Patriarchal poppycock

There were two words in some media reports this week about the arrival of the latest addition to the Packer dynasty which made me cringe: male heir.

Surely in this day and age, it is a notion way past its 'use by' date?

The Daily Telegraph reported: `Australia's richest baby has come into the world, with the male heir to James Packer's $4.5 billion family fortune born early on Monday eveing. Jackson Lloyd Packer was born at the Mater Misericordiae Hospital in Crows Nest. He is the fifth generation male heir of the Packer family dynasty which has at various times ruled the nation's TV airwaves, stocked magazine racks and and taken it gambling dollars.'

Do you have to have a penis to be an heir? Certainly NOT in my view.

Anyway, what's to say that Jackson or his older sister Indigo will want to go in to the family business when they are old enough?

I hope it's not a case of media putting an irrelevant gender slant on what is, really, a fluffy feel good story. After all, we have all come across news reports where gender is made an issue when it shouldn't be.

Quite simply, I am dismayed at the thought that anyone may still think it's only the first-born male of a family who can be an heir. I thought society had moved on for that misguided idea years ago!

Mother mistreated

It's no wonder that most Australian women don't breastfeed for the two years recommended by the World Health Organisation when you read about the situation which was reported in the media today.

A police intelligence analyst was banned from using morning and afternoon tea breaks to express breastmilk for her baby because they were "discretionary" and she was denied the use of accumulated leave. She was refused a private room and instead was made to use either an unlockable and "unclean" interview room - where she was interrupted by police officers - or a toilet cubicle. Read more here.

I am dismayed - not just at the situation this breastfeeding mother has been put in but also the misinformed opinions of so many of the people who made comments on one online media site where I read the story.

Let me show you what I mean.

Geoff of Walgett generously shared his solution: ``Cry me a river. Milk yourself before you get to work.''

Granny Clampet of Beverly Hills wrote: ``Mothers need to be at home with their children. You are either a police woman or you are a nursing mother . . . Children deserve to have the full attention of their parents. There is nothing wrong with being a mother, shame most people underestimate how important child raising is.''

Ray of Newcastle wrote: ``I think its a wind up by the pro breast feeders to bring attention to themselves.''

Then there was this gem from Anne of Central Coast: ``Breastfeeding policy????? Oh Plleeeaaasse. You are either at work to work or at home minding the children you chose to have!''

It was pretty obvious that many of those who commented had no idea about the realities of breastfeeding and how the human body works.

The archaic opinions voiced were so depressing I had to stop reading. Unbelieveable!

There is no reason why a mother should not be allowed to use her allocated work breaks to express. And a proper environment with privacy should be available at any workplace.

Equality battle fatigue

Roles in the Australian Defence Force which should or should not be open to women became the subject of renewed public interest today.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported how the Defence Science and Technology organisation was investigating the question of what roles should be open to women in the modern defence force. See the full report here.

For me the answer is simple: Women should be able to take on any role in the modern Australian Defence Force that they want to - provided they are capable of doing it. I do not see how a woman wanting to put her life on the line for her country is any different to a man being willing to do so. If that's what someone wants to do while fully understanding all the risks, dangers and hardships they will face -no one should stop them. It's not a challenge I want to embrace myself but I support anyone's right to make that choice, man or woman.

If a woman can meet the same criteria a man has to in order to take on a particular role in the Australian Defence Force - or anywhere else in society for that matter - then she should not be prevented from doing so.

The Daily Telegraph explained that many combat roles were already open to women, although they were not allowed to serve as front-line infantry in units such as special forces, in armoured or artillery units or in some areas where materials toxic to unborn children are used. Women do serve in front-line roles flying helicopters and jet bombers, in the headquarters of front-line units and on submarines and ships in war zones.

I am a firm believer in equality. To me, this means the same rules apply to all and the same opportunities are open to all. I don't want to serve in the special forces in Afghanistan but anyone who can meet the selection criteria should be able to. I don't see how gender should factor into it.

Refreshingly, neither can the Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science, Greg Combet. ''My own view is that all categories should be open to women,'' he reportedly said. ''The only exceptions should be where the physical demands cannot be met according to criteria that are determined on the basis of scientific analysis rather than assumptions about gender.''

The minister said the Defence Science and Technology organisation was working with the University of Wollongong to develop a set of physical employment standards through a new joint centre of expertise. The centre would help the ADF ensure soldiers had the physical capacity to carry out critical tasks, regardless of trade classifications, rank, age, or gender, the minister said.

I think there remains embedded in our collective psyche a resistance to true equality for women in situations such as frontline combat roles in the ADF which is directly connected to the patriarchal basis of modern society. While many people have moved on from the idea of women being the ``property'' of their husband or father, far too many still see women as needing to be protected and looked after.

I'm troubled that it is felt necessary to send anyone off to do duty in a battle zone, be it a mother or a father, man or woman. Am I being too simplistic about this? I don't think so - but please feel free to tell me otherwise.

At odds with bloggers

I was TV channel surfing last week while grabbing a bite for lunch and a familiar face was on the screen: John Hartigan, Chairman and CEO of News Limited, was the guest at the National Press Club.

There was a particular time while I was a fulltime working mum when he was entwined in the daily happenings at my workplace and my team's efforts. It was another lifetime, but now here he was in my lounge room.

I couldn't hellp but watch. He spoke about the future of journalism. I thought he made some interesting points but he upset many bloggers with comments like: ``Blogs and a large number of comment sites specialise in political extremism and personal vilification.''

While I don't necessarily agree with anything Hartigan said, as someone with a background in journalism, it concerns me that virtually anyone can become ``reporters'' using new media. I see a potential problem in people who either do not do the research or check sources claims to substantiate the facts of a story. Despite the widely held misconception that you can't believe what you read in newspapers, stories are reviewed many times before they are published. That's not to say mistakes are not made - I'm yet to meet any person who is perfect. Bloggers can get it wrong. too.

It's important to remember there is a big difference between news reportage and opinion. Each should always be clearly identified but there are cases in traditional media and new media where the lines get blurred. I'm not sure if all readers always understand this.

I don't expect that new media will totally replace traditional media for me. New media is an added extra, offering something different.

The full text of what Hartigan had to say can be found here. And in the interest of being fair and unbiased, some critical commentary on his speech can be seen at Crikey, this blog, Mumbrella and The Michael Duffy Files.