone who tries to use it to make a wider point.
Dammit, Mark, you beat me to it. I was really looking forward to typing that.
So I did anyway.
Most workplaces would agree that planting a creche dead centre in the middle of their meeting/networking/control centre would just be not on.
I’d love to hear how any parliament setup would try to explain how they wouldn’t let that happen. For fucks sake, they are us. Or at least representative thereof.
Parliament is is not a normal workplace and can’t be compared to others as some dick-head attempts above have tried.
It is and should be about “we the people.” Which includes all of us in every stage of human evolution. If you can’t take a kid into our nation’s most august body, then what is its point?
So it may start crying, pooping and farting and so disturb Members of Parliament fumbling for their PPQs. Well about bloody time they were disturbed by such shit.
If I had my way, the Speaker would be breastfeeding her kid while in session as the ushers plied their tazers in the press gallery.
Lol, Laura. Brilliant.
Anna #191, it could simply be that Sarah Hanson-Young overestimated John Hogg’s common sense and capacity to exercise discretion in the light of the circumstances (as Andrew Bartlett #99 informs us has previously been done).
What Paul Norton said. I can’t believe people are still talking about this. the level of Machiavellian intent attributed to Hanson-Young I suppose in some ways is a compliment, but applying Occams Razor via Andrew Bartlett’s post points to a logical, simple common -sense conclusion: It being a division for 5 minutes before she had to see her kid off, and having seen other small kids including her own being let into the Senate before, Hanson-Young popped in with Kora and completely unexpectedly copped it, and was completely unsurprisingly upset, as was Kora.
Senate presider Hogg then after the fact admits that the rules are confusing and need to be reviewed and he could have handled it better. Most common sense people agree.
Meanwhile, in Iran, and the debate for the ETS begins…
myriad, the incident in the Senate was a catalyst for a number of explosive reactions from all sides about major social issues; it’s not just about who said what. Your last comment indicates that you don’t think our attitudes to children and the care of children matter a damn compared to international violence and argument — a classic traditional attitude about what is and is not important in life. Some of us don’t agree, as the length of this thread shows. Perhaps you could look at it from a different angle and say to yourself ‘Wow, look how many people regard this as something that needs to be thought and talked about. Perhaps I ought to pay more attention.’
Comment #209 really takes the cake in thread full of bizarre assertions and byzantine rationalisations.
Because myraid asserts that there more important things to discuss than outrage that a senator has broght her toddler into Senate proceedings for a couple of minutes, she is accused of thinking that ‘our additudes to children and the care of children (don’t) mattter a damn compared to international violence’. ???
What is unbelievable about this thread is the amount of heat, outrage and sheer anger that has surfaced over a minor, indeed insignificant incident that would barely rate aa mention elsewhere in the world.
I think that Hanson-Young’s own version of events makes it pretty bloody clear that it wasn’t a stunt. She basically had the choice between missing the vote, leaving her daughter completely alone or bringing her in.
Personally, I’d be all about children being in the work place all the time, but that isn’t Hanson-Young’s position and so she shouldn’t be challenged on that basis. All she was expecting was a small amount of flexibility in the light of extenuating circumstances.
I think that the furor that this has provoked says a lot about how un-child-friendly our society is though.
Whatevs, Adrian.
Ginja [178] “We’re tending more and more to blur the differences between adult spaces and places for kids. I’ve noticed since the smoking ban, pubs are often overrun with kids. I’m not one of these anti-children types, but occasionally adults need a bit of space. One of the great things about growing up is slowly being initiated into the adult world.”
AAARGH!
How can you describe this as not “anti-children”? You don’t have to talk to the children who presume to enter your pub, for goodness sake.
I would prefer that loud mouthed yobbos not sit at the table next to me, but I don’t pretend to have the right to a ‘world’ in which they simply don’t exist. Why are children in such a unique category of persons for whom discrimination remains so acceptable and so widespread?
Well said, Cristy!
I think there’s an awful lot of preciousness from many of the interlocutors here.
An illustration:
——
A: ‘I think kids and women get a raw deal in terms of public esteem’
B: ‘WAAAAH! You just accused me of being an anti-child ogre!’
A: ‘Maybe the length of this thread shows people really care about these issues’
B: ‘WAAAAH! You just accused me of not caring about children!’
—–
I actually don’t read in any of the pronouncements from anybody here the bad-faith attributions that others are so prepared to read into them. That suggests to me that there’s both projection and defensiveness colouring the reactions.
Seems to me, among all the players, it’s the toddler who’s had the smallest tantrum.
Indeed, well said Cristy.
If wanting to be in an adults-only pub space is what Ginja really wants, why not stick to the licensed bar area or the gaming machines area? No under-18s allowed there. If it happens to also be where the loudest drunks and bores congregate, well, how much more pleasant than kids running around nearby.
Also, in most pubs I’ve seen, smokers are still allowed in the beer garden, which is where families with kids usually congregate as well, so the idea that this has only happened since the smoking ban seems unsubstantiated. My parents took me to pub beer gardens in the 70s, and they weren’t the only ones, so I don’t think this is really any sudden new form of child socialising.
Indeed not! From 1966 to 1977 I spent many a warm summer evening with my family chugalugging lemonade and raspberry in the beer garden at the St Leonards (Victoria) Hotel. Indeed, we were there the night the Bellarine Peninsula was hit by a humungous storm and the pub roof was blown off.
Now back on-topic…
adrain – “What is unbelievable about this thread is the amount of heat, outrage and sheer anger that has surfaced over a minor, indeed insignificant incident that would barely rate aa mention elsewhere in the world.”
The Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/video/australian-senator-crying-child-kicked-out/EFED4CDE-773B-4CDE-887D-6025353A2B19.html
…
Stunt or not, there has been some interesting discussions that demonstrate that Australians have diverse opinions about what is and isn’t appropriate in the workplace, most of it has been quite surprising to me, not least those needing to add their 2 cents to simply bemoan the angst over this ’storm in a teacup’.
I’m an employer, I’m female, working in an area that would probably be considered ‘non-traditional’ for women. My workplace is not a safe place for children, but I would like to provide a workplace that is flexible enough that parents would find it practical to consider working for me. That’s really challenging for the type of work I do, it SHOULD be somewhat less challenging for the Australian parliament. They should do what any progressive employer should do and find the simplest solution to the problem possible.
If I’m understanding things right, Senators are doing whatever it is they do with their days and then suddenly and unexpectedly a bell rings and they have 4 mins to be in the chamber. Why? If the only reason is to expedite the voting process, then on this occasion the efficiency measure failed. If the senate is going to have an inflexible attitude to children in the chamber, then flexibility needs to be found elsewhere.
Any reasonable employer would be looking for a solution, not speculating about motives, or complaining about the triviality of the discussion.
Tigtog, my parents also took me into pubs regularly when I was a child. I was expected to either read or play quietly, or take part in the adult conversations. I certainly wasn’t allowed to run around bothering other patrons, which is what some parents allow their kids to do and maybe what ginga is referring to. Consideration for people cuts both ways. Sure kids should be welcome in pubs, restaurants etc. Their parents should also be expected to demand a certain level of behaviour from their kids on the understanding that it’s not a playground and different modes of behavioiur are appropriate for different spaces. You may enjoy kids running around, but not everyone else does. Public spaces work best when everyone considerate of other people’s needs. That includes adults who may well have forked out for the cost of a baby-sitter because they want a night away from the kids.
“I was expected to either read or play quietly, or take part in the adult conversations. I certainly wasn’t allowed to run around bothering other patrons, which is what some parents allow their kids to do and maybe what ginga is referring to.”
Well, then it’s not about where children are or are not permitted at all, but how they and their parents handle it socially.
Goddamned new-once! Always getin in wai of mah sertuntee!
Goalpost change alert!!
Just in from Guy Rundle at Crikey and too good not to share:
Sorry, I meant to add that it seems to me there’s a lot of this ‘If I can’t have it then you can’t have it either’ mentality at the bottom of a lot of the talkback venom and outrage.
Can I just add…
GET OFF MY LAWN!!
(man, that felt good!)
Guy Rundle, that is conduct unbecoming
Fine, I submit that there’s a difference between beer gardens and other parts of pubs for many reasons, and one of the very important ones is that a good beer garden offers space for kids to run around. Other areas in a pub may not be so good for it, I agree, and people who really don’t want to be around kids playing in an outside space can always go and sit inside where the tables are closer together and which parents of small children therefore avoid.
A night away from having to be vigilant over your own kids (which I agree is occasionally a very attractive relief) has nothing at all to do with forcing other parents to be kid-free as well. No-one has to be hawkeyed supervisors of other people’s kids (although some people seem to garner a perverse satisfaction from it), so it’s perfectly possible to be in a space with other families with kids and still enjoy a respite from one’s personal parental vigilance mode.
As FDB said, you’ve taken an argument about where kids should be allowed and shifted to how they should behave. These are two separate questions.
“As FDB said, you’ve taken an argument about where kids should be allowed and shifted to how they should behave. These are two separate questions.”
No they’re not. The reason some people object to kids in some places is precisely because of they see their behaviour as inappropriate and a pain to have to deal with. Granted, the Hansen-Young issue isn’t about that, but Cristy and your comment shifted the debate somewhat.
The pubs I go to generally don’t have beer gardens. They’re more small inner-city bars. This maybe a Melbourne/Sydney difference.
“so it’s perfectly possible to be in a space with other families with kids and still enjoy a respite from one’s personal parental vigilance mode.”
Again, maybe that’s the case with you. I know parents who dislike noisy kids in pubs/retaurants etc. for precisely that reason. As in ‘OMG, we paid good money to get way from noisy kids for just one evening’.
I don’t mind the odd kid in a pub, and my parents took me into beer gardens too as a kid.
But this last weekend I was at a pub and it was like a childcare centre.
My local pub bistro has a great atmosphere and good food, but it’s often ruined by screaming kids running around.
Look, there are a lot of good parents out there with well-behaved kids, and they deserve time out without having to pay a babysitter. No problem. But have a bit of consideration for those of us who’d like to go out to an essentially adult place without having to put up with someone’s little horror.
Is that so unreasonable?
But not all kids are noisy kids who invade the space of other patrons. It’s wrong to make the argument as if they all are.
Also, not all noise is poorly controlled behaviour. Kids make noise when they play, and so long as their play is not actually running into other tables, then there’s nothing wrong with that in a venue which has provided space enough for kids to play.
If a family actually is allowing obnoxious brats to run rampant and disturb other patrons, the venue should eject them just like any other disruptive patron. So complain – maybe they’ll agree with you.
“But not all kids are noisy kids who invade the space of other patrons.”…
“Also, not all noise is poorly controlled behaviour. Kids make noise when they play,”
Can’t you see there’s a contradiction here tigtog? I agree the majority of kids aren’t noisy. But being noisy because they’re playing is just as annoying to other people as being noisy for any other reason. I also agree there needs to be tolerance all around and kids can’t be angels all the time. But what’s the responsibility of a parent when they can see their child/children is being annoying whilst they’re playing? It’s a pub not a playground after all.
I like noisy kids, reminds me of when I was completely unselfconscious, a free spirit and wasn’t an utter a bore. I wish I could be 33 again. *sigh*
Can I come and work for you, FB?
(Looks wistful, remembering the wonderful Brunswick Green which had a Space Invaders machine permanently set to “on”, no money necessary. Two ten year olds, not a peep out of ‘em…)
@ Fine: Not a contradiction, a distinction. You seemed to be labelling all noisy kids as uncontrolled. If it’s a pub which advertises itself as a family pub (and some do) then kid’s noise is to be expected and tsk-ing about it is being unreasonable. In other establishments the situation may be different.
That rather depends on the pub, actually.
You are the one proposing, apparently, that kids in any pubs any time is an intrusive imposition from selfish parents because they’re spoiling it for the proper grownups.
I’m the one saying that there’s pubs and pubs, and also kids and kids, and that a blanket rule one way or the other is unfair. If you think I’m saying something else, you’re wrong.
And I missed this earlier:
Ginja is the one who shifted the debate. Cristy and I just responded to an offensive generalisation.
Hey what’s wrong with shifting the debate slightly? I like it when threads shift in weird and wonderful ways.
I would note, though, that whenever there’s a post on women and children, the number of comments tends to explode – same thing happened with paid maternity leave a while back. I can understand why women get tetchy about this sort of thing – we’re always tut-tutting mums, making them feel guilty for every decision they make.
….but kids still don’t belong in Parliament – no excuses.
….and hyphenated surnames are still stupid.
One of my earliest memories is sitting under my mother’s desk drawing. Didn’t happen often because she was part-time, but occasionally it was the option she took. None of the other people at the work seemed to mind, but obviously she was a BAD EMPLOYEE. My father worked close to my school, so when I was older I’d often go to his office and sit and read until he was ready to leave for home, rather than rely on the terrible public transport. Clearly all the honours he won should have been taken off him.
One of my workmates took her young child to work. An obnoxious prat called her an unfit mother. I had to restrain another workmate from decking him. Every single person I have ever told this story to has been appalled (at the prat), but when it’s a Green doing it in the Senate the vitriol just keeps coming.
Oh and anyone who thinks it was a stunt – look at Hanson-Young’s face in the footage. She’s not that good an actress. (Actually she’s quite a bad actress, which is one of her weaknesses as an MP)
myriad, the incident in the Senate was a catalyst for a number of explosive reactions from all sides about major social issues; it’s not just about who said what. Your last comment indicates that you don’t think our attitudes to children and the care of children matter a damn compared to international violence and argument — a classic traditional attitude about what is and is not important in life. Some of us don’t agree, as the length of this thread shows. Perhaps you could look at it from a different angle and say to yourself ‘Wow, look how many people regard this as something that needs to be thought and talked about. Perhaps I ought to pay more attention.’
There’s lots of good reasons to discuss children and workplaces and women’s rights and all those good things Pavlov, I just happen to think that the reaction to what happened to Hanson-Young has been so ridiculously overblown as to defy belief; nor do I think given it was a case of poorly handled byzantine procedure that had been previously ignored, that it makes a particularly relevant case in which to examine said issues.
I say this as a Greens Party member who knows Hanson-Young at least to acquaintance level and thinks her shredding in the media has been vindictive, misogynistic, triumphalist anti-green bullshit by and large.
And I know I’ll get into lots of trouble for saying this, but in terms of ‘blog character’ it has struck me for some time that LP as a rule loves nothing more than a good stoush over such relatively trivial issues, in amongst all the stoushes on very important issues. The blog hasn’t been updating so much for a bit, and I think this topic provided some red meat to a certain extent. What I have found bemusing is the constant seeking of deeper meaning / imputation of Hanson-Young’s motives when I think Andrew Bartlett has shown it really was just a matter of inconsistently applied process that caused and upset. Given that the Senate / Parliament is actually largely pretty child friendly, there’s a strong chance this archaic rule will be easily agreed to be overturned, and life will go on. I don’t think it was the case to mount the defence of working mothers on, and ponder whether it was wise for people to buy into that argument via all the dickheads decrying Hanson-Young’s parenting skills based on such a trivial incident.
Myriad, I was focusing on the incident as a catalyst for deep strong feelings about important issues, rather than on the incident in itself, which I agree was trivial. But as for this —
– yep, fair point.
Oh, we dreamed of going to beer gardens in the Senate. What a lot of spoilt-rotten milksops youse are. Back when I was a lad, we took our parents to OUR jobs: when I was just four, I used to take my crippled alcoholic dad to my job in the bowels of the earth shoveling lumps of jagged coal, covered with hungry rats, into an open furnace. With my bare hands. While hanging upside down. And if I missed a lump, my dad would sober up, thrash me with a railroad tie, regain his ability to walk, and run to snitch on me to the foreman. Then the two of them would take turns chopping me up with a rusty fishing knife, and then feeding bits of me to the angry giant talking lobster who owned the factory.
For two shillings a week. One shilling went to taxes, the other was taken by my dad so he could throw it down an abandoned mineshaft, just to hear the sound.
But you know what? We were happy.
How dare you people accuse The Greens of “stunts”. And I would just like to repeat to Tony Abbott:
“Oy, Tony Abbott get your rosaries off my ovaries”!
Surely you can do better than that. Surely a thread like this would call for some Camille Paglia cut and paste.
The difference is it that Sarah Hanson-Young’s action is not “regular”. Take the trouble to acquaint yourself of the facts before offering and ill-informed opinion.
Those interested in engaging in some green bashing of course at not at all interested in the facts.
Our daughter occasionally accompanies here mother to her professional employment when we get caught out with child care arrangements. She is welcome and liked at that work place.
To those who insist the “children should never enter any workplace” I say phooey. What a load of arrant nonsense.
Barnaby is a prick. He is the one pulling a stunt by politicising the unfortunate action that was taken to evict the child.
Myriad the ability of the workplace to adapt to women working (in the C20 it seemed it all went the other way) is a crucial issue for more than half the population to participate in work, society and (here) political representation. Please don’t presume to dictate what other people find interesting and if you are going to cynically suggest that it is just to raise the posting level, which I find disappointing, then I suggest you do the work and submit some posts to the LP’ers yourself about very, very important topics chosen by you. M’kay?
I’m not suggesting that the posting on the topic is to raise the level of posts Helen, I’m suggesting that people on LP like a good stoush. I know it’s seen as uncommon, but I do generally say what I mean, not snidely imply, m’kay?
As for your first part I think I’ve already indicated that the broad theme is obviously an important topic, and also why I think the Hanson-Young case has turned into more of an instance of well-meaning people feeding various trolls & why that might be (lack of relevance of the incident to said broad theme of workplace access etc for working women / kids). In fact I read what you just wrote to me and think, again, that you’ve bought into a much larger argument than was on offer with the Hanson-Young case, and indeed the whole thread is a rinse, repeat cycle.
Or they could just tell the parents with kids to fuck off to the park where they belong.
People who bring their screaming kids to pubs and restaurants are the scum of the earth.
Really Yobbo?
Good to see you’ve given this some thought.
What’s there to think about? Kids are annoying.
The rest of us shouldn’t have to suffer for your decision to breed.
“People who bring their screaming kids to pubs and restaurants are the scum of the earth.”
Yobbo channelling Rudd.
What are you saying, Yobbo? That parents can’t go out and socialise? That they stay at home or in the park, “where they belong”? That they abandon their children in order to join society?
Kids are a big part of life. They can be annoying, but so are a billion other things, including childless misanthropes. Kids can also be charming, delightful, and funny. Next time one is annoying you, just distract them with an age-appropriate toy or activity or story. Or reflect on how lucky you are not to have to deal with the little screamer!
Then there’s the libertarian argument – the owner decides who enters, who stays. If you’ve got a problem, start your own pub or restaurant and ban people under 14. Or find the ones that already do and stop giving your money to owners who have annoying policies like letting kids in. If you love your local too much to leave, start a petition to change its house rules. Or start a group of like-minded people to seek out child-unfriendly places to hang out in.
“Next time one is annoying you, just distract them with an age-appropriate toy or activity or story”
You see Jarrah, that’s precisely the attitude which is irritating. If I wanted to be annoyed by a child, I’d bring one along. No – if you see your child annoying someone in public, it’s your job to call the child back. It’s not my job to entertain your child. You can pay me for child-care if you want that service.
Of course, if it’s plain that someone is enjoying being with your child, it’s not a problem.
I’m also very interested how ‘childless’ gets used as an insult. But, I agree Yobbo is way out of line.
People under 14 are already banned from pubs, theres a big sign on the doors of most of them.
However most parents think it doesn’t apply to them and their special snowflakes.
Even in places where kids aren’t welcome, lots of parents like to push the boundaries because they know if someone makes a scene they look like the bad guy by definition.
Having a child makes you morally superior to everyone in the room.
What used to happen is that the parents would go inside to socialise, and tell the kids to stay outside (in a separate room, or literally outside with the other kids).
Unfortunately that sort of thing doesn’t happen any more since parents nowadays are too afraid to let kids out of their sight at any time. So we have to put up with them.
OK, Yobbo’s had enough time in the spotlight. We geddit already. You don’t like kids around you? That’s fascinating. Really. Thank you for sharing. It was good of you to drop by and tell us all about it. Glad you got it off your chest. Glad we were here so you could express.
But you know what, this is about a toddler in the Senate for a few minutes. Can you deal with the fact that it’s not all about you for five minutes? Sorry the nasty toddler and her terrible mum distracted us all from the most important thing of all — pandering to your preferences.
The rest of us shouldn’t have to suffer for your decision to breed
Don’t talk about ya Mum like that, Yobbo.
There is always the option of not leaving your own home Yobbo. That way you won’t run into any annoying children.
“But you know what, this is about a toddler in the Senate for a few minutes. ”
Actually this thread hasn’t been about that for quite a while. Way to tunnel vision your way through life though dude.
“No – if you see your child annoying someone in public, it’s your job to call the child back.”
Yes, sort of. Of course, what you consider annoying isn’t going to be universal, which is why you get situations like a parent yanking their child away with profuse apologies for his/her behaviour when they aren’t doing anything wrong, and at the other end of the scale you get parents ignoring a screeching hyperactive 7-year-old who just ran into an elderly woman and spilled his red cordial down her favourite dress.
“It’s not my job to entertain your child.”
I wasn’t suggesting that. I was offering a possible solution to Yobbo’s problem. And ‘childless’ wasn’t an insult, merely an adjective attached to an insult.
“theres a big sign on the doors of most of them.”
The sign typically says “must be accompanied by a responsible adult”.
Though I understand your complaint about pushing boundaries and a sense of superiority. But there’s nothing stopping you establishing your own boundaries (“Excuse me, do you mind settling your child?”) or puncturing their sense of entitlement (“Get over yourself, just because you spawned doesn’t mean your rights trump mine.”)
In deference to Mercurius, I’ll put in my two cents. The child was not disruptive, was not going to be there long, and did not interfere with Hanson-Young’s duties. The Speaker should have ignored the letter of the law (which according to him is ‘confusing’ and open to interpretation anyway) and let it slide. Calls of a ’stunt’ are ridiculous, and the castigation by men drives me nuts.
I guess Yobbo you’re entitled to believe whatever you like about the way I go through life, tunnel-vision or otherwise. You’re even entitled to base your epic presumption on nothing more substantive than a few blog comments I’ve made. But it would make you rather…erm…tunnel-visioned if you did that, wouldn’t it?
Luckily for you, I’m not so willing to do the same, otherwise, based on your comments here, I might make the gross presumption that you’re a boorish misanthropic twit lacking in grace, warmth, humour and with a mean streak a mile wide.
But that would be most unfair to judge you on the basis of your comments here, wouldn’t it?
And that’s it. Playtime’s over now. No more attention for you. You’ll have to go kick over somebody else’s sandcastles now.
I can understand wanting kid-free spaces, but surely the kids are gone from the pub at a relatively early hour? Anyway, how is it okay to discriminate against children? Are there places that ban old people? People with loud voices? People with perfumes you don’t like and so on? (Speaking of which, have you seen those signs on apartment buildings that say “No children other than residents’ children allowed”? Is that even legal?”)
jo, that was very unkind and very funny
guy rundle could pick up a few tips on brevity from you
It’s weird what Yobbo’s avatar reminds me of.
I think what this thread has highlighted is the class (and I use ‘class’ deliberately, rather than ‘generation’ as it is not working class gels carrying on like these tits) of she-monsters raised by the vaguard of second-wave feminists.
Spoilt, pampered, materially-indulged, middle-class girls who have coasted through adolescence on affirmative action and societal misandry.
But things have changed. Now that these spoilt brats are thirty and having children of thier own, their naive mothers’ claims they could “have it all” now ring so hollow.
I chose a life of glamour, riches, gowns, achievement and stardom and chose to remain barren, and have had quite a blast. My pal Germaine Greer has wisely chosen similarly (though she now regrets her barrenness deeply)
But let’s be honest ladies, how many of you are as talented, spunky, or brilliant as Germs or I am? None. So grow up.
You CAN’T have it all!
Laura,
I suspect Yobbo never yowled on stage with baggy jeans enhanced by long-stemmed flowers.
Although Christopher Pearson has commented here, so why the heck shouldn’t Morrisey? The gates are breaking down…
Audrey Hepburn always had too much class to write rubbish like that.
Oh, and Audrey had a child called Sean. At least get your facts rights.
One doesn’t need to take such things into account (facts, darling), when one is dressing up one’s own glib misogyny in lady-flesh. I hope this helps.
Audrey @ 260. Wow. Just wow. I’d be tempted to say something about people whose pills have worn off, but I actually have a great deal more respect for schizophrenics than to associate them with you.
What used to happen is that the parents would go inside to socialise, and tell the kids to stay outside (in a separate room, or literally outside with the other kids).
Unfortunately that sort of thing doesn’t happen any more since parents nowadays are too afraid to let kids out of their sight at any time. So we have to put up with them.
.
It’s true. It’s paranoia born of too much TV and not enough capacity for deductive reasoning.
.
People who bring their screaming kids to pubs and restaurants are the scum of the earth.
.
Wouldn’t go that far. But still what used to happen is that a kid that misbehaved in public was told off and dragged home and to their room smartly. These days it’s considered bad form to oppress in any way the ‘Id’ of these little monsters. Consequence: big monsters. We got ‘em. Swing a cat Sat night and you’ll hit thirty of ‘em. Swing hard!
I think what Yobbo mean’t to say was that parents who don’t set boundaries for their children or show any inclination to discipline them when they misbehave in public aren’t really setting a very good example for anyone and are doing a grievious disservice to their children and the community at large.
Can anyone tell me why I put an apostrophe in mean’t, (there I did it again)? And can someone please close this thread down?
Mercurius you’ve drunk too much.
No, you’re right, I couldn’t possibly know that, just as I couldn’t be sure that ‘Audrey’ isn’t actually suffering from schizophrenia.
Adrien’s right. And so is Caroline.
Someone please put this thread out of its misery.
Actually, this thread has moved onto an interesting topic that has little to do with the original Senate origin.
Viz the behaviour of kids and control of parents. Several arguments have been put that the behaviour of kids is solely the responsibility of the parents.
To this, I would say YES!. But …
The message that kids get from the zeitgeist (as much helped by our former conservative government as much as anyone else), is that they can do whatever and Big Government (read Mum, Dad, teachers etc), are crowding our our (us kids) personal freedom. This message is around from year dot – it pervades the ether.
The playing field now is not the same as a generation ago. Authority is important but needs to be reasserted, perhaps in different terms, perhaps not. Read Chris Tsiolkas’ The Slap. Come back in four weeks and discuss.
Bring back the lash!
For two-year-olds especially! Man, they just never shut up.
Roger, I’m actually in furious agreement (hyperbole aside) that children have to be taught from a very early age that they are not the only pebble on the beach, as my Mum used to say. But if you had a hypothetical book group centred on child discipline with the SLAP as text, that is kind of a low tactic because as many of us here know, the book features a huge straw-mother in the shape of an annoying dippy hippy who indulges her very annoying child to the utmost. I’m not saying these kind of people don’t exist but by specifically mentioning that book, I think you’re setting the scene for a bit of strawmother-bashing.
Oh dear, somebody wrote a novel!
Oh my very word, what shall my Lord the Archbishop have to say about this?
Don’t get me started.
Parents are out of control Roger I agree.
And Helen, as you know father’s are equally deplorable as mother’s in the lack of boundary setting, disciplining etc, (especially the ‘estranged’ variety) . Sure we could try and blame it all on the mothers, but I suspect that might upset one or two people.
I’m having problems with my apostrophe placement. But mean’t without? meant. Hmmm.
And Helen, as you know father’s are equally deplorable as mother’s in the lack of boundary setting, disciplining etc
No. Some are. That is like saying “Drivers drive under the influence of alcohol, and kill people, or “Horses kick people to death”.
Now let me see if I can follow this.
If someone talks about mothers or working mothers, they may be told “Oh it’s the old story:. You’re telling them/us ‘you’re doing it wrong’ !!!” or they may be advised to visit a Feminism 101 website to educate themselves.
But it’s OK for a fictional character to be called “a huge straw-mother in the shape of an annoying dippy hippy who indulges her very annoying child to the utmost”.
OK, so I think that’s clarified things fairly well.
When some posters use a stereotype or make a judgement on society it’s unfair, and shows their ignorance.
When I use a stereotype or make a judgement then what can anyone disagree with? All’s fair in love and war.
If introducing horses (!) into this thread Helen is some kind of personal swipe, consider it to have hit it’s mark, albeit somewhat weakly.
I was not suggesting that all parents have a lack of parenting skills. But I take it you’re suggesting that it’s mostly some fathers?
FFS
I give up.
What a waste of time.
I don’t think Helen said that at all Caroline. She said some parents. Not just fathers.
The impression I get here from many is that raising polite and considerate kids is somehow a conservative thing. But consideration for others – isn’t that one of the Left’s values?
I look at the way some – though by no means all – kids seem to be being raised among friends and family and I feel like saying: “Don’t you realise you’re raising your kids to be horrible, spiteful, self-centred Tories?”
Thought I’m not saying any generation gets it right – what was it Philip Larkin said about parents?
Thought?
….I should say good on all those parents who do their best in trying circumstances.
Have you ever thought that maybe when kids are behaving you don’t notice them? That it’s only the kids misbehaving that get your attention? But of course it’s easier to say that parents are doing a bad job, it’s all because of feminism etc etc. Yawn.
Helen, I don’t know whether you’ve read the book, but I think you’re being rather unfair about ‘The Slap’. By ’straw-mother’ I’m assuming you mean that Tsiolkas is making an argument about mothers, or at least some sort of mothers which is false, lazy and caricatured. Sure, the character of Rosie is insufferable at the start. But as you begin to know more about her through the novel, she becomes more sympathetic, complex and three dimensional. She has her reason for being who she is. None of the characters in the book are wholly good or evil. They all behave badly at times. You could also balance up Rosie by looking at the other characters who are mothers, or mother figures, such as the gorgeous Auntie Tash and the teenage boy’s Mum, whose name I forget.
Anyway, this is a bit ot, but hey, it’s been brought up in the thread.
@ Ginja: This latte-leftie has certainly invested many hours in raising polite and considerate kids, so perhaps your impression needs some reflection.
So the argument is here that children who run around and make noise, children who are carefree enough not to notice they are making noise, who cannot be expected to be socialised as an adult, because they are, well, children – these are badly brought up children? And they are spiteful Tories in the making? Talk about demonizing kids.
A child is a child by virtue of the fact that their brain has not developed certain skills. They are badly behaved at times and this is age appropriate. Indeed it is necessary for them to be badly behaved. They do not yet understand the delaying of gratification, have not yet mastered the integration of emotions and are poor with impulse control. What gets them through the mastering of these skills and the transition into adulthood where they become adept at these things are adults who will remain steady and calm while they resolve these issues in a sometimes very public, very noisy way.. But we are talking about adults who know what battles to pick. Adults who know how to let them be children. Which really means adults who have resolved their own crises of integration and socialization and can tolerate the discomfort of noise and disruption.
.
Tigtog: glad to hear it. I actually said there are a lot of good parents out there, too.
Ridiculously permissive parenting defintitely crosses class and political lines.