BellaOnline Forums Relationships Married No Kids Have a look at this!

Have a look at this! A political contender was told she was no good because she was "delibratley baron!"

BellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

Hope, thanks for posting this!

Here's what I posted (it may or may not be "published" on the site):

Folks, it's "barren", not "baron"...unless you really think this consciously childfree woman is a titled lord from Europe(?). Besides, "barren" isn't even the right term to use here --- "barren" means someone who's infertile and *can't* have children. The politician in question, despite all evidence of huge pressure on her otherwise, has deliberately *chosen* not to have children. In the States, such a woman are known sometimes as "childfree", but more often as "her own woman"...

20% of American women over the age of 40 have no children. Some by choice, others by chance (i.e., they're infertile and have decided not to adopt or spend obscene amounts of money on infertility procedures.)

Kudos to Gillard for having the guts to live her life, and furthermore to take on politics in the apparent "old boys' club" of Australian politics. With nearly 7 BILLION people on this planet, the last thing we need is for a woman who's doubtful about parenthood to be pressured into having a child...but good, courageous political leadership? That's something we could use.

As a US citizen, I can't vote for you, Ms. Gillard, but I will be following your progress.

Elise M.
Doting auntie, high school teacher,
and proudly childfree woman

That's beautiful Elise!

Elsie I will be checking that as the morning goes on to see if they publish it.Will let you know VERY well written

There is a voteline question for today asking if julia gillard would make a good leader because she has no kids.
If any of you have the time could you please vote?

If any of you are members of other cf forums could you please post the link?

BellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

Ug! I can't believe they seriously need a poll for that! I voted, and saw it's 70% no, so that's pretty good. But still...

This is completely absurd! I voted in her favor, BTW.

There are plenty of successful woman managers in the world, that don't have children. They are leaders. And they bring a focus to the job that many childed women cannot because they aren't encumbered by all of the stresses and details of being a Mom.

And, if a male candidate had children by a woman he wasn't married to, and deserted her, no one would care. Or, if he was married with kids and didn't do anything with or for the kids, no one would care. Why? Because that's the norm...

This woman made a responsible decision, and it's being held against her.

Bush admitted when he was "young and irresponsible, he was young and irresponsible." And he's the president of the United States. It was okay for him to be a rampant alcoholic, as long as he's "saved" now. Rampant drinking is irresponsible, choosing to be CF is not.

I know, alcoholism is a disease. But I have a lot of alcoholics in my family, and alcs have a lot of underlying issues.

Bush is always talking family this, and family that. And he's into taking all of women's reproductive freedom away from them. And you KNOW he contributed nothing towards raising his children. He's a conservative Christian, the bible says it's woman's job, blah blah blah. His children are trophies, there to make him look good.

Men have no say in women's issues as far as I'm concerned. They don't do any of the work, but yet they want to force impoverished and other women to have children they don't want. And they want to judge a woman is she isn't willing to sign up for a 20-year domestic contract. They wouldn't do it in a million years, if they had to care for children in the way that women do.

They are just threatened by her b/c she had the nerve to stand up to tradition. And they want her in the home like all the other woman, so they can run the show, and do the "important" work.

Oooh, I'm steaming over this one...

Happy- This sort of thing goes through my mind a lot too.

You know, the reality is, if this woman had kids, she probably wouldn't be in a position to run for office. She would have lost so much momentum over the years while she was at home wiping noses and putting bandaids on knees.

These are the things woman are able to do BECAUSE they don't have kids. And they want us to be at a disadvantage, so we are out of the competition.

Ironically, they don't respect the work women do in the home. But then they want to use it against someone when they can. It's a lose lose situation. They would belittle a mother candidate in some way. What does she know about running an office, she spent however many years at home managing domestic detail.

Or, she's a bad Mom, she's too ambitious. She's running for office when her primary concern should be her kids. No one would ever say any of this about a man running for office. Infuriating.

Or, how is she going to handle the job. She has three kids at home to care for.

This candidate has the time to dedicate, and they are holding it against her.

It really hasn't gone down well in Australia. They're a pretty happy-go-lucky lot in Aussie, and pretty much your business is your business, so the public backlash has been quite startling. This morning :

An angry Prime Minister John Howard says he has told Bill Heffernan that he was wrong to describe deputy Labor leader Julia Gillard as unfit to lead because she is "deliberately barren".
The Liberal senator was forced to apologise to Ms Gillard yesterday after a blistering phone call from the prime minister.
Labor frontbenchers have called for him to be sacked for claiming that Ms Gillard could not understand the community because she had chosen to remain childless.
His Liberal colleagues Malcolm Turnbull and Helen Coonan have also attacked the comments, describing them as appalling and absolutely unacceptable.
Mr Howard today said he had told Mr Heffernan "in no uncertain terms" that he was wrong to comment on Ms Gillard's personal life.
But he did not comment on whether Mr Heffernan, one of his close friends, should be sacked.
"It was wrong. I rang him and told him so in no uncertain terms. He's apologised," Mr Howard told Southern Cross Broadcasting.
"People should not talk about those things. What people do with their lives is their own business and I have never regarded the question of whether you're married or have children as being a criterion to determine whether you're fit to hold high office.
That's a matter of your ability and your performance and your integrity and your commitment."
"I don't really have anything more to say than that. I have made my position very clear and Bill knows it in no uncertain terms."
Ms Gillard said she could understand if other women had been offended by Mr Heffernan's comments.
"Women know how tough it is to make choices about family, about career," she said.
Her decision not to have children was not due to medical problems but to a series of choices throughout her life about career and relationships, she said.
"That set of choices adds up to one big choice at the end," she said.
"It certainly would have been worse if he had made those remarks and the truth was that I had a genuine medical problem."
Labor colleagues called for Mr Heffernan to be sacked.
Labor frontbencher Tanya Plibersek said Mr Heffernan should be apologising to the thousands of childless Australians who were struggling to conceive.
"Bill Heffernan is not someone you would take very seriously and you would not set much store in his opinions," Ms Plibersek said.
Mr Heffernan should have resigned from federal parliament years ago, she said.