Oy gevalt, there aren't many things a weekend away in the country won't fix. After trundling up to the Yorke Peninsula with mtk and nai, I feel a little like an Oompa Loompa. This could be because I ate enough to satisfy three pregnant women for the duration of their gestations while working extremely hard to stain my skin from the inside out with copious amounts of merlot.
Saturday was a bit of a fizzer as I made the ladies follow me around while I tried to charm a local into letting me use their internet. I had to post my Sunday Mail blog you see, and it hadn't occurred to me that it might be a wise idea to do this BEFORE I set out on an eating weekend. Memo to self: be better at doing shit on time.
Eventually, the kindly folk at the Warooka pub allowed me access to their very private computer while the chef looked on over my shoulder to check I didn't steal any of the giant wads of cash lying about the place. Meanwhile, my amigos sat out front and indulged in glasses of house wine that were dispensed from upside down bottles the size of scuba diving tanks. For realsies. I know who had the better end of the deal.
I urge you all to check out said blog from yesterday. It's all about why I love being one of them lesbo socialist feminasties. The (endless) comments from some faceless person called 'Gender Irrelevant' (and it really is irrelevant - either way, our faceless friend is a douchebag) are worth the clicking trip alone. It never ceases to amaze me how many people are prepared to write off your opinion as bullshit based purely on the fact you're younger than them. Also, how many will insist that all feminists hate men even though you are a living, breathing one standing right in front of them telling them the complete opposite is true and in fact if you could find a man to love right now (in the biblical sense) you would be very well pleased indeed. SIGH.
In other news, here is my hard copy column from yesterday. I'm interested to hear what you think about the comments. For the record, with the exception of Patricia's, I find them certifiably ridiculous.
---------------
Sunday Mail
27/04/2008
I KNOW what it's like to lose a parent at a young age. I could sit here and wax lyrically for hours about the endless questions, self doubt, frustration, grief and recrimination that are gifted to you through death.
I could paint for you a perfect picture of the static emptiness that comes from knowing you'll never touch your loved one again, or hear their voice, or kiss them on the cheek, or smell that identifiable scent that has been your safekeeping since birth.But all that can be easily summed up in five words:
It. Feels. Like. Utter. Shit.*
So I find it hard to understand how someone would bring a child into the world knowing death is lurking ever closer.
I had difficulty articulating my feelings last week when I read that celebrated former broadcaster Philip Satchell's wife Cecily had given birth to a child. Jemimah is spectacularly beautiful, and by all accounts Cecily will make a great mother. But at age 70, Satchell's attitude seemed to me dismissive of the trauma Jemimah will face when her father inevitably dies long before any parent should.
I understand the inclination Cecily had to create a child with the man she loves. As we well know, rational considerations often take a backseat when love and babies are involved.
And after all, the age of first-time parents is climbing across the board throughout Australia. They're certainly not bucking any trends. But just as we discourage 12-year-olds from having children, surely there has to be a reasonable cut-off point in the autumnal years where it's really just a bit irresponsible to be donning your parent hat?
It could just be the leftover pangs of anger associated with the death of my mother talking, but I feel an absurd rage that Satchell, by his own admission, was the one who suggested Cecily have a baby even though he knew he wouldn't "have much time with (her)".
There was no understanding in his comment as to how much time his daughter would have with him.
There are issues of ethics that must come into consideration when having a child. Is it fair to knowingly consign your child to eventual life in a one-parent family because your death is imminent?
At an age when the risk of developing degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's and senile dementia is elevated, can you really say you are taking the best considerations of your potential child into account?
If Satchell were to suffer a debilitating illness tomorrow, his wife would be left with a newborn baby and a husband who might require round-the-clock care. While you can never predict what bucket of mud life might throw in your face, there are some situations where we might reasonably predict that the odds are not exactly in our favour.
YET I've heard very little criticism of Satchell, and I can't help but think it has to do with our attitudes towards parenting.
When Adriana Iliescu became a mother a few years ago at the age of 67, most people (including myself) expressed abject horror.
I imagine this is because mothers are innately expected to be the "real" parent (i.e. sacrifice their lives for their children).
Dads are allowed to get away with the simpler things, like playing with the kids or pushing the pram occasionally.
But the role of a father is so much more important than people acknowledge. I passionately believe that females need strong, positive male role models in their lives who can act as a blueprint for the kinds of men they might one day have their own children with.
While I've no doubt Satchell and Cecily will shower Jemimah with love and attention, I think there's a tinge of sadness and irresponsibility here that shouldn't be ignored.
Every child has the right to believe their parents will live forever – and telling them otherwise won't lessen the gut-wrenching pain when it becomes all too apparent that's not the case.
-------------
And here's what tracey nelson of adelaide had to say about that:
How dare you confuse your own grief over your father's passing with the joy Phillip Satchell and his wife are currently experiencing with the birth of their daughter. I am 49 and have a three year old, my husband is 59. After many years on IVF we gave up hope and discovered ten days after my own father's death that I was pregnant. Do the math and you will see that I conceived at the very time of my dad's death. We will forever cherish our darling Esther but are very much aware that my husband's time with her is limited. She is a gift, just as this other baby is. You have no right to tinge their joy with your clouded judgement over the sudden and sad loss of your own father. As you see from my experience my father's sudden loss brought great joy to others. Some opinions can be expressed and should be expressed as that is our right, but I think the way you have personalised this to one couple is unfortunate. At 26 you really do need more life experience to make those sorts of enormous judgement calls. You are too young to appreciate that you grab joy when it presents, no matter what form it takes and no matter what possible pain it might cause. My father lives on because of the gift I believe he gave me (in my daughter). You should not make judgements based on your own grief (as sad as this is). Age makes people better arbiters of their own fate than 26 year old columnists.
Posted by: tracey nelson of adelaide 10:25pm April 27, 2008
a) Father?
b) How would tracey feel if Philip was actually 'Phillipa'? My guess is she wouldn't be quite as supportive.
c) The old life experience chestnut again! I cannot possibly know anything because I was only hatched yesterday and still have a bug for a brain. I think I love that almost as much as the endless comments about how I love having abortions.
Thoughts?
Peace out (and do head to my news ltd blog and leave a comment. it's so nice to read reason amongst blatant examples of how people don't read the text properly...)
* This appeared in print as "Misery". But "Shit" is more apt.
PS: How good does Big Brother look this year? I'm not even joking.
Posts
14 apples:
I'm not sure I agree with you actually. My father was fifty when I was born. Studies show that children of older parents perform better academically - my intellectual life brings me a great deal of joy, so if my father is partly to thank for that then for that I am immensely grateful. My father was present a lot when I was growing up, he retired when I was in my early teens so was always home when I got home. He fought in world war two, the insight I had into history was unique, my life, in a sense, stretched further back than the other lives of people I knew. My father's age was a gift, despite the limitations, and yes, as a teenager, I was often afraid he would die (he is still alive).
But I think my real resistance to your stance is that I am deeply, intensely opposed to anyone deciding what sort of parent is an acceptable parent - black, white, old, young, gay, disabled, bitter, sad, impoverished, uneducated. Should a woman diagnosed with cancer be given an opportunity to have a baby? I'd argue yes, yes and yes, if she is able, even if her cancer might kill her.
I agree that fathers are important but I also think there is something belittling about the assumption that their main function is as a male role model - anyone can stand in for that. The mysteries of the father-child bond is a mystery of the body, as much so as motherhood (for example, did you know a father's testosterone level drops just after childbirth?) No one can be a constant role model, all of us are weak, angry, tired, stupid, prejudiced and badly behaved sometime. The idea that this signifies a father's primary role is as limiting and insulting as the idea that mothers should stay home.
I do agree though that society is much harder on older mothers than older fathers. That's wrong.
As always, Clem, love your work, even when we're not on the same page. xx
(oops, sorry, sometimes you don't realise how long a comment is until after you post it).
Nah, I agree with you Clem, but also want to point out to Penni that her father was 50 when she arrived, *not* 74, so, if life expectancies etc work out, she can enjoy time with her father for 50 years.
Not so for Philip's daughter. Will he, at age 86 or 87 be around - let alone physically strong enough - to see his daughter finish year 7 ??? Will he be able to remember what year 7 is ???
Yeah - I went and left a comment on the adelaideWOW website.
I also like the bit after you comment there that says:
"Feedback will be rejected if it does not add to a debate, or is a purely personal attack, or is offensive, repetitious, illegal or meaningless, or contains clear errors of fact."
What, like getting the wrong parent?
My point was that a 70 year old father might be more available that a 30 year old father - home more often, not consumed by work, able to read, write, talk, sing, play with their kids. My 65 year old retired dad when I was in my teens was there, present. Even before he retired, he was at the settled end of his work life through my life, not climbing a corporate ladder.
I mean really, where do you set the age limit. 50 is okay but 70 isn't? What about 60? What about 58?
i have to agree wholeheartedly with penni. my father was 47 when i was born and he is still around (a sprightly 82), having outlived a number of the (much younger) fathers of my friends, sadly for them.
my experience of dad is very similar to penni's with hers. he is a fascinating window onto another time - his knowledge of history and geography is extensive and his stories from the early 20th century mindboggling. dad has made my life so rich - he has fostered so many of my interests; books, politics, travel. every day with him is a gift. i've spent my whole life worrying, anticipating his death, but i wouldn't have him any other way.
i recognise that 47 is not 70, but ultimately no-one forced Cecily to have a child with the man she loves. i think in her position i would choose to do the same - pragmatism doesn't really come into the equation if you believe the best parents are people who care about each other.
i agree with you though that double standards are applied when the mother is older as opposed to the father, and it pisses me off.
it doesn't really need saying, but i agree with you more than i disagree with you clem, and i love yer blog. now i'm off to watch harold and maude for the hundredth time, appropriately enough!
I see your point, Susanna, in older Dads being more available to their children but at 74 he's a retired old man. He's not 47 or 50 - he will be EIGHTY when his child starts their first year of primary school.
Truth be told, that child is not likely going to have a father that will be able to run alongside them as they try to ride their bike, or throw a frisbee around with them at the park. That child isn't going to see a father with a rewarding job - or even hobbies - that occupy their time and show them how their parent contributes to the workforce and society.
As for the (obviously younger) female partners who wish to have children with geezers (let's say over the age of sixty to illustrate my point) - are they prepared to accept that most of their child-rearing will be done on their own, and that they will have to endure their child coping with the death of a parent far earlier than most children?
Dear Audrey,
I was thinking today about how you're a failure.
And I got to thinking about exactly why you're so unsucessful at contributing anything to society, like so many other 'riot girl' feminists that have preceeded you. When an interesting question came into my mind...
'Why is it that so many women automatically assume that any male that talks about gender is a misogynist?' It is actually a generalisation in it's own right.
Whenever I try to describe a conservative idea on gender roles to anyone, they frequently attack me, asking irrelevannt questions like "aren't you making a generalisation by saying that?"
To which I usually reply "I'm not 'making' a fucking generalisation, I'm DESCRIBING one". Or "I'm not expressing a personal opinion, merely acknowleging the existence of an idea".
Call me pedantic but I simply believe one must understand what the generalisations are in order to confront them.
And they'll never be confronted as long as feminists keep alienating men by assuming every one of them is a misogynistic, womanising chauvanist.
In order to change the sexist conservative ideas which prevail in the social construct, you need to introduce men to new ideas concerning social roles rather than attacking them for their possibly pre-existing ones.
Why does no-one else see this?!
So then I got thinking about how despite the fact that you want freedom of expression for yourself, you relentlessly enforce a strereotyped image of masculinity. Doting on the aggressive and naively ignorant aspect of the contemporary masculine stereotype.
Could it be you're just a sadomasochist? Who defines themself so much as a feminist that you have to encourage this chauvanistic view of the male, for fear of ever actually acheing equality and no longer having anything to fight against?
Perhaps not, but the fact remains that it's still easier to win someone over to a particular belief-system (equality) with a discussion as oposed to an attack. Something you repeatedly hilariously fail to do.
So I'd be interested to know, do you think you're a failure by design, or just due to your incompetence?
And is this failure due to your psychological inability to empathise with anyone else? Or are you simply self-centred and insensite by choice?
Penni - Hey Penni, thanks for giving me that perspective. I still think there's a huge difference between 50 and 70 but I think what gets me most about this story is how differently it would be treated if Satchell was a woman. I totally understand where you're coming from regarding the decision on who would make the best parents - it's a bit of a slippery slope. As melissa pointed out to me, if it was a woman whose husband was dying of cancer, I'd probably find it tragically beautiful that she wanted to have a child with him before he died. And of course, single women have children all the time and I don't get my judgment on with them. I can only conclude that a large part of my aversion is due to the predictable cliche of an old man finding a younger wife and indulging his sexual ego with her. Something about it just screams pathetic to me. I'm interested though - how would you feel if an 85 or 90 year old man fathered a child with a young woman? Oh, by the way, I don't think a male's main role is as role model - I do think it's hugely important though, just as it is for a mother to be a role model. And of course, part of being a role model is showing the normalcy of life, which is that sometimes we DO get angry, tired, distant and so forth. I'm certainly not of the opinion that being a good role model means never making mistakes.
kath - Just to clarify (because there's nothing more annoying than having your argument dismissed because of a fact slip) Satchell is 70 not 74. To me it doesn't make much difference but just thought I'd let you know :)
franzy - Yeah, I'm not sure they take that guideline much into account. Especially the bit about not adding to a debate. Though I guess it does add to the debate of whether or not we should allow stupid people to have access to computers.
susanna - Basically, what I said to Penni. It's a pretty complicated issue, but I can't get past that feeling of stomach sick when I think about radio announcers congratulating him on air as if the whole thing is a sign of how massively virile his penis still is.
susanna - You know, they would never make Harold and Maude these days. Or if they did, Maude would be played by Susan Sarandon. Yes, at her age.
kath - I guess when you fancy yourself in love you don't think about what will happen afterwards. On the plus side, the ladies are probably going to be young enough to find a new partner at some stage.
andy pants - Unsurprisingly, I was not thinking about you today, nor any day at all in fact. Funny how so much of your time seems to be consumed by me, someone who doesn't care a squit about you, especially when I'm such a failure and all. Mind you, a failure making a truckload of money writing opinions and generally being noticed by people rather than sitting in my room composing long and tedious comments to people I'm apparently superior to - but yes, a failure nonetheless. Thank you for reminding me. I do so love our chats.
I don't agree with you either Auds. Losing a parent sucks. I know - my dad died when I was 17 and he was 59. But awful as it is, you can live without one of your parents. You can even live without both of them.
Saying that someone shouldn't father a child at 70 isn't that far from saying soldiers shouldn't have children because they could be killed if they go to war. Do you really mean to suggest that this child would have been better off never having been born simply because her dad probably won't see her grow up? One day, our parents die. It hurts. We go on for a while and then we die too and all of these things are lost like tears in rain. It's just the way of the world.
Oh and Big Brother? It looks just as horrific as ever, I'm afraid. On the up side, at least they're freely admitting that it's a freak show this year.
I love that old chestnut even more... abortions are such a 'lol'.
Your over-inflated sense of self-importance saved you from actually improving on yourself yet again Audrey.
I was actually just thought of you randomly yeasterday. You see someone had asked me to name a feminist who was completely ineffective and didn't understand even the basic concepts of the ideological movement they were a part of, lucky you, you were right on the top of the pile.
I hate to point this out to you but simply being noticed doesn't mean sweet fuck all. You're a feminist to change things aren't you? Or are you?
And you are a failure at doing anything of the sort. In fact you're so fucking inept you probably actually dampen the progress of the feminist movement.
I suppose I can see how just being noticed would seem like actually acheiving something to someone so fundamentally self-absorbed as you.
But the fact is the only thing you know how to do effectively is alienate people. And I hate to break it to you, but that is why you are what you laughibly called 'published'. Not for any merit you think you have, but so people can play "Hey, look at the ranty 'shocking' feminist" Like a bunch of circus-goers gathered around an exhibit.
Hi there... I know this is an old post but I had to comment on it, even knowing that chances are you won't get to read it.
Anyway, YES - there should be an age limit on when one can start popping out babies. As you say, there is such a thing as 'too young' to be a parent, and we frown upon teenage parents (hell, even parents in their early 20's these days are treated like bogan scum who didn't pay enough attention in school to learn how to apply a condom properly), so why do we sit there congratulating oldies who have kids when they should be counting down the days to their retirement?
My husband and I wanted to have our kids young so that we had the energy, the patience, and the ability to adjust to having little brats underfoot. We also wanted to see them grow up, finish school, move out of home, get married, and have at least ten years of being grandparents. Some could put forward the argument that we're all going to die 'one day' anyway, so if we're talking age limits for that reason, you better not have them at all - that's bullshit. We have children with the expectation that by the time we die, they will be grown adults who are by then self-sufficient and have the coping skills to understand their loss, to grieve and to continue living. A child doesn't understand, a child blames themselves, a child should NOT be put through such suffering because of a grown-up's selfish desire to be a parent, at the expense of their kids.
Nope, if you haven't had 'em by 40, you missed the boat. Remember, kids - old parents = retarded children. It's true, look around you.
(PS It's 'Donna from Central Queensland' :D)
Post a Comment