The leftward and other blatherings of Span (now with Snaps!)

Sunday, April 10, 2005

a barren argument

Why are right wingers so obsessed with Clark and her breeding habits?

Look maybe Clark doesn't have children because she and Davis can't. Or maybe they chose not to. Does it really matter that much?

I don't have any inside information but really who cares if they have kids or not, I don't really think it impacts on Clark's abilities as PM. If she were not a she it wouldn't even be an issue. Wasn't Savage childless?

And hang on a minute, there should not only be no Pope Juniors around, the man wasn't even allowed to have sex for decades and decades. No questioning his status as a world leader of great wisdom and import (not an opinion I share) by those on the right.

Interestingly the Old PMs site (kudos to DPF for his involvement) didn't seem to mention the parental status of any of the PMs I looked up on it.

I'm no fan of Clark myself (although I vastly prefer her to Brash it's merely a lesser of two evils preference) but I get really peeved about this line of argument, that she is somehow less of a human being because she has no offspring.

Surely we have evolved to be more than just gene carriers?


Graham Watson said...

The point they're trying to raise is that those childless are out of touch with the realities of being parents, not that they are not suitably qualified to be PM.

Some of course would say to be in touch with these realities should be a pre requisite to be PM. I fail to see why, although it may be helpful in some circumstances.

And it may not necessarily be the case that those without children are out of touch with the realities of being parents.

It may be that they are well aware and therefore decided not to have children, to focus on career maybe.
They may be bilogically unable, more commom than many think.

I would advance however that those childless are less attuned to the realities of being a parent. So what?

Xavier said...

I agree with those sentiments Graham. I didn't like the way Judith Collins wrote her little press release though, it just didn't seem to have any...point other than to say that Helen was somehow out of touch. I think that if New Zealanders thought that, they would express it at the polls later in the year

Greg Stephens said...

So, according to the right, parents are the foundation of society (hence why Helen Clark is 'out of touch'), but they refuse to support families through providing extra financial support, childcare for under 5s etc.

And how can Helen be out of touch when she is the most popular political leader in the country? Isn't it the case that Don is out of touch?

Make Tea Not War said...

Parents aren't just one homogenous group with identical views all facing identical challenges The implication that you have to have children yourself to be qualified to be PM is just silly. Whatever next? Someone suggesting that you must have had car accident/serious health problem to make an effective decision about funding for health?

Jacqui said...


that's what amuses me!

span said...

well i'm not sure we can categorically say he never had sex. we can definitely say he probably didn't after he pledged celibacy on becoming a priest. but there must have been some years between having working genitalia and putting on the black suit...

Anonymous said...

The whole thing is a vicious smear by the right wingers, hoping to get a few votes from the bigots. They can't beat Labour on policy, so they go ugly and personal. All the more reason for keeping Act/National out.