Pauline Hanson Stay the Hell Out of My Bedroom!
In what reads like a paid Advertorial, but is a subscriber only exclusive, able to be viewed by non-subscribers; the Courier Mail apparently interviewed Pauline Hanson. This time about what she would do if she was the Prime Minister. What is in it for her voters? Not much. Not much at all. Let’s take a look at just one idea – Prenuptial Agreements. Pauline now wants to interfere in our bedroom lives. GTFO!
My Private Life is None Of Your Business!
They often say that in populist politics, that there is a wider agenda at play. It appears that 20 years of opinions on race and religion, makes Pauline a dull girl. Now she wants to be dictator and chief in our private lives. What is it about the genuine romance and happiness that most couples enjoy, that she simply won’t put up with?
The power has really gone to her head now. Enshrining in law and forcing couples to sign a prenuptial agreement is a blatant intrusion into our private lives.
Seriously Pauline, stay out of our private lives and get the hell out of my bedroom!
I’ve Had It Up To Here Happy Couples
Pauline Hanson has revealed, if she was Prime Minister, all couples should have to enter into mandatory prenuptial agreements. That means, that Pauline Hanson would make it a law, that you must sign a prenuptial agreement.
No free choice for you. This is Pauline taking away your personal freedom. Taking away your freedom of choice in a matter concerning your private life. If this was a Muslim country she would tell us the Muslims are controlling the women. But in Australia we have Pauline who wants to control all of us.
What Pauline says goes. Because she has had it up to here with being tolerant of happy couples who may never ever get divorced. Hanson is twice divorced with a string of other failed relationships. This does not mean everyone is as unlucky in love as she is. Nor does it mean should dictate to everyone else.
It is not clear if these agreements are for married couples or all couples. This is Hanson’s answer to the Family Court. After all, it is not only married couples who have children. It is not only couples with children who lose out in divorce settlements or break-ups. Once again, no deep thought has gone into this by Hanson.
Betraying Her Voter Base
Once again, she has not thought this through and is actually betraying her voter base.
PHON voters are said to be white, male over 40 years of age. They are traditionally right-wing voters, living in regional or rural communities. However, it is also this group who Hanson claims to support for domestic violence and Family court. What Pauline is proposing here, may result in severe distress for victims of domestic violence.
We all know that the suicide rate is the highest in this group. We also know that the prevalence of family violence towards men in this group is emotional violence, demeaning their self-worth, control of finances and personal freedoms. Yet, a prenuptial agreement can place more pressure on a couple, not less.
What is Hanson doing to protect the men in her voter base? The vulnerable men who may feel forced (well they will be by law) to sign a prenuptial agreement. The men who may feel forced to put in place what their partner insists on. This goes both ways of course, but this is purely focusing on Hanson’s own voter base. Hanson is a great big ball of contradiction.
The Pitfalls of Prenuptial Agreements
Domestic violence has phases. No one signs a prenuptial agreement when they are at logger heads with each other. Typically, they are very much in love.
If one person has a controlling nature, it would be very easy make financial control of another person legal. Especially, when the other person is in blinded by love. Way before things turn ugly.
One of the most common cited pitfalls of a prenuptial agreement is distrust. This inflames a relationship and cause more friction and more arguments. Sometimes interfering in-laws insist on terms.
I know part of Hanson’s “charm” is that she is not very intelligent. Not a higher educated ‘elite’ to put it in the Hansonite’s lingo. Hanson should always seek expert advice. This should be not negotiable. She should understand the pros and cons and how it will affect vulnerable people. Hanson should assess all risks before she thinks of enshrining something in law.
That is her responsibility to all citizens as a politician.
In this case, this thought bubble may actually harm the very people who vote for her.
Controlling Partners
A domestic violence victim is not always aware their partner is controlling them, until it is too late.
If someone is in genuinely violent relationship, a prenuptial agreement can make it even harder to get away from the abuser, depending upon what is in the agreement.
Pauline Hanson is setting the ground work for those in relationships who want control over others, to have this control legitimately.
As discussed above, prenuptial agreements can have pitfalls. The law should always protect the vulnerable who are subject to these pitfalls.
What if the controlling party, threatened to leave if they did not put in the prenuptial agreement what they wanted? Someone being controlled is dependent. The abuser knows this.
What if the prenuptial agreement including giving sole custody to one parent and you felt forced to sign? Signing away your parenting rights? Manipulative partners can use this as a guilt towards the victim that they don’t trust them (the abuser).
If it is a Hanson Government mandated requirement, you may have absolutely no choice, but to give up your own freedoms. You may lose more than you have bargained for.
Politicians should aim to legislate to protect the most vulnerable in society. In the case of anyone in a domestic violent/controlling relationship. Hanson is doing the opposite with this proposal and it may have severe consequences.
The Freedom to Choose a Prenuptial Agreement
In addition, prenuptial agreements are already available in Australia, entered into of a couple’s own free will. Entering into private bedrooms and forcing couples into a signed legal agreement, in my view, is extremely un-Australian. It is downright dictatorial.
Since when have we just laid back and accepted a politician making decisions that are private matters for our bedrooms? Most people don’t. Most people now even recognise that who we marry or what gender they are, is no longer the business of the Government but our own.
Unless you can afford a very good lawyer, you could end up much worse off than what the State may protect you for already. Coupled with Kevin Andrew’s idea of mandatory marriage counselling, between Hanson and Andrews Lawyers and Marriage Counsellors will be making a packet from laws mandated by a Hanson led Government.
Stay The Hell Out Of My Bedroom!
Prenuptial agreements are normally for the very wealthy in society – of which Hanson is one of them, as she is a multi-millionaire. Maybe her voter base should consider that maybe she does not really speak for them on this issue and push this back to her to explain.
Explain why she thinks her opinions and laws belong in our bedrooms?
Also, ask her to explain if she gained financially from either of her two marriages which ended in divorce and did either of these contain a prenuptial agreement? According to this article, “Pauline Hanson’s Bitter Harvest” the ex-husbands may be sued if they answer your questions. So it may be best to start asking her directly.
Or perhaps ask her yourself. Ask, “Is it normal for someone to go from barmaid, to divorce first husband, then to a plumbing business, then divorce said second tradie husband, then to fish-shop owner to $500,000 dollar house, to a multi-million dollar lifestyle in 20 years?” Ask her how she actually did it.
I don’t know about you, but in my world, this is not normal.
How dare Hanson dictate to anyone when her married life has been far from perfect.
Pauline Hanson is always the first one to tell people to stay the hell out of her private life, but she thinks she is the self nominated Queen and can interfere in ours! I seriously do not think so.
Hanson does not live in my world and she certainly does not speak for me. She can shove her forced prenuptial agreement where it fits and stay the hell out of my bedroom!
Originally published on The Red Window Blog
39 comments
Login here Register here-
Peter F -
Johno -
helvityni -
Deidre -
Kay Schieren -
David1 -
wam -
Terry2 -
Florence nee Fedup -
Jaquix -
Jaquix -
Keitha Granville -
kerri -
Ian -
bobrafto -
Susan -
Trish Corry -
Wayne Turner -
brickbob -
Annie B -
Greg -
Harquebus -
Steve Laing -
townsvilleblog -
Trish Corry -
Trish Corry -
townsvilleblog -
townsvilleblog -
townsvilleblog -
Matt -
Deanna Jones -
Trish Corry -
Freedom -
Deanna Jones -
Trish Corry -
Freedom -
Deanna Jones -
Trish Corry -
Freedom
Return to home pagei certainly wouldn’t want Poorliine in my bedroom.
Plenup explain !!
I’m feeling all sorry for Pauline. Pauline could have married any perfectly nice, non-drinking, non-gambling. hard-working and dependable Aussie Queenslander, but out of the kindness of her heart she teamed up with a Polish refugee, who obviously felt inadequate, and could not cope with this Wonder Woman and left…
Understandably Pauline now dislikes anything strange and foreign, Muslims, darker-skinned (not to be confused with Aussie sun-tanned); she feels hurt and betrayed… There, there, Pauline…
Send red to usa to work with orange. Birds of a feather ……
I think pre-nuptials are a great idea. If you marry because you are madly in love, get a third person to help with that agreement. If you are too immature to accept the reality of modern marriage, stay single a bit longer and grow up. I just walked away with nothing but the agreed share of a land co-op M.O. and no regrets, as agreed. We are still neighbours – it could be a damn sight worse. And, the children at least could see us both when fitting and practical, and were spared a totally dirty, ugly legal parting.
God made a terrible error when arranging Han(sin)’s body parts….The Almighty forgot the damn brain.
to many a concerned simpleton the idea sounds good and is good, in theory but too flawed in practice.
pre nuptuals, like wills, need upgrading.
My guess she has been lobbied by the ‘men are victims of domestic violence’ advocacy crowd and is pushing their barrow.(she has already accused women of lying about sexual assault – bizarre)
Pauline’s worried about the courts being choked up with divorce and custody matters and in her Trumpesque way has a simple solution of everybody signing a prenuptial and lodging a copy with the Family Court in advance so that, in the event of a marriage breakdown they just have to look up the file and see who gets what and where the kids go.
I don’t want to put ideas into Pauline’s head but wouldn’t it be better to have a pre-sex sign off, call it a ‘coital contract’, keep ’em on the bedside table and have hotels incorporate them into the room-service menu.You could even have one tattooed on your…..no, that won’t work.
Have you noticed, that the world is increasingly full of nutters and they’re breeding – with or without contractual agreements – I blame it on climate change.
Prenuptial are not recognised by courts for good reason. Most families today don’t enter into formal marriage. Pauline needs to get into real world. Family Law courts can be hell for both genders. Courts not to blame. It is about one or both of the parties being unreasonable. Few people separate without good reason when children involved. Truth is they are incline to stay too long in mistaken belief it is in children’s interest.
Pauline as usual thinks she has simple answers to complex problems. Sorry there are none.
Pre nups are actually not necessarily binding. They do not allow parties to “contract outside of the kaw”. The judge will take it into account as to the intentions “at the time.” Often they recognise they are unfair. Besides, we alrw0eady have Family Law provisions regarding distribution of assets. Also, in Paulines neat little world, I wonder who will decide when 2 people have to write a document like this. They may have known each other for ages, but dont live together fulltime, or at all. At what point do they get dragooned into this nonsense. Who drags them to the courthouse? The Pauline Police?
“Out of the law”. Crazy keyboard.
Stay out of private lives, what part of that is too hard for PH to understand.
Oh, of course , we are talking about PH, many things are too hard for her to understand
Has she considered that her dictum if carried into law will in fact stop many from marrying?
This from a woman, and yes I am repeating myself, who bedded a man the night she met him and he refused to tell her his surname!! No issue with her sexual freedom. Simply her logic. Which doesn’t appear to apply to her.
Looks like the pH balance is very much askew.
it’s official, there are 500,000 simpletons in Australia voting for the One Nation simpleton party.
Couldn’t read it ?
Sorry about that. I don’t know why. Try this one on a non-wordpress site Susan. This is on Medium https://medium.com/@Trish_Corry/pauline-hanson-stay-the-hell-out-of-my-bedroom-9ed36b5cb946#.1kukifg2w
She’s delusional,ignorant and a moron.Imagine she had a child with Abbott – OH THE HORROR!
The MSM need to stop giving this know nothing so much free publicity and airtime.She does NOT deserve it,and the low votes show it.She needs to be treated like the moron she is,just like her few voters.
Actually Poorlean is very lucky,she is one of those people who will never ever have to under-go brain surgery.
Pauline Hanson has brought her own personal disillusionments and failures, into the political arena. .. She is ‘acting out’ via the media, and via her perceived elevated status in politics and the public sector, through ridiculous publicised ideas ( which the MSM gleefully promotes ).
Her ideas are vacuous, and will be ignored by most. .. This one she has lost. ,… So I rather think she is already ‘out of our bedrooms’.
The Family Law Act 1975, sets out a vast range of options for pre-nups … and is complicated. Especially when both, or one or other of partners, have children. … It has had many amendments, based from what I have learned, on ineffectiveness of previous law and amendments. .. One of the main reasons for its’ introduction was to introduce the ‘no-fault’ divorce ( i.e. he did, she did, he’s bad, she’s bad accusations ), which wasted heaps of money and a great deal of time initially in magistrates courts, before being handed to higher courts if the persons ( and their lawyers ) involved could not reach a satisfactory conclusion.
This link gives an overall view – with other links provided. : http://www.pre-nuptialagreements.com.au/
There are also such things as “Binding Financial agreements” … between partners ( married legally or not ), which covers several pre and post nuptial agreements, and other options. … I know this because ? … we have one to stop interference from members of family ( both ) in the event of separation or death. …. but NOT because we distrust one another.
Can only figure that she of the rusty soap-pad hairdo …. has fallen on her face, and the whole issue will be dead in the water. .. Many of these ‘agreements’ are in fact, no longer binding. … Ours at present is not worth the paper it was written on 30 years ago. !! Needs to be updated ( if we want ) … to bring it into line with updated legal changes. .. Something PH has not considered .. but then she wouldn’t, would she – hasn’t the nous or knowledge to do so.
well since she is a staunch believer in the old notion of the Australia ID card this doesnt surprise me at all , she has a deep rooted belief that no one should have a choice in their own lives and the only practical method of controlling people is through governmental laws and regulations , she doesnt believe we should have freedom of access to the internet (that way we wont be able to learn what the government is doing ) , she thinks that the Australia ID card should be used to track a persons movements (all in the name of protecting us from terrorist ) , she doesnt believe in climate change because it’s just inconvenient , she doesnt believe our reefs are in danger because her sponsors tell her so , she doesnt believe in vetting her party candidates other wise it would only be a party of one . Her choice of party members and candidates seem so incomprehensible it is beyond any thinking persons reasoning . There can be only one very simple explanation to this woman’s ramblings and judgement and that is she just likes to hear her own voice , the more she says the more she’s in lime light , unfortunately there is always some one that will agree with her , psycho babble has always been a strong political tool … an here ladies and gentlemen is the tool .. Pauline Hanson
Governments can make laws but, in the coming economic decent they will not have the ability to enforce them.
Cheers.
Poor Pauline. It’s just another cry for help, isn’t it.
Trish, yet another masterpiece but please go easy on the yank speak “stay the hell out of our bedrooms” aside from the title, I couldn’t agree more, what we do in our bedrooms is not of anyone’s concern, especially hers. Perhaps she still carries pain from the time her husband left her with her children, as a single mother…
Lol Shaun. That is something I would yell myself. I didn’t think it was American. Obviously not QLDR speak then.
Read the article linked at the end Shaun. You can make up your mind what she did or didn’t take away – pain or otherwise
kerri, do you know that to be fact that she bedded a bloke the night she met him? How many children does she have, I’d be intrigued to know the full early story if you know it?
Thanks Trish will do love…
Trish, in my lay terms it seems to me that she came from a family of hillbillies ans was never taught anything social like manners or social pleasantries so sex was immediate, hot and steamy, with no morals attached, she had a dysfunctional sex/marital life and seems to be still screwed up by it. If she were not so destructive for the millions of median income working class families like mine, that she has the power to hurt when she combines with the LNP in the Senate, I would have empathy for her. She really is a person promoted far beyond her capabilities, the lesson I learn from her is that anyone can run for high office, particularly the Senate, I wish I had done so in my youth.
Very touched Trish that you showed concern for the men that might be damaged or hurt by this. If only women and men would look after each other with such concern all the time – such a balm might well help heal so many rifts which perhaps in turn lead to real or claimed misogyny etc.
MattFebruary 6, 2017 at 5:59 pm
” If only women and men would look after each other with such concern all the time”
Ah Matt, if only men would stop killing us…we can dream the dream right?
I think it’s a bit on the nose to be ridiculing someone for being twice divorced, Trish. We can apply a much more critical feminist analysis of Hanson’s drivel than to snipe about ‘marital failures’.
Thanks Deanna. My criticism comes from a place that she is possibly projecting about other women when she has lived experience the same. If you read the linked article it will give you a more personal picture of the woman who condemns other women for falling pregnant, (first husband said he was tricked) living off welfare (accusations of claiming family payment for 4 children when only raises 3) and criticising single mothers (one child brought up by paternal grandmother). I don’t think we should refrain from highlighting hypocrisy amongst women who are the first to position women as tramps and goldiggers for personal gain. Psychological projection is a political trick of right populism and the right /conservatives in general. That is the space I am coming from. I assure you I am a long standing liberal feminist 1980s model. Agency is the core of my beliefs including sexual activity and relationships. I hope that clarifies things. My space of criticism was in a political framework not a feminist one. However I could do an article on that if you would be interested.
I thought the largest opposition to her idea would have come from divorce lawyers. After all, with the number of today’s marriages ending in divorce, they are the one’s with the most to lose.
Trish, I don’t see women like Hanson as just having individual character flaws, like hypocrisy. They are the product of patriarchy. Oppressive systems necessarily foster lateral violence to self reinforce.
Freedom, family lawyers do indeed make lots of money out of people’s marital misery. I see it daily. However, most divorcing couples do not end up in the Family Court, only a small percentage do.
Yes that is true. However I will reiterate my criticism is not within a feminist space but a political one. One I stand by. One I will not bear any shame or guilt for. If it was a feminist critique you still may not like what I have to say.
Deanna Jones,
Perhaps they don’t, I don’t know the statistics and I’m not into quoting my gut feelings as fact but I’ll wager nearly all seek some kind of legal advise at an exorbitant fee.
Freedom, I do know the stats, and no most people manage their separations, custody arrangements etc, without ever seeking legal advice, thank goodness for kids.
Trish, feminism is political.
Thanks Diana. You are making no attempt to understand what I am saying. I’ll sign off now. Have a good night
Deanna Jones,
You are right. How could it possibly be any other way…