Comments on: Babysitting redux

By: The 2nd Down Under Feminists Carnival « In a strange land

The 2nd Down Under Feminists Carnival « In a strange land — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:38:11 +0000

[...] Reading lefty blogs all the time, you can get the impression that we’ve made some good progress with equal parenting – but then sections of the Law and media have other ideas. Why do people use the word “babysitting” when referring to a father looking after his own children? Blogger on the Cast Iron Balcony makes a grim point about which parent is held responsible for the deaths of children. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Down Under Feminists Carnival Number 1Send me your postsParenting puzzleSeven Words Most Often Used by Women [...]

By: matilda

matilda — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:01:26 +0000

I was about to write a post saying “since u wrote this story there’ve been another 2 disturbing instances of child neglect, malnutrition & god-knows-what-else publicised. What are we doing to our children?’ Then i read the 2 above troll posts. I feel worse now. Callousness abounds. Defence of the ‘husband’ implies heartlessness about the kids’ fatal neglect. Why is this happening? Why do people who don’t even like kids/ or who can’t cope, have so damn many of them? Seems like a valid reason for stopping Sole parents benefit after 3 kids. Never thought i’d say that, but there you are.

By: Helen

Helen — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:02:25 +0000

Just in case we think all this is a bit obvious, check out the two comments I just got from a person who will be consigned to the spam bucket – but I’ll post them here so you can see that some people seriously do advance this argument (and others of dubious merit)!

Comment 1

So you are all convinced that his inability to make breast milk is a crime ?

Comment 2

Further, you will notice that the other kids didn’t know the babies were sick.

I dont see anyone saying they should be arrested. I dont get it. Its a perfectly reasonable defense. He wasnt a primary care giver. He had no reason to feel he was reasonable for the kids welfare.

Sheer trolly brilliance!

By: David

David — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 07:27:00 +0000

From what little I’ve gleaned from the news on this, the father sounds even more culpable than the mother – it sounds horribly as though she was deep in chronic depression, and scarcely capable of looking after herself, let alone her kids. Apparently you don’t have to take any responsibilty for your children if you spend every afternoon after work down at the pub. I hope they throw the book at the bastard.

By: Helen

Helen — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:33:56 +0000

That’s a very nice thing to say about such a dive-in-brief-comment-and-link post, BlueM. Thank you.
Bwca, that’s a whole ‘nother pile of heartache… and Bernice too. Remember when you didn’t have to make an appointment with the Maternal and Child health nurse and you could just wander in and have a chat about something that was worrying you? Then Jeff Kennett came along.

/Ancient rambling

By: blue milk

blue milk — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:21:48 +0000

Such a great post!

By: Bwca

Bwca — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:34:57 +0000

Bravo Bernice.

I hope PLU are on The Jury.

There is NO excuse possible.
None.
This type of news always makes my heart break for the people who WANT to love children and cannot have their own.
Any of them would have treasured those babies instead of starving them.

By: Bernice

Bernice — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:05:32 +0000

Regardless of his legal obligations as both a parent AND that certainly under Child Protection legislation he would be required to report his spouse, its a fundamental ethical failing of care for the children and his partner.
Reports indicate they were “estranged”, though not estranged enough to be living apart. She appears from media reports to have been suffering from post-natal depression. He and any one else who had contact with this woman ethically failed to engage with that, and the appalling fallout is as much our responsibility as the mother’s.
If you’re Aboriginal every f***ing whitefella has the god-given right to poke, pry and opinionate about your supposed lack of parenting skills, to prescribe your actions and choices ’cause whitefellas know best, but if you’re white and middle class – hell child services wont even pay you a visit. The rights of children seem to matter only when a part of the political castes can use them to achieve a desired outcome for their own political agendas. The support for women and families struggling with parenting responsibilities is poorly resourced, under-funded, and a long way from the entrenched interests of our political leaders.

By: Ariel

Ariel — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:01:54 +0000

I read that article, too. It’s been haunting me ever since, actually. One of the most horrible things I’ve ever read. The case and the lawyers’ argument. And the fact he hadn’t seen his kids for six months and obviously didn’t care (if that’s even true). And somehow thought he had no responsibility whatsoever for those kids. Just the insight that gives into the life of the house and the thinking of the parents. How can a person think that way?

And that Child Services were contacted before the twins were born, to no avail. Particularly chilling.

By: Docwitch

Docwitch — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:41:54 +0000

They’d never dare dream up such a defence for the mother. It just wouldn’t occur to any legal rep to do so. It would be too outrageous. No one would buy it.

It says a lot about the wider culture if anyone can think it’s any less outrageous to apply this defence to a father domiciled with his family. However disengaged (for want of a better word) he may be.