Sunday, May 13, 2012

Nasty and offensive journalism

There's been some hysterical responses to National's plan to extend the type of free contraception available to beneficiaries. Some of them serious, some laughable. But the following is offensive:

"The really noxious component of the whole proposal is its extension to the teenage daughters of beneficiaries who are over the age of consent.

It would be comforting to believe that this plan was not meant to be a slur on women on the DPB. Yet the inference is unavoidable.

As is the implication that being a trollop is hereditary. There's a slut gene that gets transmitted from solo mothers to their daughters. If your mother was a slut, you'll probably be one, too. Maybe not, but let's not take any chances. These second-generation sluts can't help themselves. Only long-term invasive contraception can counter the effects of the gene."
Who is Paul Little? Someone who makes stuff up for a living?

It was Colin Craig who raised the idea of promiscuity, who implied that NZ women are sluts. Little has developed this further into the idea that women on the DPB are sluts because they are the ones being offered the  extended free contraception.

It wasn't Paula Bennett, who was herself a teenage parent on the DPB. I stopped short of being one due to a miscarriage. I was very glad of the contraceptive pill but it wasn't foolproof. And over time I probably had more partners than was wise. Plenty of willing men around. And go ahead Paul Little. Call me a slut. It doesn't bother me.

But don't go calling anyone on the DPB a slut simply by reason of being a beneficiary.

The reason that the teenage daughters of mothers on the DPB are being offered extra free contraception is because girls raised in single parent homes have a significantly greater likelihood of becoming teenage mothers. If they are already dependent on a mother who is reliant on a benefit they will almost certainly follow in her footsteps. The science shows that these girls will stay on a benefit a long time and their children, along with those who are added to a benefit, will experience the poorest educational and health outcomes. It is an EXCELLENT idea to do everything possible to delay parenthood in these circumstances.

I have written about this method before. Opposition (in any form) describe an idea in nasty and offensive terms and then attribute those nasty and offensive terms to the originator of the idea. Very shallow and inadequate thinking.

(And for the Herald to drop a photo of Paula Bennett with her daughter next to this crap is also nasty and offensive. )


Adolf Fiinkensein said...

It's a nasty and offensive little back water rag which, fortunately, appears to be up for sale shortly.

Andrei said...

There are profound reasons why Nanny State trying to control the reproduction of people it's supporters disapprove of causes disquiet and unease.

This is of course political boilerplate - it will achieve not a thing in terms of reducing "unplanned pregnancy" but bolsters the baby hating wimmen's movement for whom contraception and abortion are holy things

Anonymous said...

Girls with absent Dads tend to mature earlier which increases the risk of a pregnancy.

Andrei said...

"Girls with absent Dads" don't have a patriarchal male in their lives with a shotgun and a gutting knife to put the fear of God into young men who come sniffing around their daughters.

FFS Liberals are stupid and cannot see the wood for the trees.

baxter said...

"Who is Paul Little? Someone who makes stuff up for a living? "

Yeah, husband of Wendle Nissan a far left commentator on ZB.

Anonymous said...

But don't go calling anyone on the DPB a slut simply by reason of being a beneficiary.

Call 'em a bludger - a thief and a wastrel - which should be far more insulting and humiliating.

S.Beast said...

I agree with Paul Little that the implication is there - it wouldn't be if they offered the same deal to all over the age of consent.

I also find the idea of a government agency prying into the sex life of 16 year olds more than a little creepy. That should be exclusively the job of medical professionals who will have no idea if the girl has parents for beneficaries.

Your blog seems to avoid the obvious question which is how the hell is this going to be administered? WINZ isn't even able to advise clients of existing entitlements If they did the "poverty" stories we have to read about would likely not exist. Just ask any Benefit Rights Advocacy service.