• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pregnant while in power.

S

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
18,819
Reaction score
5,166
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This should prove to be a good barometer of sexism.
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/jacinda-ardern-pregnant-new-zealand-prime-minister-opinion-a3744396.html
Ardern is not the first woman to be pregnant while in power. Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto had a baby in 1990 while in power, but Ardern’s pregnancy announcement has come at an opportune time, where women the world over are realising their power and taking hold of it.

Ardern is a force to be reckoned with and her conquering the role of working mother – like so many women before her have done – will be inspiration for young women the world over.
Click to expand...

But while bhutto had to have her baby under the radar, travelling incognito to a Karachi hospital to undergo a caesarean ardern has announced publicly that she is pregnant.

Most people wish her well and think she can be prime minister, pregnant and deliver a baby while in office. But some do not. Some see this as empowering for woman while others think it a reason for her to quit. Which side do you fall on?
 
being pregnant in office is no different than having young kids while holding office. i don't have a problem with it.
 
soylentgreen said:
This should prove to be a good barometer of sexism.
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/jacinda-ardern-pregnant-new-zealand-prime-minister-opinion-a3744396.html


But while bhutto had to have her baby under the radar, travelling incognito to a Karachi hospital to undergo a caesarean ardern has announced publicly that she is pregnant.

Most people wish her well and think she can be prime minister, pregnant and deliver a baby while in office. But some do not. Some see this as empowering for woman while others think it a reason for her to quit. Which side do you fall on?
Click to expand...

If it's not a problem for the New Zealand voters, it's not a problem. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be a problem anywhere, except in some sh*thole countries where women are ostracized during their periods and such.
 
soylentgreen said:
This should prove to be a good barometer of sexism.
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/jacinda-ardern-pregnant-new-zealand-prime-minister-opinion-a3744396.html


But while bhutto had to have her baby under the radar, travelling incognito to a Karachi hospital to undergo a caesarean ardern has announced publicly that she is pregnant.

Most people wish her well and think she can be prime minister, pregnant and deliver a baby while in office. But some do not. Some see this as empowering for woman while others think it a reason for her to quit. Which side do you fall on?
Click to expand...

A person, woman, is fully capable of being pregnant/having young children and in power. An specific individual may not be.
 
She will have plenty of help so I don’t see an issue.
 
Parental leave and power dont mix for real countries, in those situations where they just must they should resign.

This is New Zealand, 6 weeks is probably OK.

22 weeks would not be OK.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Parental leave and power dont mix for real countries, in those situations where they just must they should resign.

This is New Zealand, 6 weeks is probably OK.

22 weeks would not be OK.
Click to expand...

Real countries!!! Care to define what makes a real country?
 
I see no reason why being pregnant would make a woman unsuited to be prime minister.

The 6 weeks of parental leave she's taking is kind of weird though.
 
GOOD on her !
 
soylentgreen said:
This should prove to be a good barometer of sexism.
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/jacinda-ardern-pregnant-new-zealand-prime-minister-opinion-a3744396.html


But while bhutto had to have her baby under the radar, travelling incognito to a Karachi hospital to undergo a caesarean ardern has announced publicly that she is pregnant.

Most people wish her well and think she can be prime minister, pregnant and deliver a baby while in office. But some do not. Some see this as empowering for woman while others think it a reason for her to quit. Which side do you fall on?
Click to expand...

One of two things will be neglected the country or the child. I don't think that the fact that this person does what their body is biologically meant to do should be empowering that's retarded. She got knocked up it's happened 7 billion times in one lifetime. If she is a good leader that should be inspirational not empowering. Her cheeseman's don't really do anything for other women or anybody.

It is empowering when a person decides that they are going to do something worthwhile.
 
molten_dragon said:
I see no reason why being pregnant would make a woman unsuited to be prime minister.

The 6 weeks of parental leave she's taking is kind of weird though.
Click to expand...

Can you see why being prime minister would interfere with being a mother? Which job is more important?
 
CLAX1911 said:
Can you see why being prime minister would interfere with being a mother? Which job is more important?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sure it will. Lots of things, including most jobs, will interfere with your parenting of your children. It's up to her and her husband to decide how to balance their personal and professional lives.
 
CLAX1911 said:
One of two things will be neglected the country or the child. I don't think that the fact that this person does what their body is biologically meant to do should be empowering that's retarded. She got knocked up it's happened 7 billion times in one lifetime. If she is a good leader that should be inspirational not empowering. Her cheeseman's don't really do anything for other women or anybody.

It is empowering when a person decides that they are going to do something worthwhile.
Click to expand...

So having a child is not worth while, get that one from your own parents did you?

And why would anything get neglected are you saying people cannot multi task? Or that she cannot rely on friends and family.

NZ seems to becoming a child friendly parliament with even the speaker of the house baby sitting while chairing in the debate chamber.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/98699747/new-zealands-new-babyfriendly-parliament

Politicians are supposed to be representitvbe of the public. So why should not active parents be a part of parliment as they are of society. Or are you still under the old fashioned idea of a mothers place is at home while daddy works?
 
soylentgreen said:
So having a child is not worth while, get that one from your own parents did you?
Click to expand...
Wow... what a strawman.

And why would anything get neglected are you saying people cannot multi task?
Click to expand...
When the task requires most of your focus yes people cannot multitask and perform as well as they would if they weren't.

Or that she cannot rely on friends and family.
Click to expand...
if a friends and family are raising her child she is not.

NZ seems to becoming a child friendly parliament with even the speaker of the house baby sitting while chairing in the debate chamber.
Click to expand...
Good. I think parenting is one of the most important jobs humans do.

Politicians are supposed to be representitvbe of the public. So why should not active parents be a part of parliment as they are of society.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that I'm saying they shouldn't... I don't know why you are asking thus question.

Or are you still under the old fashioned idea of a mothers place is at home while daddy works?
Click to expand...

No, I'm personally I think the role of father has been greatly diminished. Both parents should make the child their number one priority.

I don't know how that would affect a job like the prime minister. If my son or daughter needs me can I drop what I'm doing and tend to my child if I'm a prime minister?

I'm not saying it's impossible just very difficult. I wish her the best.
 
CLAX1911 said:
No, I'm personally I think the role of father has been greatly diminished. Both parents should make the child their number one priority.

I don't know how that would affect a job like the prime minister. If my son or daughter needs me can I drop what I'm doing and tend to my child if I'm a prime minister?

I'm not saying it's impossible just very difficult. I wish her the best.
Click to expand...

Why is that question never asked of male politicians with young children? Her husband is being the stay at home parent while she works, so the child's needs are not going to be neglected.
 
spud_meister said:
Why is that question never asked of male politicians with young children? Her husband is being the stay at home parent while she works, so the child's needs are not going to be neglected.
Click to expand...

Well maybe not.

Hopefully not.
 
Last edited:
spud_meister said:
Why is that question never asked of male politicians with young children? Her husband is being the stay at home parent while she works, so the child's needs are not going to be neglected.
Click to expand...

As for father's pig young children holding such offices... I would think that would be extremely difficult as well. A child needs father just as much as mother. If it were me I would object to wait until the children are grown.

But if ifs and buts or candy and nuts we'd all have cavities.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Wow... what a strawman.
.
Click to expand...
No, that was sarcasm.
When the task requires most of your focus yes people cannot multitask and perform as well as they would if they weren't.
Click to expand...
No, your thinking is nothing more than the continuation of a traditional view of a male dominated work force. There is no reason as to why work canot also be family friendly.
if a friends and family are raising her child she is not.
Click to expand...
It;s called baby sitting, many parents use that service and are still called parents.
Good. I think parenting is one of the most important jobs humans do
Click to expand...
yes, but the problem is you want to segregate it.
I'm not sure that I'm saying they shouldn't... I don't know why you are asking thus question
Click to expand...
.
Because that would involve that which you say cannot be done.


No, I'm personally I think the role of father has been greatly diminished. Both parents should make the child their number one priority.
Click to expand...
While good in theory there is also the need to have an income as raising a child is not cheap.
I don't know how that would affect a job like the prime minister. If my son or daughter needs me can I drop what I'm doing and tend to my child if I'm a prime minister?



I'm not saying it's impossible just very difficult. I wish her the best
Click to expand...

There is no reason as to why the work place cannot be made family friendly. The excuses given for it not to happen are based on a tradition of a patriachial and sometimes misogynist way of doing business.
 
soylentgreen said:
No, that was sarcasm.
Click to expand...
forgive me for not to being able to read your mind.

No, your thinking is nothing more than the continuation of a traditional view of a male dominated work force. There is no reason as to why work canot also be family friendly.
Click to expand...
is this straw man sarcasm as well or not because I can't tell.

FYI it's equally absurd.

It;s called baby sitting, many parents use that service and are still called parents.
Click to expand...
I didn't ask if they were still called the parents. So excellent irrelevant point but would you address what I said please.
yes, but the problem is you want to segregate it.
Click to expand...
Segregate it? I have no idea what on Earth you're talking about.

Segregate what?
.
Because that would involve that which you say cannot be done.
Click to expand...
??????????????



While good in theory there is also the need to have an income as raising a child is not cheap.
Click to expand...
So one parent has to neglect their child?


There is no reason as to why the work place cannot be made family friendly. The excuses given for it not to happen are based on a tradition of a patriachial and sometimes misogynist way of doing business.
Click to expand...
Whenever you want to call it, be my guest. And if you want to and suggest that it can be family-friendly go ahead perhaps you're right.

If you want to Crusade against your little Boogeyman be my guest.

I am not here to change the world I simply live in it.
 
CLAX1911 said:
forgive me for not to being able to read your mind.
Click to expand...
No, it's more of forgive you for ot being able to spot the obvious.
is this straw man sarcasm as well or not because I can't tell.
Click to expand...
Considering you started out saying crap like, "One of two things will be neglected the country or the child." It would be more along the line of rebutting a foolish statement.

FYI it's equally absurd
Click to expand...
.
Of course it is because the work place is a mans place. let's nit clutter it up with anything that does not make a profit.
I didn't ask if they were still called the parents. So excellent irrelevant point but would you address what I said please.
Click to expand...
I did addrss what you said and what you said is if parents get help then they are no longer parents.

Segregate it? I have no idea what on Earth you're talking about.

Segregate what?
.
??????????????
Click to expand...
Really, sounds more like your desperately trying to back down from the statement i just quoted of yours.
So one parent has to neglect their child?
Click to expand...
Not at all. there is always the ridding ourselves of a traditional male orientated work place to one that is more inclusive. But that would involve dropping meaningless traditions that give power to men.


Whenever you want to call it, be my guest. And if you want to and suggest that it can be family-friendly go ahead perhaps you're right.

If you want to Crusade against your little Boogeyman be my guest.

I am not here to change the world I simply live in it.
Click to expand...
Apperantly your not even here to defend your own opinion of the world you live in. And if you wish to be just a spectator of life then why bother to make comments here at all? If you cannot take your own view seriously then why should i.
 
soylentgreen said:
No, it's more of forgive you for ot being able to spot the obvious.
Click to expand...
it is not obvious to me that this strawman is sarcasm and all the other ones aren't it seems consistent that it wouldn't be I can't be inside your mind.



Considering you started out saying crap like, "One of two things will be neglected the country or the child." It would be more along the line of rebutting a foolish statement.
Click to expand...
but you didn't. A rebuttal would be explaining why one or the other wouldn't be neglected you didn't do that. It seems you became butthurt because someone didn't agree with you. That is not a rebuttal.

.
Of course it is because the work place is a mans place. let's nit clutter it up with anything that does not make a profit.
Click to expand...
why don't you think women can make money?

I did addrss what you said and what you said is if parents get help then they are no longer parents.
Click to expand...
lol, quote those words where I said that.


Really, sounds more like your desperately trying to back down from the statement i just quoted of yours.
Click to expand...
lol... how embarrassing for you. I do not have to back down from your strawman because it's not my statement.

Not at all. there is always the ridding ourselves of a traditional male...
Click to expand...
you seem desperately obsessed with this to the point where you can read and understand nothing. Everything to you is about the patriarchy Boogeyman. No matter what I post you see this. I'd suggest that you are diluted and fixated you should seek help. Perhaps it's a persecution complex or an inferiority complex.



Apperantly your not even here to defend your own opinion of the world you live in.
Click to expand...
first I don't have to defend my opinion I have the right to it. And your mental disorder doesn't challenge it. It's actually quite interesting to watch you formulate straw man fallacies and act as though those are my opinions. But then again I'm a behavior science major and such things intrigue me.
And if you wish to be just a spectator of life then why bother to make comments here at all? If you cannot take your own view seriously then why should i.
Click to expand...
I could care less how you take anything. I post here because I like to discuss things with rational reasonable and stable people. When I encounter extremist ideologues that attempt to twist everything into some sort of attack on their a ideology, I tend to really do nothing else but mock them.

You believe there is a patriarchy and that everyone in the world is contributing to this paranoid delusion you have. Outside of watching you squawk when provoked there is no reason to discuss anything with you at all. It's like discussing Evolution with a creationist. It doesn't matter how I describe it it's always wrong because God made the world 6000 years ago or last Thursday or whatever.

Your ideologies controls your mind so not arguing with you. You are what I consider a clone or a homunculus incapable of independent thought. So why on Earth would I give a s*** what you think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom