Prev
Next

Latham joins the conga line of suckholes

Tory Shepherd

by Tory Shepherd

04 Apr 01:00pm

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: Barren, Cancer, Childbirth, Julia Gillard, Mark Latham, Society

140 comments

Save us from former Party leaders – particularly if they’ve got a memoir to spruik.

Cartoon: Warren Brown

Former Labor leader Mark Latham has been suffering from relevance deprivation syndrome for years now. I was one of those dopes who admired him when he bounced onto the political scene – thirsty for someone with a bit of personality, a break from the beige. He railed against the ‘new political correctness’; he was a boofhead with a penchant for biffo, but he was fun.

Now he’s really jumped the shark and joined the conga line of suckholes who studied Post-Politics PR 101. The main rule of PPPR101 is simple: Court confected outrage at every opportunity.

So we had the election ambush from ‘journalist’ Mark Latham. We had a weird swipe last week when he said anyone whinging about cost-of-living pressures was just being greedy.

And now he has told ABC Radio that Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s decision to remain childless means she lacks empathy and the ability to experience true love.

Mr Latham – while spruiking a re-release of his 2005 book, The Latham Diaries (I know, I know – be still my beating heart) – said she was wooden around small children. And hence, in Latham logic, “very wooden” during the Queensland floods.

He said:

I think having children is the great loving experience of any lifetime. And by definition you haven’t got as much love in your life if you make that particular choice.

Choice in Gillard’s case is very, very specific. Particularly because she’s on the public record saying she made a deliberate choice not to have children to further her parliamentary career.

One would have thought to experience the greatest loving experience in life having children you wouldn’t particularly make that choice.

He points out that, of course, he’s not the first to make such an accusation – Bill Heffernan and George Brandis have also had a crack at her ‘deliberate barrenness’.

Which makes him unoriginal as well as ridiculous and offensive.

Gillard’s demeanour during the floods was wooden. But to somehow connect this to her childless state is a ludicrous leap.

It’s a cheap way to have a dig at a woman for her choices, and you can be sure that if Gillard had an extensive brood people would talk about how that impacts on her ability to do her job well.

Having babies obviously changes your outlook on life. So does cancer. So does any one of a number of other ‘life changing’ events.

Giving birth, having children, is (I’m told) an amazing experience. That does not mean that anyone who hasn’t done it is somehow less whole, less human.

You could just as well argue that men, not having the experience of childbirth, the excruciating pain, the hormones, the bonding through breastfeeding, lack empathy and the ability to know true love.

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...

140 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      01:00pm | 04/04/11

      Oh gawd, why is anyone still paying attention to this goon?

      Reply

    • Knemon says:

      01:10pm | 04/04/11

      Agree Erick - It’s a scary thought at how close he came to being our PM. I’m so glad I’m not one of his children.

    • JT says:

      01:19pm | 04/04/11

      Exactly. The man is insane with infrequent bouts of sanity.

      As for the column, a childless journalist defending a childless prime minister is rather predictable. Could a parent have written this column instead explaining to the rest of us childless people what crazy old Mark actually means, and whether he has a point or not?. Taking a guess I would say, Julia seems incapable of understanding or empathising with families who are affected by her policies because of her childlessness.

    • john says:

      01:41pm | 04/04/11

      A feral cat amongst the pigeons , again.
      We do have a feral cat problem of ex-labor politicians with sharp claws don’t we?.
      Keating,latham,rudd. No love in that lot of HYPOCRISY to say gillard has less love.

      I think latham is on par with Charlie Sheen, he thinks he’s winning.

    • Anne_N says:

      02:10pm | 04/04/11

      D’ya think Mark may be thinking of taking another crack at the top job? 

      Western suburbs ‘old Labor’ boy made good versus the wooden childless loveless ‘southern lawyer’....just gotta keep my name in the paper.

    • TM says:

      02:58pm | 04/04/11

      Yep, the goon that Gillard supported as leader of Labor.

      Says it all, really!

    • Direct says:

      03:21pm | 04/04/11

      I’d say Latham is winning.

      Gets to spend loads more time with his kids, under a lot less stress and media attention than he was when Leader of the Opposition. Gets to say whatever he thinks and people inevitably listen given that the media love to give him air time.

      I’m not sure what’s more amusing, the remarks that Latham makes or the way that people get all bent out of shape over what he says.

    • Erick says:

      03:35pm | 04/04/11

      Yes, Direct, it does seem that Latham is winning.

      I don’t mind that. If Latham gets to have a nice life, supported by a rich taxpayer-funded pension, well that’s just his good luck. Life isn’t fair, and to be honest, I’ve gotten away with a lot of bad behaviour myself.

      But why is Latham still being taken seriously as a political commentator, and being paid to play journalist on TV and write opinion pieces? Considering his madness and his comprehensive betrayal of the party that gave him everything, this seems a little strange.

      On the other hand, I guess I shouldn’t complain. Since I’m allowed the same leeway, though not the same monetary compensation. Oh well, that’s free-market democracy for you.

    • Duff says:

      04:22pm | 04/04/11

      @Erick, - “But why is Latham still being taken seriously as a political commentator, and being paid to play journalist on TV and write opinion pieces?”

      Because what we call the “News” is really just another form of entertainment.  It’s like WWF and we are the suckers who keep watching and believing.

    • Erick says:

      04:42pm | 04/04/11

      What really irks me, though, is the knowledge that the Labor Party was willing to let this ... Latham ... become Prime Minister, just to assuage its lust for power.

      That is really, really bad.

    • Don says:

      04:48pm | 04/04/11

      What is it with ex-labor leaders and their vitriol? Latham, Keating - goodness me what is going on here? Anyone would think there is something wrong with the party or something.

    • John C says:

      04:55pm | 04/04/11

      Apparently, Charlie Sheen’s new show is not doing well. It might be a good idea for him to get Gaddafi and Mark Latham in to co-star. Could be a winner.

    • Jack says:

      04:58pm | 04/04/11

      Just goes to show that Beazley was pretty good after all when compared to Latham, Rudd and Gillard. Even grumpy guts Keating had some idea and larrakin Hawke looks fantastic now.

    • Peter Sands says:

      05:33pm | 04/04/11

      Mybe he is a goon but he has hit the bullseye on this topic

    • MHW says:

      05:56pm | 04/04/11

      Maybe you prefer beige after-all Tory. Still, I don’t recall Latham calling anyone a “suckhole”. Maybe you’re worse than him ...

    • Rover of North Cooma says:

      06:57pm | 04/04/11

      MHW, not only did he say it in Parliament on 5 February 2003 - http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/hansreps.htm#2003 - he later released a book called “Conga Line of Suckholes.”
      Mr Howard and his government
      are just yes-men to the United States.
      There they are, a conga line of suckholes on
      the conservative side of Australian politics.
      The backbench sucks up to the Prime Minister,
      and the Prime Minister sucks up to
      George W. That is how it works for the little
      tories, and they have the hide to call themselves
      Australians. In my book they are not
      Australian at all. They are just the little tories—
      the little tory suckholes. The backbench
      sucks up to the Prime Minister, and the
      Prime Minister sucks up to George W. That
      is all they have left on their rotten little side
      of politics.
      Australia deserves better than an American
      apologist as its Prime Minister.

    • Aasq says:

      08:09pm | 04/04/11

      Could be worse, Eric. Apparently the Coalition are willing to let this ... Abbott ... become Prime Minister, and for the same reason.

    • Adam says:

      08:22pm | 04/04/11

      Interesting description of Howard as an American apologist - imagine what he wouldve said after Gillard was overcome with emotion just recalling the moon landing

    • MHW says:

      02:09am | 05/04/11

      Thanks Rover. My apology to you Tory. But really Rover, you are so anti-American. I hope you’ll be happier when the Chinese are the dominant world super-power. Judging by how they treat their own people it doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence.

    • Rosie says:

      09:48am | 05/04/11

      Erick - you can’t ignore the fact that this Australian belonged to the Labor Party and nearly became our PM. Thanks to John Howard, he didn’t!

      It wasn’t just a win for the Coalition and John Howard but for Australia. Oh gawd, it is unimaginable.

      PS - Gillard had better watch out - Rudd was very impressive last night on Q&A. “Oh what a shame he wasn’t still our PM!”

    • Rover of North Cooma says:

      10:18am | 05/04/11

      MHW, I was quoting Latham from parliament. Thought that would be obvious without the quotation marks but forgot that there is a tendency for Punchers to go into random rambles in threads.

    • Phil says:

      06:22pm | 05/04/11

      Peter Sands.

      Agree entirely.

      With Erick’s first comment I wondered if he was in fact referring to Latham or Tory

    • Ulysses Elias says:

      04:04pm | 07/04/11

      All you have to do to parent a child is ovulate or ejaculate. Any random moron can become a parent.

      If Latham has kids then the only difference between him and Gillard is that he has spawn to embarrass whereas Gillard only embarrasses herself.

    • Joel B1 says:

      01:09pm | 04/04/11

      I used the non-word “confected” a few days ago, now everybody and their journo have jumped on the wagon.

      (And a search will prove it)

      What next?

      “Giving birth, having children, is (I’m told) an amazing experience. That does not mean that anyone who hasn’t done it is somehow less whole, less human. “

      I’m afraid it does, just like being not born makes you less human. I know it’s un-PC but there really are things that make you more (or less) human. After all “man outside of society is just a beast”.

      Reply
    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      01:35pm | 04/04/11

      It’s in my dictionary, Joel (Macquarie).

      Did you really mean to argue that people without kids are less human?

    • L. says:

      01:47pm | 04/04/11

      Really Joel?? Mother Tressa was less human than Mark Latham because she didn’t have kids..?

    • Redlective says:

      01:56pm | 04/04/11

      I have sympathise with Joel on this one. I don’t think not doing it makes you less human but it is the most profound and impactful experience I have known. It tempers your worldview and radically deepens your empathy with others who have been through it. It may compromise one’s fitness to be PM if they have not experienced it unless a) they are from a large family or b) they are a particularly empathetic person.

    • john says:

      01:57pm | 04/04/11

      @ Joel B1 your confusing being human with being maternal - two very different concepts.

      You could argue a chimp or ape is less or more human but not a human being less or more human.  Its like saying your house is less or more of a house when its just a house, or a dog is less or more of a dog when its simply a dog.

      You may be able to define a man who has had a sex change as less of a man and more of a woman, but not less of a human and if it was possible and he went on to have children then he would be a female {with more or less woman characteristics}  with maternal instincts.

      Your crossing boundaries in your definition of being more or less human that is illogical and just doesn’t make sense.

      For example, if you don’t believe in religion or have a religious experience doesn’t make you more or less human, even if you don’t give birth to a child doesn’t make you more or less human, furthermore if you are creating more humans, doesn’t make YOU more human. LOL.

    • arejay says:

      02:00pm | 04/04/11

      I have to agree…as will every other person who has ever had a child.I don’t think that has to do with Julia being “wooden”. And whether you believe it or not,that IS why we are here…physiologically.

    • Joel B1 says:

      02:17pm | 04/04/11

      Well, it’s not in my dictionary, albeit an add-on for fire-fox. Nonetheless, I still claim first usage in this particular news-story spin cycle.

      And yes, humanity is not binary. There are degrees of it. And although many childless people are more human than I’ll ever be, having children does tend to make most people more human. Is a 1mth baby more animal than human? Humanity isn’t only a species thing, it’s a social thing.

      Although not for that mother I experienced at the local mall the other week having a thoughtful discussion with an older lady who objected to her kids running amuck : “DONT you tell my kids to get out of the way, who the f*&k do you think you are..” etc.

    • Rover of North Cooma says:

      02:31pm | 04/04/11

      Joel, I was unable to have a child. I did have two miscarriages, and a whole world of heartache. Does that make me more human than the PM, but less human than you?

    • Some Guy says:

      02:33pm | 04/04/11

      @Joel B1 “Well, it’s not in my dictionary, albeit an add-on for fire-fox. Nonetheless, I still claim first usage in this particular news-story spin cycle.”

      Well good for you.

      Does it make it make you special and clever?

      Do you get a prize?

      Get back to us when you’ve coined a word.

    • Bobster says:

      03:10pm | 04/04/11

      @ Redlective,

      So does LSD. Do you have another point?

    • Joel B1j says:

      03:22pm | 04/04/11

      @ Rover, I’m sorry for your loss.

      But try reading what I wrote not just reacting to what you think I said.

    • Knemon says:

      03:28pm | 04/04/11

      Joel B1 - Can you comprehend what John was saying? You can’t be less or more human than human, you either are or you’re not.  I don’t believe that I’ve ever seen a blogger claim words as their own before, there’s a first for you. Ego or what?

    • Joel B1 says:

      03:36pm | 04/04/11

      @Some Guy

      Here’s one for you, “Snauffreisson”. It describes a person who merely posts a comment to deride or belittle another specific commenter.

      To be described as snauffreisson the person must make no actual attempt to comment on the matter at hand and must post inane and pointless questions like “if you’re so good why haven’t you solved world hunger?”

      The larger the number of stupid rhetorical questions asked increases the level of snauffreisson. So a single inane question indicts a minor level of snauffreisson, but three or four indicate a total Snauffreissic.

    • undertow says:

      03:38pm | 04/04/11

      Joel B1, switch your Firefox dictionary from US English to UK English. Then give yourself a pat on the back for being an egotistical twit.

      So, the person who is unable to produce children for some medical reason is also less of a human? Although you are unable to be any less human than the next person, Joel B1, you have certainly shown you possess less humanity.

    • Rover of North Cooma says:

      03:52pm | 04/04/11

      Joel, I did read what you said. And you clearly said that people who had not had children were less human than those who had.

      And for the record, “confected” has been around for a long, long time as a word. It comes up regularly in Question Time when one side or the other talks about “confected outrage”.

    • Joel B1 says:

      03:56pm | 04/04/11

      @ Knemon

      Rubbish. Are you saying the Dalai Lama or Mother Theresa is just as human as Martin Bryant? Or the people who sacrifice their lives to help others less fortunate than themselves are no more humane than an African dictator?

      The concept of “Humanity” is a whole lot more than your simplistic and naive genetics-based approach.

    • Joel B1 says:

      04:02pm | 04/04/11

      @undertow

      “switch your Firefox dictionary from US English to UK English.”

      Umm, well I do use an Australian dictionary for firefox, and thanks, have done the pat bit.

      Are these posters your friends Tory? ‘Cause if so you might need to check out their “Hater” ratings.

    • Joel B1j says:

      04:40pm | 04/04/11

      Tory ***not for publishing unless you want***

      Thanks for the journalistic shit-stirring Tory. It must be real fun playing “let’s you and him fight”.

      And yes, it can make you “less whole” to not have children as I’m sure you can tell from the bitterness and pain expressed in the comments here. But again, and I reiterate, humaness (see that’s another new f*&king; word) doesn’t depend on having children, it’s just that in many cases it helps.

      Cheers, the hate has made my evening.

    • Some Guy says:

      04:58pm | 04/04/11

      @ Joel B1 “humaness (see that’s another new f*&king; word)”

      Not it’s not and it’s spelt “humanness”.

      Man, you do need to get a proper dictionary.

    • Proudly Nullagravida says:

      07:28pm | 04/04/11

      Joel,  what do you have to say about the stats that show quite clearly that when a child is mentally abused, beated, starved, neglected, raped or murdered, the perpetrator is overwhelmingly the child’s very own parents.  Oh yeah silly me, those evil childfree-by-choice people have no love in their lives and are less than human. 

      And I think you will find “confected” was quite openly available before you staked a claim to it.

    • Proudly Nullagravida says:

      07:32pm | 04/04/11

      “...It tempers your worldview and radically deepens your empathy with others “

      Oh really?  Based on what I read here, it seems giving birth turns some people into closed-minded, smug bigots. Giving birth (or seeding one) does not make a person a parent any more than owning a piano make one a pianist.

    • TQS says:

      08:07pm | 04/04/11

      “Did you really mean to argue that people without kids are less human?”

      I certainly would Tory. We are the lesser and poorer for not having children.

      Parenthood is the essential experience of the human condition; the overwhelming responsible and the enriching love, is what defines what it is to be an adult human being. Without it, you are stuck in permanent adolescence.

      Please read this excellent piece on why we have children, by Timothy Dalrymple:
      http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Why-We-Have-Children-Timothy-Dalrymple-01-26-2011?offset=0&max=1

    • Knemon says:

      08:11pm | 04/04/11

      Joel B1 @ 03:56pm - Yes I am Joel. like it or not,  they’re all humans.

    • Joel B1 says:

      09:03pm | 04/04/11

      What a lot of shallow comments.

      Look over there! It’s a royal wedding!

      Having children makes most people better people, if you can’t handle that then get a f*&king; puppy.

    • Rover of North Cooma says:

      09:17pm | 04/04/11

      TQS - so according to you, if someone is physically unable to have childen, they are adolescents forever? How I wish that were so, apart from the acne.

      I have 25 nieces and nephews, all of whom I know well and love dearly. There will always be pain in my life because I could not have my own children. But it does not mean I am a lesser person, or less mature, than someone lucky enough to be blessed with fertility and opportunity.

    • Chris L says:

      06:50pm | 05/04/11

      “What a lot of shallow comments.” - You mean like accusing those without children of being less human?

      Do you have trouble working out how that would be very insulting if anyone were to take such an innane assertion seriously?

    • rumancola says:

      01:19pm | 04/04/11

      trying to explain having children to non-parents is like arguing ‘faith’ with atheists…..never the twain shall meet…

      Reply

    • Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

      02:12pm | 04/04/11

      I agree, my current wife chose when she was younger not to have kids (I have 4, although only one at home) I find her & her peeers attitude to kids especially when she frely admits to not being an agel whilst young. Don’t forget that Julia LOVED Marky when she was shivving Big Kym in the back, Julia wanted Mark to be PM, so to say that she is erratic is an understatement.

    • Chris says:

      05:44pm | 04/04/11

      I have a real problem with that kind of attitude. You can’t possibly see that it could also work the other way. Arguing common sense with someone of faith is as difficult as arguing childlessness with breeders.

    • Radical Chick says:

      06:44pm | 04/04/11

      I am of two minds Re: Latham criticism of Julia. As a Professional woman who had children later in life, I felt that was a totally transformative experience in my own life. In that sense I totally agree with what Rumancola said.
      I could never had known what it was like until I had them. So I feel that the people without kids do not know better as they do not know this amazing experience. They didn’t have anyone so dependent on them. And didn’t experience all the other things engaged parents go through….
      But I also see the other side…people who did not have children can be leaders without any problems. I have known amazing single people and am convinced their gifts and contributions are indeed very valuable to our Society. Their experience will be probably more focused on other issues, such as career, charity …yet they won’t have that particular perspective that parents do but I cannot make a case that parents are more loving just because…to do that would be unconscionable.
      Either way I’d be very reluctant to judge Julia as leader based on her (personal) choice not to have children. I am much more worried about Julia’s ethics. Does she think it is important to tell the truth? What’s the limits of what she’d do for power? Does she think in a team there’s plenty of space for betrayal? Does she think it is important for a leader to keep her word and commitments? On those legitimate ethical issues I have seen what Julia’s response was and I have made my own judgement of her leadership.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      01:25pm | 04/04/11

      Wait till Gillard’s book comes out once she leaves politics at the next election. She can have a crack back at them.

      Reply

    • luke says:

      01:46pm | 04/04/11

      Childless or not, Julia Gillard would still be the same…. unfortunately.

      Reply

    • Al Chunk says:

      01:48pm | 04/04/11

      What is it with the punch, are you on a bonus if you put “jump the shark” into your articles or Is it trendy?

      Reply

    • Reg says:

      03:14pm | 04/04/11

      The phrase was trendy about 10 years ago. Now, not so much. It got replaced with “nuke the fridge” a year or two ago with the most recent Indiana Jones movie.

      The problem is that most journalists, Tory included, don’t know how to correctly use the phrase.

    • Bobster says:

      03:17pm | 04/04/11

      Agreed.

      Punchers, I would have thought you of all people would know that “Jump the shark” was updated after the release of the last Indiana Jones movie.

      The correct nomenclature is now, “Nuke the fridge.”

    • Kika says:

      01:48pm | 04/04/11

      Well Mark Latham isn’t exactly the most loving caring man in the world. Who is he to judge? So as long as you have children, that makes you a good person regardless of how many people you bash up?

      I’m sure his wife watches Oprah. She did the same thing. She admitted that she couldn’t be who she is and dedicate herself to her career and be a mother. She believed that to be both WELL is impossible - it’s one or the other. Kids, or a stellar career. I think it’s proven that women are less paid overall than men because of their carers roles in families. So if a woman chooses not to do that and has ambition to succeed, and pursues her life a way a man would (not stopping to take care of children) what is wrong with that? It’s personal choice.

      Why should everyone breed, just because?

      Having a dig at Julia’s childless status is really low.

      Reply

    • Proudly Nullagravida says:

      07:57pm | 04/04/11

      “So as long as you have children, that makes you a good person regardless of how many people you bash up?”

      Oh but of course! A person who has bred should get a lenient sentence, more wages, a bigger house, more rewards out of life! Haven’t you heard?  Being able to perform natural functions such as copulation, fertilsation and birth make you an instantly better and superior person and, not matter what you do from that point on, it is your get-out-of-jail free card.

      *scoff*

    • Kate says:

      01:50pm | 04/04/11

      If he is spruiking his book i am assuming that his premeditated comments predicted numerous articles/stories such as these to circulate creating awareness of his book resulting in sales $$$. I would say ML passed PPPR101.

      Reply

    • Chris M says:

      01:53pm | 04/04/11

      Julia Gillard was Mark Latham’s strongest supporter within the Labor Caucus in 2004.  She thought he would make a good Prime Minister. Doesn’t say much about her judgment, does it?

      Reply

    • james milton says:

      04:08pm | 04/04/11

      If only that little nugget of information were to be made known to the public whenever this idiot (Latham) opens his mouth.

    • 21st Century Family Man says:

      01:54pm | 04/04/11

      Tory I thnk your last pargraph misses the point a bit. As a male who (as far as I know) has not fathered any children I too take exception to his comments as they apply across the genders and imply that I ,too, am some how a lesser person for not having had children (for all sorts of reasons it just never seemed to be in the cards). While he is talking about a femaile particularly his remarks can be taken generally.

      Funny thing is tho, he does have a point and I speak as one who had the life affirming pleasue of and experienced the love involved in raising two step-sons from changing nappies to adult hood and even tho their mother and I split up 10 years ago and they are now twenty somethings the bond between us is a strong as ever and is appreciated by them as much as me.

      Anyway, what I mean is the joy of raising children is like no other in this world.

      Reply

    • Gladys says:

      02:01pm | 04/04/11

      I dunno about this. Maybe Latham is the first person to actually pinpoint the no children thing well.

      For the average person, empathy isn’t a necessary thing. You can go through life without it. You work in a bank you climb the corporate ladder, you step on a few people on the way up, empathy gets in the way a bit. You can be a waste removal contractor, empathy isn’t necessary. Fisherman, empathy isn’t necessary.

      But in some professions - doctors, nurses, teachers, other allied health professionals - they all need a level fo empathy.

      A politician has to be a lot of things to a lot of people. During the floods, Bligh nailed it because she knew keep them calm, keep them informed. She can sit with kids and play in the sand or read a book because she’s had kids and she remembers.

      I bet she even hopes she can truly enjoy her grandkids when they come along.

      Gillard is a mirror compared with Bligh’s mirror ball.

      Don’t get me wrong, I loath Latham. But on this one I think he’s nailed it. 5-7 years ago I would have fought this to the death and proved him wrong.

      And here’s the thing: its not that she’s without kids, I know stacks of women who are without kids but only because they never met the right guy.

      But Gillard made a deliberate decision to avoid the emotional hassles that are children. The price she pays is a wooden soulless nature that doesn’t connect with a lot of people.

      Reply

    • Kika says:

      02:44pm | 04/04/11

      I know a lot of mums who are wooden and soulless too. Just because you’re a mum doesn’t instantly make you the world’s most wonderful caring person.

    • Norma Babbitt of Battery Point TAS says:

      03:51pm | 04/04/11

      How do you know she didn’t meet the right guy? You can’t judge a book by it’s cover.

    • Clint says:

      04:39pm | 04/04/11

      I’m a doctor, my friends are doctors, some of my family are doctors. The majority do not have children. Does that mean we are less empathetic in your eyes, because I’d beg to differ.

    • Gladys says:

      04:51pm | 04/04/11

      @ Kika: You don’t know how these mothers are in the privacy of their homes. You know them a bit maybe they’re just wooden around you because that’s what you bring out in them.

      But this particular woman has chosen a a profession which requires empathy. It certainly explains why Bligh blitzed the floods and Gillard looked foolish.

      @Norma Babbitt of Battery Point TAS : Latham said ‘she deliberately chose not to have children’. Perhaps your mother might have done us all a favour and done the same thing? Calala.

      Clint: No. I said certain professions demand empathy and listed doctors as one of those professions. I think medical training teaches about pain and then the on the job stuff teaches you about life (same with teachers, except the medical training).

      But a plaintiff lawyer doesn’t get that type of training, does she? What would Gillard know of not being able to afford to fill a prescription for her child? Or having to get dressed and go to emergency because her child is in respiratory distress at 3am? She might know about torts and law suits but she knows nothing about real life.

      Go ahead, make my day. (Had to say that)

    • Astrosodi says:

      06:06pm | 04/04/11

      @ Gladys: I am a lawyer without children. As a legal practitioner, I worked on may child protection cases, and certainly saw my share of parents who were cold and cruel in the privacy of their own homes. I saw mothers who knowing lived with paedophile boyfriends, and ignored abuse of their children because ‘they loved the guy’. I had mothers ring and cancel appointments for court proceedings involving their children because they couldn’t afford the bus, but the next time I saw them they needed a break every 10 minutes to have another cigarette.

      We all know wonderfully empathetic and generous people who don’t have children.

      No one single person has experienced everything.

      The majority of senior politicians and policy makers do have children, so why isn’t the world perfect? Because human being, whether they have children or not, are not perfect.

    • Proudly Nullagravida says:

      07:47pm | 04/04/11

      “But Gillard made a deliberate decision to avoid the emotional hassles that are children.”

      Awwww! All those people who choose not to have kids are bad and evil because they dodged a bullet.  Jealous much?

      Where oh where is that memo that stated that as soon as a person mixes their DNA with someone else’s they are automatically accorded a sainthood?  Take a look at the child abuse stats and you will start to question why we give the proven ability to breed some kind of perverse exhaltation. Not all parents are child-abusers but almost all child-abusers are parents.

      Some people choose not to have children for a variety of reasons. Yet the people who choose to breed are not driven by altruism, a service to the nation, their fellow man. So knock off this nonsense about parenthood=empathy. Indeed, we saw only last week a father who was found guilty of tossing a child off the Westgate Bridge for his own selfish reasons then he selfishly tried to dodge justice.

      The carping and condemnation of the childfree by some parents suggests that a number of parents are not really comfortable with their decision and that they are made insecure by the childfree because it somehow invalidates their life choices.

      If you find that parenthood is loaded with “emotional hassles” rather than joy and love then it must suck to be you.

    • bigdaddy says:

      02:09pm | 04/04/11

      @JT
      I am a parent and a man - so somewhat unable to give birth - and I could have written the same column. Latham’s comments were ludicrous and offensive.
      I am no supporter of Gillard. I wish she would go away or at the very least take some elocution lessions but this is part of a larger commentary where many in Australia say people without specific experiences are incapable of governing effectively.
      According to these critics we need gender balance because men can’t understand women’s issues, racial balance because no one can be au fait with all our myriad cultural sensitivities and we need young people in parliament because our old leader aren’t “down” with their needs.
      But that’s like saying there’s no point in having a health minister who hasn’t had cancer - that a sick health minister would be inherently better because they’ve experienced the issues.
      No.
      What we really need in parliament is the smartest, most honourable people we can get our hands on, people who may not have experienced everything but will listen to people who have and then work hard on delivering the best response.
      And, by his comments, Mr Lathan has shown that - under those criteria - it’s a good thing he’s no longer involved.

      Reply

    • fairsfair says:

      02:35pm | 04/04/11

      *like*

      Thanks bigdaddy. I decided against arguing the merits of kids because I don’t have any and well the parents will win everytime by default - and then you came along - refreshing.

      I work for a US based company and it is horrific to hear what my managers have to say about Gillard (they pronounce it like Oprah did). She is an embarassment to us on the world stage when she opens her mouth. She is not the smartest of most honerable. Beasley did not have it, Latham did not have it nor do Gillard and Abbott. They are missing the “all rounder” aspect and I think it is solely down to their communication skills.

    • Lisa H. says:

      02:41pm | 04/04/11

      great comment

    • JT says:

      03:04pm | 04/04/11

      I agree with you bigdaddy. I think needing to have specific experiences to govern effectively is not necessary. I will say however it seems many of the comments here from people who have had children do not find much fault with what he said. I think the facts are, Mark is a loon, Julia is stilted and unemotional and children do change your life in profound ways that may or may not be the cause to her issues.

    • notSue says:

      04:18pm | 05/04/11

      I really wish there was a ‘Like” button on this site sometimes. Wonderful response, bigdaddy. *Applause*

    • regn says:

      03:16am | 07/04/11

      An observation of Gillard’s personality and empathy as a result of choosing not to share her life with children and to base that choice on a carreer having a higher priority is a valid point. The comments supporting and disputing Latham’s observation by parents and non parents demonstrate it is an issue and the individual response is likely deteremined by the individual’s parental situation. Is Latham a loon? Of course he is not. He is the messenger to both Labour and Liberal that politics is corrupted and LAbour singled out, is corrupt beyond redemption. The Latham hate campaign is `shoot the messenger’ stuff as far as I’m concerned.

    • Tara says:

      02:20pm | 04/04/11

      I made a deliberate decision to not have children, not for a career, but because I don’t want the responsibility of that. I don’t believe that I’m less than human. What about those poor women that cannot have children due to no fault of their own, are they too less human? Or the man that has a vasectomy, is he less human?
      I have empathy, sympathy and feelings. This a great load of crap that those people with children try to lay on you to make you feel less than them because they do have children. It’s a choice, I’ve made mine and I don’t regret it, so how about you respect my choice NOT to have children whilst I respect your choice to have children.

      Reply

    • Todd Testa says:

      02:47pm | 04/04/11

      I agree. If you have children of your own sperm and eggs, how does that PROVE you are ‘empathetic’? You are doing what your biology has told you to do. IF you adopt someone elses kids and raise them and give them love and care which they wouldn’t have received otherwise, THAT is what I call empathy.

    • TQS says:

      07:47pm | 04/04/11

      Sorry Tara, you have missed out big time. I feel sorry you have spent your life without enjoying the most enriching experience of the human condition.

      It’s not a question of respect, but of understanding human nature. Parenthood is what ennobles us as human beings. If you do not partake in it, then you are the poorer for it.

    • Kika says:

      09:55am | 05/04/11

      TQS - don’t be so judgemental. You can still feel the same love with a dog or cat as you do with a child. In fact, it’s probably better. Your pets always love you, don’t talk back at you, don’t leave you when they grow up and never call, don’t dump you in a nursing home when you get too difficult to handle, are always happy to see you when you get home and will love you unconditionally. As soon as kids are born they try to manipulate you to find how they can get what they want. Pets are happy as long as you love them. THATS love.

    • Mark says:

      02:23pm | 04/04/11

      He didn’t say she was less human, he said “less love in your life”.  That is just a statement of fact.  Any normal parent will tell you you don’t know what love is until you’ve had kids,  so I am struggling to see what he has said that’s so wrong.  To deliberately exclude the possibility of experiencing the greatest love possible must reflect on your character in some way. Obviously it doesn’t effect her intellectually, or even morally,  again he didn’t say it did.  What exactly is the issue?

      Reply

    • TJ says:

      05:28pm | 04/04/11

      how does it reflect on your character if you choose not to have children? isn’t it better that people are happy without than miserable with? a lot of people don’t want that responsibility or want to spend all their money on themselves and that’s fine, it’s their choice in the end, we all have free will to do what we want with out bodies and our lives, yes some women don’t want to lose their figures, fine that’s up to them, some don’t have any maternal feelings at all and recognise it, now isn’t it better that these people don’t breed? think of all the shrink bills for the kids if they did

    • Helena says:

      02:26pm | 04/04/11

      She would be wooden with children as well, woodn’t she?
      lol I should have ny own show!

      Reply

    • TM says:

      02:59pm | 04/04/11

      Suits the wooden nose, boom tish!

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      02:29pm | 04/04/11

      Childless or not, the middle class welfare will keep rolling. Or have people forgotten that Gillard introduced the Paid Parental Leave Scheme. Who needs empathy when both sides of politics are willing to splash the cash to buy the middle class family vote?

      Reply

    • PL says:

      03:17pm | 04/04/11

      My vote is always for sale (however I am technically in the upper class) to whoever is the highest bidder

    • bobby says:

      02:32pm | 04/04/11

      Gee I missed the bit about George Brandis talking about “barrenness”.That’s a bit weird!

      Reply

    • Warren says:

      02:39pm | 04/04/11

      I suspect that becoming a parent involves your gland secreting all sort of drugs to cope with the chaos and stop them murdering their offspring. Parents are not more human, they are simply on some kind of natural “high” as a coping mechanism.

      Reply

    • Todd Testa says:

      03:12pm | 04/04/11

      I’d say its looking after your DNA. Not some magic parent gland secreting drugs.

    • TJ says:

      05:32pm | 04/04/11

      doesn’t always work, parents (see Eric not gender bashing here) still kill their kids

    • Todd Testa says:

      09:50am | 05/04/11

      HAha didn’t think of that TJ. Yeah lots of parents kill their kids. I.e. poor Darcey Freeman. No protecting hormone there.

    • Gregg says:

      03:08pm | 04/04/11

      Well at least you’re honest and are learning Tory
      ” Former Labor leader Mark Latham has been suffering from relevance deprivation syndrome for years now. I was one of those dopes who admired him when he bounced onto the political scene – thirsty for someone with a bit of personality, a break from the beige. He railed against the ‘new political correctness’; he was a boofhead with a penchant for biffo, but he was fun.  “

      A bit like a different redhead we could say, a redhead who may be considered more of an airhead than a boofhead! , but kind of wears her heart on her sleeve a bit like Boofy, calling a spade a spade and entertaining too.
      Maybe Boofy even comes up with more outlandish or just plain stupid ideas or just kind of finds it hard to use the right words and that could be difficult if you’re using both hands to attempt to stop getting your foot in your mouth or getting it out.
      ” And now he has told ABC Radio that Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s decision to remain childless means she lacks empathy and the ability to experience true love. “
      ” Mr Latham – while spruiking a re-release of his 2005 book, The Latham Diaries (I know, I know – be still my beating heart) – said she was wooden around small children. And hence, in Latham logic, “very wooden” during the Queensland floods. “

      I reckon what Mark really means is that woman having children and being more involved in family life raising the kids and all that is associated with it will have different experiences and outlooks on many things.
      There is the big belly and then dropping bubs or having one removed being part of it all and for sure merging the family life and any career is easier for a male.

      I have seen news footages at different times of Julia with babies and more so younger children in school environments and I would say she is more self conscious at times than wooden and at times she is quite engaging.
      The Brisbane episode was more here I am as a hanger on to Anna because it’s Anna’s state but it’s still part of Queensland but she was also probably self conscious about what was she actually there for.
      Like any politician, she was probably being advised that it would look bad if she was not there.

      It probably would have been better for her to go on tele and make it known that the government was aware of the tragedies and that she was offering every support to Anna and that military services and federal departments were being made available for whatever support was needed…....end of story and perhaps a visit later when the flood peaks had subsided.

      Old boofhead on the other hand is certainly just after any publicity he can get even if he no doubt loves his family.
      Julia may not have her children and certainly did not want to attract bad publicity and despite the rubbishing she has had, even if I do not like how Labor manage finances, I do give her credit for sticking by seeking the flood levy and not too much wood on that.

      Reply

    • Malleeringneck says:

      03:22pm | 04/04/11

      The Liberals also have Fraser waffling off at the mouth at times.
      All the ex Prime Ministers must feel unwanted at times when the media doesn’t fall over every word they have to say, and therefore come out with the ridiculous.
      Oh, that’s right Latham was only a contender not Prime Minister, so he must be suffering still more.

      Reply

    • Dan says:

      04:19pm | 04/04/11

      Mark Latham is a goose but I always like when he feels we have to listen to him. He is unique though, how many other pollies have broken a cabbie’s arm ?!!.

      Reply

    • DJ says:

      04:27pm | 04/04/11

      Latham is the same guy Julia was spruiking as our next PM at one stage. He is a cretin and she is a liar. Take your pick.

      Reply

    • TQS says:

      04:39pm | 04/04/11

      Latham is right: Not having children makes you a lesser being who has missed out on the most enriching experience of the human condition:

      “We have children because they make us human. Throughout my teens and twenties, I often went for years without being deeply moved. My friends called me even-keeled or unflappable, but the truth is that I almost never felt—really felt—anything at all. Not joy, not sorrow, not anger or hurt or fear. This might sound like a good thing. It was not. Every few years my heart would return to me, and for no apparent reason I would find emotions falling down like spring rains on parched soil. I was always relieved to feel connected again, vulnerable, alive—but then the season of feeling would fade and would leave me impassive again.

      That changed when I learned we were having a girl. Perhaps there is something especially sweet in the father-daughter relationship, or perhaps it was just that the image of my child became concrete. Whatever the reason, I spent the remainder of the day staring at the ultrasound photo and downloading father-daughter songs in a joyous tearful mess.

      Blessedly wounded, I never recovered. Lifelong singles can, of course, lead joyful and fulfilling lives and there are other ways in which they are shaped. In retrospect, however, my life prior to parenthood was like a symphony constrained to a single note. In the year that followed my daughter’s birth, I felt—really felt—the whole spectrum of human emotions, the depth and richness of human experience. Through my daughter’s eyes, I remembered wonder. Her laughter and unbridled joy reminded me why the world is good. She was a vessel of grace, a sacrament, and she returned me to life.”

      http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Why-We-Have-Children-Timothy-Dalrymple-01-26-2011?offset=0&max=1

      Reply

    • Sam says:

      05:28pm | 04/04/11

      Latham is a bufoon, but he is right. It’s almost like Catholic Priests giving marital advice. Insanity.
      Parenting changed my life. I’ve always had some level of empathy, but becoming a mother has made me a “real”, “full”, “whole” person.
      I was but a shadow before.

    • Steve says:

      05:33pm | 04/04/11

      There are plenty of jobs where emotion can get in the way of making good objective decisions. ie the Judiciary, the triage nurse at emergency, Those making the macro decisions on behalf of the country.

    • TJ says:

      05:36pm | 04/04/11

      we never miss what we never had, if people feel their lives are full and whole and worthwhile who is to say they aren’t? where do people get off telling them their lives are meaningless without children?

    • jb5 says:

      05:54pm | 04/04/11

      I’m drowning in sanctimony.

    • NEFFA says:

      06:06pm | 04/04/11

      TQS - what will you do if your daughter grows up and is unable to have children of her own?

      will you tell her she is less of a human?

    • TQS says:

      07:25pm | 04/04/11

      Neffa, ask Timothy Dalymple who wrote the piece (follow the link - it’s a fantastic piece regardless of me quoting into this acrimonious debate), I’m sure he’ll give you a kinder and more sympathetic answer than I.

      I would say yes, she would miss out on an enormous part of the human experience, and sadly be less enriched as a person because of it.

      I would recommend to her adoption, or a role in mentoring children, to overcome that handicap. But at the end of the day, life isn’t fair, and if she misses out on the greatest part of what it is to be a person; having children; then she misses out on an awful lot, and will be the poorer for it.

    • Steve says:

      04:39pm | 04/04/11

      I think we put too much emphasis on the leader and not on the party and the policies they come up with. Diversity within the party is a good thing. I don’t care a fig about the gender,marital status,child status, hair colour,size of backside,accent,birthplace,ear lobes of the leader. I don’t like the carbon tax, the retrospectivity of the mining tax, the stimulas package was a waste of money and I need more selling on a national broadband. Labor can’t get the budget back in surplus without new taxes. What will the debt peak at when they finally get around to a budget surplus?

      Reply

    • dico says:

      05:03pm | 04/04/11

      Always love the indignant “Just because I don’t have kids doesn’t mean my opinion is not as valid”.

      Unless you have kids you don’t completely understand a parent.
      Unless you are a male you don’t completely understand men.
      Unless you go through a divorce you don’t completely understand a divorcee.

      Your opinions are valid, but it is a student trying to tell a master. You can sympathise but not empathise as well if you don’t have the experience.

      Reply

    • TJ says:

      05:40pm | 04/04/11

      and unless you are female you don’t completely understand women, what’s your point? that’s why they have advisors, you can’t know everything

    • dico says:

      08:57am | 05/04/11

      When Gillard is out there pretending she completely understands what families are going through, she is lying.

    • Tony H says:

      05:10pm | 04/04/11

      I couldn’t care less about her marital status or lack of children, I’m much more concerned about her history in the Socialist Forum, her membership of the Fabian Society and her aversion to telling the truth.

      Reply

    • BiG TeD says:

      05:22pm | 04/04/11

      I was one of those dopes who admired him when he bounced onto the political scene – thirsty for someone with a bit of personality, a break from the beige.

      And there you have it.  Dirty hypocrites would have foistered this screwball on us all if JWH hadn’t outwitted him.  And we’ve had certifiable Kevvy and bifocal Julia since and you damned well continue to support ‘em. 

      Why should we trust your judgment?

      Reply

    • Vic says:

      05:36pm | 04/04/11

      Latham is a lunatic has-been who hasn’t said anything relevant or factual since before his pancreas gave out. Why anybody expects anything sensible from him or why he’s still consulted about anything is beyond me.
      He’s a bitter twisted man with nothing decent to say about anyone

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      05:38pm | 04/04/11

      LOL, all non breeders should be worried. Next thing you know the government on behalf of the breeders will be rounding all “lesser beings”, “less than human”, “sub human” non breeders and putting them in camps. For the protection of society of course…..

      Reply

    • Jay says:

      05:41pm | 04/04/11

      Criticize Mark Latham all you want.

      Let’s not forget that pretty much the majority of MP’s currently serving in the Federal government voted this guy as the leader of their party to take them to the 2004 election. That was just over 5 short years ago.

      To me, this demonstrates the poorness of judgement the current crop of labor politicians possess and is evidenced by their present trainwreck of government policy.

      Reply

    • martin says:

      05:48pm | 04/04/11

      Yeah she was seemingly wooden during the floods. But what are you supposed to do? Break down and have a big fake cry like you’re on Dr Phil? Like what the QLD Premier did?

      Would a male PM have broken down? Don’t think so. That’s not what being a leader is about. It’s about being stoic and strong. That she has been.

      I am anti feminist in that I think feminism has done it’s job but it seems as though it’s not something I can be confident about when comments like Mark’s still occur.

      Reply

    • jag says:

      05:55pm | 04/04/11

      Mark Latham could have been PM. The ALP chose him as their leader and as the man to defeat the Lib/ Nat coalition in 2004.

      All the Howard haters out there should remember this.

      Reply

    • Astrosodi says:

      05:58pm | 04/04/11

      This is a truly awful debate. We are sitting her debating whose love is worth more, and degrade each other all the while asserting how much more empathetic we are, and that we are better human beings that others based on an unquantifiable and unprovable characteristic?
      Many, many people are wonderfully blessed by the joy that children bring to their lives. There is usually an element of selfishness in bringing a child into the world (and that’s not a bad thing).If it’s a planned baby (the word “planned” surely is an indicator of a level of selfishness—again, not a bad thing) couples talk about “wanting a child”, “we’re ready for children now”. If it’s an unplanned pregnancy, it’s usually a pursuit of pleasure that gets them there.
      I’m not having children—not a ‘conscious decision’ on my part, but I freely admit it’s a situation I am in that has, in part, resulted from choices I have made. It’s also pointless arguing whether I am a better or worse person than my sister who has had the joy of bringing three gorgeous children into this world. Does she raise them in a bubble? Do they not contribute to other people’s lives—their grandparents, their uncles, their friends? Does my sister love me more or less now because she has had children? Is her love for me worth more than my love for her because she has children and I don’t? Is her love of her husband worth more now because of children, or does she love her husband more than I love my partner? Does she love my mother more than I do because she’s had children?
      Similarly, I have had experiences in this world that my sister hasn’t. But she has had children, so does that render my experience, knowledge and understanding gained in those experiences worthless? Does that fact that she has had children mean that she already knows all those things that I have learned through my travels, or through my relationships, or through my education?
      The love and experience a parent has by virtue of parenthood is not a single, determinable quality that is capable of generalisation or universal insight. No single human being can claim that position. I can contribute to the lives of my nephews and nieces things that my sister and her husband can’t. Love is certainly most admirable and desired, and is indeed a necessary element to successful life as a human being. But arguing that having a child, of itself, makes one person better than another is clearly an unsustainable argument.
      Our responsibility is to be the best human being we can each be. There are countless examples of childless people who were better human beings that any number of parents. Mother Teresa is held up as an ideal for what we should strive to be as a kind, compassionate, empathetic human being. The numerous dictators in this world who slaughter women and children with bush knives and axes are usually surrounded by their children and wives. 
      In my own family I have seen fathers abandon their children into the open arms of childless relatives. I have seen the damage that a mother, who should be there to protect and provide for their child, does when her needs always come first. Human beings are complex, and while many, many parents are bettered by their having children, it is not something that is experienced in the same way by everyone. Who am I to say that the love I have for my partner is better or worse that the love you have for yours? I am not you, and I have not felt what you feel. I can guess at it, and hope it is as good or better than mine, but I certainly don’t think I better myself standing here suggesting my love is better than yours and you are a lesser person because of it.
      I’ve had parent’s sit at my dinner table and argue that it’s okay to discriminate because we won’t in the future. Seems that they aren’t always roused to compassion by the love the genuinely have for their children.
      I would love to experience parenthood, but I won’t. I accept it, and I wish every parent out there all the joys that children bring them. Hopefully, though, I’ll continue striving to be the best person I can, and use my experiences, love and knowledge the best way I can to benefit my society, and those I love.

      Reply

    • progressivesunite says:

      10:08pm | 04/04/11

      That was brilliant - compelling. I hope some of the more strident posters here read what you wrote : )

    • Sandy says:

      06:57pm | 04/04/11

      As they say, small things amuse small minds. And yours is rather small.

    • michael j says:

      06:33pm | 04/04/11

      Well my opinion of this former would be ALP Prime Minster hasn’t changed in
      the last 90 mins,i believe the Media took it easy on him at the time of the last election when he told Citizens to throw away their votes because he did not believe in Australian Democracy any more,,just because he was a send up for 60 mins,,the man is a bitter rabid pest who would turn on anyone for no reason
      i truly hope he finds what he deserves,,,,

      Reply

    • Against the Man says:

      06:36pm | 04/04/11

      Latham
      Rudd
      Gillard
      Garrett
      Roxon

      The best the ALP have to offer? Soulless and pointless people that need moral guidance. The universe does not revolve around their ego and selfishness.

      Reply

    • The Badger says:

      08:56pm | 04/04/11

      Hahahahaha
      Abbott
      Abbott
      Abbott
      Abbott

      Preferred prime minister rating 31%
      Hahahahaha
      The best the LNP have to offer?

    • Against the Man says:

      09:45pm | 04/04/11

      Sorry Badger but if Abbott was so bad we wouldn’t have a hung Parliament.
      And Juliar Gilltard wouldn’t be shaking in her boots at the thought of taking the carbon tax to a double dissolution election. Nice try but it didn’t help your cause. Try again maybe you might hit your target next time smile

    • wife,station wagon,kids, and golden retriever says:

      06:42pm | 04/04/11

      Your point is beautifully made. Please continue to be true to yourself and find happiness where you can. We are fortunate to live in this great country. There are millions of people with children but face starvation. Sometimes I wish I had the time to do a well thought out post at 5.58pm but I have to check the kids homework! I’ts not all beer and skittles you know.

      Reply

    • PRO FAMILY says:

      07:02pm | 04/04/11

      Mark Latham has a salient point so stop rubbishing him as some media do especially those that always want to prop up Gillard well has Gillard ever ever suffered the anguish of looking after a sick child in the middle of the night that has a high temperature we doubt it!
      So Gillard has such limited life experience when it comes to raising a family, So how can Gillard possibly be attuned to the escalating cost of living pressures that families now face!
      Perhaps Gillard appeals to her cohorts ie single ambitous childless women but they is not all women. All women do not agree with Gillards choices see Gillard is all for choice so long as she gets her own way and then she is always about telling us what to do without being considerate enough to consult eg getting rid of KRudd was Gillards choice! So we didnt agree with that one and now imposing a carbon tax is her choice not ours! So good on you Mark you are a pro family hero!

      Reply

    • progressivesunite says:

      10:15pm | 04/04/11

      Maybe she hasn’t had a child with a fever (what an achievement you’ve made there!) but she can, you know, spell…..and use grammar…..

    • Proudly Nullagravida says:

      07:35pm | 04/04/11

      “...has Gillard ever ever suffered the anguish of looking after a sick child in the middle of the night that has a high temperature we doubt it!”

      No, perhaps she hasn’t but you can jolly well bet that she has never neglected, starved, beaten, abused, raped or murdered a child but there are plenty of parents who have. Not all parents are child-abusers but almost all child-abusers are parents.

      Get off your smug high horse. And for goodness’ sake, use some fullstops!

      Reply

    • sproket says:

      08:29pm | 04/04/11

      “You could just as well argue that men, not having the experience of childbirth, the excruciating pain, the hormones, the bonding through breastfeeding, lack empathy and the ability to know true love. “

      Toy try to win men over to your point of beiw and just as you do, you piss all over them with this sneaky backhander at every father out there? Bad Form Journo, Bad Form

      Reply

    • Katharine says:

      10:03am | 05/04/11

      I think the point with that paragraph was to show that saying such a thing would be absurd and incorrect - just like it’s absurd and incorrect to say that people who aren’t parents lack empathy. It was a subtle means of demonstrating the ridiculousness of such declarations, not a “backhander” directed at dads.

    • Rose says:

      10:05pm | 04/04/11

      As a mother of 6 I resent the inference that I am only human or empathetic because I have childresn, Prior to their births I loved my parents, siblings, grandparents, extended family and friends. My children are a massive part of my life but they do not define me, they do not determine my worth as a human, that is my responsibility not theirs.
      I am just as likely to be represented well by a man, by a childless woman or by a mother of one or two as I am by by someone whose family structure mirrors my own. I have encountered childless people who are incredible human beings and I have met parents who disgust me, having children didn’t make the difference, being a good person did.
      If anything I congratulate Gillard for staying true to herself and not having children she didn’t really want, I wish more people would make the same choice and not have children because they think they have to, regardless of what they want.

      Reply

    • overit says:

      10:07pm | 04/04/11

      god some ridiculous arguments in these comments.
      people are actually going to make sweeping generalisations that unless youve got kids you know nothing about self-sacrifice or caring for others? what about all those people who are a pillar of support for family members who are mentally ill, disabled or elderly? what about people who help their close friends through crisis after crisis and make considerable personal sacrifices to do so? or who volunteer hours of their spare time every week to help people in need?
      on the other side of the ledger, what about all those parents who spend bugger-all time with their kids, who delegate parenting responsibilities to the tv, or who are cruel and undermining to their progeny? let alone those who are guilty of physical or sexual abuse..
      yes having children exposes you to a huge amount of love and sacrifice, but that is not the only way to experience those things. and to argue that parents are somehow morally superior and more empathic than others, well it’s just patently untrue. and the sense of moral rectitude and entitlement that some parents on here are expressing is repugnant and only demonstrates the fact.
      oh and you have to have kids to understand about the pains of the average aussie battler? lets face it, most pollies are not exactly in the battler category whether they have kids or not.
      and yes, i am a parent.

      Reply

    • progressivesunite says:

      10:37pm | 04/04/11

      I’m not making this comment to all parents, just the self-righteous ones who have attacked the childless as ‘adolescents’ or ‘less human’ etc - have you ever thought that maybe you are the adolescent or less human one, considering you apparently were incapable of empathy or of being a “whole” person until you were handed something external to focus on? Maybe you’re the immature one?

      People contribute to the world in all sorts of ways - sometimes their value is actually greater if they have no children than if they stay in the suburbs and focus only on their own offspring…there’s nothing inherently wrong with the latter, but don’t try to say it makes you better than people who don’t choose that path…

      A final point - profound things happen to people all the time - and believe it or not they don’t necessarily have anything to do with having children. Growing up a member of a minority can give you empathy and compassion that most others don’t have (think gay people in a hetro society), getting cancer or similar at a young age would probably make you more aware of what matters in life than just getting pregnant one drunk night - etc etc

      We’ve all got a different road to travel…..

      Reply

    • the whisperer says:

      11:06pm | 04/04/11

      Now I know why those bloody sadistic Nuns made my young life so painfilled and miserable. If only you judgemental models of human perfection had been around then, and explained to me the reason for their cruelty and that of their male counterparts, I may have understood. Alas, alack, it’s too late now. Do all of those criticising our P.M. because she lacks character due to her decision not to have children level the same criticism at the childless McKillop. Or is that different?
      Latham was, and is a dangerous man. Anyone subscribing to his rants is just as dangerous. And surely, his supporters in this matter can hardly criticise anyone else for being supportive of him in the early part of his prominence.  Worse, this later group of opportunists have the benefit of hindsight and still say he talks sense. They should ask the Mad Monk whether he thinks women who don’t have children lack love, and sympathy, and mercy. Women like Mary McKillop. Or Julia Gilliard.

      Reply

    • Huey says:

      08:12am | 05/04/11

      Latham is a dickhead!  Not even the relevance of being an ex-PM.

      Reply

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      10:51am | 05/04/11

      So Marky thinks “anyone who whinges about the cost of living is being greedy” Well Marky would know all about that wouldn’t he? He was a grossly over-paid politician. He has a Superannuation Plan to which he contributed almost nothing. He happliy & greedily accepted every cent we, the Taxpayers, poured into it. He, just like the rest of them, held out his hands for every one of the massive pay’n'perks increases the politicians-appointed Remuneration Tribunal rubber-stamped for them.
      If Marky did start whingeing about the cost of living he would, rightly, be branded a hypocrite.
      As for his below-the-belt attack on Gillard because of her admirable decision not to have children - just as Brandis & Heffernan did- that is to be deplored. For these men to attack Gillard, or any other woman or couple for not having children, is despicable & their Parties should immediately dis-endorse them.
      Way back when the world’s population reached 4 billion the world’s politicians were screeching that “The world is over-populated, mass starvation is just around the corner, people should stop breeding etc.“Then when the world’s population reached 6 billions what did our stupid, brain-dead Australian politicians do? They introduced their $5000.00 Baby Buying Programme! A programme which paid people to have more babies & increase the already over-populated world!
      Our politicians would rather pay people $5000.00 a head to have babies than address the disgrace of some 40-plus million, mostly young, males & females languishing in thousands of refugee camps & millions of others are starving to death every year around the world. All people who with the right opportunities would create a much better world.
      This question must be asked:
      Why does the media give any space to the rantings & sexist abuse Mark Latham utters? Ignore him, refuse to publish anything about him - including his death whenever it occurs - simply shut him down. Ok! He’ll have Facebook or somesuch arena to chatter on but will anyone read it? The man thrives on the oxygen of publicity. Cut off the Oxygen.

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      12:13pm | 05/04/11

      Unfortunately for Latham he is a very poor advertisement for his own theory.

      Why is it that some of the nastiest comments on here are from people who identify themselves as parents? Shouldn’t they be more loving, caring, empathetic, etc.?
      The truth is that popping out a kid or two doesn’t suddenly make you an angel, regardless of what you might like to think. It doesn’t take any special skill or brains to do, as a trip to my local shopping centre will confirm.

      I’ve got absolutely no time for Gillard (worst PM in my lifetime, with Rudd a close second), but judging her on whether or not she has children is ludicrous and offensive.

      Reply

    • Grady Coates says:

      06:14pm | 05/04/11

      Mark needs to break another taxi drivers arm

      Reply

    • Byron says:

      08:24pm | 05/04/11

      Having children and caring for the and loving them means you are capable of loving copies of yourself.  How does this make a person any more “human”?

      It is still a manifestation of “genetic selfishness” and I don’t see how that has any bearing whatsoever on a person’s ability to feel a sense of altruism in their dealings with humanity as a whole.

      Reply

    • Byron says:

      08:25pm | 05/04/11

      Having children and caring for the and loving them means you are capable of loving copies of yourself.  How does this make a person any more “human”?

      It is still a manifestation of “genetic selfishness” and I don’t see how that has any bearing whatsoever on a person’s ability to feel a sense of altruism in their dealings with humanity as a whole.

      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

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

by David Penberthy

0

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

by Paul Toohey

0

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

by Angela Mollard

0

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

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