"A sure means of lowering the divorce rate? Now wouldn't that be something? With most Western countries struggling with the high social costs of divorce, a drop in divorce rates has to be seen as a giant leap for mankind, somewhat akin to finding a cure for cancer."
Once more I open the Saturday edition of the Sydney Morning Herald to be greeted by Bettina Arndt's little pearls of windbaggery. Which group of women are to blame for the world's ills this morning? Single mothers? Mothers who work? Women who use child-care? Which women are hurting men by so cruelly taking the outrageous step of asserting their rights?
On August 26, Arndt graced the pages of the SMH with the news that changes to custody arrangements in the US, making it less the norm that women get custody of their children, have resulted in a drop in the divorce rate. She rejoices in this statistic, because it will make those flighty, or just plain malicious, women think twice before breaking those sacred matrimonial bonds, if there is a bigger chance that they may lose contact with their children.
So the message for women is, as usual, no matter what, stand by your man, for the sake of the children, and, in their best interests, stay at home to look after them, especially in those tender formative years (until they are ready to leave home).
The Fairfax media just can't seem to get enough of her reactionary, anti-feminist views.
Seven or so years ago, Arndt was in the media spotlight mainly as an "expert" on things sexual, writing answers to your most intimate questions for such quality magazines as New Idea and Woman's Day. Occasionally she would host, or be interviewed for, a TV titillation special on our sexual habits and what we like to do with our and others' naughty bits.
Over the past few years, she has become more visible in the press, especially in the newspaper that is considered one of the more liberal offerings from our media moguls, the Sydney Morning Herald. Now, after enduring her as a weekend feature writer, we are being "treated" to her views weekdays as well.
Friday, September 1, was when her views on the Howard government's rejection of the optional protocol of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women were published. She supports Howard and says that the UN is going too far, claiming the committee implementing CEDAW has told "the Irish government that they should take measures to eradicate the influence of Catholicism on its culture and people" by virtue of its support for women's right to abortion. The committee's call for the Slovenian government to provide more child-care is rendered by Arndt as the UN telling Slovenians that "it is inappropriate that most children under three in their country are being cared for by their families").
What bothers me the most is that Arndt is often held up as some sort of feminist, presumably because (1) she is a woman, an outspoken one at that, and; (2) she writes on "women's" issues — family, motherhood, children and moral questions. But Arndt has, on virtually all issues, taken the stance of anti-feminist, against women's right to make their own decisions about their lives. She has railed about the evils of child-care and the selfish working mother, and has become a darling of the far right of the men's rights movement for her views on child custody, child support payments and the Family Court.
This is an example of how the media package social movements, and in particular, the women's rights movement. When those who really stand up for those rights criticise the reactionary views of Arndt, it is falsely portrayed as a split in the feminist camp.
Adele Horin is a journalist frequently published in the SMH who really does write about issues that affect women (all issues are women's issues), and she has some serious analysis of the state of women's lives in Australia today. Horin rarely gets close to the amount of column space accorded to Arndt, however: even the "liberal" media prefer a reactionary rave when it comes to women's rights.
BY MARGARET ALLUM