Reviled by the now-Opposition for being “deliberately barren”, Gillard’s body, looks and fertility choices have been scrutinised and dissected by the media at least as much as her policies and competencies have been examined.
So fertility-fetishist culture warrior Angela Shanahan has got her sour on. She attempts to explain in “Why Julia is a heroine to creaky feminist gorgons”. I gotta admit, I’m still a bit confused – who exactly is the creaky gorgon in this picture? – but maybe you can make some sense of it:
AS we all know by now, Julia Gillard is a woman.
If the import of this fact has not already caused your world view to shift with seismic force, then the avalanche of banality – in the style of Year 8 schoolgirl essayists set the task of describing “Why I would like to be acting prime minister” – may cause a little trembling or even nausea.
As for me, along with 90 per cent of the female population living lives of unutterable suburban drudgery, the undeniable femaleness of the two-day Acting Prime Minister failed to inspire any paeans of deliverance from the chains of the patriarchy. We are rather too busy getting on with our lives: educating our children, cooking the meals, putting the washing on the line and (dare I say it) changing the nappies, while also working in schools, shops, offices and hospitals, and writing columns, to be bothered about the symbolic import of Gillard’s elevation.
Gillard, though, was naturally inclined to conform to the role model feminist mantra, saying that mothers had brought their daughters to see her during the election campaign and hoping that they would pause to recognise the significance of her short-lived elevation.
Unfortunately, we have come to expect from the press that this boring, public obeisance to feminist orthodoxy is normal whenever a powerful woman arrives on the scene. Why?
Women who attain high public office are the natural heroines of those creaky old gorgons, not because of virtue but because the sisterhood has always elevated power over virtue and condemned marriage and children as domestic slavery. They would rather see children reared by paid carers than their own mothers (known in Eva Cox fem-speak as home-based carers).
Indeed, they would rather see women deprived of children than deprived of a job because women in this world view are not really valuable as just mothers. They are valuable only if they are also workers.
The notion that caused a lot of huffing and puffing last year, that Gillard could not represent the average Australian because she was “deliberately barren” and had no acquaintance with the uses of the bucket and a product called Napisan, was deemed deeply offensive by the ultra-PC press gallery. But, really, it was wrong on only one count: that her circumstances would bar her from rising to her new position.
After all, how could Gillard become Deputy Prime Minister and represent anyone’s interests in that role if she did have any children? Her childlessness, ironically for the huffy-puffy media, is exactly why Gillard is a natural feminist heroine. She can devote her entire life to the pursuit of office and power.
Read the rest here.
For a taste of Shanahan’s past, read “Sex revolution robbed us of fertility”:
Despite the media’s discomfort, the fertility crisis in the West is a moral problem and, of course, only moral leaders such as Pope BenedictXVI have the guts and authority to enunciate it.
The truth about declining fertility is not all that complicated. It is the inevitable result of a so-called sexual revolution that broke the nexus between sex and having children, and has skewed our relationships, particularly marriage, forever.
What the media coyly refer to as private morality — also known as sexual morality — is having all too public social consequences.
On average, women in Europe will now only bear 1.5 children each, and in some places it is down to 1.2. The enlightened West can’t produce enough children to fuel its economy or maintain its culture.