I've been wasting my life!

As long time readers know, I have great disrespect for Bettina Arndt.

What a surprise when she felt she had to impart some of her specialised "wisdom" on Julia Gillard's relationship with her partner, under the guise of discussing why she's not moving into the Lodge.

Julia Gillard doesn't want to move into the Lodge until she gets a democratic tick of approval. Or so she says. Maybe the real reason she is stalling is to test the waters about public reaction to moving her first bloke in there with her.

Maybe the real reason is because she feels that moving into the Lodge before she's actually been elected in her own right would be disrespectful of the position.

She then questions why Gillard has chosen to not marry and lives in a de facto relationship with Tim Mathieson. Apparently it is her duty as a role model to be married and pop out a few sprogs.

It's fine for Gillard - a 48-year-old woman - to live with her bloke. Yet as a popular role model for women, her lifestyle choice may influence other women into making big mistakes about their lives.

Cohabitation produces two groups of losers among women and children. Most women want to have children - Gillard is an exception - and some miss out after wasting their primary reproductive years in a succession of live-in relationships that look hopeful but go nowhere, leaving them childless and partnerless as they hit 40.

I think Bettina may be surprised at the number of women (and men, a noticeable missing gender from her insanity) who don't want children. Why don't more people say this? Because women especially have to deal with a lot of criticism for not having a maternal desire. They get told that they'll change their mind when they get older, or that if they spent time with children they'd find that they really do like them. This is why many women remain silent about their desire to not have children.

According to the good doctor, de facto relationships don't last, and if you aren't married you miss out on your prime breeding time (because women are only put on this earth to give birth and have sex on demand don't you know).

I wish someone would tell this to one of my friends at work and his wife. They've been together for over 20 years, have 3 kids and couldn't be happier.  De facto relationships: they're doin' it wrong.

People often drift into living together - someone's lease runs out or they get sick of running home for fresh shirts and underwear. They slide rather than decide, and frequently fail to discuss their mutual expectations for the relationship.

People also drift into marriage so I don't see the point here other than just another reason to criticise people for their choices.

It's the women who end up stranded when they spend years in a succession of de facto relationships waiting for Mr Not Ready or Mr Maybe to make up his mind.

Because only loose women propose to their partners or don't actually want to get married. Obviously. And let's not begin talking about those veritable whores in the LGBT community! The very same community who can't get married even if they want to!

Women's tiny reproductive window means they pay a high price for wasting precious breeding time in such uncertain relationships.

*headdesk*

While the de facto lifestyle leads some women to miss out on having children, others are taking the risk of becoming parents despite these unstable relationships. A growing proportion of children is now born to de facto couples - up from less than 3 per cent in 1975 to 12 per cent in 2000, according to data from the Household Income and Labour Dynamics Survey.

To be in a de facto relationship is a "lifestyle" now?  Presumably the same as a "gay lifestyle"?

Oh and Bettina?  Try quoting some statistics that are more recent than something put out 10 years ago when you're trying to debunk a perfectly legitimate "lifestyle".

It is often assumed these children will provide the glue to keep de facto relationships together, but sadly this is not so. David de Vaus, a sociology professor from La Trobe University, found cohabiting couples who have children are more like to break up than married parents, increasing their risk of the negative impacts of family breakdown.

It is often assumed these children will provide the glue to keep married couples together, but sadly this is not so.

If Gillard chooses to play house with Tim Mathieson in the Lodge, this choice sends a strong message to the huge numbers of women who rightly admire her and seek to follow her example. A lifestyle suited to her particular needs may be riskier for many women and their children.

Play house?! Come on! Marriage can be just as risky for women (and men). Single income families break up and the spouse who did not work finds themself in a situation in which they may struggle. I'm gonna pull a statistic out of my arse (just like much of Arndt's opinion) and say that about 75% of de facto couples have both people working. And that is a recent statistic!  It's true! I made it up moments ago!

As a Labor politician, Gillard is hardly likely to spell this out. Her brand of politician is too nervous of offending natural constituents to express concern about lifestyle choices. But it wasn't always like that.

In 1972, an intriguing discussion between Germaine Greer and Margaret Whitlam was published in The National Times. Whitlam, whose husband had just become prime minister, was outspoken in her criticism of ex-nuptial births, declaring it was irresponsible to produce children outside wedlock. When Greer confessed she was considering having a child on her own, Whitlam was forthright: ''Well, I think that's just a selfish thought.''

Later in the interview, she relented a little. ''It may be all right for people who are well known and who have position and who can organise themselves . . . but it's not OK for everybody,'' she said, questioning the impact of Greer's decision on her many fans.

Forty years ago!!! About 10 years after the time when Arndt's wisdom was developed.

At the heart of this conversation was role models. People in the public eye, our influential leaders, need to think through whether others who don't share their circumstances will follow their example and get into trouble.

Role models. People in the public eye. Shouldn't there be role models for everyone and not just white Christian married straight people who like children? Just a crazy thought I'm putting out there.

Where was Bettina Arndt when a married role model (with children) was involved in a pretty shocking scandal involving gang rape?

Every day we see well-known Australians making dubious lifestyle decisions being lauded in the media - celebrities choosing to become single mothers, unwed fathers, parents dragging children through a succession of chaotic ''blended'' families.

Pat Rafter was made Australian of the Year just as he was about to become an unmarried father. What did that say to his many male fans about the importance of committed fathering?

ZOMG! Rafter's career in tennis ended because he had a child out of wedlock! If you have a child out of wedlock you'll never become a champion tennis player!!11!!!1!

Politicians today rarely question social trends, even when all the evidence is they are having negative social consequences. John Howard was the rare exception, when he went into bat for a child's rights to a father in the debate over single mothers and IVF.

John Howard was also anti-woman and believed we should stay at home and have kids. Oh. Wait. That's what you're saying, Bettina!

But the actions of our role models speak louder than any words. The well-heeled tennis hero cheerfully embracing unmarried paternity, the feminist toying with sole parenthood, the prime minister living with her boyfriend - why wouldn't their many fans not seek to walk in their shoes?

*sigh* Rafter got married; feminist have just as much right to have children as non-feminists; the Prime Minister is allowed to live with her partner in the Lodge. Frankly, it's nice to see successful public figures not fall into the married with children camp. There should be more of them.