With all the bad press Tony Abbott has been getting lately following his comments on virginity and housework, he might just be rubbing his hands together with glee after an article in the SMH today by Nina Funnell has painted Kevin Rudd to be similarly misguided.
Funnell tells the tale of a meeting with Rudd where, as she says, he admonished her for using a PhD as an excuse not to breed;
At that point one of my friends introduced me, dropping in that I am completing a PhD. At this, Rudd rolled his eyes and in a terse voice lacking any sense of irony remarked that is the "excuse" that "all" young women are using nowadays to avoid starting families.
Since I had such fun tearing through the Abbott faux-pas-double-shot I thought it only fair that I should bring up this article. Of course, it's not excactly the same situation; Abbott was speaking to reporters, to the nation and unfortunately, to the world. Everyone heard the words come out of his mouth and was resultantly shocked and/or horrified. In this case though, Funnell can only repeat what was said to her in a private conversation.
Yes, the Prime Minister has spoken about the aging population and the inevitable gap in skilled workers once the baby-boomers drop off the radar, but are the words Funnell is almost quoting something that the PM would really say? First of all, I don't think Rudd is capable of irony. His all-over-the-shop-inflections-but-otherwise-monotone pattern of speech mean that he has an air of smugness disabling any ability to jest. Also, there's the fact that he seems to hold higher education in high esteem if we are to believe not only his policies but his personal achievements.
But besides all this, he is hardly in a position to have any ill feelings about successful women - after all, his wife is far more successful than him in most capacities (entrepeneaur, business manager, income earner) - besides running the country of course ... though one does wonder.
The opposition will no doubt ride with this incident as evidence that Rudd shares the same cro-magnon opinion of women as Abbott but I would suggest that it's Rudd's ego that might have tripped him up in this situation. It's obvious that our PM has a rather high opinion of himself - after all, what kind of politician would he be without one? One would assume that when speaking to a young person - a member of Gen Y whom he is desperately trying win over after his Q&A trauma - he might attempt to jest - albeit badly.
Besides, there's a difference between supposedly making a sarcastic comment to one woman with the defense of economic stability and definitely making an ingnorant comment (or two) to the whole world with the defence of an imaginary friend that lives in the clouds.
The overall sentiment shared in the article however, is not lost on the readers. Nearly all of the commenters are in agreeance with Funnell that the pressure on women to have children is misplaced at best, and at worst, unrealistic. Her article makes a good point that it is difficult in today's economic environment to have an education, a career, a life and a child - all things that women in Australia are encouraged to pursue.
Yes, the Prime Minister has spoken about the aging population and the inevitable gap in skilled workers once the baby-boomers drop off the radar, but are the words Funnell is almost quoting something that the PM would really say? First of all, I don't think Rudd is capable of irony. His all-over-the-shop-inflections-but-otherwise-monotone pattern of speech mean that he has an air of smugness disabling any ability to jest. Also, there's the fact that he seems to hold higher education in high esteem if we are to believe not only his policies but his personal achievements.
But besides all this, he is hardly in a position to have any ill feelings about successful women - after all, his wife is far more successful than him in most capacities (entrepeneaur, business manager, income earner) - besides running the country of course ... though one does wonder.
The opposition will no doubt ride with this incident as evidence that Rudd shares the same cro-magnon opinion of women as Abbott but I would suggest that it's Rudd's ego that might have tripped him up in this situation. It's obvious that our PM has a rather high opinion of himself - after all, what kind of politician would he be without one? One would assume that when speaking to a young person - a member of Gen Y whom he is desperately trying win over after his Q&A trauma - he might attempt to jest - albeit badly.
Besides, there's a difference between supposedly making a sarcastic comment to one woman with the defense of economic stability and definitely making an ingnorant comment (or two) to the whole world with the defence of an imaginary friend that lives in the clouds.
The overall sentiment shared in the article however, is not lost on the readers. Nearly all of the commenters are in agreeance with Funnell that the pressure on women to have children is misplaced at best, and at worst, unrealistic. Her article makes a good point that it is difficult in today's economic environment to have an education, a career, a life and a child - all things that women in Australia are encouraged to pursue.
Over at The Punch, Carrie Miller has written a brave column titled Why I Hate Parents - That Means You which outlines the grievances of a woman not interested in pro-creation. It is sharp-tongued and to the point and in an interesting contrast has won her few supporters.
Whilst Funnell used her column to paint Rudd as equally archaic as Abbott and to assure the public that she may indeed have children in the future (but that the government should stick their noses out of her decision) Miller didn't hide behind a possible conversation with the PM, but rather expressed her feelings honestly.
As is the way in social commentary, it's easier to voice your opinion as an opposition, rather than simply give your opinion and wait for the public to voice their opposition.
EDIT: Christopher Scanlon has written a rebuttal to the recent conversations in The Punch today adding some good points to the argument, however one in particular;
Nor does it follow that those with children are superior to those who choose not to. Clearly a full and fulfilling life can be had with or without children.- is I think exactly the issue that prompted Miller to write her column. Scanlon of course, has logic on his side, while Miller has a (mostly justified) bee in her bonnet.
Either way, the discourse will be an interesting one to follow over the coming weeks.
