![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
good old rant
Whoa.
As![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
m_minna said: I hope it's a joke.
ETA: It isn't. But at least Indiana is a sensible state.
It stinks unpleasantly of The Handmaid's Tale to me. And Australia isn't much better; $3000 bonus if you pump out the kiddies, women! Who cares that $3000 isn't going to pay for jack shit once you've actually HAD the kid, and that you're then tied to at least eighteen years of financial burden, IF you decide to raise the child half-decently.
Oh, here we are -tapedeck reminded me of this.
May 11 2004
Canberra - Australian couples owe it to their country to have more children and should get on with the job, the nation's treasurer said on Tuesday.
"You go home and do your patriotic duty tonight," Peter Costello said when asked by a journalist if he was "the family-friendly treasurer saying get out there and procreate".
In a federal budget handed down on Tuesday, Costello promised Aus$3 000 (about R15 000) for every baby born after June as part of a Aus$19,2-billion "family package" to be distributed over five years.
Costello said that two youngsters per couple in the nation of 20 million just wasn't adequate.
"If you can have children it's a good thing to do. You should have one for your husband, one for your wife, and one for your country," Costello said.
"If you want to fix the aging demographic, you're just back to square after two. You make no net improvement," the former-lawyer and father-of-three said.
Some would have to go one step further by having extra children "for your country" to make up the gap left by friends who "aren't even replicating themselves", the treasurer said. *
(quoted from the Newmark's Door blog, here)
I mean, my friends and I make jokes about the fact that not many of us want kids, so the few who do will have to have huge families to compensate, but jesus FUCK. This just makes me so angry. Are we building an army? I'm surprised he didn't slip in something about how the government would prefer it if women did their darnedest to produce sons, because nothing about this whole business has got anything to do with gender equality whatsoever. Three kids. Yeah. That's not going to put the SLIGHTEST dent in any woman's professional career. You bloody myopic dolt.
I've seen two teenage mothers - both of whom looked younger than me - in the past week. I just. How can this be a healthy thing for ANYONE involved? But that's veering off on a freedom-of-choice tangent, and I don't want to get started on that. I want to make lunch and watch some House and then do some research.
* Um. Replicating themselves? We appear to be steering into genetic cloning territory, here, though I think it's just Costello's poor grasp on basic biology.
As
m_minna said: I hope it's a joke.ETA: It isn't. But at least Indiana is a sensible state.
It stinks unpleasantly of The Handmaid's Tale to me. And Australia isn't much better; $3000 bonus if you pump out the kiddies, women! Who cares that $3000 isn't going to pay for jack shit once you've actually HAD the kid, and that you're then tied to at least eighteen years of financial burden, IF you decide to raise the child half-decently.
Oh, here we are -
tapedeck reminded me of this.May 11 2004
Canberra - Australian couples owe it to their country to have more children and should get on with the job, the nation's treasurer said on Tuesday.
"You go home and do your patriotic duty tonight," Peter Costello said when asked by a journalist if he was "the family-friendly treasurer saying get out there and procreate".
In a federal budget handed down on Tuesday, Costello promised Aus$3 000 (about R15 000) for every baby born after June as part of a Aus$19,2-billion "family package" to be distributed over five years.
Costello said that two youngsters per couple in the nation of 20 million just wasn't adequate.
"If you can have children it's a good thing to do. You should have one for your husband, one for your wife, and one for your country," Costello said.
"If you want to fix the aging demographic, you're just back to square after two. You make no net improvement," the former-lawyer and father-of-three said.
Some would have to go one step further by having extra children "for your country" to make up the gap left by friends who "aren't even replicating themselves", the treasurer said. *
(quoted from the Newmark's Door blog, here)
I mean, my friends and I make jokes about the fact that not many of us want kids, so the few who do will have to have huge families to compensate, but jesus FUCK. This just makes me so angry. Are we building an army? I'm surprised he didn't slip in something about how the government would prefer it if women did their darnedest to produce sons, because nothing about this whole business has got anything to do with gender equality whatsoever. Three kids. Yeah. That's not going to put the SLIGHTEST dent in any woman's professional career. You bloody myopic dolt.
I've seen two teenage mothers - both of whom looked younger than me - in the past week. I just. How can this be a healthy thing for ANYONE involved? But that's veering off on a freedom-of-choice tangent, and I don't want to get started on that. I want to make lunch and watch some House and then do some research.
* Um. Replicating themselves? We appear to be steering into genetic cloning territory, here, though I think it's just Costello's poor grasp on basic biology.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Okay, I hate my country for things like that, and your country....wtf?
*uses icon of wtf-ness*
no subject
(Anonymous) 2005-10-06 06:09 am (UTC)(link)I'm totally twitching over it too--in my Social Com class I learned a lot about how Australia can't support the population. (infertile land, etc.) Did you know that Australia is actually the biggest urban based country in the world? Most of our population lives in the cities. *stabs costello* He should do some actual research before he goes off spurting his gob.
no subject
no subject
I don't suppose you're free tomorrow night at all.
*coughSCRUBSMARATHONcough*
no subject
no subject
a) just to be different, i'll say that the first article has a point. while i OBVIOUSLY disagree with marriage being a requirement for children - parents should totally need a license. you know if you have animal torture on your criminal record you're not legally allowed to own a pet? and yet ANYONE can legally have a child. how can we justify that? i think something as incredibly significant as creating LIFE should be a privilege of people who can demonstrate they're competent parents.
b) i find the Liberal Government's immigration policy particularly sickening in reference to things like this. i've seen this interview, and someone asks him why we can't supplement the population with migrants and his response is basically that they're inferior to good Australian blood. even if i DID judge myself as a competent parent, i wouldn't have children out of SPITE.
no subject
What the fuck??
I just. I am seeing so many shades of red right now. I need something to hit.
I thought of The Handmaid's Tale, too, actually. And it doesn't look like things are going much more brilliantly where you are. Why, why are all of us electing dumbasses as our government officials?
no subject
no subject
A shiny distraction! (http://pics.livejournal.com/kentraine/pic/0007440z)
In case you want to fiddle with it yourself. I'll go home and make icons with it later.