Having children is probably the easiest when human beings are first capable of conceiving, however that also tends to coincide with a time when the ambitious are focused upon their careers. Personally I find it no real surprise that in our society there is a a large cohort of women who find themselves in the unenviable position of seeking to conceive when they are well past the peak of their fertility, its just the legacy of feminist ideology that has told our women and girls that their careers are more important than having children.
Interestingly there are two stories in today’s media offerings from Murdoch and Fairfax respectively that made me think about this matter today.
Firstly there is the story about the way that Tony Abbott supported Christopher Pyne and his wife through their battle to conceive their children through IVF:
Secondly there is the piece in Fairfax which is a great example of that which so many of my friends from the left constantly complain about when they see stories which begin with “the leader of the opposition says” but on this occasion its a case of “a government minister says”
The Labor party of course hate the idea that Tony Abbott could possibly be anything other than a absolute and abject slave to his Catholic faith, the idea that he could be a man who applies personal discretion to the way that he considers the teachings of the church on matters like IVF is something that the government wants to hide from the people. It serves the purposes of this desperate government far better that Abbott can be portrayed as an unthinking peon of Rome rather than a modern man who makes his own choices on issues of fertility and sexual morality.
The ALP feminista girls club does not do so well once its myths and legends are exposed to the cold hard light of truth but who is surprised? They are fighting a desperate rear guard defence of a party that not only faces defeat but near obliteration at the next federal election so clearly they are trying their darnedest to ensure that they make truth the first casualty of the battle to retain the Lodge but the truth is not as easy to kill as they had hoped.
- Abbott has long-held views on IVF, says Australian Attorney-General Roxon (craighill.net)
- Abbott will be judged on abortion, IVF (news.com.au)
- TurnLeft agrees ‘Abbott progressive on women’s issues’: here is proof (turnleft2013.wordpress.com)
- Feminist fertility blogs? (bluemilk.wordpress.com)
- Female foeticide, gender equality to be part of school curriculum (thehindu.com)
While many conservatives hate any political party to the left of Genghis Kahn I actually have a fair bit of time for the ALP and those who support it, I do appreciate that most many of its ideals have some merit even though it has lost my vote over a number of stupid things adopted into its platform. The main reason I abandoned it was more to do with managerial incompetence in office both at the state and federal level. There has been a sad decline in Labor’s fortunes under Gillard which shows no sign of abating as the party moves zombie like towards the next election there is one bright spot on the eastern horizon and that is the even more severe decline in the fortunes of the Australian Greens. If there is one thing that must gladden the hearts of most Aussies it’s seeing the cold hammer of reality hitting that loopy bunch of ideologues as their fortunes continue to decline.
Thus I found Lenore Taylor’s piece about the changes to the Greens policy platform such a hoot mainly because what she reports is not a substantive change of heart from the Greens as much as it is a cynical marketing exercise where they have sought to conceal their true agenda behind euphemism and understatement.
THE Greens have announced a party platform portraying many of their core beliefs as ”aims and principles” rather than explicit policies, presenting a smaller target to critics in a federal election year.
After a year in which senior Labor figures have labelled the Greens as ”loopy” and extremists who threaten democracy, the new platform does not resile from the party’s basic beliefs, but it contains fewer firm policy measures, in keeping with the manifestos of the major parties.
It removes one of critics’ favourite lines of attack, no longer specifying that the Greens support death duties.
The platform gives the Greens’ federal MPs – currently nine senators and one member of the House of Representatives – flexibility in negotiating legislation when holding the balance of power. But it will also make it harder for opponents to attack or ridicule the party over specific policies.
For example, the new platform no longer specifies that the Greens want to abolish the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate, but rather talks about ”redirecting funding from subsidising private health insurance towards direct public provision”.
And it no longer calls for a freeze on Commonwealth funding for private schools, stating instead that funding should be based on school need and that money not provided to the wealthiest private schools under the model should instead be given to the public sector.
The new platform was agreed at the party’s November national conference and has now been approved by all its state branches.
The document still makes it clear that the Greens want to increase the marginal tax rate for people earning more than $1 million, but no longer specifies that it should be raised to 50 per cent. It advocates increasing the mining tax and applying it to more commodities, but no longer proposes a rise in the company tax rate to 33 per cent.
The platform says the Greens want tax reform that improves housing affordability by no longer rewarding speculation, but it does not specifically call for an end to the concessional arrangements for capital gains tax. It no longer specifies that the Greens support death duties or an ”estate tax”.
Frankly I find this as bizarre and desperate as another Green of my online acquaintance who having been outed and forced to delete his blog then decided to try and claim that he was anonymous … As the old adage says, a leopard can’t change its spots and this attempt by the Greens to hide their pustular lesions with weasel words and euphemisms is not likely to be successful because the voting public are not stupid enough to be fooled by this political myth making.
Transcript WITH REFERENCES now available at http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/refuting-40-years-of-lies-about-viole… – Exclusive interview with Domestic Violence & women’s shelter/women’s refuge pioneer Erin Pizzey. *Update* Extensive references have been added to the transcript, click the link to AVoiceForMen or my site here: http://deanesmay.com/2012/12/19/refuting-40-years-of-lies-about-violence/
Some really thought provoking stuff here
The other day My daughter told us that she has never seen a “Bond” film and I immediately felt that I have been negligent in her education if she has not seen any of the archetypical secret agent films based upon the novels of Ian Fleming. This is something that I must try to address over the Christmas holidays. This little anecdote leads me to Janet Albrechtsen’s critique of the dour feminists who whine about the nature of James Bond.
In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that those grouchy women who deride Bond would secretly love to be a sultry Bond girl for just a while at least. Before settling down to a life of academic introspection, who wouldn’t like to strap a Beretta 70 to the inside of their thigh, dress up in hopelessly tight-fitting gowns and, yes, have a naked Bond slip unannounced into their steamy shower? Come on, girls. ‘Fess up. Your fantasies can’t all be about being the first female chief justice of the High Court or the first female driver of a large piece of mining machinery in the Pilbara.
In any case, don’t underrate the Bond girls. Full of humour, they radiate a delightfully modern mix of confidence, arrogance and sexual liberation. Who can forget Pussy Galore, the lesbian pilot, or Plenty O’Toole and Holly Goodhead? Pick any Bond girl and I’ll find something more legitimately feminist about her than the Moaning Myrtles who cry sexism each time the latest Bond movie hits our screens. And then there’s that Bond woman M, head of MI6, who routinely puts 007 in his place. As other women my age have remarked, when you grew up in the late 1970s watching repeats of Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie, the Bond girls were a refreshing break from Samantha and Jeannie.
Instead of whining that the latest Bond movie is sexist, spare a thought for the poor blokes who could air a bigger grievance. They can never hope to be Bond. Not in the 21st century, where revealing even the smallest hint of the alpha male is pounced on by puritanical feminists as a sign of uncontrolled machismo and sexism. Maybe women like me love 007 because he is the antithesis of the metrosexual men who surround us.
In fact, if Bond is sexist and millions of modern, liberated women are still being seduced by the sexy spy, maybe the sisterhood should ask whether it is somehow to blame for making him so damn alluring.
The sad fact is that so many feminist warriors are far to serious about cultural Icons like James Bond and if they would just lighten up a bit then maybe the few truths that they are enunciating would not be ignored along with the hyperbole that is their stock in trade.
- MC@Play: The Bond Girl Glass Ceiling (marieclaire.com)
- Get to Know the New Bond Girl: Bérénice Marlohe (fabsugar.com)
- Product placement in pictures: Skyfall (brandsandfilms.com)
- Beauty Looks to Steal From 9 Sexy James Bond Girls (bellasugar.com)
- 50 Years of Bond Girl Fashion (fashionista.com)
Strewth its getting so that no one can make or take a joke these days with all of the dour seriousness that has been advocated by our friends in the ALP you would have thought that they could at least practice what they preach but no they have been caught out being offensive about Tony Abbott’s female head of staff at a party function. The joke is though that having tried to claim the high moral ground over the Jones affair and Gillard’s posturing in the Parliament about sexism and misogyny they have demonstrated precisely those vices at this function.
I am also reminded of the “swings and roundabouts” effect of playing these issues with the public as my quote suggests Labor may be winning with the feministas on this issue but far more ordinary blokes are being turned off their shenanigans and at the end of the day it is the votes in the box that counts and Labor have once again shown that their rank opportunism is fooling no one but themselves.
In the comments of this post Miglo was curious about my reaction to his critique of Tony Abbott’s position on a grab bag of social issues well I wrote out a long comment answering each point in turn only to have it disappear into the either when I tried to use it as a comment to a re-blog here at the Sandpit So this is “take two” and hopefully this one will not disappear…
So without further adieu I will go through the points in turn
Same-sex marriage: Mr Abbott has said marriage is between a man and a woman not just to fulfil their own personal happiness ”but because we have obligations to the children that come with families”.
I see no reason to fault Abbott on this position as marriage is much more about the children that it is about social affirmation for homosexuality
Mr Abbott said he felt “threatened” by homosexuality on Sunday night’s program, a comment that has angered the gay and lesbian community and something he tried to back track from during an interview on the ABC last night.
“There is no doubt that it (homosexuality) challenges, if you like, orthodox notions of the right order of things” Mr Abbott told Lateline.
At the risk of being howled down as a homophobe I tend to think that homosexuality is against the natural order of things and it serves no biological purpose (given the simple fact that such pairings must be sterile) that said I am a realist who thinks that what consenting adults do in private is entirely their own business and the law and society should not penalise them for their choice of partner(s).
Abortion: Christians aren’t required to right every wrong in the political arena, but they can help change the nation’s culture, suggests Tony Abbott DESPITE the debt that political institutions owe to the West’s Christian heritage, there is the constant claim that Christians in politics are confused about the separation of church and state. There’s also a tendency among Christians in the community to think that Christians in politics have to sell out their principles in order to survive. Christian politicians are often warding off simultaneous accusations that they are zealots or fakes. Indeed, the public caricature of a Christian politician is hypocrite or wuss, in denial about the ruthlessness and expediency necessary to wield power, or too sanctimonious to be effective. Take the challenge of abortion. The problem with the Australian practice of abortion is that an objectively grave matter has been reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience.
Abortion is the classic example of competing moral imperatives and the simple fact is that those competing imperatives each have different levels of validity depending upon the stage of gestation. Thus very early on its easier to argue that a women’s bodily integrity and autonomy should give her unfettered rights to terminate an unborn child the longer that the gestation endures the greater the argument for the protection of the unborn from arbitrary execution becomes. Anyone who does not realise this is essentially a sociopath who is ruled by a dark and vicious feminist ideology.
Boat people: Tony Abbott yesterday claimed boatpeople were acting in an un-Christian manner.
Given the fact atht most of these mendicants are not in fact Christian then what is contentious about this observation
Euthanasia: Legalising euthanasia in Australia would put elderly people at risk of being “bumped off”, federal Health Minister Tony Abbott has warned, after an Australian man travelled to Switzerland to legally end his life.
Killing oneself is not rocket science and you really don’t need much more than simple things that are common around the house, nor is suicide actually a crime. But there are lots of downsides to making it easy for doctors to assist. In extreme circumstances if there is a legal cost to “helping” some one end their lives then it is a small sacrifice that should be paid to prevent malicious pressure on the unwell.
The needy: “We can’t abolish poverty because poverty in part is a function of individual behaviour”.
Contrary to leftist ideology the reality is precisely as Tony Abbott observes here some people just can not be saved from themselves no matter how much money you throw at their problems.
Women’s rights: Tony Abbott warns women against sex before marriage. And how about this brain fart: “I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons”.
Is promiscuity really such a good thing for anyone in society? The left seem to believe that sexual intercourse is something akin to a contact sport that is little different to any other amateur sport. However this ignores its true purpose which is to propagate the species and to provide the glue that cement the pair bonds that are foundational to raising subsequent generations. As for the difference in aptitudes of men and women in different roles and professions only a fool denies that there are differences but the other side of that coin is to have a society that allows and appreciates those who want to step outside the usual gender expectations.
Recognition of Indigenous culture: ‘Western civilisation came to this country in 1788 and I’m proud of that . . . Aboriginal people have much to celebrate in this country’s British Heritage’.
Compare and contrast the sort of colonial experience that this country benefits from with the sort of colonial experience under different European colonial regimes and its clear that we would be a lesser nation under the French, the Dutch, Spanish or the Portuguese. So Abbott is spot on here.
Climate change: As a climate denier, Tony Abbott is most famous for his statement that climate science is “absolute crap“. However, that’s just the tip of the iceberg – he actually has a long history of denying climate change science. “The fact that we have had if anything cooling global temperatures over the last decade, not withstanding continued dramatic increases of carbon dioxide emissions, suggests the role of CO2 is not nearly as clear as the climate catastrophists suggest.”
Does it matter what the man personally believes about the AGW proposition? I think not when it comes down to it. However if his scepticism about the millenarian cult of “climate change” leads this country to a more nuanced policy setting that eschews useless lip-service to AGW as a front for social engineering then the nation can only benefit. If AGW theory is correct which is the greater sin? To agree with the liturgy and preform pious acts of contrition that have no effect on the problem (like Gillard’s Carbon tax ) and cost our economy a Motza Or to disagree with the theory but to act in a prudent manner to improve the environment?
Technology: “There is no way on God’s earth that we need to be spending $50 billion plus of borrowed money on what is going to turn out to be a telecommunications white elephant – school halls on steroids.”
We would all love to have a Lamborghini or a Rolls Royce in the garage but when it comes down to it most of us would be happy with a Nissan or a Ford. lets consider just what people actually want out of the Internet rather than getting carried away by the dreams of the technophiles and the latte sippers
Foreign investment: Tony Abbott made headlines recently when during a visit to China, he declared that “it would rarely be in Australia’s national interest to allow a foreign government or its agencies to control an Australian business”.
In other words: foreign direct investment by such entities would not be welcome.
How is it a bad thing to be concerned that a totalitarian state owned corporations may not have Australian’s interests at heart when they try to buy the farm here?
Divorce: Liberal Party frontbencher Tony Abbott wants laws toughened up to make divorce harder. The opposition families and Aboriginal affairs spokesman has called for a return to the fault-based system of divorce discarded in 1975, which was replaced by a “no-fault” system. Mr Abbott’s plan, outlined in his soon-to-be released book Battlelines, would see a grounds for divorce reintroduced, including adultery, cruelty, habitual drunkenness and imprisonment.
It would be similar to the defunct Matrimonial Causes Act.
There is a great deal to recommend in our “no fault” divorce system but its not perfect and there are times when a judgement of fault would aid justice in adjudicating some of the issues associated with the dissolution of a marriage, its property and children that make divorce tough and the experience of our system shows it could do with some review and reconsideration at the very least.
So there you go Migs I have gone through your points and shown that none of them are the black marks that you seem to think they are, all are quite reasonable positions to take and most reasonable people will be able to see that.