Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee
Regarding: Paid Parental Leave Scheme Bill 2010
Back in February when Abbott attempted to trump the Governments proposed Paid Parental Leave scheme, spokeswoman for the National Foundation for Australian Women, Marie Coleman praised the move, believing Australia lags behind the international community’s standard for paid leave and that six months is the minimum required after the birth of a new baby.
"Indeed the scientific data on child development and the need for parental bonding would suggest that 12 months would be ideal," Coleman said.
Indeed.
Despite Unicef’s recent warning that placing a baby in childcare before the age of 1 can lead to aggressive and anti-social behavior during primary school, the Government continues to award women who return to work and ignores the needs of the majority who choose to stay at home with their children.
According to leading child psychologist and parenting author, Steve Biddulph, children under the age of 3 should not be placed in institutionalized childcare, but should remain in the care of a close relative, as formal or institutionalized daycare situations can lead to separation anxiety, emotional vulnerability and stress.
So the Government continues to ignore the mounting evidence in favour of full-time parent-administered childcare during the formative years. And the Government continues to ignore the 79% of 18-34 year olds who, in a recent Galaxy poll, voted for equal funding for all mothers.
Considering that unwaged mothers represent the majority of those who receive financial assistance in the child-rearing years, one might have expected the Government to be slightly more concerned about where their votes are coming from.
Please abandon this discriminatory and detrimental scheme in favour of a universal childcare endowment which assists all families equally.
© Eva Whiteley 2010
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Pornography = Negative Sex Education
Educators have finally begun to discuss the damaging effect
of pornography on young people.
In their interviews with 140 young people, Dr David Corlett
and Maree Crabbe found that violent, graphic and sexist pornography is being
widely accessed by teenagers. Accessibility to pornography has been exacerbated
by high internet usage, social media addiction and imported video games.
Corlett and Crabbe developed a documentary out of the
interviews and hope to use it as proof that pornography provides “negative sex
education”.
And with 92 per cent of boys and 61 per cent of
girls between the age of 13 and 16 having viewed pornography online, it is
Australia’s most dominant sex educator.
For years, educators have noticed and
acknowledged disturbing increases in eating disorders, coerced underage sex and
low self esteem. This research is the first major look at how pornography might
be affecting the increase.
© Eva Whiteley 2012
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Next Top Nothing
In our enlightened age of women’s rights and equal
opportunity, it’s hard to believe there is such a competition as America’s Next Top Model.
Or that it’s endorsed by scores of sponsors and celebrities.
Or that it’s endorsed by scores of sponsors and celebrities.
The pseudo-reality tv show was created by Tyra Bank – or at
least by her PR agency who must have thought it a smart business move. And how
right they were.
Her production company, Bankable Productions (apt name
choice), has spread the competition and programme to Australia, Canada, Britain
and Ireland. Quite the lucrative little franchise.
The show is aired on prime time television in Australia and
their Facebook page boasts a following of nearly 5 million.
Since when did 5
million individuals start to think that the objectification of women was a
thing to ‘like’? When did we start to think that modeling was all about
conformity rather than creativity?
That women across the globe are lending their support to
the objectification of a select group of other women proves how far we have
fallen from an earlier equality with men.
It is truly mind-numbing to sit through even 5 minutes of the
show. Never mind an enter episode. And it would be comical if it were not so
tragic and offensive.
In past seasons, contestants have been made to participate in
lesbian photo shoots, size 8 hopefuls have been told they are too fat and women
have been forced to portray brawling and abuse, making a mockery of real abuse
crime.
In the 2007 season of America’s
Next Top Model, one potential posed with “MY CHOICE” sprawled across her
naked midriff and is styled in what looks like a back alley.
The show took the glorification of violence to a new level, again
in 2007, with the modeling of crime scene shoots for all contestants. The girls
were asked to play dead in a shoot which effectively glamorised murder and made
it imperative to play dead while still looking sexy.
Because everyone needs to look sexy after they’ve been
decapitated, thrown off a building or had their organs removed.
In a recent survey of eight hundred British teens aged
between 11 and 16, 50% of girls said they compared their bodies to those of
television personalities, and that they would be willing to take diet pills or laxatives
to lose weight. The survey comes off the back of revelations earlier this year that
5 year olds are being hospitalized with severe anorexia.(1)
With this kind of toxic entertainment lingering on, communities shouldn’t wonder at such frightening survey results.
© Eva Whiteley 2011
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Remove the Market
Kmart made headlines earlier this week for responding to pressure to remove a line of children’s underwear from their retail outlets.
The underpants, geared at girls 16 years and under, brandished slogans such as “I love rich boys”, “I love boys in uniform” and “call me”.
Melinda Tankard Reist, spokesperson for Collective Shout, an organization which campaigns against the objectification of women and the sexualistion of girls, said the underwear was "part of a trend of sexualing girls by treating them as older than they are. It's reducing them to sexual playthings for someone else, and encouraging them to think of themselves in that way."
What is perhaps more disturbing than the confirmation that a big company is trying to make money out of the sexualisation of young girls is the fact that there are parents prepared to buy the products. As with all products of this nature, if there was no market for them, they would cease to be manufactured.
The retail giant removed the line from all of its stores after a brief but vehement public reaction, mobilized through Twitter and Facebook.
© Eva Whiteley 2011
The underpants, geared at girls 16 years and under, brandished slogans such as “I love rich boys”, “I love boys in uniform” and “call me”.
Melinda Tankard Reist, spokesperson for Collective Shout, an organization which campaigns against the objectification of women and the sexualistion of girls, said the underwear was "part of a trend of sexualing girls by treating them as older than they are. It's reducing them to sexual playthings for someone else, and encouraging them to think of themselves in that way."
What is perhaps more disturbing than the confirmation that a big company is trying to make money out of the sexualisation of young girls is the fact that there are parents prepared to buy the products. As with all products of this nature, if there was no market for them, they would cease to be manufactured.
The retail giant removed the line from all of its stores after a brief but vehement public reaction, mobilized through Twitter and Facebook.
© Eva Whiteley 2011
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Barbie Goes Punk
Barbie has been a lot of things in the past 50 years. She’s been a vet, an astronaut, a race car driver, a surgeon and served in all four American military forces. More recently she’s been Catwoman, Grace Kelly, Beyoncé, and now – Punk.
This new Barbie is very much a rich-trashy kind of gal. From her designer sunnies to her sparkling silver stilettos, leopard print tights, pink mini skirt, bangles, belt and bag - this Barbie is all about stuff. Even her dog, Bastardino, is dressed in a cactus costume with a diamond-studded collar.
The neck and back tattoos she sports are hardly a shock amidst the rest of her outfit, which screams “KARDASHIAN”. But it’s the tattoos that have everybody talking.
The response from media and online forum debate has been mixed and heated. A common theme from online opinion is that of relief. Mothers relieved that this “realistic” doll will help their children not to be judgmental of people with tattoos.
(Hate to break it to you “Anonymous Mum”, but it’s actually your job to raise your child to be non-judgmental. It’s unlikely Barbie will achieve this for you. At least not until they make an obese Barbie.)
Other parents find her tattoos repulsive and unnecessary, demeaning and objectifying. But Barbie has always been the model of female objectification - over-sized breasts, non-existent hips, long (usually blonde) hair, flawless skin and the perfect toosh. Nothing about Barbie has ever been real.
At any rate though, the tattoo having an impact on impressionable little girls is kind of beside the point. Mattel’s Barbie Collector website mentions that this new punk Barbie is for the adult collector. (Yes. Adults collect Barbie dolls.) And at $50 USD she isn't priced for the kiddie market.
Toy manufacturers outdo each other in making baby dolls look more like real babies – crying noises, newborn wrinkles, umbilical stubs. But Barbie is in a class of her own. Mattel has never tried to make her more realistic. She’s never been anything but anorexic. And she’s never had a breast reduction to make her anatomically correct. She's never had hips. Opinion columnists coming out of the woodwork to slam Barbie's relatively innocuous tattoos are trying to catch a boat that left 50 years ago.
But during an economic downturn, any publicity is good publicity and, tattoos and all, Mattel is lapping it up.
© Eva Whiteley 2011
This new Barbie is very much a rich-trashy kind of gal. From her designer sunnies to her sparkling silver stilettos, leopard print tights, pink mini skirt, bangles, belt and bag - this Barbie is all about stuff. Even her dog, Bastardino, is dressed in a cactus costume with a diamond-studded collar.
The neck and back tattoos she sports are hardly a shock amidst the rest of her outfit, which screams “KARDASHIAN”. But it’s the tattoos that have everybody talking.
The response from media and online forum debate has been mixed and heated. A common theme from online opinion is that of relief. Mothers relieved that this “realistic” doll will help their children not to be judgmental of people with tattoos.
(Hate to break it to you “Anonymous Mum”, but it’s actually your job to raise your child to be non-judgmental. It’s unlikely Barbie will achieve this for you. At least not until they make an obese Barbie.)
Other parents find her tattoos repulsive and unnecessary, demeaning and objectifying. But Barbie has always been the model of female objectification - over-sized breasts, non-existent hips, long (usually blonde) hair, flawless skin and the perfect toosh. Nothing about Barbie has ever been real.
At any rate though, the tattoo having an impact on impressionable little girls is kind of beside the point. Mattel’s Barbie Collector website mentions that this new punk Barbie is for the adult collector. (Yes. Adults collect Barbie dolls.) And at $50 USD she isn't priced for the kiddie market.
Toy manufacturers outdo each other in making baby dolls look more like real babies – crying noises, newborn wrinkles, umbilical stubs. But Barbie is in a class of her own. Mattel has never tried to make her more realistic. She’s never been anything but anorexic. And she’s never had a breast reduction to make her anatomically correct. She's never had hips. Opinion columnists coming out of the woodwork to slam Barbie's relatively innocuous tattoos are trying to catch a boat that left 50 years ago.
But during an economic downturn, any publicity is good publicity and, tattoos and all, Mattel is lapping it up.
© Eva Whiteley 2011
Saturday, July 16, 2011
A New Breed of Social Retard
Forget the stigma of homeschool. There’s a new kid on the block when it comes to social retardation. And he’s far from educated at home.
Sitting in a doctor’s waiting room last week, I was conscious not to pull out my iPhone and check my email. Conscious because I was worried that my 10 month old might pick a scrap up off the floor and swallow it while I wasn’t looking. Conscious also of the fact that I would have been choosing to connect with this gadget rather than talk to my 3 year old. Conscious – just a little – of what everyone in the waiting room might think of my practicing what I think epitomizes today’s social retard.
I needn’t have worried about the latter pang.
Across from me sat a mother and her 15 year old daughter, still in school uniform at 5 pm. Both were equipped with mobile phones which clearly did more than just make phone calls or send text messages. Neither said a word to the other during the 30 minutes we sat in the room together. Both were completely engrossed in whatever it was their fingers were doing, their eyes were seeing, their minds were taking in.
I was impressed by the concentration of the teenager. Shame it wasn’t an exam. But more impressed by the mother’s interest in her gadget.
It is perhaps not surprising that children and teenagers pick up and become obsessed with digital communication. What is surprising is the rapid rate at which men and women in their 40s and 50s have caught on to this phenomenon. What’s more, they haven’t just caught on, they seem to be engulfed by it. What's missing in the lives of these midlifers that they feel the need to fill them with media?
Facebook and Twitter accounts. MySpace and blogs. Work and personal email addresses. Text messaging, iPhone apps, iPods and iPads. We seem to have more ways of communicating with those outside our sphere than we do with those within. Family members receive a few words a day from us – a conversation or two. Our 450+ Facebook friends receive multiple status updates, the value of which is utterly meaningless. We don’t live in the world of our numerous Facebook friends or Twitter followers any more than they live in ours. We’re lucky if we see half of them in a decade. Yet we pride ourselves on our level of social sophistication.
It must be that socialization has been redefined, because back in the day, if a child sat glued to her mobile phone (to say nothing of the mother) in the doctor’s waiting room… oh wait. Back in the day kids didn’t have mobile phones.
Welcome to the age of social retardation en masse.
© Eva Whiteley 2011
Sitting in a doctor’s waiting room last week, I was conscious not to pull out my iPhone and check my email. Conscious because I was worried that my 10 month old might pick a scrap up off the floor and swallow it while I wasn’t looking. Conscious also of the fact that I would have been choosing to connect with this gadget rather than talk to my 3 year old. Conscious – just a little – of what everyone in the waiting room might think of my practicing what I think epitomizes today’s social retard.
I needn’t have worried about the latter pang.
Across from me sat a mother and her 15 year old daughter, still in school uniform at 5 pm. Both were equipped with mobile phones which clearly did more than just make phone calls or send text messages. Neither said a word to the other during the 30 minutes we sat in the room together. Both were completely engrossed in whatever it was their fingers were doing, their eyes were seeing, their minds were taking in.
I was impressed by the concentration of the teenager. Shame it wasn’t an exam. But more impressed by the mother’s interest in her gadget.
It is perhaps not surprising that children and teenagers pick up and become obsessed with digital communication. What is surprising is the rapid rate at which men and women in their 40s and 50s have caught on to this phenomenon. What’s more, they haven’t just caught on, they seem to be engulfed by it. What's missing in the lives of these midlifers that they feel the need to fill them with media?
Facebook and Twitter accounts. MySpace and blogs. Work and personal email addresses. Text messaging, iPhone apps, iPods and iPads. We seem to have more ways of communicating with those outside our sphere than we do with those within. Family members receive a few words a day from us – a conversation or two. Our 450+ Facebook friends receive multiple status updates, the value of which is utterly meaningless. We don’t live in the world of our numerous Facebook friends or Twitter followers any more than they live in ours. We’re lucky if we see half of them in a decade. Yet we pride ourselves on our level of social sophistication.
It must be that socialization has been redefined, because back in the day, if a child sat glued to her mobile phone (to say nothing of the mother) in the doctor’s waiting room… oh wait. Back in the day kids didn’t have mobile phones.
Welcome to the age of social retardation en masse.
© Eva Whiteley 2011
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Large Family Hysteria
Sometimes – not very frequently - stories of large families are published in magazines and their interviews aired on current affair programmes. These ‘day in the life’ style accounts serve rather to sensationalize than normalize the large family.
These days, any more than 4 children tends to catapult the family into the ‘large’ category, but for the purpose of gossip rags and current affairs television, 8 or more children is usually required.
Always the follow-on opinion, letters to the editor and online comment seethe with an abhorrence for these ‘breeders’, with many a dig about the lack of television, almost-certain religious foundations and cult-like indoctrination that must surely dominate the lives of these children.
How can someone handle so many children? spectators ask. One might ask how a teacher handles 30 children. Surely a mother can handle 8 or 10 of her own children of varying ages better than a teacher who has the care of 25-30 children who are all of the same age. Yet no one interviews the classroom teacher, turning her in to a cover story. It is just the late-30s mum with 8 children who bears the brunt of society’s anti-child vehemence.
So why do some families subject themselves to society’s scorn by agreeing to media coverage of their lives, even if only for a brief moment?
There is something to be said for living a quiet, happy life. Away from the media spotlight and without feeling the need to bring cameras into one’s home to show off how well one is doing with many children.
Children are a blessing. They are not an accomplishment.
© Eva Whiteley 2011
These days, any more than 4 children tends to catapult the family into the ‘large’ category, but for the purpose of gossip rags and current affairs television, 8 or more children is usually required.
Always the follow-on opinion, letters to the editor and online comment seethe with an abhorrence for these ‘breeders’, with many a dig about the lack of television, almost-certain religious foundations and cult-like indoctrination that must surely dominate the lives of these children.
How can someone handle so many children? spectators ask. One might ask how a teacher handles 30 children. Surely a mother can handle 8 or 10 of her own children of varying ages better than a teacher who has the care of 25-30 children who are all of the same age. Yet no one interviews the classroom teacher, turning her in to a cover story. It is just the late-30s mum with 8 children who bears the brunt of society’s anti-child vehemence.
So why do some families subject themselves to society’s scorn by agreeing to media coverage of their lives, even if only for a brief moment?
There is something to be said for living a quiet, happy life. Away from the media spotlight and without feeling the need to bring cameras into one’s home to show off how well one is doing with many children.
Children are a blessing. They are not an accomplishment.
© Eva Whiteley 2011
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Unplanned - A Review
The tale of Abby Johnson’s journey from Planned Parenthood director to pro-life inspiration - Unplanned - made it to the New York Times Bestseller list. And it’s little wonder.
While still in college, Johnson was won over as a Planned Parenthood volunteer, by the idea that increased access to contraception drives the abortion rate down. Johnson herself was twice a victim of this fallacy. Three times she fell pregnant and twice she aborted. All three times she was using contraception.
“There’s an incredible irony in the fact that I had a career in educating women about contraception and yet, for the third time, conceived while using contraceptives.” (page 66)
Her book offers an insight that both pro-lifers and abortion rights advocates can learn from. Pro-lifers could take note that violent and provocative demonstration does more harm than good (note: the murder of notorious late-term abortionist from Kansas, George Tiller, served only to solidify abortion providers) and the pro-abortion camp could perhaps understand the reason pro-lifers stand outside clinics for hours on end in inclement weather - and it's not only to save the babies.
During Johnson’s time at the clinic, the peaceful, prayerful presence of pro-lifers outside the fence amazed the staff and impacted clients in a way the pro-lifers would never have known had Johnson not defected.
The book documents Johnson’s own harrowing experience with a chemical abortion and the ultrasound-guided abortion that led her out of the Planned Parenthood clinic and into the pro-life movement.
It also gives a clear picture of the far-reaching effects of the pro-life movement and the broad spectrum in which pro-life organizations facilitate women to make an informed choice.
Recommended as a challenging read for both pro-lifers and abortion proponents.
© Eva Whiteley 2011
While still in college, Johnson was won over as a Planned Parenthood volunteer, by the idea that increased access to contraception drives the abortion rate down. Johnson herself was twice a victim of this fallacy. Three times she fell pregnant and twice she aborted. All three times she was using contraception.
“There’s an incredible irony in the fact that I had a career in educating women about contraception and yet, for the third time, conceived while using contraceptives.” (page 66)
Her book offers an insight that both pro-lifers and abortion rights advocates can learn from. Pro-lifers could take note that violent and provocative demonstration does more harm than good (note: the murder of notorious late-term abortionist from Kansas, George Tiller, served only to solidify abortion providers) and the pro-abortion camp could perhaps understand the reason pro-lifers stand outside clinics for hours on end in inclement weather - and it's not only to save the babies.
During Johnson’s time at the clinic, the peaceful, prayerful presence of pro-lifers outside the fence amazed the staff and impacted clients in a way the pro-lifers would never have known had Johnson not defected.
The book documents Johnson’s own harrowing experience with a chemical abortion and the ultrasound-guided abortion that led her out of the Planned Parenthood clinic and into the pro-life movement.
It also gives a clear picture of the far-reaching effects of the pro-life movement and the broad spectrum in which pro-life organizations facilitate women to make an informed choice.
Recommended as a challenging read for both pro-lifers and abortion proponents.
© Eva Whiteley 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
