no. 36 What`s `childless` got to do with it?

W O R K I N G PA P E R S
SERIES TWO
no. 36 What’s ‘childless’
got to do with it?
Melissa Graham and Stephanie Rich
deakin.edu.au/alfred-deakin-research-institute
Deakin University
Geelong Waterfront Campus
Locked Bag 20000
Geelong VIC 3220 AUSTRALIA
Tel: + 61 3 52271464
Fax: + 61 3 52278650
Email: [email protected]
Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code 00113B
|
W O R K I N G PA P E R S
SERIES TWO
no. 36
What’s ‘childless’
got to do with it?
Melissa Graham and Stephanie Rich
SERIES EDITOR
Peter Kelly
ALFRED DEAKIN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Deakin University
Geelong VIC 3217
AUSTRALIA
ISBN 978-1-921745-35-5
ISSN (online) 1837-7440
ISSN (print) 1837-7432
AUGUST 2012
|
© Alfred Deakin Research Institute, Deakin University
National Library of Australia
Cataloguing-in-Publication data:
Graham, Melissa., Rich, Stephanie.
What’s ‘childless’ got to do with it?
Bibliography
ISBN 978-1-921745-35-5
1. Childfree choice--Australia--Social aspects. 2. Childlessness--Australia--Social aspects. 3. Reproductive
rights. 4. Women in mass media
I. Graham, M., Rich, S.
II. Alfred Deakin Research Institute.
III. Title. (Series: Alfred Deakin Research Institute;
Working Paper No. 36).
306.87
Disclaimer
This article has been written as part of a series of publications issued from the Alfred Deakin Research
Institute. The views contained in this article are representative of the author only. The publishing of this article
does not constitute an endorsement of or any other expression of opinion by Deakin University. Deakin
University does not accept any loss, damage or injury howsoever arising that may result from this article.
The Alfred Deakin Research Institute Working Papers
SERIES TWO
The Alfred Deakin Research Institute (ADRI) is a specialised research unit that was
established at Deakin University in 2009. From its foundation in the humanities and social
sciences, the Alfred Deakin Research Institute promotes research that integrates knowledge
generated from a broad range of disciplines in ways that address problems of local, national
and international importance.
This series of working papers is designed to bring the research of the Institute to as wide
an audience as possible and to promote discussion among researchers, academics and
practitioners both nationally and internationally on issues of importance.
The working papers are selected with the following criteria in mind: To share knowledge,
experience and preliminary findings from research projects: To provide an outlet for research
and discussion papers (some of which have a policy focus): To give ready access to
previews of papers destined for publication in academic journals, edited collections, or
research monographs, and: To present this work in a form that is scholarly, well written and
which has a clear sense of particular purpose and context.
Series Editor
Peter Kelly
Series Editorial Team
Santosh Jatrana
Tanya King
Samuel Koehne
David Lowe
Mark McGillivray
Jonathon Ritchie
Gillian Tan
social sciences & humanities engaging policy
3
The Alfred Deakin Research Institute
Working paper series
Lowe, D. The Colombo Plan and ‘soft’ regionalism
in the Asia-Pacific: Australian and New Zealand
cultural diplomacy in the 1950s and 1960s.
April 2010.
No. 18
No. 02 Murphy, K. and Cherney, A. Policing ethnic minority
groups with procedural justice: An empirical study.
April 2010.
No. 20
Lowe, D. ‘Old Wine, New Bloggers: Public Diplomacy,
India and Australia’, November 2011
No. 03 Ritchie, J. ‘We need one district government to be
set up to replace other district governments’: The
beginnings of provincial government in Papua New
Guinea. April 2010.
No. 21
Foster, J. E., McGillivray, M. and Seth, S. ‘Composite
Indices: Rank Robustness, Statistical Association and
Redundancy’, November 2011.
No. 22
Murphy, B. and Murphy, K. ‘The Australian
Tax Survey of Tax Scheme Investors’: Survey
methodology and preliminary findings for the second
stage follow-up survey. April 2010.
Turner, M. ‘Historians as Expert Witnesses: How do
Holocaust Perpetrator Trials Shape Historiography?’,
November 2011.
No. 23
No. 05
Feeny, S. and McGillivray, M. Scaling-up foreign aid:
Will the ‘Big Push’ work? April 2010.
Turner, M. ‘The Irving-Lipstadt Libel Trial: Historians
as Expert Witnesses and the Shaping of Post-Trial
Publications’, November 2011.
No. 24
No. 06
Murphy, K. and Gaylor, A. Policing Youth: Can
procedural justice nurture youth cooperation with
police? July 2010.
Campbell, P., Kelly, P. & Harrison, L. ‘Transitional Labour
Market Programs: Challenges and Opportunities’,
December 2011.
No. 25
Brown, T.M. The Anglican Church and the Vanuatu
Independence Movement: Solidarity and Ambiguity.
August 2010.
Robinson, G. ‘American liberalism and capitalism from
William Jennings Bryan to Barack Obama’, December
2011.
No. 26
No. 08
Moore, C. Decolonising the Solomon Islands: British
Theory and Melanesian Practice. August 2010.
Koehne, S. ‘“Peaceful and Secure”: Reading Nazi
Germany through Reason and Emotion’, December 2011.
SERIES 2
No. 09
Hayes, M. Re-framing Polynesian Journalism: From
Tusitala to Liquid Modernity. August 2010.
No. 10
Dickson-Waiko, A. Taking over, of what and from
whom?: Women and Independence, the PNG
experience. August 2010.
No. 01 No. 04 No. 07 No. 11
Hancock, L. and O’Neil, M. Risky business: Why
the Commonwealth needs to take over gambling
regulation. August 2010.
No. 12 Bryant-Tokalau, J. The Fijian Qoliqoli and Urban
Squatting in Fiji: Righting an Historical Wrong?
August 2010.
No. 13 Murphy, B., Murphy, K. and Mearns, M. The
Australian Tax System Survey of Tax Scheme
Investors: Methodology and Preliminary Findings for
the Third Follow-up Survey. September 2010.
No. 14 Hancock, L. How ‘responsible’ is Crown Casino?:
What Crown employees say. November 2010.
No. 15
Murphy, K. and Cherney, A. Understanding minority
group willingness to cooperate with police: Taking
another look at legitimacy research. November
2010.
No. 16
Murphy, K., Murphy, B., and Mearns, M. ‘The 2007
public safety and security in Australia survey’: survey
methodology and preliminary findings. November
2010.
No. 17
Murphy, K., Murphy, B. and Mearns, M. ‘The 2009
Crime, Safety and Policing in Australia Survey’:
Survey Methodology and Preliminary Findings.
November 2010.
4
No. 19
Kelly, P. ‘A Social Science of Risk: The Trap of Empiricism,
the Problem of Ambivalence? September 2011.
Campbell, P., Kelly, P. and Harrison, L. ‘Social Enterprise:
Challenges and Opportunities’, September 2011.
No. 27
King, T. J. & Murphy, K. Procedural Justice as a
component of the Not In My Backyard (NIMBY)
syndrome: Understanding opposition to the building of a
desalination plant in Victoria, Australia, June 2012.
No. 28
Jackson, R. Birthing Kits, NGOs and reducing maternal
and neonatal mortality in Ethiopia, June 2012.
No. 29
Speldewinde, C. & Verso, M. Winchelsea: A Health and
Wellbeing Profile, June 2012.
No. 30
Speldewinde, C. & Verso, M. Lorne: A Health and
Wellbeing Profile, June 2012.
No. 31
Campbell, P., Kelly, P. & Harrison, L. The Problem of
Aboriginal Marginalisation: Education, Labour Markets
and Social and Emotional Well-Being, July 2012.
No. 32
Jackson, R., Jatrana, S., Johnson, L., Kilpatrick, S. &
King, T. Making connections in Geelong: Migrants, social
capital and growing regional cities, July 2012.
No. 33
Jones, P., Managing Urbanisation in Papua New Guinea:
Planning for Planning’s Sake? August 2012.
No. 34
Phillips, S., Widening Participation in Higher Education
for People from Low SES Backgrounds: A Case Study of
Deakin University’s Existing Community Partnerships and
Collaborations, August 2012.
No. 35
Charles, C., Constructions of Education and Resistance
within Popular Feminist Commentary on Girls and
Sexualisation, August 2012.
No. 36
Graham, M. & Rich, S., What’s ‘childless’ got to do with
it? August 2012.
ALFRED DEAKIN RESEARCH INSTITUTE WORKING PAPER SERIES
Gender: Revisited, Revised, Reconfigured
Introduction: Adam Brown and Kim Toffoletti
The three papers comprising this series (Working Papers 35, 36 and 37) emerged from
a one day symposium titled Gender: Revisited, Revised, Reconfigured, held at Deakin
University in November 2011. An initiative of the Faculty of Arts and Education’s Processes
of Signification Emerging Research Group (PSERG), the symposium aimed to showcase
current research in the fields of gender, feminist, women’s and masculinity studies being
undertaken across the University. The symposium provided a forum for emerging and
established scholars to participate in theoretical, methodological and critical debates around
gender, with a view to identifying intellectual synergies, points of connection and sites for
potential research collaboration and exchange.
The focus of the inaugural PSERG symposium was on the re-interpretation and re-imagining
of gender in different contexts, posing broad questions: In what (new) ways are gender
stereotypes constructed in an increasingly media-saturated world? How are complex reworkings of gendered behaviour and expectations breaking down binaries and subverting
dominant paradigms? What relevance does the concept of ‘gender’ have today? Given the
wide scope of the topic, the papers presented engaged with issues relating to gender from a
variety of contemporary perspectives, offering opportunities for rich inter-disciplinary dialogue
between fields as varied as new media, psychology, literature, health, law and education.
Participants ranged from postgraduates to new and senior academic staff.
The selection of Working Papers presented here is indicative of the range and scope
of gender analysis and critique occurring across disciplinary boundaries. Taking the
mediasphere as the site of critical focus, the contributions range from explorations of
gendered discourses of childlessness in print media (Melissa Graham and Stephanie Rich,
Working Paper No.36) to ‘moral panics’ about the sexualisation of girls in mainstream
commercial culture (Claire Charles, Working Paper No.35), and the relationship between
gendered embodiment and popular television programming (Jack Migdalek, Working Paper
No.37). Each contribution demonstrates how gender, as a fluid – even unstable – concept
and category continues to impact on Australian socio-cultural and political life in complex
ways.
social sciences & humanities engaging policy
5
6
ALFRED DEAKIN RESEARCH INSTITUTE WORKING PAPER SERIES
What’s ‘childless’ got to do with it?
ABSTRACT
Childlessness is increasing in Australia and has resulted in an
upsurge of media commentary on the lives of childless women.
This paper investigates the use of the label ‘childless’ in the
Australian print media by drawing meaning and understanding from
these representations within the context of pronatalist ideologies.
Our analysis suggests that childless(ness) is used as an irrelevant
descriptor and as a discreditable attribute, which further serves to
perpetuate negative othering stereotypes of childless women.
This is particularly exemplified through the representation of
Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard by the print media. This
analysis highlights the continued positioning of women in regards to
their reproductive status.
Dr Melissa Graham and Stephanie Rich
Centre for Health through Action on Social Exclusion (CHASE)
School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University
social sciences & humanities engaging policy
7
Introduction
Childlessness is a growing trend internationally. In Australia the number of women remaining
childless has increased over recent decades, with 32% of Australian women over the age
of 15 years childless at the 2006 Census (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2007), an increase
of 5% from 1986. For women of peak childbearing age (25 to 44 years) there has been a
50% increase in the number of childless women between 1986 and 2006 (Australian Bureau
of Statistics 2007). Similar patterns of increasing childlessness have been observed in New
Zealand (Boddingtom and Didham 2007; 2009), the United Kingdom (Berrington 2004), the
United States of America (Abma and Martinez 2006; Biddlecom and Martin 2006; Dye 2008)
and parts of Europe (Frejka and Sobotka 2008). This increase in childlessness is thought
to result from a combination of three different factors: increases in infertility, increases in the
number of women choosing not to have children (the voluntarily childless), and increases
in the number of women ‘circumstantially’ childless, that is, women who would like to have
children, but who are not in circumstances to act on this desire during their reproductive
lives. These recent trends have been linked to the rise of feminism, broader access to
reproductive choice, and women’s increased participation in the workforce (Gillespie 2003;
Seccombe 1991).
For women who do not have children, it is their lives and reproductive decisions that come
to be experienced within, and permeated by, dominant cultural discourses surrounding
femininity, motherhood and reproduction (Earle and Letherby 2007; Gillespie 2000).
Additionally, women’s lives and reproductive decisions must be navigated and negotiated
within a society that is characterised by pronatalism, a prominent discourse within western
society (Ulrich and Weatherall 2000). Pronatalism can be understood as an ideology in which
beliefs, attitudes and actions serve to implicitly or explicitly support parenthood and promote
fertility (Veevers 1980). It is argued that pronatalism also embodies moral underpinnings in
which all births are represented as contributors to individual, family and societal wellbeing
(De Sandre 1978 as cited in Park 2002). Pronatalism is a dominant characteristic of
Australia’s current social and political climate (Dever 2005; Heard 2006), as evidenced by
Government initiatives and policy such as family-friendly tax incentives and the Baby Bonus
(Anderson 2007; Heard 2006; Jackson and Casey 2009).
In light of Australia’s pronatalist ideologies and the increase in childlessness over recent
decades, prominent discourses have emerged in the public and media realms concerning
decreasing total fertility rates, increased life expectancy, and concerns over an ageing
Australian population (Gray et al. 2008; Qu et al. 2000). As a result, childlessness has
received substantial media attention; however, this has predominantly been through a
problematic lens. This paper provides an analysis of pronatalist discourse in the Australian
print media and a critique of the use of childless(ness) as a ‘descriptor’ by the Australian
print media. In doing so, we reflect on two main ways in which childless(ness) was used as a
descriptor. Firstly, we discuss the use of childlessness as an ‘irrelevant’ descriptor of women
which is presented in newspaper items as relevant. Secondly, we examine the use of the
label childless(ness) to serve as a discreditable descriptor. The purpose here is not to provide
exhaustive examples of what we observed, but rather to reflect on our findings.
Pronatalism and the Australian print media
Prevailing pronatalist discourse in Australian society has led to fertility being shifted from
a ‘personal’ issue to a ‘public’ concern (Heard 2006). This is highlighted through its
representation in the Australian print media from the year 2000, in which increasing concern
over Australia’s decreasing birth rate saw the topics of fertility and infertility gain substantial
media coverage (Anderson 2010; Dever and Saugeres 2004). For more than a decade
Australian readers have been exposed to pronatalist ideology in the Australian print media
(Anderson 2010). This pervasive pronatalism within the print media has implications for the
way in which Australian women who are not fulfilling pronatalist aspirations, such as childless
women, are represented in this same media realm.
8
ALFRED DEAKIN RESEARCH INSTITUTE WORKING PAPER SERIES
The power and role of the media in the construction and facilitation of stereotypical views
of women, and women’s roles in society, has attracted considerable scholarly attention
(Gilens 1996; Power et al. 1996). The portrayal of women in the print media appears to
hold the stereotype that ‘marriage and mothering [are] the natural aspirations of all women’
(Koutroulis 1990: 73). Shugg and Liamputtong Rice’s analysis (1999; 2002) of Australian
women’s health issues in the print media suggests that women are portrayed by the
media as ‘mothers’ and focus on women’s ability to conceive and raise children. Media
organisations set the news agenda by acting as gatekeepers; they decide which stories will
be disseminated to the public and how this information will be framed and presented. When
the news media make the decision to cover a particular story, they select certain aspects of
the issue while excluding others. This framing is influenced by a variety of social, economic
and cultural factors within the media organisation and its staff. Based on agenda-setting
and framing theory, this gatekeeper role by media organisations plays an important role in
shaping and/or reinforcing public perceptions and attitudes about childless women (Wright
et al. 2008).
The explicit yet pervasive role the media can play in the formation of public attitudes is also
apparent in the way common media representations can come to form ‘common sense’
assumptions, which can then be taken in and adopted by readers (Livingstone 1998). This
is particularly relevant in the representation of women in the media. As Byerly and Ross
(2006: 40) so aptly highlight, ‘the ways in which women are represented in news media send
important messages to the viewing, listening, and reading publics about women’s places,
women’s role, and women’s lives’. Consequentially, through prevailing pronatalist ideologies
that are communicated in the Australian print media, constructions around womanhood
equating to motherhood are reinforced to readers, rendering childlessness as a deviant and
unacceptable alternative life course for Australia women.
Reflections on the ‘Representations of childless women in the Australia
print media’
During 2011, we conducted a qualitative research project which explored how childless
women were represented in the Australian print media. Factiva was used to retrieve the data
for the study and covered a four year period from July 2007 to July 2011. Data was sourced
from one national daily newspaper and 13 state and territory-wide daily newspapers. The
search terms used to retrieve relevant newspaper items were: ‘childless* or childfree or
child-free’; and ‘wom?n or female*’. The search strategy resulted in 1,006 newspaper items
being retrieved. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied by the researchers to the data
to determine the relevance of the newspaper items in light of the aims of the research. After
the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 679 newspaper items were excluded from
the analysis. However, it was in applying the exclusion criteria that we observed that many of
these excluded newspaper items would be of interest in themselves.
Of the 679 newspaper items excluded, 322 used childless(ness) as a descriptor at some
point in the newspaper item, yet childless(ness) was not the focus of the newspaper item
itself. We use the term ‘descriptor’ to mean the use of a word, term or label to describe or
identify the characteristics or attributes of a woman. Essentially, we argue that this type of
labelling is othering (Carey et al. 2009; Taket et al. 2009) and only serves to highlight negative
other representations (Boréus 2006). In regards to these newspaper items we then began to
contemplate and question: what’s ‘childless(ness)’ got to do with it?
Childless(ness) – an irrelevant descriptor made relevant
Reading through the excluded newspaper items, we observed that the term ‘childless’ was
being used as a descriptor of women, despite the fact that it was irrelevant to the focus of
the newspaper item. Here we observed that the attribute of being ‘childless’ was deemed
by the authors of the newspaper items as relevant to include, even though the focus of the
newspaper items had nothing to do with childlessness, reproduction, fertility, motherhood
social sciences & humanities engaging policy
9
or families. For example, interviews with actresses about their upcoming films or plays
mentioned that the actress was childless, despite the film/play not exploring childlessness.
Interestingly, these newspaper items also questioned the actress’s ability to play certain
‘mother-like’ characters given their real life childlessness status. This was suggestive of
the assumption that a woman’s ability to have a successful career, and be capable and
competent within the chosen career, is connected with her reproductive status. This only
serves to perpetuate the myth that mothers are more ‘able’ than non-mothers.
Another observation of the irrelevant use of the label childlessness was apparent in a short
interview with an Australian female artist about her new prize-winning artwork, stating: ‘The
childless Canberra artist and her lawyer husband broke up last year…’ (Daily Telegraph,
6th October 2008). In this case, the artist’s work was not focused on childlessness or
motherhood; however, her ‘childless’ status was deemed relevant to mention in the
newspaper item. Further to this, the newspaper item was not about the artist’s life, yet
her childless status was somehow deemed worthy of mentioning when discussing her
prominent career and prize-winning work. We observed here that within the very public
sphere of print media there was a foregrounding of a woman’s very personal reproductive
life. The unnecessary and irrelevant inclusion of women’s childless status serves to promote
a conceptualisation and understanding of women through a reproductive and pronatalist
discourse. It is noted that in western cultures characterised by pronatalist ideologies,
womanhood and motherhood can often be presented as synonymous identities and
facets of experience (Arendall 2000). Pronatalist ideology as evident in Australia’s sociocultural and political environment thus serves to establish and support cultural discourses
of femininity, in which the act and aspiration to mother is considered fundamental to what
women do, and what women are (Gillespie 1999; 2003). The newspaper items appeared
reflective of the prevailing pronatalist discourse in Australian print media (Anderson 2010).
Through the practice of making the attribute of ‘childlessness’ relevant in what can be
considered irrelevant contexts, the stereotype of women as mothers and conceptualisation
of womanhood as motherhood, is reinforced. Through this, women are ultimately defined
by their reproductive status, with the reproductive position of women being made relevant
to how women are perceived and valued. For women who do not have children, they in fact
become defined by what they have not done, rather than what they have.
Socialisation processes have led to womanhood being synonymous with motherhood,
as evident in the media’s construction and dissemination of implicit, dominant pronatalist
ideologies. As we were attuned to exploring the representation of childlessness and childless
women in the print media, the inclusion of ‘childless’ in these articles was jarring and stood
out as anomalous. However, for the broader public newspaper readership, the irrelevant
descriptor of ‘childless’ being made relevant through inclusion in such newspaper items,
becomes a familiar, unquestioned and unperturbed part of the reading experience. This is
problematic for various reasons, particularly for the way in which such practices serve to
implicitly facilitate gendered stereotypes of women and discourses of idealised femininity.
Childless(ness) – a discreditable descriptor
Through the process of reflecting on the excluded newspaper items, it became apparent
that childless(ness) was also applied in the newspaper items as a descriptor in a way that
was discreditable, and that further perpetuated gendered stereotypes and expectations for
women. Goffman (1963) highlights the difference between those that are discredited (where
a stigmatising attribute is visually recognisable) and those that are discreditable (where
the discrediting attribute is not immediately visually recognisable, but is revealed through
interaction and information sharing). He also conceptualised stigma as an attribute that is
deemed profoundly discrediting, and that impairs the social acceptability of the possessor.
In light of socio-cultural discourses of pronatalism and motherhood, childlessness can
be perceived as a form of non-normative social behaviour and thus may also become
a discreditable attribute (Lampman and Dowling-Guyer 1995; Miall 1985). Furthermore,
through socio-cultural discourses of femininity equating womanhood with motherhood
(Arendall 2000), women without the desire or ability to have children are often seen as
10
ALFRED DEAKIN RESEARCH INSTITUTE WORKING PAPER SERIES
abnormal and unfeminine (Campbell 1985; Letherby and Williams 1999). Consequently,
childless women may be stigmatised when they cannot, or choose not to, become mothers
(Riessman 2000).
The notions of stigma and discreditable attributes expressed in the newspaper items were
of particular prominence in articles relating to Australian politics and politicians. Despite
the increasing number of female politicians in state and federal Australian politics, the
media reporting of women politicians still appears to draw on and perpetuate outdated
constructs of femininity (Muir 2005a) and negative gendered stereotypes regarding women
and women’s roles (Zamfirache 2010). This was observed in the ‘childless’ descriptor
that accompanied many of the newspaper items covering Australian Prime Minister Julia
Gillard, and politicians Maxine McKew and Julia Bishop. For example, the newspaper items
that focused on McKew’s political campaign in Bennelong, New South Wales, during the
2007 federal election consistently raised McKew’s childless status, despite motherhood or
childlessness not being the focus of the story. The context in which McKew’s childless status
was mentioned only served to highlight her as somehow deficient in her ability to hold public
office due to her inability to fulfil the presumed natural life course for women of becoming a
mother.
Of the excluded newspaper items, 86 mentioned Julia Gillard and her childless status. Terms
such as ‘childless Gillard’ and ‘the childless Prime Minister’ were observed in newspaper
items in which the focus of the article was not childlessness, reproduction, motherhood
or family issues. In research that we conducted in 2009-2010 (Rich et al. 2011), childless
women revealed that their childlessness served as a discrediting attribute in their lives
as women through being: a status one cannot easily reveal without negative appraisal; a
status one must justify or explain; and a status that is associated with having lesser care or
compassion. In light of Australia’s pronatalist environment, socio-cultural constructs equating
womanhood and motherhood, and the negative connotations that are often attached to
childlessness, references to Gillard and McKew’s ‘childlessness’ can be understood as
having a discrediting impact on the representation of these women in the print media.
Analogous to our reflections, research conducted by Muir (2005a) exploring the media’s
reporting of family care in relation to Australian politicians, suggests that the credibility of
Australian female politicians can be diminished through media reporting that draws on
traditional myths of femininity and makes reference to women’s maternal status. Research
conducted in New Zealand has also reported a preoccupation with the maternal and familial
status of female politicians in the news media coverage; criteria not equivocally applied to
appraise male politicians (Fountaine and McGregor).
In reflecting on the excluded newspaper items, references to Julia Gillard’s reproductive
status were also observed during her election campaign for Prime Minister in 2010 against
the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, with her childlessness being cited in newspaper items
when referring to issues concerning babies, children and family policy:
While Ms Gillard doesn’t have kids, she demonstrated that it hadn’t stopped her from
mastering the must-have political skill of baby handling. Not a tear was shed as baby
after baby came her way. (The Australian, 19th July 2010)
The childless Prime Minister cooed appropriately as baby after baby was thrust into her
arms and not one bottom lip so much as quivered in her presence. (Daily Telegraph, 24th
July 2010)
It seems a little inappropriate that an unmarried, childless woman should spend her time
walking around shopping centres kissing babies. (The Australian, 20th July 2010)
Here, we observed that childlessness served as a discreditable attribute through demeaning
the female politician’s ability to engage with, understand, or show affection towards, babies.
It is recognised in the literature that in light of their childlessness, women without children
have often been stereotyped as having no time for, spending no time with, and having
no liking towards, babies and children. The newspaper items drew upon such negative
social sciences & humanities engaging policy
11
stereotypes, the references degrading the Prime Minister’s ability to be comfortable with
babies, and not make them cry. This is by no means the first time that media commentary
has been made about childless Australian female politicians and their ability to engage with
babies and children. Substantial media attention was given to Natasha Stott Despoja in
2001 when she was photographed holding Andrew Bartlett’s new-born baby. Muir (2005b)
observed that Despoja’s expression in the photograph was interpreted, amongst other
things, as displaying horror, disgust and unease with children. Muir (2005b) posited that
this incident was used to suggest she has limited understanding of the lives of everyday
Australians, again serving as a discreditable attribute.
Our reflections on the excluded newspaper items also found that the Prime Minister’s
childlessness was included in reference to family policy:
Perhaps Julia Gillard’s opposed to extended parental leave with pay because she’s
childless, much the same way she continues the ban on same-sex marriage because
she’s not gay. (Daily Telegraph, 30th July 2010)
Here, childlessness is used in a way that attempts to discredit the policy decisions of the
Prime Minister, insinuating that as she does not have children, her decisions are grounded
in and reflective of a lack of empathy, compassion and understanding around the needs of
Australian parents and families. The message thus appears to be that if she is not a parent,
then it does not affect her; as such, she does not care. Childlessness being an attribute
that is discreditable through being associated with having lesser care or compassion
was also found in our previous research to be a significant facet of the lives of Australian
childless women (Rich et al. 2011). Interestingly, an American study by Stalsberg (2010)
exploring the political consequences of being a parent, suggests childless female candidates
lost their ‘typical gender advantage’ on issues requiring compassion, with the female
childless candidates being perceived as lacking compassion, and having lesser perceived
competency than mother candidates. It is Morell’s (1994: 77) contention that as motherhood
is (stereo)typically associated with selflessness and concern for others, childlessness is
juxtaposed against this image, with a perception emerging that ‘if women don’t care for
children, they only care for themselves’. A woman’s childless status therefore discredits
the legitimacy of not only their capability, but also of their compassion, empathy and
understanding of families.
Conclusions
Pronatalist ideologies are pervasive in the Australian print media. Arguably, it is the very
implicit nature of pronatalist discourse itself that has the strongest negative implications
for Australian childless women. It is apparent that despite years of feminism and the
women’s movement, women are still being defined in relation to their reproductive status
by the Australian print media. References to women’s, and in particular, women politicians’
reproductive status demonstrated a continued association between womanhood and
motherhood, and a persistent message that women’s reproductive status is of relevance
to her capabilities, and appropriate for public commentary. When we think about powerful
politicians one conjures images of the archetypal politician (read man rather than woman).
Politics is gendered, yet beyond this our analysis suggests that within the gendered world
of politics, even less credibility and status is ascribed to childless women who are viewed as
particularly unfit for political office. Such views then serve to perpetuate problematic sociocultural discourses of femininity and identity, which are then played out in, and reinforced by,
the media. The propensity for the Australian print media to include references to women’s
private lives and reproductive status serves to perpetuate gendered norms and stereotypes
around women’s ‘appropriate’ roles and value in Australian society. The print media’s
inclusion of childlessness as a discreditable attribute that should be disclosed regardless of
the context further serves to stigmatise all childlessness as negative. Ultimately, this serves
to deny the diversity amongst Australian women, and offer a positive and alternative life
course for women – one in which their reproductive status, outcomes and decisions have
nothing to do with ‘it’.
12
ALFRED DEAKIN RESEARCH INSTITUTE WORKING PAPER SERIES
REFERENCES
Abma, J. and Martinez, G. (2006), Childlessness among older women in the united states: trends
and profiles. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68, 1045-1056.
Anderson, M. (2010), ‘The only really worthwhile role for women’? Monitoring media
representations of fertility and motherhood in pronatalist Australia. Porter, M. and Kelso, J. (eds.),
Mother-Texts: Narratives and Counter-Narratives. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, UK.
Anderson, M., J. (2007), Fertility futures: implications of national, pronatalist policies for
adolescent women in Australia. International Women’s Conference: education, employment,
and everything - the triple layers of a woman’s life, 2007 Toowoomba, QLD, Australia. IWC 2007
International Women’s Conference: education, employment, and everything - the triple layers of a
woman’s life.
Arendall, T. (2000), Conceiving and investigating motherhood: the decade’s scholarship. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1192-1207.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2007), 1986, 1996 and 2006 census of population and housing
customised tables, Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Berrington, A. (2004), Perpetual postponers? Women’s, men’s and couple’s fertility intentions and
subsequent fertility behaviour. Population Trends, Autumn 2004, 1-90.
Biddlecom, A. and Martin, S. (2006), Childless in America. American Sociological Association,
5, 54.
Boddingtom, B. and Didham, R. (2007), Busy making other plans: increases in childlessness in
New Zealand. Demographic Trends, Statistics New Zealand.
Boddingtom, B. and Didham, R. (2009), Increases in childlessness in New Zealand. Journal of
Population Research, 26, 131-51.
Boréus, K. (2006), Discursive discrimination: a typology. European Journal of Social Theory, 9,
405-24.
Byerly, C. and Ross, K. (2006), Women and Media: A Critical Introduction, Malden, MA,
Blackwell.
Campbell, E. (1985), The Childless Marriage: An Exploratory Study of Couples who Do Not Want
Children, London, Tavistock.
Carey, G., Graham, M. and Shelley, J. (2009), Discourse, power and exclusion: the experiences
of childless women. Taket, A., Crisp, B., Nevill, A., Lamaro, G., Graham, M. and Barter-Godfrey,
S. (eds.) Theorising Social Exclusion. London: Routledge.
Dever, M. (2005), Baby talk: the Howard Government, families, and the politics of difference.
Hecate, 31, 45-61.
Dever, M. and Saugeres, L. (2004), I forgot to have children! Untagling links between feminism,
careers and voluntary childlessness. Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering, 6,
116-26.
Dye, J. (2008), Fertility of American women: 2006. Population Reports. Washington, DC, USA:
US Census Bureau, Department of Commerce.
Earle, S. and Letherby, G. (2007), Conceiving Time? Women who do or do not concieve.
Sociology of Health and Illness, 29, 233-50.
Fountaine, S. and McGregor, J. (nd) Reconstructing gender for the 21st century: news media
framing of political women in new Zealand. Palmerston North: Department of Communication
and Journalism, Massey University.
Frejka, T. and Sobotka, T. (2008), Overview chapter 1: fertility in europe: diverse, delayed and
below replacement. Demographic Research, 19, 15-45.
Gilens, M. (1996), Race and poverty in America: public misperceptions and the American news
media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 515-41.
Gillespie, R. (1999), Voluntary childlessness in the United Kingdom. Reproductive Health Matters,
7, 43-53.
social sciences & humanities engaging policy
13
Gillespie, R. (2000), When no means no: disbelief, disregard and deviance as discourses of
voluntary childlessness. Women’s Studies International Forum, 23, 223-234.
Gillespie, R. (2003), Childfree and feminine: understanding the gender identity of childless
women. Gender and Society, 17, 122-136.
Goffman, E. (1963), Stigma: Notes on Management of a Spoiled Identity, Middlesex, Penguin
Books.
Gray, M., Qu, L. and Weston, R. (2008), Fertility and family policy in Australia. Melbourne:
Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Heard, G. (2006), Pronatalism under Howard. People and Place, 14, 12-25.
Jackson, N. and Casey, A. (2009), Procreate and cherish: a note on Australia’s abrupt shift to
pro-natalism. New Zealand Population Review, 35, 129-48.
Koutroulis, G. (1990), The orifice revisited: women in gynaecological text. Community Health
Studies, 14, 73-84.
Lampman, C. and Dowling-Guyer, S. (1995), Attitudes towards voluntary and involuntary
childlessness. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 213-222.
Letherby, G. and Williams, C. (1999), Non-motherhood: ambivalent autobiographies. Feminist
Studies, 25, 719-728.
Livingstone, S. (1998), Making Sense of Television: The Psychology of Audience Interpretation,
London, Routlegde.
Miall, C. (1985), Perceptions of informal sanctioning and the stigma of involuntary childlessness.
Deviant Behaviour, 6, 383-403.
Morell, C. (1994), Unwomanly conduct: the challenges of intentional childlessness. Great Britain,
Routledge.
Muir, K. (2005a), Media darlings and falling stars: celebrity and the reporting of political leaders.
Westminister Papers in Communication and Culture, 2, 54-70.
Muir, K. (2005b), Poltical cares: gendered reporting of work and family issues in relation to
Australian politicians. Australian Feminist Studies, 20, 54-70.
Park, K. (2002), Stigma management among the voluntary childless. Sociological Perspectives,
45, 21-45.
Power, J.G., Murphy, S.T. and Coover, G. (1996), Priming prejudice: how stereotypes and
counter-stereotypes infleunce attribution of responsibility and credibility among ingroup and
outgroups. Human Communication Research, 23.1, 36-58.
Qu, L., Weston, R. and Kilmartin, C. (2000), Effects of changing personal relationships on
decisions about having children. Family Matters, 57, 14-19.
Rich, S., Taket, A., Graham, M. and Shelley, J. (2011), ‘Unnatural’, ‘unwomanly’, ‘uncreditable’
and ‘undervalued’: the significance of being a childless woman in Australian society. Gender
Issues, 28, 226-47.
Riessman, L. (2000), Stigma and everyday resistance practices: childless women in South India.
Gender and Society, 14, 111-35.
Seccombe, K. (1991), Assessing the costs and benefits of children: gender comparisons among
childfree husbands and wives. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 191-202.
Shugg, J. and Liamputtong, P. (2002), Being female: the portrayal of women’s health in print
media. Health Care for Women International, 23, 715-28.
Shugg, J. and Liamputtong Rice, P. (1999), Women’s health in Melbourne’s print media: A
content analysis. Australian Journal of Primary Health - Interchange, 5, 53-64.
Stalsbury, B. (2010), Voting for mom: the political consequences of being a parent for male and
female candidates. Politics and Gender, 6, 373-404.
Taket, A., Crisp, B., Nevill, A., Lamaro, G., Graham, M. and Barter-Godfrey, S. (2009), Theorising
social exclusion, London, Routledge.
14
ALFRED DEAKIN RESEARCH INSTITUTE WORKING PAPER SERIES
Ulrich, M. and Weatherall, A. (2000), Motherhood and infertility: viewing motherhood through the
lens of infertility. Feminism and Psychology, 10, 323-36.
Veevers, J. (1980), Childless by choice, Canada, Butterworth and Co.
Wright, K.B., Sparks, L. and O’Hair, H.D. (2008), Health communication in the 21st century,
Carlton, Blackwell Publishing.
Zamfirache, I. (2010), Women and politics: the glass ceiling. Journal of Comparative Research in
Anthropology and Sociology, 1, 175-85.
social sciences & humanities engaging policy
15