Labelling children

The Australian Women’s Weekly – apparently now the go-to source for News Ltd papers and websites – has another gem: Paula Hitchcock, Australia’s richest love child, speaks out. Except she doesn’t. Her mum, Shari-Lea, does all the talking, except for one quote from the 12-year-old Paula about how her mum makes her laugh, and they like the same clothes and shoes. Wow, seriously, stop the presses. (Yes, I know that’s a terrible cliche, but it fits in with my ribbing.)

My issue with this isn’t the article in the AWW – it’s the way it’s been reported by

ILLEGITIMATE daughter of tycoon Richard Pratt emerges into the public spotlight for the first time.

At the Daily Telegraph it’s just as bad:

PAULA Hitchcock, illegitimate child of the late billionaire Richard Pratt, is mature for her 12 years.

Illegitimate? What, is it 1940?

17 responses to “Labelling children

  1. I think that without the odium of that existed in the old days about being born out of wedlock it is no big deal at all to use the term ‘ illegitimate”

    • I see your point, but calling someone an ‘illegitimate child’ is terribly dated. Particularly because we don’t need the distinction any more because children born outside the marriage can inherit the parent’s assets.

  2. Don’t know why I bothered with that since obviously to you probation means none of my comments on anything will ever get through. Typical of feminists and environmentalists (and comunists and Nazis) to shut down dissenters

    • Formeryl, you seriously have a problem with your reading skills. I clearly said to you just yesterday that probation meant that I may or may not publish your comments on a whim. Because you’ve consistently shown that you have no interest in actually reading anyone’s comments. But no, you choose to attack me, throw insults around, show that you’re not interested in discussion because you’re too in love with the sound of your own voice, and generally have a sook because your comments aren’t published the second you send them in. Well guess what? It’s time for you to fuck off. You are no longer welcome here.

  3. What insults? Feminists on this site have shown the inherent weakness of women (and that’s not to suggest that men don’t have weaknesses) that is they turn to water un der pressure. I’d say for years no-one questioned your sexist rhetoric on here and you all revelled in it as soon as I did I was criticised, insulted and sspoken down to. When I do likewise I get told to fuck off. Well you all fuck off and get reaf fucking jobs and live in the real fucking world for a while instead of your fairytale intellectual university coffee shop worlds. FUCK YOU !!!!!!!

    • Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

      (All of this relates to published and unpublished comments on an earlier post:

    • You know what; I have kept giving you the benefit of the doubt and said as much to NWN on many occasions. I generally disagreed with you but we come from different ideological points of view so that is to be expected and is not always a bad thing as middle ground is sometimes the best position. I thought that you sometimes raised some interesting points even if they were wrapped up in occasionally aggressive language or confusing subtexts and side comments that clouded what you were actually saying. Sadly I have to now agree with NWN now. This is a feminist blog – therefore expect to hear feminist thought and pro women ideologies. You are just too angry (in an unconstructive way) and women don’t need to be told off by angry men. You say some pretty horrible things about women ‘as a gender’ not just about individual people (in this case, women) who you disagree with. I believe that describing women as inherently weak shows what some of us suspected all along, which is that under the pretence of wanting debate the reality is that you are just another misogynist. That’s a shame for us all.

      BTW, I have a ‘real job’. I have said before that you or anyone else, apart from NWN who knows me personally, has no idea who I am or what I do and who anyone else is. Making assumptions about ‘virtual’ strangers on a blog is pure folly.

      My mum says ‘never argue with a fool, people may not be able to tell the difference’ so this is my last comment to you.


  4. Trolls out themselves sooner or later.

    To the topic – it’s out-dated yeah but that’s not what’s so wrong with it, I mean it was a horrible slur back before it became out-dated. It was a label for those within the theoheterotocracy to exclude people born outside of the approved kinship structures.

    It’s nasty.

    • Yeah, the nastiness is what gets to me. It’s a 12-year-old kid, for fuck’s sake. A kid who is always going to be followed by journos for the social pages because of who her father was. There’s so much tied up in using the word ‘illegitimate’ – that the single mother is a whore/slut, that the father doesn’t want anything to do with the kid, that the kid is somehow not worthy, not a real child.

  5. On the topic at hand does anyone have any stats on what percentage of children are born out of wedlock these days? I would reckon they would outnumber those born to married parents and perhaps now more legitimate (statistically)

Go on, you know you have something to say...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s