In an interview which is bound to cause a frenzy of comments over at the Julia Gillard fan club known as Larvatus Prodeo, Julia indicates that she has deliberately chosen career over children. Women can't have it all, after all, it seems. She's also in a relationship that appears to have no immediate prospect of moving into co-habitation, making it sound like she has "commitment issues" (either that or she unwisely hangs around with men who do,) and to cap it all makes it clear that she is one of those irritating children of the 60's who still haven't gotten over the "marriage is just a piece of paper" rebellion of the 70's.
Tim Dunlop, who is going to need years of therapy if Labor loses the next Federal election, therefore has to spin this as perhaps not really influencing how people vote. Let's face it Tim, it's not exactly a vote winner though, is it?
It's also odd timing that the Julia interview comes after Nancy Pelosi is held up by the media in the States as a groundbreaking example of a woman succeeding despite having a whole houseful of children. Mark Steyn's commentary on this was the most interesting.
The thing is, I reckon there are ways Julia could explain her life and attitudes which would, even if not all that genuinely felt by her, not be able to be nitpicked by either side. She just hasn't learnt how to do that yet.
She can send me money if she wants my advice, though.
Update: just to fend off some possible criticism of this post: I am not saying that all conservative attack on her will be fair, but at the same time I think there is a sizeable slab of the breeding population (not all of whom vote Liberal) who share my social conservative instinct to prefer as politicians men and women with children, or at least those who seem to like children enough to have wanted some if circumstances allowed. On the other hand, there will be Labor supporting feminists who are not going to be comfortable about the spin that can be put on her seeming "can't have it all" attitude.
My main point therefore is that she is too good at setting herself up for attack from both sides with this sort of talk. She should either decline to talk about it at all, or find the ways that do pre-empt attack.
Update II: Hmm, it's at least 12 hours and still no post at LP about this. I am surprised. Should I be worried if I can't predict what will or won't get them posting? Nah, not really. Maybe they are too busy reviewing old posts for entry into some new competition for best opinion writing from a soft left perspective.
Well, if not for you keeping me up to date on these things I would not have known about her Bulletin interview.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the folk at LP haven't yet read your blog this week?
Agree: her points are all wrong, even if there is truth to them. Too late for her to spin any new story though, she's already put it out there.
The "having it all" crap was always a lie, but I can't say I support Gillard's vision of the alternative, and the message that sends to young women; all women: If you want to "succeed", don't marry, don't have children.
Almost without exception, the (tiny number) of female CEOs in this country have children, often numerous of such.
Gillard is painting a retrograde view of the world, which is strange, given that she's only just at the end of the baby boomer generation. Her justification for her personal decisions is a very old fashioned one.