Comments on: Women as means to an end

By: John Hasenkam

John Hasenkam — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 03:31:22 +0000

Isn’t coerced child support about “using” men (predominantely) to give kids a better outcome?

Under the Stage 2 scheme is was all about saving the govt money. The non-custodial parent was often left with a pitiful small amount to live on. That’s why the govt moved to joint custody, which helps solve the finance issue but is probably hell on many kids – can you imagine constantly changing homes?

By: John Greenfield

John Greenfield — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:23:55 +0000

In this case, economics IS culture. Her argument is pure Culture War. I don’t have any gripe with that, it is just the language that grates like nails down a chalkboard – “privileging,” “social conservatives,” “reactionary gender norms”.

By: TerjeP

TerjeP — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:42:44 +0000

Isn’t coerced child support about “using” men (predominantely) to give kids a better outcome? Isn’t compulsory education about forcing parents to do stuff that gives kids a better outcome? Isn’t child care benefits and family tax benefits about using taxpayers to give kids a better outcome?

I have not read the book but there seems to be a long tradition of using adults for the sake of the kiddies. Women (ie lots of them but not all) seem to like it when the state forces other people to contribute to the well being of their kids or even kids in general. They seem to make substantially more noise when it is suggested that the state should force them to contribute more themselves to the well being of their own kids.

If you have kids I do think that there is an argument pertaining to duty. Whether the state is required to enforce that duty is another matter. It is one of the few areas where I think positive rights (ie for the child) have some currency. I still tilt towards liberty, however kids are not adults.

Just sayin.

p.s. Looking after young kids full time is somewhat akin to living in a combat zone. Even if your kids are the beautiful well mannered creative type (ie not the ones that super nanny visits). If you don’t like kids my advice is that you shouldn’t have kids.

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:04:27 +0000

It depends on context. There’s such a thing as ‘misuse of market power’ under the Trade Practices Act, while ‘duress’ and ‘undue influence’ have long been a part of the law of contract (common law). I can’t say much more than that without sliding into the provision of legal advice, which both LE and I swore we wouldn’t do when we started this blog.

By: Jules

Jules — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:47:56 +0000

Need to hear some thoughts on a couple of questions. Is Economic Coercion illegal in Australia? In the situation where a corporation is almost holding a private citizen to blackmail.

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:42:46 +0000

She’s using it in its economic context, where it does indeed have practical policy implications. Not everything is reducible to meaningless culture wars psychobabble.

By: John Greenfield

John Greenfield — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:34:19 +0000

Oh and let’s get a few rounds ready for “transgress” and “subvert”.

By: John Greenfield

John Greenfield — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:31:08 +0000

they would privilege heterosexual two-parent families

Whenever I see “privilege” used as a verb in the context of a Culture War argument I reach for my revolver.

It’s up there with “the Other”, “problematic,” “objectification,” and “male gaze”.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:53:47 +0000

Kevvie’s one of those areas where Graeme’s right. He is a Stepford Husband. He’s almost as irritating as Beazley was.

Speaking of Graeme he’s busy busting kilt-wearing Scotsmen in the nose in the hope that one of ‘em is me.

Good luck. I haven’t worn a kilt since I was a lad.

By: skepticlawyer

skepticlawyer — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:36:58 +0000

Ruddles is into it, too – although no Australian politician goes this far; he’d be electoral chopped liver if he did.