Whaleoil have a post about the call from the HRC for the Govt to apologise about Child Abuse in State Care, supported by Jacinda Ardern. What caught my attention is the headline: Socialist Cindy, the childless champion of children
I am sorry, but her being childless should be irrelevant, I think that is just nasty to say that about her. There was a similar (sort of) situation here during the Conservative Party leadership election when it seemed one of the candidates kept prefacing every comment with ‘as a mother I….’, this was a direct dig at Theresa May who had no children, and the inference is that people with no children have no empathy – Cameron Slater is using the same tactic here. Pete tries to justify it, but in my view it is still shoddy on their part, and stigmatising Jacinda for not being a mother, and detracting from the point of the article – whether you agree or not with it.
I agree that having a dig at someone for being childless is nasty. perhaps this is some of the ‘more dirty’ that Slater has been talking about doing this year.
As Missy says, Pete Belt tries to defend the indefensible.
Spambot42: How is Cindy being childless relevant to the content of the article and the entirely relevant point you made about it…?
Pete Belt: She is the shadow minister for children. If they appointed a chinese person as minister of maori affairs, that would be notable. So, so is a childless woman being a children’s advocate.
BayPomNZ: She has been a child at some point in time so perhaps your analogy isn’t quite correct. I agree with spambot42 that being childless is completely irrelevant to ifnshed do a good job or not.
Pete Belt: It remains a factual statement. It is up to the reader to decide if it is relevant. As a parent, knowing what I thought about parenting and children before I became a parent, and what I know now, I feel confident in saying that a childless person can no understand what it is like to to have children and how their needs, thoughts and lives are experienced.
It may be a factual statement but it’s both nasty and stupid.
It’s ridiculous to suggest that any spokesperson role in politics is only credible if the person has been a mother, been a general, been a policeman, been a child in a sole parent family, been a property investor, been a tax evader etc etc.
Truby King founded Plunket and did a lot to teach mothers domestic hygiene and childcare, but he had never been a mother. That doesn’t negate what he achieved in reducing infant mortality. He also improved nutrition at the Seacliff psychiatric hospital, but I’m not aware of him having been a mental patient.
The Whale Oil headline is a dirty dig at Ardern, typical of Slater’s approach to politics. Talking of which, Slater has never been an MP, by Belt’s standards that means Slater being a political advocate is something worthy of taunting and degrading.
This just highlights the fact that Whale Oil is largely a political activist blog, and having never been a real journalist his attempts to portray his blog as an alternate new media should be rubbished by Belt, if he was to be consistent.