Prev
Next

Is having children out of wedlock really that bad?

Justine Davies

by Justine Davies

03 Jul 06:00am

Must Reads

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project - this is a caption

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

41

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics - this is a caption

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

60

Please enter your password - this is a caption

Please enter your password

39

Filed under: Children, Marriage, Men And Women, Society

77 comments

A few days ago, in the Sydney Morning Herald social commentator Bettina Arndt fretted about the potential for Julia Gillard’s lifestyle choices – namely, not getting married - to “influence other women into making big mistakes about their lives.”

Seriously, he won't even notice you're not married.

The crux of her angst seems to be that Julia’s defacto arrangement may influence more and more women to do the same instead of walking down the aisle, and in doing so they may end up “childless and partnerless as they hit 40.”

Now, putting aside the fact that I can’t personally imagine making any of my major life choices based on what the Prime Minister of the day was or wasn’t doing (after all, I’ve never been tempted to get a comb-over, attend church or get a divorce just because previous PMs have) I think Bettina’s worrying a bit unnecessarily – plenty of kids are born out of wedlock.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistic’s most recent data, around 35% of kids are currently born out of wedlock, so chances are that your little Johnny or Jane is sitting next to one of them at school – imagine that! And they look just the same, too! 

Interestingly, this is based on 2008 data – right in the middle of Kevin07’s reign. All these non-marital bedroom shenanigans were happening right under the nose of our long- married, ultra-conservative, regularly church-going PM. Shocking!
 
Add to that the fact that more than one-third of marriages end in divorce (and around half those marriages involve kids) and you’d have to say that children have a pretty high likelihood of not growing up in a traditional nuclear family, whether their parents ever do the bridal march or not.

Whether this is good or bad for the kids is an issue that will never be agreed upon, but on a positive note, according to the Australian Institute of Family Studies www.aifs.gov.au kids seem to enjoy themselves no matter what their family construct. This year the AIFS asked children whether they had fun with their parents: Three-quarters (76%) of children living in couple families said they had fun with their family “lots of times”, compared to 74% living in a single-parent family.

So if the happiness of our children is paramount – does being a de-facto really matter at all?

On the other hand if it’s the happiness of the women that is at stake; if women “end up stranded when they spend years in a succession of de facto relationships waiting for Mr Not Ready or Mr Maybe to make up his mind” then take heart. Sandra Buchler is a PhD Candidate in the School of Social Science, at the University of Queensland. She’s presenting a paper on her research finding at the AIFS conference in Melbourne next week. And her findings are – well, they’re pretty positive if you don’t want to get hitched! Apparently, you are just as likely to be happy if you are in a defacto relationship as you are if you’re married. 

“My research is investigating the relationship between marital status and subjective happiness,” she says. “As part of that I take into account variables such as gender, age, education, health, fertility intentions, financial and partner satisfaction. And when you compare like with like (individuals who are similar) then the results indicate that marriage confers no greater happiness than cohabitation.”
 
I’m sure that there are some women – and men as well – who would be reluctant to have children outside of marriage. Indeed, one of the people whom I interviewed for my recent book did express that view. But the days of calling exnuptial children bastards and pointing out their mothers as fallen women are long gone. We are a far more accepting society now. Aren’t we?

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

77 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Apparatchiks says:

      07:21am | 03/07/10

      Forget the social comentary by Bettina Arndt, her peice in the SMH was just the start of the the usual slur and smear campaign the Libs seem to love so much. Rumor, gossip and inuendo have replaced political debate and policy.

      Reply

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      03:50pm | 05/07/10

      Apparatchiks, I think you are being a bit unfair in saying that Bettina Arndt’s silly opinions are, as you state, “The usual slur & smear campaign thie Libs seem to love so much” Arndt is not, nor ever has been a spokeswoman for the Libs, Nats or anyone else. That she is totally out of touch with modern, mainstream thinking is typical of most “academics”-real or self-styled.
      As for rumour, gossip & inuendo having replaced political debate and policy you are absolutely correct. The pity is that this is indulged in by all sides of politics,particularly, by the ALP and Coalition Parties

    • Lexi says:

      08:08am | 03/07/10

      Isn’t Arndt trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted? This is already the world we inhabit (in Western society), so what difference does it make it the PM has a live in lover or a ring on her finger?

      Funny, though, that becoming Premier of NSW made Nathan Rees hurry for a wedding and babies - after 20 years of not needing to be married.  Perhaps he was a little more frightened of the conservative evangelicals than Julia is.

      I won’t be voting on marital status, sexual orientation, which team a politician supports or whether they go to church.  It should be about policy.

      Reply

    • what policy says:

      07:18am | 04/07/10

      You wont be voting Labor I gather

    • Julie Coker-Godson says:

      08:13am | 03/07/10

      When children fight/argue with each other that is when the word bastard comes out.  Children can be very cruel to each other and nothing has changed in playground dynamics as far as I’m concerned - and weapons are coming into it now as well.  As for de facto relationships - not for me personally because I would feel quite dissatisfied with that.  I would want the best and not second best.  However, that is just my personal view, others will no doubt have differing ones and that is their right.

      Reply

    • Kelly says:

      11:11am | 03/07/10

      I am in my 40’s and am a “bastard”, yes I experienced the usual teasing at school, like all the other kids. But I never heard the work “bastard” used in the correct context or directed at me because of my status at birth. The notion that children are aware of this difference is absurd. This is an ignorant term mostly used by strange unbalanced adults. I would never refer to a child in that way, the main thing is that children are born of loving committed parent or parents. Even if you start out with two parents there is no guarantee that you will complete your childhood with both. Many of my own childrens peers have lost parents to illness, accidents and yes marriage breakdowns. All the children with loving supportive families have grown into terrric well bablanced young adults, regardless of how many parents the family contained or even the bumpiness of the journey.

    • marley says:

      02:07pm | 03/07/10

      Do kids these days even know what the word “bastard” really means?  I wouldn’t have thought so, myself.

    • Julie says:

      08:08pm | 03/07/10

      I totally agree Kelly As a child of unmarried parents (and now in my late thirties) it was never, ever and issue in the schoolyard. Being a nerd? Yes. Being bad a sports? Yes. But being illigitimate? never.

    • Robert Smissen Rural SA says:

      12:42am | 04/07/10

      Kelly, all bastard means is irregular for example in metal work you can use a “mill bastard file” hardly a nasty name

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      08:25am | 03/07/10

      Having children outside of marriage has heightened the risk of the child being without one or the other parent over a short time span. The ability to raise a child hinges largely on committment , that committment is enshrined in marriage. Partnership arrangements are primarily designed to allow either to walk away from the deal without any committment in place.
      I honestly don’t think that partnering arrangements will encourage couples to be childless , children are still going to be born to partnerships , just as they are within marriage . The real danger lies within a partnershp itself , there is nothing binding , no committment and therefore no concern for the children resulting from partnerships. It is far too easy to walk away from the reality of children when the sanctity of marriage is tossed aside.
      No wonder we are seeing mental problems increasing in young people today , as a lot of people born to unwedded partners don’t even know who their parents are.
      Think about this scenario , imagine the personal gain for Gillard if she married her partner whilst Prime Minister of Australia . The media would be in heaven and Labor’s stocks would spiral to heights unknown. Julia could be remembered as the Australian Prime Minister who brought committment back to partnerships. Pigs have been known to fly , haven’t they . ?

      Reply

    • marley says:

      02:05pm | 03/07/10

      I dunno.  Given the frequency of divorce these days, marriage doesn’t seem to me to involve any more commitment than any other kind of relationship.

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      02:24pm | 03/07/10

      Wayne Fehlhaber says:08:25am; “No wonder we are seeing mental problems increasing in young people today , as a lot of people born to unwedded partners don’t even know who their parents are.”

      Gee Wayne again you’re on a winner eh’ did you see Australian story the other night. About a child with happily married parents, but the uncle was interfering with the child, what about married couples where either one or both are drug and or alcohol dependant or physically and or emotionally abusive. These can be and are a lot more damaging than being born unwedded partners even if the child doesn’t know or never get to know one of the parents. Your analogy as usual based on rhetoric associated to people that think they have the right to tell people what to do or think they have a better way or more bluntly Faith based bullshit!

    • WEML says:

      04:06pm | 03/07/10

      Wayne, marriage to some is commitment…marriage (in its current form in this country) is to others an exclusive, patriarchal institution. 

      I’m more committed to my 9 year old relationship and the 5 year old son- who we planned to have-than many married friends and acquaintances.  What’s more, I have no intention of getting married until marriage is an option for ALL.

      You speak with such authority about people’s motivations to remain ‘partnered’ as opposed to married…where does this authority come from? Have you conducted a survey of all couples (including those i.e. gay people, that are not permitted to marry in this country) in every state of australia?

      I respect other people’s choice to marry so I will refrain from saying that Marriage is a farce…but please please understand that marriage means less to people, generally, than it ever has and that’s because the institution of marriage has not changed with the times.  And the times, Wayne, are a changin.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      05:10pm | 03/07/10

      Yeah cause divorce is so hard to get nowadays. What century are you writing from Wayne?

    • Pete says:

      08:53pm | 03/07/10

      Actually I’d imagine that children in & of themselves are something of a ‘binding commitment’.  Children aren’t old IKEA tables that you might have paid for together but you’re happy to leave behind when you break up.

      Besides this, with divorce rates being what they are, marriage is no guarantee that parents will stay around for children either.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      06:32pm | 04/07/10

      Marley :  That’s is a poor defense of failure to commit to a partner for life,
      divorce is a legal safety “out ” for an incorrect match.

      Rob :  What i said in my post comes from the heart Rob , i’ve had a lot of years on this earth experiencing life and making my own observations and assessments . When you counsel those who suffer mentally , you tend to respect and defend the traditional ways of life .
      From your agressive style of expression , i feel confident in assuming you have had a lot of problems , probably within a family unit without the traditional binds.  Your attack on those who hold to their faith demonstrates a tendency to blame a God whom you deny.

      WEML :  I have no intent on obstructing changing times , i’m far too old to
      do so anyway , but i will defend what i believe to be right and proper and in the long term best interests of children within the sanctity of marriage.
      However , i am delighted that you are standing by a long term partnership with your 5 year old son.  If your reason for dispensing with marriage is a protest supporting gay marriage , then i admire your strength .  My experience in counselling and the data supplied from government agencies is where i gain my knowledge , but that is another story and i must respect confidentialties.

      Austin :  Within my own family , divorce was no stranger , the devastating effects on the children involved was heart rending . I’m writing from today’s date Austin.

      Pete :  Yes children are the very heart of everything we do in life and i firmly believe that marriage is built in protection for the kids as it tends to remind us of our firm committment to each other.

    • James1 says:

      12:58pm | 05/07/10

      My wife and I didn’t marry until our daugher was nearly six.  Yet I had considered our relationship to be indissoluble long before we signed that piece of paper.  It is entirely possible for two people to commit to each other for life without the approval of the state.  Indeed, if two people love each other then the approval of the state is irrelevant, surely?

    • Reg says:

      09:52pm | 10/07/10

      Commitment is certainly not a binding part of marriage that can be taken for granted, no matter how churches and governments may wish it was.

      Nor is marriage going to sustain a commitment against dramatically changing conditions, such as when one of the children is handicapped or fatally ill. Without any obvious sign, the strain can turn the partners from the best of friends to the very worst of enemies.

      This reality check and subsequent experience of the legal system can turn a previously married person into highly motivated activists against anyone choosing to get married, and the distress of drawing the legal rug over a new commitment, makes marriage most unattractive.

      Children of the split marital family will suffer due to the sudden and drastic division that happens, while those of the subsequent de-facto arrangement are raised knowing there is no reason why either partner could not leave the union, yet they choose to stay for really human reasons, such as those of love and concern. That’s an “open marriage” not the definition usually applied, while formal marriage is a “closed marriage” with connotations of “possessive”: “grasping”; “resentment”; “status”: “condescension” and the inculcation of mythical religious values into their vulnerable infants.

    • Juju says:

      08:26am | 03/07/10

      I’m sure it’s not bad for the parents - but maybe you should ask some of the kids when they’re old enough to understand the term ‘bastard’ and that their parents didn’t feel it was necessay to make a lifetime committment to each other. It’s all about the parents and stuff the kids….why bother having them if you are not planning to stay together to raise them?

      Reply

    • Julie Coker-Godson says:

      11:56am | 04/07/10

      Agree totally Juju.  And some kids understand what that word means very early in life - put it down to what they hear in their homes spoken by their parents.  Apart from anything else its a “swear word” and kids learn those very smartly.  They might not say them indoors for fear of being punished but they do use them.  Lucky are those who never experienced being treated as if they were “different”.

    • Julie Coker-Godson says:

      12:02pm | 04/07/10

      PS:  to my reply to Juju:  I will be 60 next year so in my day as a child to be called a “bastard” was an issue.  My parents were married so I didn’t cop that one, I just copped abuse for the double barrelled surname and English sounding vowels (accent).  I could live with that but we did have children in our school at that time who found this name calling quite hurtful.

    • DJ says:

      10:24am | 05/07/10

      JuJu - these days no one cares if you’re illegitimate, it never comes up. Kids will find other ways to pick on and they have plenty, how would the child know about the bastard stigma unless an adult told them?

      Why bother having them? Whoops! Accidents happen even when you are wearing everything you should be, some things happen and forgive me but I am not marrying a guy I slept with after having too much to drink just so my child is born in wedlock, what century are you living in, kids don’t even get bullied for having 2 mummy’s or 2 daddy’s

    • Reg says:

      11:40am | 11/07/10

      “Why bother having them?” says Juju.

      Juju you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that having children is the sole right of the wedded. Perhaps I need to point out that nothing could be further from the truth.

      Just for a start, you have children for a very few years, enjoy them before they’re gone. Life is divided into three. Growing up, having children and getting old. Without the middle one it’s merely a process of getting OLD.

      For many years after 1788, the years when Catholic Priests and every other religion except C of E was allowed into the colony, all others procreated unmarried. Bastardary was afoot in all directions. One might call it state supported bastardery. People emigrated rather than face the embarrassment of a shotgun marriage, so Australians were probably world leaders in accepting bastardization.

      May we presume that you also see the pre-conceived as utter bastards or as just bad luck? Then there’s the Fat Bastard and lots of other poor bastards. My US friends falls about laughing when I refer to someone as a silly bastard.

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      08:28am | 03/07/10

      Excellent article Justine! I myself was quite offended by Bettina’s article. I guess people are allowed to have there point of view. But her article total missed the mark and discriminatory against both sexes. Her rant belongs in a by gone era. I have to wonderful boy born out of wedlock and I believe they are in no way disadvantaged by the fact the their parents have not married. In fact I’ve had friends that have been in de facto relationship then after some years and kids decided to get married only to have the whole thing fall apart not long after. Bettina article only talks about it’s effect on women and conveniently forget there is another half to the relationship

      Reply

    • Reg says:

      01:53pm | 11/07/10

      I like what Bettina does but I think she often comes off half baked. I think she needs a good critical editor with the strength to point out the short-comings of her work. But I still like her attempts to draw in all the loose ends and even if she does shoot a bit wide, she sets the alleys ringing.

    • Eric says:

      08:56am | 03/07/10

      There’s no real distinction between marriage and non-marriage any more. In most jurisdictions, cohabiting for a short period will automatically lead to a couple being treated as married. Also, producing a child automatically gives rise to the same legal rights and responsibilities whether or not the parents are married.

      Reply

    • Lee from WA says:

      01:51pm | 03/07/10

      There should be a distinction though because one is a formal commitment (marriage) and one isn’t (de facto/cohabitation). We should ensure the lines aren’t blurred because it is far superior to have a formal commitment than to not have one.

    • Living in Sin, Obviously says:

      04:18pm | 04/07/10

      Formal?

      Why, because you wore a suit at your wedding?

      I fail to see how getting a marriage certificate is going to make my 12 yr relationship with my partner ‘superior’.

    • NEFFA says:

      11:00am | 05/07/10

      Lee, i think its much more important to make the distinction between a wedding and a marriage than anything else. That seems to be where the confusion is.

    • DD Ball says:

      09:00am | 03/07/10

      It means little to me that Gillard is an atheist, or unmarried. I am a Christian and I understand the choice we have been given is god given. My major concern is that the impressionable will follow the lead thinking it is cool. It isn’t. God is real and has authority, even if Gillard chooses to ignore it. Putting aside the religious aspect, Gillard’s choice to be single and childless suggests substantial personal pain that has robbed her before and will continue to do so no matter how she denies it. Children are a blessing and allow a life to transform as it discovers responsibility. Children deserve to have married parents because it settles inheritance rights, which means little to the filthy rich, but much to um, working families. All Gillard has is a lifestyle of self indulgence and that is a poor second, imho.

      Reply

    • andrew says:

      11:23am | 03/07/10

      I guess we all better watch our behavior if we want to get down with the saviour.

    • pffft says:

      04:37pm | 03/07/10

      imho i couldnt stand your christian preaching ways on livenews either, you killed that site, now have your sights set on the punch.. gawd help us all.

      if a kid can grow up loving and being loved, they will not regret if their parents are married or not. get over your christianity superstition,.. its a self indulgence, and noone cares

    • DD Ball says:

      07:35am | 04/07/10

      Humble opinion, pfft? I didn’t kill livenews, and when it died I had largely stopped contributing. I understand it died after News.com began floating the idea of paying for the news feeds.

    • Reg says:

      06:25am | 12/07/10

      DD Ball you do not “understand” that the choice “for or against,” is God given, you assume it is and then seek to impose your adopted values on others. That’s what this whole discussion is about.

      Despite your plea to leave religion aside it is obviously beyond your rational to do so. Your assumption of Ms Gillards circumstances is equally irrational, your religiosity leaves you unable to derive an intellectual reason why someone may be convinced that religious coercion was amongst the worst of reasons for getting married.

      Why do you think marriage settles inheritance rights anyway?  Any experience in this legal bull-ring would tell you that some of the most viscous battles that never reach the public gaze, are between siblings and their perceived rights. 

      One may also say that your approach to life is one of self-indulgence as well, even though you are firmly convinced you have it together because God told you so. Somehow I don’t think your opinion is all that humble.  Superior and condescending perhaps.

    • Super D says:

      09:14am | 03/07/10

      I’m not sure that happiness is the correct measure, I’m sure if the mother is left to raise a family single handedly fun times will still be had.  Perhaps maintenance of the family unit is a better one.

      While some couples will maintain a long term committed defacto relationship - a marriage in all but name - this is not necessarily the case.  Furthermore it seems likely that successful long term de facto relationships are more likely amongst the affluent and educated than lower socio-economic groupings.

      Marriage in many ways helps in maintaining family units as it provides a barrier to exit.  You carry the tally of marriages with you, failed de facto relationships don’t besmirch your record.

      Reply

    • OldGirl says:

      09:17am | 03/07/10

      As long as your child is loved and wanted, what does it really matter? Many marriages end in divorce, and families are split. Bettina Arndt is like all of us getting old but shes totally out of touch with today’s situation.  Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott are both married, kids are not running down the isle emulating them, so why should they emulate Julia Gillard? Australia’s young people are intelligent, they know what is right for them. If marriage is the way they want to go, they will head down the aisle. We do not have the same stigma on unmarried mothers, we had in my time. Many young girls got married to save themselves the disgrace of having a child out of wedlock. I doubt many of those marriages lasted the test of time. Quality of life is what we all strive for and a marriage certificate does not ensure quality.

      Reply

    • Soames says:

      02:09pm | 03/07/10

      Having been born at a very early age, possibly of similar vintage for which one apologises for being presumptuous, and subsequently surviving long enough to offer this comment without either of one’s parents having been married, that is to each other, one can report from one’s perspective that the long term effects on a bastard child are absolutely minimal, except for the facial tic, the uncontrollable knee shake whilst in the sitting position, recounting ball bearings bought from pinball machine wreckers,  spread out on one’s bed as a sign of one’s personal triumph over others’ ignorance of the value of collectibles, and other personal goals, of which one ought not blow one’s trumpet. One’s life is a rollercoaster, of eternal optimism, which needs no prompting, One wishes all the best for the forthcoming Christmas, and a happy new year to all. Thankyou.

    • DJ says:

      10:45am | 05/07/10

      Soames - Most of us were born at a very early age

    • T.Chong says:

      09:24am | 03/07/10

      “Is having children out of wedlock really that bad “? the answer is an obvios , resounding, definite no.
      We are in the 21st century, not the 1950s,

      Reply

    • Ripa says:

      02:11pm | 03/07/10

      @ Chong “We are in the 21st century, not the 1950s,...”

      Thats your argument? LOL

    • DJ says:

      10:50am | 05/07/10

      Ripa, the stigma ‘Bastard’ hasn’t even been used is decades and it is more than likely that the majority of kids in school come from divorced parents or single mothers or ones who’s parents didn’t get married at all, I come from 2 parents who stayed together and while it worked for them it’s not for me, I don’t believe in marriage.

      Kids have no clue what the old stigma ‘bastard’ actually means unless their very caring parent tells them and then proceeds to tell them why their little friend is one. Kids go for the vulnerable weak spot it’s more than likely they will be teased for being a Ranga or because their ears stick out or that their parents are still together and they only get one xmas/birthday, that since their parents are still married they can’t pit one against the other for awesome presents

      We no longer live in the 1800’s or in the early 1900’s, Unmarried mothers are no longer shunned and with every 2 out of 3 marriages ending in divorce chances are the majority of kids will be bastards

    • GC says:

      09:55am | 03/07/10

      I don’t think that cohabiting and having children out of wedlock is bad, however I do think that once married there is a certain level of committment that will ensure when things get a bit rocky in the relationship, its that little bit harder to walk away from and therefore people would probably try that little bit harder to push on, get over the rocky patch and make it work. That bit of of stability has got to be better for kids.

      Reply

    • DJ says:

      10:52am | 05/07/10

      not when you can get a divorce online, every 2 out of 3 marriages end in divorce would indicate that no actually a ceremony and certificate doesn’t make you cling when things get rocky

    • TC says:

      12:12pm | 03/07/10

      I think you fib. I see a thick and lush comb over.

      Look. The problem isn’t marriage or single parentage. That’s a symptom of a much greater malaise.

      The problem is red hair. Redheads are unmarriable and there is now the potential for a huge number of impressionables proudly swanning around red headed thinking theyre empowered and powerful. Nobody likes a blood clot.

      Reply

    • Lee from WA says:

      01:48pm | 03/07/10

      The thing that kills both de-facto relationships and marriage is selfishness - I want what makes me feel good and if you won’t give it to me, I’ll go somewhere else. Having said that marriage is a much better relationship for dealing with the pressures of living together. Why? Because you are making a formal and public commitment, that usually entails declaring to be selfless in your relationship. De factos suffer from the fact that their relationship don’t have anything like that and it is borne out in more unstable relationships (I think it someone around 20% more likely to break up).

      What we need for our society is to encourage people to get married and then make it work. It is inevitable that difficult times come in a relationship but because our society focuses so much on ‘my needs’ and ‘my wants’, we lose the determination and commitment to stick out those tough times and to persevere to make marriage work.

      That’s what our kids need to see too and I don’t think de facto relationships really show that. De facto relationships are relationships of convenience - I can come and go as I see fit. Marriage doesn’t (and shouldn’t) work like that.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      01:06pm | 05/07/10

      That is not how I saw my de facto relationship Lee.  Your view of de facto relationships says more about you than it does de facto relationships.

      The simple fact is, some people are loving, committed partners/husbands/wives, and some people are not.  A piece of paper and state/church approval does not change their basic nature.

    • Lee from WA says:

      01:53pm | 03/07/10

      Also happiness is the worst measure of what is good for someone, especially children. If I give them an IV drip of heroin, I’m sure they’ll be happy too but that isn’t what is good for them. If we parent them like their happiness is paramount, then we’re teaching them to seek after happiness. If we have relationships that model perseverance, commitment and fidelity then that’s what they will seek and those attributes are what is good for them and for society.

      Reply

    • Sickemrex says:

      04:23pm | 04/07/10

      According to the Dalai Lama, happiness is actually a worthy goal.  It is the pursuit of pleasure that can lead to less than ideal outcomes.  Are your kids happy Lee?

    • see the forest says:

      02:25pm | 03/07/10

      Bettina’s article was all over the place the other day. Whether this was her fault or the editor’s fault can’t be determined.

      However, she has made a similar point before and it is a very good point.

      Women need to find the best partner for life they can whilst they’re still young and attractive.

      Many women, Bettina included, squander their youth going out with unsuitable men and partying too much. They then hit their late 30s and 40s and the biological clock starts to tick. They then realise that the best men aren’t interested in a woman whose best is behind and who is now looking for a sperm donor and a wallet. Therefore, the women either miss out entirely or end up having to settle for a desperate loser willing to settle for less.

      This is the main crux of Bettina’s point from her books/articles and she is right.

      Reply

    • NEFFA says:

      11:46am | 05/07/10

      why is it always women that have the finger pointed at them?
      I remember when John Howard was pushing the baby bonus, the blame was all on women for working and not having children.

      Where are the politicians and media arguing why MEN arent fulling their duties and getting married and getting their women pregnant? why is it perfectly acceptable for a man to live with a momen for years on end with no commitment and then run away for something younger, but a woman who “allows” this to happen is some sad barren spinster whos selfishness has brought her undone.

      True equality means men need to share the blame.

    • Stewart Henstock says:

      02:57pm | 03/07/10

      Seventy percent of US inmates in prisons right now come from single-parent families. Seventy percent of teenage runaways. Seventy percent of teenage delinquents, 70 percent of drug abuse. All of this is a problem, not just of illegitimacy, of single motherhood. And single motherhood is…
      a 2008 study by a Georgia State University professor, and what he concludes is — is that unwed, divorced, single mothers cost the U.S. taxpayers $112 billion a year.
      The illegitimacy rate alone has gone up by 300 percent since 1970. This was just a specific plan by the left attacking the nuclear family.”
      True, any parent can screw up their kids, whether a one parent or two parent household. But, there are additional emotional/developmental problems in a single-parent household -@ whether it’s the result of not getting married or being divorced.@ A single mother who takes on the responsbility of taking care of her kids, really should have taken the responsibility of NOT getting pregnant (in this day and age with various birth control options, there’s no excuse for accidental pregnancy), or made the father take responsibility for his kids by marrying her - you’ve heard of shotgun weddings?
      Though some single mothers do well, most do not. The causes of single motherhood in the nation’s projects are at fault: there is a cycle. A child is routinely sexually molested by men; when she reaches menses, she becomes pregnant at 12 or 13. No one protects her, because her mother went through the same thing. She continues in the “forced prostitution” till she has several children. This is the way she is brought up, and so, thinks it is normal. She is too young to parent, so her children grow up to repeat the pattern—as molester or molested, as criminals or victims. It never ends.

      All Gillard has is a lifestyle of self indulgence ...the ME ME generation of the secular progressives.

      Reply

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      09:20pm | 03/07/10

      Stewart Henstock says:02:57pm; 70 percent seems to be a popular number for you lol, you ever been to the US??? it’s an amazing place, wouldn’t want to live there

    • DJ says:

      10:56am | 05/07/10

      you got any examples of Australian criminals? Americans are weird they have guns, find somethying from our own country and we might listen to you, (don’t count on it though as a single mother I object to you thinking my child is potential criminal) interestingly most of the serial killers come from a nuclear family so explain that

    • NEFFA says:

      11:54am | 05/07/10

      And once again its all the single mums fault. i ask you to please remember that it takes two to make a baby.
      I understand as a chrisitan you may have difficulty in understanding how a baby is made, but the immaculate conception is a fairytale.
      So where are all these childrens fathers?

    • James1 says:

      01:10pm | 05/07/10

      Most criminals believe in god too Stewart.  Perhaps there is some causation to that correlation too?

    • Eleanor says:

      02:21pm | 20/07/10

      A single mother is to blame for not forcing the man that knocked her up to marry her? Do men have absolutely no responsibility in reproduction and child rearing? How exactly is she supposed to force him to marry her if he doesn’t want to? Why would she want to be married to someone like that? what possible benefit could a child receive from that arrangement?

    • Peter T says:

      04:29pm | 03/07/10

      Bettina Arndt didn’t say anything about children being born out of wedlock. She actually said, to repeat the quote in the article, “childless and partnerless as they hit 40.” Note the first word there. Childless. In other words, Arndt was actually speculating on something some may view as being more serious; that women will simply NOT procreate at all, much less (in a 1950s era thinking) outside the supposed sanctity of marriage. That the article takes a selective tangent along just ONE side of the argument road originally paved by Arndt is sensationalist and lazy. That a vast amount of commentators to this piece follow it blindly is even worse. For the record, though, I don’t believe Arndt speaks any more for the women of Australia than I do for other commentators on this page! I think Arndt was speculating for speculation’s sake - and the odd chance of scoring a few quoted lines in print won’t hurt the public profile, either - so her comments should certainly be firmly read in that context!

      Reply

    • Not a bastard says:

      06:38pm | 03/07/10

      My mother was born out of wedlock and she has had to live with that all her life. He “Father” was a catholic priest that shot through and was hidden by the church. On the other side getting married keeps a lot of people in businees.

      Reply

    • TheRealDave says:

      07:03pm | 03/07/10

      Its articles like this that remind me that there are still plenty of ‘throwbacks’ around. Last time I checked it was 2010 not 1950.

      I have 3 kids. All with my ‘missus’. We’ve been together 12 years now, pay off a mortgage and all that. Getting married was not, and is still not, a priority for us. Mainly because its a waste of money we’d rather put back into the house or into the kids education. The funny thing is, more than half my 6 year olds class at her CATHOLIC primary school are from sole parent or de-facto families.

      People of the ilk of Bettina Arndt and other religious throwbacks are a dying breed here in Oz, thankfully.

      Reply

    • David C says:

      08:50pm | 03/07/10

      i am not sure the discussion here is actually addressing the point made by Arndt. I read it relating to Gillards admiting she felt she had made a mistake by putting career before motherhood? I didnt get it being all about having children out of wedlock?

      Reply

    • Ripa says:

      11:21pm | 03/07/10

      Its amazing to me how weak some men are, refusing to commit to the women they have had children with, citing a religious stance, a different era, or expense, excuses galore. My Wife and i, and other friends have had great weddings we saved for it and received very generously from family and friends enough money to pay the wedding off and had some change for a honeymoon.
      The money we received is “liquid” we know its only ours for a while , we returned/will return it to family and friends when they or their children marry.
      Calling marriage a throwback idea is sad, you’ve missed out on one of the greatest days of your life.

      Reply

    • Eric says:

      08:44am | 04/07/10

      Why are you blaming men? Most divorces are initiated by women.

    • xyz says:

      12:03pm | 04/07/10

      Yes Eric… the case now rests!

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      12:57pm | 04/07/10

      Ripa says:11:21pm; Maybe for you, but the greatest two days of my life were the births of my two sons. The next was having their little arms hug you around the neck while they said I love you dad for the first time. Another giving them a piece of lemon for the first time and watching their little faces. The worst day of my life was being dragged into the family court and having the ex tell lies to try and gain out right custody, in the end she lost. you know they jail judges for lying in court.

    • Peter says:

      04:00pm | 05/07/10

      @ Ripa, “men citing religious reasons not to commit to woman they had children with”. That’s a new one. It’s usually religion that makes a man committ to be with a woman he doesn’t want to be with because of the kids…

      Most men, just like women, would throw themselves in front of a moving train for their kids. Please stop the stereotyping that men don’t love their kids like their mothers. This thing is becoming offensive now..

    • DD Ball says:

      07:32am | 04/07/10

      It isn’t as much of an issue these days, certainly not for the filthy rich, as Gillard is. But for working families, marriage secures inheritance rights for the children. Marriage is more prosperous than divorce, or single living, with few exceptions. It is appalling that Gillard is too self centered to realize that, but then she might have had some compassion for the family of Hamidur Rahman.

      Reply

    • Reg says:

      09:31am | 12/07/10

      More erroneous assumption and deception.

      But your major error is in thinking that a woman seeking to be Prime Minister is selfish or “self centred ” as you put it. It is the Liberal Party who hold the record for Prime Ministers who refuse to fall off the edge and I’d love to know what you consider “filthy rich” to be. 

      Quote; “Marriage is more prosperous than divorce, or single living, with few exceptions.”

      Please define your view of prosperity and add in an explanation of these “exceptions” you use as an escape clause. Each of those categories can be more prosperous than the other with the exception of “few exceptions.”

    • Happy Old Bastard says:

      09:18am | 04/07/10

      Will Bettina now write a ;piece on UNMARRIED CHILDLESS MEN?

      Reply

    • Rosie says:

      11:54am | 04/07/10

      Whose fault is it that we are having this discussion? We wouldn’t be having this discussion if Aust’s first female, unwed, atheist, childless and whatever other “first” she has achieved or will achieve is our appointed PM

      YES HAVING CHILDREN OUT OF WEDLOCK IS REALLY NOT THAT BAD!

      We don’t need people like Bettina Arndt to feel uncomfortable about having a PM as a role model with all these qualities. Thank goodness for democracy and the electronic media we can if we want voice our opinions. Some of us have good solid old fashion family values which is a big NO NO to some of the “first.” However, with these family values and because we are now living in the 21st century have learnt to accept even if we do not agree.

      Children that become a problem for any society is not their fault but the fault of those that are suppose to be responsible for their well-being until they are in control of their own lives. Children are a reflection of the enviroment they hail from.

      Reply

    • ringo says:

      02:52pm | 04/07/10

      I think it’s a bit rich Bettina holding up Julia Gillard as a bad example for women….

      Reply

    • Reg says:

      07:18pm | 12/07/10

      Well I read it in a more broad sense than you do ringo.

      A person can make a mistake by getting married or by NOT getting married. I suggest that Bettina, in her way, is suggesting that Ms Gillard’s situation and her elevated position, may bring some women to consideration of matter they may have previously neglected. Nothing at all wrong with that.

      It’s one of those things that only a woman PM can do.

    • S.L says:

      04:25pm | 04/07/10

      I’m in my late 40s, have 4 children and have never been down the aisle. Funny thing is though I thought it would be my mother who would’ve read me the riot act over this but it was my dad! My partner was married for 20 years and is very keen to remarry but as I say to her “your first marriage failed why try again?” My kids have everything a father could give them whether I married their mothers or otherwise so I can’t see the point of the story. As has been pointed out here you can have bad married parents and great unmarried parents as well as vica versa. If Ms Gillard never marries it’s nobodys business.
      As for all the Liberal voters who want to debate this remember Mr Abbott thought he had an illegitimate son for 20 odd years!

      Reply

    • jim morris says:

      06:58pm | 04/07/10

      The projection that 30%+ of Australian women will never marry nor have children, as a direct consequence of 20 years of feminist propaganda (in my opinion) doesn’t receive much media attention but the consequence that 30%+ of Australian men will live their lives without the enjoyment of family and fatherhood is completely ignored. In the paradigm of ‘equality’ they just don’t count.

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      05:09am | 05/07/10

      Hell, in terms of government middle class welfare, singles and childless couples don’t count as equal anyway…..

    • DJ says:

      11:03am | 05/07/10

      Do we really want our PM to breed? she is a Ranga, if we are going to breed these gene out of Australia best that the red heads don’t breed.

      Who really follows what the PM’s are doing? they are not “cool” or fashionistas, they are not going to set the tone for our way of life, it’s more movie stars that do that. If she can run the country who cares if she has no kids to distract her?

      Reply

    • Peter says:

      03:14pm | 05/07/10

      In my view, kids ideally should be raised by a couple (man and woman that is).. Although when it comes to judging somebody on their work (ie Gillard and her Prime Ministership), is shouldn’t matter..

      Gillard, like any other PM must be judged on her work alone. These family type issues are private matters for the PM and her partner.. None of my business really..

      Reply

    • Trololo says:

      09:12am | 29/04/11

      As photography has gone digital, it has become easier and easier to manipulate images with Photoshop and other technology. Digital photographs used in the news industry are often adjusted for reasons of aesthetics, but they can also be altered with the aim to deceive editors or readers. Luckily, digital detection technology is quickly advancing as well, like Photoshopped Image Killer, which can tell you whether an image has been Photoshopped or not.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:27PM

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:11PM

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:00PM

RT @GerardDaffy: @antsharwood all the talk over there is the grannies will win.they entered to get a church built,feelgood story

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 08:57PM

These peole insult my grandmothjer, who was born in minsk, belarus #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

by Claire Connelly

41

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

by Laurie Oakes

60

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

by Lucy Kippist

39

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed