Comments on: The Australian woman's reproductive duty to society

The Australian woman's reproductive duty to society

acb — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:47:09 -0800

Recently, a postgraduate researcher in journalism attended a talk about the challenges of Australia's aging population, given by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Afterwards, when a member of the group she was in introduced her to Rudd and mentioning the PhD she was completing, Rudd rolled his eyes and remarked that that is the "excuse" that "all" young women are using nowadays to avoid starting families.

By: strixus

strixus — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:50:03 -0800

-picks jaw up off the floor- You know, even having experienced this, I'm still always shocked and flabbergasted that people actually say this shit.

By: (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates

(Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:51:08 -0800

Yeah but what was she wearing? hamburger oh dear lord hamburger

By: Heretic

Heretic — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:51:34 -0800

Wow. We've come a long way, baby.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:52:23 -0800

That's not a knife. That's a foot in your mouth.

By: Oktober

Oktober — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:52:40 -0800

By: DU

DU — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:53:24 -0800

Sounds like "the challenges of Australia's aging population" also include getting saber-tooth tiger stains out of your leopard skin clothing.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:53:41 -0800

Australia: Failing to defeat expectations.

By: DU

DU — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:54:25 -0800

There's a decent conversation to be had about how socioeconomic pressures to delay childbearing are at odds with fundamental facts about our own biology, but I really doubt it's going to happen in this thread. Also a conversation about how the "duty" of a subgroup of society translates to a "duty" on any member of that subgroup.

By: emilyd22222

emilyd22222 — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:54:33 -0800

Given the baby deluge among my grad student friends, I'd say that he's anecdotally full of shit. Grad school is a way better time to have babies than when you're up for tenure.

By: Joe Beese

Joe Beese — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:54:55 -0800

Why do we assume it is the obligation of all women to reproduce? Suggested for further research.

By: Anali

Anali — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:55:15 -0800

Blaming the victim, as always. It's not an excuse, it's a choice - a very difficult one - that young women would not have to make in a truly equitable society.

By: (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates

(Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:55:28 -0800

By: acb

acb — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:55:55 -0800

That may be the case, but it does not follow that everyone either wants or has a duty to have children. In Australia, these days, 11 years of right-wing governmetn followed by two years of centre-right government with a strong social-conservative streak (witness the national internet firewall plan, for example) has instilled some regressive assumptions, such that people (particularly women) who don't have children are selfish "baby bludgers" shirking their duty to society.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:56:46 -0800

That's true, but largely because threads tend to follow the tone of the post. The tone of this post seems fine. What's wrong?

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:56:56 -0800

the "excuse" that "all" young women are using nowadays to avoid starting families. The excuse my girlfriend uses is that she isn't a brood hen.

By: geoff.

geoff. — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:58:25 -0800

Ah yes, the oldest excuse in the book! The old, "I'm going to study functional SNPs in the lymphotoxin- gene that are associated with susceptibility to myocardial infarction," just to get out of starting a family. Gen Y, you procrastinators you!

By: mccarty.tim

mccarty.tim — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:58:40 -0800

I'd rather have underpopulation and overly skilled workers. Also, ew, sexist.

By: Ambrosia Voyeur

Ambrosia Voyeur — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:59:42 -0800

"I would, but it would be born Australian."

By: bibliowench

bibliowench — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:00:01 -0800

Funny. I used my family as an excuse to avoid finishing my dissertation. I guess I'm doing it wrong.

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:01:33 -0800

The excuse my girlfriend uses is that she isn't a brood hen. posted by Astro Zombie at 2:56 PM on February 16 The excuse my girlfriend uses is that she isn't my wife.

By: (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates

(Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:01:40 -0800

That's true, but largely because threads tend to follow the tone of the post. The tone of this post seems fine. What's wrong? Nothing's wrong with the post. It's just not in the direction that the commenter was hoping/expecting it to go in. If the FPP were a link to a study or an essay describing the difficult decisions professional women make, then the conversation they were hoping for may have come to fruition. This FPP is about the Australian PM making a stupid comment - therefore I predict a thread full of stupid comments. I ain't mad or nuthin - I guess I'm just saying that one shouldn't impugn the fine members of Metafilter if this thread doesn't evolve into an enlightening look at the serious issues faced by certain women in society.

By: infinitefloatingbrains

infinitefloatingbrains — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:04:52 -0800

Funny coming from a guy that uses politics as an excuse for avoiding starting families.

By: dortmunder

dortmunder — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:10:20 -0800

She should have started crying and screamed, "I'm infertile you jerk!" And then collapsed on the floor. Making a scene would have probably taught this guy a lesson about opening his mouth. Then again, maybe not.

By: Fiasco da Gama

Fiasco da Gama — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:10:49 -0800

Oh man I don't get to do this very often, and might be a long time before I get to do it again but here we go HEY AMERICA! OUR POLITICAL LEADER'S A BIGGER DICKHEAD THAN YOURS IS HOWDYA LIKE THAT EH

By: pecknpah

pecknpah — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:10:55 -0800

Now, I know I haven't been here for that long, but I'm pretty sure the mods don't like when we make predictions about how threads will go really early in the thread. [comment removed - can we NOT predict bad behavior in a thread where none has happened? thank you.] posted by jessamyn at 10:44 AM on October 5, 2009 [+] [!]

By: Reverend John

Reverend John — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:12:23 -0800

Is it possible he was deadpanning?

By: oddman

oddman — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:15:58 -0800

Can't we just pass a law requiring PhD's to reproduce?

By: lattiboy

lattiboy — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:17:35 -0800

It's been pretty horrible watching Metafilter deteriorate into a series of preemptive posts about likey derails when a subject is even slightly controversial. This used to be the place I came to have reasonable discussions among intelligent and informed people. It's now where I go to see various hyper-sensitive "ists" and equally defensive knuckle draggers and Ron Paul supports shit fight about how their both simultaneously being oppressed by the other. In other words, it's turned into every shitty talkback section of your local news rag. Horrible might be the wrong word. Sad. That's it! It's horribly fucking sad................

By: gompa

gompa — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:17:58 -0800

She should've handed Rudd a copy of her master's thesis, "What's the Matter With Sheila?: Gender Roles in Contemporary Australian Society (Or, The Bizarre Persistence of Knuckle-Dragging Attitudes Toward Women in a Place Otherwise So Elegant and Casually Sophisticated the Women's Studies Degree-Wielding Canadian Spouse of At Least One Mefite Reads Melbourne Real-Estate Listings as Fantasy Lit)." I hate to generalize, but even our ultra-urbane, wine-snobby, Montessori-preschool-endorsing Aussie friends bicker with their spouses like they're reenacting scenes from The Honeymooners, complete with winking, broad-gender-stereotyping asides. What's up with that? Mates? I don't mean the question entirely facetiously. I really have found it repeatedly jarring how out of otherwise liberal character the Aussie gender divide seems to be. I mean, crikey, isn't Rudd supposed to be a progressive?

By: spicynuts

spicynuts — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:22:03 -0800

There's a decent conversation to be had about how socioeconomic pressures to delay childbearing are at odds with fundamental facts about our own biology, but I really doubt it's going to happen in this thread. Exactly. Hey, politicians, tell us how we are supposed to feed your housing/economic recovery if one part of the sacred marital unit has to stay home and raise kids, thus not providing the second income that enabled this giant bubble in the first place? You want me to stay home and make babies? Pay me.

By: fontophilic

fontophilic — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:27:03 -0800

I hate to generalize, but even our ultra-urbane, wine-snobby, Montessori-preschool-endorsing Aussie friends bicker with their spouses like they're reenacting scenes from The Honeymooners, complete with winking, broad-gender-stereotyping asides. What's up with that? Mates? Yuppies, Australian or not, like "classic" things, like chinos and polo shirts, landscape paintings, and sexism entrenched gender roles.

By: toodleydoodley

toodleydoodley — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:27:30 -0800

ladies, ladies, enough with the excuses! just close your eyes and think of Australia. { / }

By: scblackman

scblackman — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:28:06 -0800

Crikey, what an asshole.

By: KokuRyu

KokuRyu — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:28:09 -0800

It would be great to get some third-party confirmation of Rudd's remarks. The guy hardly comes across (at least in the international press) as some sort of sexist conservative. However, from my experience working in government, I can say that journalists not infrequently get it wrong, and are always searching for controversy - it sells papers. That said, although I'm a parent myself, the whole argument that people who don't have kids are somehow less than fully-realized adults is pretty stupid. Anyway, while declining fertility is an issue in an ageing society, the real issue is the individual productivity of the workforce. You want to provide support for an elderly society? Try investing more on education so people get better-paying jobs. The one thing I've heard from relatives living in Aus and local businesspeople doing business there is that the Australian workforce is not educated.

By: kaibutsu

kaibutsu — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:31:16 -0800

This is very interesting! I recall having a conversation with a friend once, in which he asserted that population needs to rise in order for economies to grow; an economy really needs more people to create more wealth in order for that overall growth rate to nudge steadily higher. In the case of modern western capitalist democracies, these economies are founded on the assumption that growth shall be perpetual, perhaps with the occasional slump year. And so you find these situations in which population contraction (as in Australia or the US) leads to massive contradictions with the financial planning for things like pensions and social security. But in both Australia and the US, the growth of population comes with massive environmental problems. Both countries are suffering water depletion issues due to over-utilization, though in the US this hasn't quite gotten bad enough to make the mainstream news yet. This over-utilization comes from steady increase in population, combined with expansion of industry and agriculture putting greater strains on the water supply. In this sense, stabilization or reduction of population is an excellent idea for beginning to combat the environmental problems. Without argument, voluntary reduction of birth rate is one of the best ways to achieve population stabilization; other options tried out at various points in history include war, infanticide, and forced sterilization, all quite unpopular in the modern Western democracy. So we end up with this conundrum: Overall, reduction of the birth rate really is a good thing. We use fewer resources, and have more time and attention for the children we do have. But on the other hand, we really don't have an economic structure in place that allows for the care of the elder generation. It's a massive hole in the economic system that needs serious thought to address.

By: acb

acb — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:31:44 -0800

I really have found it repeatedly jarring how out of otherwise liberal character the Aussie gender divide seems to be. I mean, crikey, isn't Rudd supposed to be a progressive? After the 11 years of Howard, Australia seems to have taken a tilt towards cultural conservatism. You have the national internet censorship firewall facing little public opposition (the fact that Labor politicians are more scared of losing preselection if they cross the floor than of losing votes if they vote for this stinker is telling), increased film censorship (typically of films associated with urban "elites"; always good for culture-war points) , the banning of video games unsuitable for children, an increase in flag-waving nationalism (witness the Cronulla riots, or the phenomenon of music festivals being full of young men wearing flags as capes and sometimes forcing dark-skinned attendees to "kiss the flag"), and now the not uncommon assumption that women who don't bear children aren't pulling their weight in society. (This is evident not just in the PM's remarks but in the opposition's characterisation of the (childless) deputy PM Julia Gillard as "barren" and an "empty fruit bowl"). The last assumption may in part come from the Howard government's introduction of the "baby bonus", a cash bonus paid to Australians who had children; after all, if taxpayers' money is used to encourage people to do something, it must be a duty.

By: Space Kitty

Space Kitty — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:32:49 -0800

Why are we regressing and how can we make it stop?

By: slow graffiti

slow graffiti — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:43:06 -0800

The implication here is that more women would have babies if only it weren't for the lack of support from government programs or employers. While that may be true for many individual women, I also take issue with applying that assumption to all women - maybe I just don't like babies and you can't pay me enough to have one, and this fact does not make me a Manolo-hoarding bitch who's too good for diapers.

By: emjaybee

emjaybee — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:45:27 -0800

kaibutsu, your friend's theory is a popular one, but still crap. And of course, fatal to the human race in the long run and a creator of massive misery in the short run. There is no such thing as infinitely sustainable population growth, so long as we are confined to this planet anyway. You would think that a system that results in massive amounts of death and suffering and the eventual extinction of your species (or at least its decimation) would be the definition of unsuccessful, no?

By: -harlequin-

-harlequin- — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:45:30 -0800

he asserted that population needs to rise in order for economies to grow His assertion is false. More sophisticated tools and processes allows more wealth to be produced per worker. So as long as there are ongoing technological (or other) improvements in your economic infrastructure, economic growth can be (and in many countries demonstrably is) maintained in the absence of population growth.

By: blahblahblah

blahblahblah — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:46:15 -0800

Interestingly, there has been worry in professional schools about the reverse - that women with MBAs, MDs, and JDs often give up their chosen profession after having a family. Its a complex issue, that touches on gender discrimination, role expectations, and a variety of other factors, and there is some interesting research going on in the field.

By: emjaybee

emjaybee — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:46:20 -0800

this fact does not make me a Manolo-hoarding bitch who's too good for diapers. What's wrong with that? Manolos are cute.

By: nomisxid

nomisxid — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:54:31 -0800

Can't we just pass a law requiring PhD's to reproduce? IIRC, Singapore used to give massive tax breaks to the children born from highly educated families, while penalizing regular folk who had more than 2 kids.

By: codswallop

codswallop — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:56:53 -0800

Why are we regressing and how can we make it stop? Hmmmm, perhaps liberals should have more children.

By: pompomtom

pompomtom — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:57:45 -0800

I mean, crikey, isn't Rudd supposed to be a progressive? No, no and for a third time no. Where do people get this idea?

By: anniecat

anniecat — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:00:24 -0800

Guilty. Though I'm not Australian, but any excuse is a good one to me to avoid having to go through that. Forget about it.

By: Alexandra Kitty

Alexandra Kitty — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:02:43 -0800

Out of the mouths of dweebs...

By: anniecat

anniecat — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:03:13 -0800

Why do we assume it is the obligation of all women to reproduce? And why do we label them as selfish when they don't? We never label career-driven men as selfish. Wait, I thought the idea was that having children and reproducing was selfish, when there are so many poor and hungry children out in the world. Who said it's generous to have children?

By: jquinby

jquinby — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:03:44 -0800

For what it's worth, we have a larger-than-average family and I'm continually astounded at the comments people feel free to make. I'm not even famous. Sometimes it's funny, and sometimes I get all stabby-feeling. So, you know, you can't win.

By: jquinby

jquinby — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:04:49 -0800

(Though, I should point out, I'm not Australian either.)

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:12:50 -0800

I think Rudd was deadpanning, trying to make a cliched joke. An awful, pathetic, insulting joke. For some reason, since becoming PM, that man has become a complete mannequin, totally fake, totally divorced from reality, totally anti-social. Look, I voted for him. At the time, he came across as nothing more than a dry, boring bureaucrat, but someone who at least seemed intelligent, and looked like he could get the job done. Since then, he has become so totally robotic and artificial in his attempts to be as forgettable and inoffensive as possible, that he's actually ended up being more offensive, as comments like this reveal. Hey Kevin - in a week when Tony Abbott has revealed what a misogynistic fuck he is, why are you trying to race to his side of the aisle with bullshit like this?

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:14:53 -0800

(In penance for his many sins, Rudd should step aside and give Our Julia the reigns.)

By: gompa

gompa — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:20:05 -0800

No, no and for a third time no. Where do people get this idea? I dunno, Labour Party, Kyoto Protocol signatory, climate change as "the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time," the dude from Midnight Oil as his environment minister, withdrawal from Iraq, formal apology to the stolen generations, all that. From this side of the pond, it scans as progressive. Especially compared to Howard.

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:27:44 -0800

That's pretty awesome that every 25-32 year-old woman in Australia is completing a PhD. Good on ya.

By: turgid dahlia

turgid dahlia — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:33:11 -0800

Also Queensland's Premier, Anna Bligh, sent an invite to the US President to come visit and called him Barrack. I lol'd because, jesus. On this particular subject, my ultra-Catholic family is having children all over the place so I've done my part, in a way, by not running into their bedrooms banging pots together when they're trying to get it on. Which is what I would normally do.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:39:33 -0800

Labour Party: Think "New Labor" Kyoto Protocol signatory: His climate change policy essentially pays the coal industry to continue to pollute, and implements emissions targets that will do sweet fuck all to slow atmospheric CO2 concentration increase. climate change as "the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time,": See above. the dude from Midnight Oil as his environment minister,: He split the environment ministry down the middle. Penny Wong gets the actual important stuff - climate change, water etc. and Garrett gets the left-overs, and is, himself, internally conflicted and unable to do a decent job. withdrawal from Iraq: Unavoidable. Everyone's withdrawing. formal apology to the stolen generations: Continued with Howard's Northern Territory Intervention without skipping a beat. (Just to be completely cynical about things.)

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:40:17 -0800

Stephen Harper and Kevin Rudd should meet halfway. Without lifejackets. That'd sink our nations' two biggest problems, nice and easy.

By: Calzephyr

Calzephyr — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:41:37 -0800

Wait, I thought the idea was that having children and reproducing was selfish, when there are so many poor and hungry children out in the world. Who said it's generous to have children? I love that comment. I volunteered as a youth mentor and still see "my kid" regularly. Many of the kids in the program were from neglectful, poor or single parent families. I always feel sad when people get the glazed look when I talk about her; I get the feeling that I'm somehow making them feel inferior although that is not my intention and I try not to give that impression. I always get the feeling that if she was "my kid" that they would be far more interested anyway. After I give birth to a BFA I want to go back to youth mentoring - there's an immigrant girls program that I would love to be a part of.

By: electroboy

electroboy — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:43:33 -0800

Well...that's the excuse we're using. I suppose once my wife finishes her PhD we'll have to think of another one.

By: acb

acb — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:11:00 -0800

I voted for Rudd* (I made a point of going to the Australian High Commission in London just to get my vote in), and would still do so, but only because he's unambiguously the lesser evil at the moment. If the Tories would get someone other than a cartoonish culture-war authoritarian to lead them, it might just apply some pressure to Rudd to be less of a dickhead, but it seems that there is a bipartisan consensus on the reactionary side of the culture war. * Australia has a preferential voting system, so "voted for Rudd" here is shorthand for "gave Labor preferences ahead of the Tories".

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:11:48 -0800

For the record, if the are any female Australian PhD students looking to reproduce out there, I will grudging father a child upon you - but only for the good of Australia. And don't expect me to be there for "birthdays" or "the birth."

By: Fiasco da Gama

Fiasco da Gama — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:14:30 -0800

Man, I wish LP (Australian left-of-centre blog) wasn't broken today; there was a really good free-ranging discussion about this going on about the PM and his "sense" of "humour". The commenters there were sounding out the possibilities: a) that Nina Funnell is lying or made it up (very unlikely) b) that Rudd was expressing a sincere political viewpoint and policy position of the Australian Government (still unlikely, but less so considering the rest of his Cabinet and Caucus), c) that Rudd simply was trying to make a poor joke and failed because he's a desperately unfunny person (quite likely, based on his history with humour) and d) that Rudd was making a joke based on his own particular conservative set of views about postgraduate education and women (most likely of all). Whatever the case, the take home lesson for Prime Ministers is that if you're trying to make an edgy joke to someone you've never met but that you know writes for a major newspaper DON'T FUCK IT UP OR IT'LL COME ACROSS AS INCREDIBLY SEXIST.

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:20:18 -0800

[few comments removed - can you folks look like you are making an effort please? otherwise MeTa is right around the corner. Thank you.]

By: sien

sien — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:33:00 -0800

Jimbob has a really good point in the first paragraph. Rudd may well have been trying to make a joke. Australia's PM has come up with some awful attempts at being funny/a regular bloke and more ikable. This may well be another.

By: MuffinMan

MuffinMan — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:39:11 -0800

I think he needs to be cut some slack. People can say some dumb things when they get surprised. Perhaps she had great boobs, or he was shocked that she wasn't in the kitchen or something. You never really know.

By: muddgirl

muddgirl — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:48:04 -0800

It's a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't, ladies. Like Amanda Marcotte riffed in a recent blog post (on a rather unrelated issue): If you don't like a catch-22, you shouldn't go around being female.

By: awfurby

awfurby — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:04:30 -0800

The one thing I've heard from relatives living in Aus and local businesspeople doing business there is that the Australian workforce is not educated. posted by KokuRyu at 8:28 PM on February 16 [+] [!] Weird. I could have sworn I got an education when I attended all those schools and universities. Oh well, I guess I'll just continue to wallow in my own ignorance. What does "not educated" mean anyway? We can't spell? Or add up? Or perhaps we don't all attend gender roles workshops? Please, enlighten us so we can be better.

By: turgid dahlia

turgid dahlia — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:06:56 -0800

Also, Kevin ought to watch himself. Australia lacks the infrastructure necessary to support projected population growth over the next two to four decades, yet alone desired population growth. There are insufficient jobs and insufficient resources. Most families simply cannot support even a single child, yet alone three or four. State education is a comprehensive failure and private education is not affordable. People around my age in this country are the ones who are expected to be having children (though likely we should have been at it earlier). Problem is, I remember school a little too vividly and damned if I would put my flesh and blood through something like that. Home education? Sure. Which one of us will be doing that? Me? Okay. So what will we do on half our income? Argue with my partner about money and drink heavily and raise our child on junk food? Sure, no problem. Oh wait the child is fat and hyperactive and has diabetes let's take it to the hospital as it has heart palpitations. Hello yes my child is having a heart attack. He weighs eighty-nine kilograms and gets up at three in the morning having wet the bed and goes into the kitchen and eats brown sugar right from the packet. We don't feed him properly because we are depressive alcoholics living on one income and constantly resentful and tired from fighting with one another and didn't even want this kid anyway we only had it because the PM said it would be good for the country. We should wait over here because you're already busy trying to save a child who got stabbed through the heart in a playground incident? Over here near the vomiting guy who got in a drunken punchup and has glass through his fists? No problem we'll just sit here. Yes we're sitting right here nurse. Oh no my child is dead. Do we have to pay back the baby bonus?

By: panboi

panboi — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:14:24 -0800

Can't we get beyond Blunder Gnome?

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:16:37 -0800

That was an appalling sentiment to express, but I think he'd have to eat raw newborn babies before he'd get even close in my esteem to Howard's level.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:18:44 -0800

and turgid dahlia - I never knew you lived in Ipswich.

By: Justinian

Justinian — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:20:01 -0800

situations in which population contraction (as in Australia or the US) Eh wot. The population of the USA is not contracting. It's growing at a good clip with no indication of this changing.

By: turgid dahlia

turgid dahlia — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:30:31 -0800

I never knew you lived in Ipswich Ipswich?! Oh we used to dream of living in Ipswich!

By: wilful

wilful — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:35:41 -0800

well fiasco da gama has already said what I was going to say, as a participant in the LP thread - there's a very good chance this is complete bullshit, was misheard or was a bad joke. Without dismissing the fact that Rudd is a confirmed cultural conservative, he's far more modern than that and I really find it hard to believe he believes that. Also, Nina Funnell has been making shit up about what he's been saying about Australia's demography issues (the first part of her article) - I suspect she has a massive capital F Feminist chip on her shoulder about any man in a position of authority..

By: Fiasco da Gama

Fiasco da Gama — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:37:05 -0800

I suspect she has a massive capital F Feminist chip on her shoulder about any man in a position of authority..

that's not what I was going to say

By: turgid dahlia

turgid dahlia — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:39:07 -0800

Yes you were that's exactly what you were going to say, also something along the lines of "She just needs a good shagging, that will sort her out!"

By: Fiasco da Gama

Fiasco da Gama — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:40:57 -0800

[eats raw newborn baby with brown sugar]

By: turgid dahlia

turgid dahlia — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:42:56 -0800

Just like our sweet-toothed cannibal forefathers!

By: Fiasco da Gama

Fiasco da Gama — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:49:26 -0800

sweet-toothed cannibal forefathers!

So you are from Ipswich.

By: misha

misha — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:49:38 -0800

Why do we assume it is the obligation of all women to reproduce? And why do we label them as selfish when they don't? We never label career-driven men as selfish. Wait, I thought the idea was that having children and reproducing was selfish, when there are so many poor and hungry children out in the world. Who said it's generous to have children? I would like to see BOTH of thee extreme viewpoints go right out the window. Deciding to have/not have children is a very personal decision and no one should be considered selfish for following her (or his, in the case of the father) heart, no matter which course it takes.

By: MikeMc

MikeMc — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:19:04 -0800

Blaming the victim, as always. *eye-roll*, yes, the story of this privileged, highly educated young woman just screams "victim of the patriarchy, come see the oppression inherent in the patriarchal system!". It might have been a joke, an off-hand remark or it may not have happened at all. Yes you were that's exactly what you were going to say, also something along the lines of "She just needs a good shagging, that will sort her out!" Who doesn't need a good shagging? A good shagging would sort a lot of people out. Hell, even mediocre shaggings for all would bring us a lot closer to world peace.

By: turgid dahlia

turgid dahlia — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:28:38 -0800

Some of us could also use a good FLAGGING amirite?

By: wilful

wilful — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:32:24 -0800

Please don't misunderstand me. There are a small bunch of academic Feminists out there, that come across as very bitter and who see everything through a very narrow window of their own preconceptions relating to governments, men, culture, stuff. I know, I have been tutored by them (getting good marks because I was able to say the right things) or otherwise socialised with them, they can be fine, fun people unless you get them onto their idee fixe. This does not bear any relationship to feminism and does not remotely, not for one second, suggest that I am dismissing her jsut because she is a female academic. Most women studying and teaching feminist issues at Uni are not like that. I don't want to pretend to know anything about Nina Funell, however given what she said in the first half of her article, which is totally against all other commentary on what Rudd said in his Australia Day speeches, there are pointers that she may just be, well, a little bit of a barrow-pusher. also, the SMH doesn't mind making shit up just to sell papers these days...

By: wilful

wilful — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:34:11 -0800

oooh, censorship!

By: anniecat

anniecat — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:37:17 -0800

this fact does not make me a Manolo-hoarding bitch who's too good for diapers. I can't afford Manolos but I'm too good for diapers, or at least I'm going to tell myself that because I'm going to die childless and without any family, and no one will ever love me the way I loved my mom when I was a kid. Or if I had children, they'd probably hate me later for something or become drug addicts or stoners or end up getting useless degrees like their mother and get married late and make me cry like I made my mother cry long distance when I said I was going to graduate school in England and then maybe I would consider getting married someday in my late thirties. I broke her heart to pieces like it was my job.

By: math

math — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:42:44 -0800

US birth rate: 13.4 / 1000 total population US death rate: 8.0 / 1000 total population (source: CDC vital statistics, April 2009 figures). Net natural increase in US population: 5.4 / 1000 (this doesn't include the increase in population due to immigration) Australia birth rate: 12.5 / 1000 total population Australia death rate: 6.7 / 1000 total population (source: indexmundi, July 2009 estimate). Net natural increase in Australia population: 5.8 / 1000 (again not including immigration). Conclusion: Time to start picketing graduate schools here in the US! "Women out of the classroom, back into the bedroom" would make a good placard, don't you think?

By: Nattie

Nattie — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:02:20 -0800

Wait, I thought the idea was that having children and reproducing was selfish, when there are so many poor and hungry children out in the world. Who said it's generous to have children? If you want to have children, that's the obnoxious thing people tell you. But trust me, if you're someone who doesn't want to have children you can't even make the slightest factual mention of it without someone telling you you're selfish -- the implication being that you want all your time/money/effort for yourself -- and immature and always, always that dismissive "oh, you'll change your mind" in the tone of voice that suggests, "See? Even though you believe you're a horrible person, I know deep down you aren't! I'm being so generous to you!" I have the utmost sympathy for those that give people crap for having children, don't get me wrong; people should mind their own business either way. But at least for the time being, the majority of people do want children so it's a more socially acceptable preference to voice, hence the perception that the default position is that people should be having them. I have literally never been able to say I'm not interested in having children, no matter how polite I am when asked, without someone harassing me for several minutes, and this is when I give short, cordial replies like "I've just never wanted them" and not fighty things for them to latch onto and drag it out further. While parents surely hear sometimes that they're selfish, it's nowhere near the prevailing reaction; you don't have to live your life pretending you don't actually want kids, for example, because except for a few assholes most people either agree with you or find nothing wrong with it. I have had to just smile and nod several times when people -- especially older people -- try to strongarm me into agreeing that I could change my mind. I actually feel ashamed sometimes for not sticking up for myself more stridently, but it never changed anyone's mind before so I've gotten sick of trying. There's no fantastic way to point out to someone that they're being presumptuous, ignorant, and rude without their just arguing with you more either. I sometimes wonder if a lot of the "no YOU'RE selfish for having children!" stuff wouldn't be expressed as often if fewer child-desiring people didn't continually and publicly harangue others into conversations about having children, and then argue with and condescend toward those who don't want them. It's a bit chicken-and-the-egg, admittedly, but it's to be expected when you put someone who's already in the minority on the defensive. Those who want children would probably face far fewer insults if they called out their fellows for being rude and ignorant when they start in on someone who doesn't want children. I make a point not to insult someone for their decision to have children -- no matter how insulting some of them are to me -- and I wouldn't tolerate any of my friends getting shitty with someone over something like that either.

By: Nattie

Nattie — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:04:18 -0800

I have the utmost sympathy for those that give people crap for having children Oh wow, horrible typo that completely changes the meaning of what I'm saying, hello! I meant: "I have the utmost sympathy for those that get crap for having children." Ayaiyai.

By: Fiasco da Gama

Fiasco da Gama — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:23:34 -0800

Via that LP thread wilful linked to earlier, is mamamia:

UPDATE: A spokesman for the Prime Minister contacted me this afternoon wishing to make the following statement: The claims made about the Prime Minister's views on these matters yesterday are not accurate and do not reflect his long held views. The Rudd Government is doing more than any other Australian Government to support women being able to make decisions that are right for them. We are introducing an 18 week paid parental leave scheme and have increased the child care rebate to 50%. We've also reduced the HECS contributions for new maths and science students and are paying 50 per cent of the HECS repayments for graduates in this field. The Rudd Government will continue to look at ways to support women in making the choices that are right for them.

(For non-Australians: HECS is the Higher Education Contributions Scheme, under which the Commonwealth pays for undergraduate education but reclaims part of the cost through the tax system from recipients)

By: Alice Russel-Wallace

Alice Russel-Wallace — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:28:36 -0800

Context: I am a 30-year old Australian woman and I have a PhD. It really miffs me that a couple of posters are seriously subscribing to the idea that Nina Funell lied in her article and that she is a "I suspect she has a massive capital F Feminist chip on her shoulder about any man in a position of authority". Of course it is not out of the realms of possibility that a journalist should lie or subvert the truth, however, I rather think it is not the case here. The first time I read an article by Nina Funnell was in 2007. Walking home she was grabbed by a man who beat her, held a knife to her throat and then attempted to rape her. She fought back so vehemently that he ran away: her furious screaming and punching worked. The incredible thing was that after her attach, Funnell wrote an article about what it feels like to be the girl who is attacked. She used her own name and photo. Since this time I've seen a great many articles by her, and they have always impressed me. Funnell's writing is measured, considered and well researched. Not that this is surprising: she is an intelligent young woman with a PhD. NOW, think about the context of Rudd's comment. First up, Funnell is no random PhD student. She was shortlisted for the Young Australian of the Year award for her work in journalism and outreach. Second, the people who attend events like the one under discussion are invited because they are Young Australians of Note. They are the cream of the cream and are expected to Achieve Great Things. It is here that PM Rudd tells her that her research endeavours are merely an excuse to avoid having children. It would be preposterous... except it is not at all surprising. As I said, I have a PhD. I'm also an Australian woman. Having completed a postdoc in the US, I am constantly amazed by just how bad things are for women in Australia (compared to other 1st world countries, of course). Sexism is engrained in the culture. An example: late last year I completed some teaching and marking work for the university where I did my PhD. Upon submitting my timesheet I was told that I would not be paid at the rates I was entitled to (ie. pay rates for people with a PhD). I did some research and found that every bloke in my position was being paid PhD rates. I am still waiting to be paid for the work I did. This is tip of the iceberg stuff... I could go on ad infinitum with examples, and so could many other Australian women. Our Deputy PM, Julia Gillard continually has to field jibes that she is barren and therefore unqualified to comment on Australian families. What bollocks. I'll stop there. I am just so, so angry that this happened to Nina Funnell. And I'm angry because it encapsulates the experience of Australian women in academia. And I'm miffed because I am far too young to feel so disheartened by the academic environment I find myself in. (Australian) women on MeFi... what have your experiences been?

By: MarchHare

MarchHare — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:58:50 -0800

As another Australian who eagerly voted for the Ruddbot at the last election, I stand behind JimBob's comment. We knew that Rudd was never going to be the change we'd secretly hoped for - though we rocked our Kevin07 and repro 'It's Time' bumper stickers because it was enough to not be John Howard, frankly. But this... come on, man. All we were really asking for was someone who could keep the place on a reasonably even keel while we caught our breath and tried to get our heads back into order after twelve years of Howard's Australia; twelve years of the country getting slowly meaner and crueller more hateful, inch by ugly inch. Is it really that hard not to copy the Liberal Party playbook line for line, Kev? This is a direct echo of Peter Costello's (Howard's treasurer, for you non-Australians) creepy request four or five years ago that Australian women have "one for Mum, one for Dad and one for Australia."

By: wilful

wilful — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:11:48 -0800

Well Kevin Rudd's spokesperson says it was not accurate. Nina Funnell hasn't retacted. So there we have it, nothing can be proven. Except, as I have already said, while I know Rudd is a social conservative, I still have great trouble ascribing this statement to him, it really doesn't fit with anything or everything else he has done. So yeah I still think it was probably a misunderstanding, but quite possibly made up, even if uconsciously. As for Australia being remarkably sexist, well I would like data rather than anecdotes. Our Deputy PM has received jibes from who? Bill Heffernan and George Brandis, that's who, and the outrage at their comments reflected the obvious fact that they are old reactionaries and not reflective of majority opinion.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:13:29 -0800

/throws another tinnie on the barbeque.

By: acb

acb — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:17:57 -0800

/throws another tinnie on the barbeque. You Poms and your warm beer...

By: bystander

bystander — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:25:54 -0800

It's very common for Australians of all backgrounds to have their parents caring for their kids. The majority of families with young children have two incomes.

By: bystander

bystander — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:28:24 -0800

Well, that comment now seems odd. Count me in the camp that this was Ruddbot humour, but I wish he would leave his conservative social values in church.

By: StickyCarpet

StickyCarpet — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:41:46 -0800

This reminds me of some of the politics I witnessed in Canada. I mean, jeez, you don't have to fund American-style professionally calibrated focus groups, but how about just running some of this stuff by 5 or 6 normal people sitting around your living room, before you shoot your big mouth off?

By: evidenceofabsence

evidenceofabsence — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:51:01 -0800

population needs to rise in order for economies to grow Paging an economist: Am I wrong in thinking that the above is a discredited belief? IIRC from undergrad macro, there are several main measures of growth. Harrod-Domar, a model from the 40s that is considered outdated, considers labor solely as a function of available workers. In this case, labor supply (i.e., population) and capital reserves (savings, more or less) are key to growth. Then, in the 50s, the Solow-Swan model was introduced, and it separated labor productivity (seen as good) from sheer population growth (seen as bad). Without getting into it, the equation basically consists of two parts: total growth minus depreciation. Getting a PhD increases labor productivity, while population growth is part of depreciation. PhD good, babies bad. Then in the 80s, Solow-Swan was tweaked to create endogenous growth models. The differentiation between labor productivity and sheer population growth remained. Bonus: These models often focus on increasing human capital, mainly through education. PhD excellent, babies not great—unless you educate them. Which is to say, Rudd has his shit mixed up in more ways than one.

By: evidenceofabsence

evidenceofabsence — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:51:14 -0800

Then again, the rules might be different when it comes to PhDs in journalism....

By: wilful

wilful — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:21:37 -0800

no, evidenceofabsence, you're talking about per capita, he is (presumably) talking about gross growth. Which can be legitimate in certail contexts, even though we're generally most interested in per capita growth. But anyway, there's no evidence that getting a PhD has any relationship to being less fertile.

By: Pinback

Pinback — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:29:56 -0800

Far be it from me to defend the guy - me, a dyed-in-the-wool Labor voter who couldn't bring myself to vote directly for him (he was my local member at the time) - but… Having met him a couple of times (once for an hour or so in the course of work, once for ~10 minutes after a public meeting) before he was PM, I can tell you this: off the clock he seems to be a cheery, funny guy, but his sense of humour ranges from the wry to the dry. And by 'dry', I mean 'Strzelecki Desert, <4" annual rainfall, D-R-Y'. From my limited experience, I'd bet it was totally deadpan humour. Saying it to a journalist was just the icing on a cake made of stupid.

By: effugas

effugas — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:44:50 -0800

wilful, Very much devil's advocate here, but both age and education level are negatively correlated with childbearing rates. Just the truth.

By: evidenceofabsence

evidenceofabsence — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:55:11 -0800

wilful- I'm not finding any studies on female PhDs in Australia, but it's generally the case that higher education in women correlates with lower birth rate and fertility rate, no?

By: peripathetic

peripathetic — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:21:06 -0800

Longtime lurker, joined to comment on the issue. As much as I would love to give Kevin Rudd the benefit of the doubt, I can believe that he wasn't making a bad joke. I hesitate to throw in another "in my experience" comment, but I've seen intelligent, educated men spontaneously spew dumb, sexist comments because they hold pretty old-fashioned ideas about women and reproduction at their core, especially if they were raised in communities untouched by political correctness, or communities who think political correctness is a joke as they are rarely called on to defend their statements. Take my dear old Chinese father. He was broad-minded enough not to care that he didn't have sons, and put my sisters and me through private liberal arts colleges in the United States although his family found it absurd. But the man also once remarked that he didn't see the point of women going to medical school since they'd have to quit their jobs once they had children. I would have challenged him, but I think I was seven when he said that. And sadly, I've heard several of my friends -- Western-educated Asian male professionals -- express similar sentiments very casually. They're not necessarily cultural conservatives either. They've just never really questioned gender roles or thought much about them, and it shows up in casual conversation.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:54:41 -0800

Funny coming from a guy that uses politics as an excuse for avoiding starting families.

Howard was the last guy, the right-winger. This is the new guy the left winger

Can't we just pass a law requiring PhD's to reproduce?

Actually I was thinking. If Rudd really thinks the rigors of PhD studies are preventing childbirth, then why not provide extra funding, free childcare, plus a leg up on academic appointments, etc to women who do have children while in Grad School? I don't know how well grad students are paid in Australia, but in the US they are not paid very well at all. The interesting thing is that what Rudd said was probably true for his social class Most of the young women he meets are probably grad students. That little anecdote says a lot about social class as well as gender. He could probably make a bigger effort to find out why lower status women are choosing not to give birth, and ameliorate that if he really thought there were not enough kids. It's also completely ignoring the way countries like the U.S. and Canada build their workforce: immigration. Our (the US's) birth rates are as low as Europe's but our population is still growing because lots of people want to move here. The same is true of Australia, so they could just let more people in if they wanted too.

Well Kevin Rudd's spokesperson says it was not accurate. Nina Funnell hasn't retacted. So there we have it, nothing can be proven.

Uh, he said it wasn't an accurate representation of his views not that he didn't say it. If he didn't say it, he would have said he didn't say it. So obviously, he did say it. All politicians' statements need to be parsed pretty closely. Besides, he said this to her in front of a group of people.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:22:32 -0800

He could probably make a bigger effort to find out why lower status women are choosing not to give birth, and ameliorate that if he really thought there were not enough kids. Yeah, but setting up specific tax penalties for residential properties that are not your primary residence would piss off all the baby boomers who leveraged their cheap-in-the-day houses to take out mortgages on second & third & fourth investment properties, pricing young people completely out of the market. The fact that people can't afford a place to live is the problem, forcing partners to both work full-time just to make ends meet if they want to own anything vaguely resembling a family home. This - along with job insecurity brought about by "industrial reform" & the increasing shift towards temporary & casual jobs - is the key reason behind unwillingness to start families, and it cuts across all social strata. Unfortunately, the electoral backlash from property owners would be so fierce that it's not in any government's interest to tinker with the status quo, othering than tossing the occasional inflationary scraps of assistance for first home buyers.

By: Fiasco da Gama

Fiasco da Gama — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:30:02 -0800

God yes. What UbuRoivas said. The first front in the Australian class war needs to open at the point of inheritance and capital gains tax.

I don't know how well grad students are paid in Australia, but in the US they are not paid very well at all

Unless they receive a Commonwealth scholarship or they study in a field where there's significant corporate involvement, they're not usually paid.

By: Henry C. Mabuse

Henry C. Mabuse — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:00:17 -0800

Rudd is a devout Catholic.

By: eatyourcellphone

eatyourcellphone — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:16:14 -0800

Rudd is a devout Catholic. Well, not really. He attends an Anglican church.

By: Pinback

Pinback — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:54:58 -0800

Rudd is a devout Catholic. Yup, apart from arguably being wrong (arguably, because as eatyourcellphone's wikilink mentions, he attends an Anglican church but hasn't renounced Catholicism), pointing out a person's choice of religion as shorthand for "they believe women should be at home making babies" or anything else is a crap argument. Having known far too many Catholic (and a few Anglican) priests than is healthy for a good agnostic boy like myself, I can tell you that while the majority may toe the Church's "no sex before marriage, and no abortions" line, most of them are far from socially conservative on other aspects. Leftist firebrands, in fact, for the most part, who believe in sexual equality, equal rights, equal opportunity, and equal standing for all in society. It's time to stop equating Catholics - and other mainstream Christian religions - with fundie nutjobs…

By: obiwanwasabi

obiwanwasabi — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:59:34 -0800

Crikey, what an asshole. Arsehole. Harder'n it looks ay mate.

By: peacay

peacay — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:55:59 -0800

Stupid stupid joke I'm betting. Poor taste and all that. Dude has to apologise for the appearance and effect of dismissive prejudice and sexism. When's he due on Q&A next? He's bound to be whacked on the spleen with a big stick. And deservedly so.

By: pjm

pjm — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 02:13:18 -0800

Count me in the "come on, if it was said it was obviously a poorly delivered joke" camp. All women use postgraduate study as their excuse? Are we even on the same planet? Think more along the lines of "oh yeah, that's what they all say" with a head chucked back and a gentle chuckle. Ingest, in jest... Rudd is a drone, and his horrible huffing laugh induces the thought that he's about 6 years old, but he isn't even remotely as stupid as some here seem to suppose.

By: kisch mokusch

kisch mokusch — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 02:18:12 -0800

This isn't the first time an Australian politician has expressed that view in a less-than-ideal fashion. Former Victorian (Liberal) Premier Jeff Kennett once told a room full of year 12 High School girls to "go forth and multiply". And really, it's all about the baby boomers, and how to pay for their retirement. Which is kinda frustrating. The baby boomers, being such a large demographic, have been pandered to by the Federal Government their entire lives. Witlam gave them free Tertiary education, and you should see the tax benefits today for people over 60+ managing their own super. Now, just when we finally thought we'd seen the end of their war-mongering, anti-environmentalist monarchy-loving reign, we find that we're all going to likely be taxed through the arsehole to pay for their pensions!

By: acb

acb — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 04:29:33 -0800

Having known far too many Catholic (and a few Anglican) priests than is healthy for a good agnostic boy like myself, I can tell you that while the majority may toe the Church's "no sex before marriage, and no abortions" line... Do most self-identified Catholics toe this line though? (Does the Catholic Church still insist that it is the absolute external conscience of all Catholics, as it did before Vatican 2? Is contradicting church doctrine, i.e., supporting a woman's right to have an abortion, grounds for excommunication these days?)

By: harriet vane

harriet vane — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 04:32:49 -0800

Yeah, I think Rudd is using weasel words to get around the fact that he said it but didn't mean it to sound quite so fucking retro. Dude needs to learn when to stick with the Ruddbot act and save the jokes for his family. I bet Therese Rein gave him a raised eyebrow when she heard about it.

By: acb

acb — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 04:35:15 -0800

Count me in the "come on, if it was said it was obviously a poorly delivered joke" camp. All women use postgraduate study as their excuse? Are we even on the same planet? Think more along the lines of "oh yeah, that's what they all say" with a head chucked back and a gentle chuckle. Ingest, in jest... That sounds a bit too close to "geez, lighten up, bitch". Jokes like that are only funny if you're not the one at whose expense they are being made, if the attitude isn't backed up with a culture of condemnation or discrimination against those who transgress against the norms being humorously reiterated in the "jokes". Also, the belief that women who don't have children are selfish/shirking their duty to society is nowhere near sufficiently uncommon to make such jokes. One would expect Kevin Rudd to grasp this.

By: acb

acb — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 05:19:59 -0800

One would expect Kevin Rudd to grasp this. Actually, in retrospect, there is the disturbing possibility that Rudd, the media-savvy politician with his finger on the pulse of Middle Australia, does grasp this and also calculates, with some accuracy, that the odd sexist statement putting the uppity sheilas in their place would win more support from the great Australian public than it would lose, much in the way that the Howard government's racist dog-whistles appealed to and legitimised a deep vein of reactionary gut feeling.

By: peacay

peacay — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 05:50:38 -0800

acb, you're of course entitled to your opinion, but I don't believe that it was a calculated dog whistle. Anyway, ascribing motives and meanings is difficult without seeing/hearing the delivery. I think the simplest explanation is that he didn't think before he spoke and delivered a dud line. Does it reflect underlying prejudices? Is he really a sexist bastard at heart? Maybe; but it's surely not at the Tony Abbott level of chronic deviance. Yet anyway.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 08:01:16 -0800

Dude should have followed his joke with "Hamburger."

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:25:36 -0800

Yeah, but then she'd be all "WHAT? YOU SEE ME AS NOTHING BUT A SLAB OF CHEAP MEAT?!??"