I’m off to another long day of meetings, but at least I begin inspired by Julia 'badass' Gillard. This is so awesome.
Please. Someone tell Barack Obama to sit down and watch this speech a few dozen times until he realizes that this is the tone he must take in his debates with Romney. Gillard not only addresses endemic misogyny, but rebukes Tony Abbott for the actions of his whole party: “Has he taken any responsibility for the conduct of other members of his party?”
I love the way Abbott’s expression changes from smirk to scowl over the course of the speech.
The important thing about Gillard is that in every other way she’s pretty damn mediocre. She’s way worse at the job than Kevin Rudd, the predecessor she backstabbed. She’s sufficiently mediocre that the bozo she’s flaming there, Tony Abbott, actually has a good chance of being Australia’s next prime minister.
So this speech is actually the first sign she’s shown of having a spine. We can only hope she keeps it up, but her past behaviour predicts otherwise.
Imagine a woman Head of State who explicitly condemns sexism, misogyny and is an overt Atheist in the US.
now put a timeline on it.
Yes, that is how far assbackwards the US is.
Thanks, Q.E.D., you just reminded me to be grateful for living here despite the challenges we may have.
I don’t think she is worse than Rudd. She’s less popular, so it does depend on your metric. But Rudd was a super control freak and micromanager, and it seems that everybody who’s actually worked with him hates him.
Anyway, despite her flaws, this speech was wonderfully heartening.
Non-Aussies (and expats) may not have been following enough to get the “died of shame” reference, but it’s been HUGE here. Shock jock Alan Jones said that Gillard’s father died of shame for his daughter – very shortly after he actually died. Jones seems to have finally stepped over the line too far, and after a concerted campaign, hundreds of advertisers withdrew from his program. Mercedes made him give his car back. Haha.
And then scumbag Abbott had to go use that phrase…
She rocks.
Alethea – yeah, fair point on Rudd. I’m living in the UK – does this have any chance of affecting Abbott’s Liberal leadership and getting the at-least-slightly-sane Turnbull back into it? Or will Abbott being flamed for his trollish ways actually increase his in-party stocks?
If only she were honest about her views on gay marriage. I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt, of course. Perhaps she thinks that supporting gay marriage might be a little too much for the Christian voters. She’s probably right.
I must’ve seen this three times by now. I’m impressed.
Good to see someone in a position of power speaking about these sort of issues.
As Alethea put it a couple of posts up, despite her flaws, this speech was wonderfully heartening.
I certainly won’t be forgetting this speech any time soon.
Also, I must say, I’m ashamed at the amount of patronising commentary and condescension that is leveled at our Prime Minister, even in the mainstream media, owing to her lack of a penis. It’s been a real eye-opener for me.
An appropriate epithet for Tony Abbott would be Tea-Bag Tony because that is the direction he is taking his party in.
the man who started this, the right wing conservative radio schlock jock, Alan Jones said among other things that Julia should be put in a chaff bag and dumped. In his non-apology for claiming Julias father died of shame at her lies he further attacked her by explaining an old chaff bag was what his father used to take damaged or soiled goods to the garbage tip. Given his past track record the most reasonable interpretation of this is that he was applying those terms to Julia inferring that she “slept around” as the saying goes and thus has questionable morals. Abbott not only continued to use the died of shame remark he paraphrased Jones’ chaff bag comment by suggesting someone needed to make an “honest woman” of her. The most offensive thing of all was seeing two high profile female members of Abbott’s party defending his comments and suggesting that Julia was being “too precious” and needed to toughen up.
It is no coincidence that just over a decade ago Abbott’s party sent observers to the US to observe how the Rethuglicans run a presidential campaign.
Some longer context:
On sexism towards Gillard -http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/anne-summers-political-persecution-julia-gillard/
On Alan Jones – http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/alan-jones-loses-his-merc/story-e6frfkp9-1226489835280
What will this mean for Abbott? It’s a bit early to say. He’s looking seriously on the nose; it *might* be enough to get the Libs to ditch him for Turnbull, who although privileged and snooty is at least socially liberal and a republican. But maybe not. I really do not understand how all the internal party wheeling & dealing works.
I like Gillard, but what I don’t understand is why she won’t support gay marriage. Both Australia and New Zealand have had openly non-religious leaders for some time, but still no marriage equality.
She certainly kicked some ass in this video though.
I want to add that PM Gillard’s speech is already being labelled as an unseemly emotional outburst and not fitting for parliament. You can imagine that if Obama let loose like this it would be easy for his critics to portray him as an angry, emotional, threatening black man.
This oration goes into the ‘pig whipping hall of fame’. There isn’t a hall of fame? There needs to be one.
She has quite a balancing act to manage, she’s got a minority government, and in spite of that has managed to get through a load of legislation, including the carbon price. While I am disappointed that she hasn’t supported gay marriage, I’m not totally surprised.
And I thought that speech rocked.
She ruined it a little bit near the end when she said “…imposed by the leader of the opposition, now looking at his watch, because apparently a woman’s spoken too long…”
She has enough genuine ammunition without silly shit like that.
A good speech (first of hers I’ve been able to sit through) but it’s mainly a hit with her supporters. The opposition doesn’t take any notice because of their heavy Xtian/MRA bias. Abbott’s supporters are legion and some of them infest a forum I am on regularly. None of them agree with Gillard in any way and never will so long as she remains visible. They cannot help themselves, every mention of her name is coupled with a choice few disgusting slurs. Her party’s still got a massively uphill battle to win the next election.
Except that ‘watch looking’ is a common trick used by a lot of men to indicate that the female speaking is wasting their time.
Transcript of the speech available here:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/transcript-of-julia-gillards-speech-20121010-27c36.html
On watch looking:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2011/07/20/is-it-cold-in-here/
I apologize if this is a derail – it seemes somewhat apropos in a discussion of women leaders in the political world.
In my state of Connecticut USA, we are watching a tight race for Senate. The Republical candidate, Linda McMahon, is former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, a position that has brought her huge wealth. She spent $50 million in a failed Senate bid a few years ago and is back this time with plenty of cash.
She built her fortune on a business that exploits women and makes “entertainment” out of violence and sexual assault of women. More here:
http://courantblogs.com/colin-mcenroe/but-of-course-its-not-pornography/#comment-2993
I couldn’t watch the whole thing…I had to turn it off when I heard a man say “the pain in her eyes turns me on” – the “stories” in the “wrestling ring” play on the ideas that women enjoy rape, that they should expect to be raped, that they deserve to be beaten and probably enjoy it, that they are stupid, that they exist for men’s entertaiment…etc.
I am sickened and deeply ashamed that a women would lead a company like this, and horrified that she believes herself qualified to represent CT in Washington.
If you are in CT, please vote for her Democratic opponent. He’s not perfect but anything is better than the woman who made millions in this way, and who would probably take her misogynistic views to Washington. If you have family or friends in CT, please make them aware of this video.
Thank you – sorry for the derail. I am sick over this.
Brings me out of lurking to say – more. More of this. Call these people on it. Enough. No more. Sorry, am I not a person, too?
Despite that she is still very busy sucking up the ultra-radical Christian fringe who hold exactly the same opinions she railed against. She will do and say anything for votes and power.
Australia has a big problem that the amount of religious people in it’s political parties, are certainly out of proportion with it’s population.
This is one reason the Australian Federal Govt will do everything it can to stop SSM even to the extent of not sending Freedom to Marry Certificates to other countries if they think it’s for SSM.
It’s also one reason these state sponsored missionaries (Chaplains) are in schools. About 70% of the Federal politicians go to prayer breakfasts.
The PM ripping into Abbott seems to have been much bigger outside of Australia than in Australia itself.
______________________________________________________________
There once was a man called Tony, about women he got all moany, The PM let rip, a new arse she did fit, he’s now known as a misogynist phoney.
@shockwaveplasma
They actually changed the certificate thing a while ago after some people complained. That was truly outrageous.
steve84,
I am also disappointed in Gillard’s refusal to fight for same-sex marriage, which seems to be because her pollsters have told her it’s a wedge issue, but to say that she is sucking up to the radical Christian fringe is pretty untenable given that Gillard is openly atheist, never married despite living in several long-term relationships, and pro-choice.
She is definitely sucking up the religious right. Which is all the more silly given her personal life. Which is precisely why it’s less about conviction for her than political calculation. For example she was recently slated to hold a speech in front of the Australian Christian Lobby (which kind of the aussie Focus on the Family) and only cancelled that after they said something particularly homophobic. If being anti-abortion would be sure to get her votes, she’d be against that too.
Which is why steve84 she’s been passing all this legislation that is so popular with everyone and getting lots of votes out of it… oh wait. (Though personally I am rather happy that the carbon price got through. Even if it does cost me a bit more money. Because most of the people it does affect are those like me who can afford it (or could if they budgeted) and I like my planet and I am glad that at least they are trying to do something).
Sure there’s an element of political calculation in not trying to off-side the ACL which is a lobby group that is perceived to be powerful. Given the current difficulty level of her job, I think she has managed to do far better than I would have, and certainly far better than foot in mouth Tony who would have almost certainly done something to cause the independents necessary to the minority government to cease supporting him even if he’d managed to get their support in the first place. Which he didn’t.
Do I think she’s perfect? No. Do I wish that instead of just having an openly lesbian minister with a partner and child in her cabinet that she was fully on board with the gay marriage thing? Yes. Am I naive enough to think I will get everything I want with any politician? No.
If Obama does anything at all his critics will portray him in a negative light. He and the Democratic leadership still, after all these years, don’t seem to get that. They remind me of myself as a little kid – trying to find out how I could behave so my parents wouldn’t criticize me. I finally realized that no matter what I did, they would criticize me, so it was best just to be myself.
Yeah. I still don’t like her. She may be good for women, and certainly that’s a good thing, but she’s bad for gays, and therefor bad for gay women. Speaking out loud about misogyny, in the way she did is both important and necessary. It would certainly be nice if she could apply that outrage equally. I’m not convinced that she actually has any outrage regarding the inequality of gays’ rights.
cynthia mckinney took a lot of people to task when she was a representative. It got virtually no attention in the mainstream.
oh fuck you. Do you think men never pull that shit or that its “silly” when women notice it and say so?
Lachlan,
That was genuine ammunition! For as long as watches have been portable – the best part of 400 years – then ostentatiously consulting them when a woman is speaking has been part of the repertoire of the misogynist male.
You should try being a woman speaking at a meeting or from the podium sometime!
not to mention how fond dudes are of saying things like “look at me when I am talking to you”.
Well, this has already been alluded to, but let’s just remember that this passionate Champion of Equality crossed over and sat with the sexist, misogynist Mr. Abbott in order to oppose equality for same-sex couples. So pardon me if I don’t think she’s so bleedin’ “awesome,” PZ.
I think Abbot is portrayed brilliantly in this short animation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbo8SNTNsQQ
But of course, let’s not forget how Gillard really came to power: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn9fgcSuvmA
The only problem is that the most sexist and misogynist remarks revealed in Parliament recently come from Peter Slipper, an ordained Anglican minister and nasty piece of work currently under investigation for sexual harassment. Gillard was responsible for appointing him Speaker last year in an attempt to shore up her minority government, and has been conspicuously silent about his increasingly obvious failings ever since. Since Tony Abbott’s remarks and behaviour are on public record you can judge for yourself how ‘sexist’ they are; but I guarantee they don’t rate a mention beside those made by Slipper, whom Gillard has chosen to champion. This speech is a grandstanding stunt designed to draw attention away from real problems with the hugely unpopular Labor Party and its policies.
@14, New Zealand will pass gay marriage in a few months’ time. Both major parties have a conscience vote, and voted strongly in favour at first reading. It’s just got to go through the process now; the it passed 80-40 at first reading and it’s not going to lose 20 votes now.
I am quite convinced that the gay marriage thing is entirely to do with factional power-broking. The Catholic right is a powerful faction in the Labor party.
I watched this speech pretty much the instant after it took place; bloody amazing, and it put a smile on my face all day. There’s actually an interesting analysis on bullying levied against her here (NSFW):
http://annesummers.com.au/speeches/her-rights-at-work-r-rated/
But as much as I dislike Gillard for actively stopping the gay marriage vote getting through in parliament (she pushed for a conscience vote — since gay marriage is part of the Labor party platform, if there weren’t a conscience vote the Labor party would have had to vote for it), she gets a lot crap in the wrong ways; people should argue against her, not a strawperson made of views of her gender.
I think the best part of this, besides Gillard finally putting a great deal of emotion into a speech, was watching that arrogant, insufferable smirk slide off Abbott’s face.
So, what happened after? What was Abbott’s response? What did other members of Parliament say?
She’s way worse at the job than Kevin Rudd, the predecessor she backstabbed.
phht. sitting over here in NZ, the view is that:
-it would be hard to have been worse than Rudd
-any “backstabbing” learned by Gillard would have paled compared to Rudd’s own!
sorry, I HATE the aussie government. it’s nothing but petty politics and backstabbing, all the way down.
Didn’t bother watching the video, since I’m sure I wouldn’t be inspired to see Gillard — a strong opponent of LGBT equality — speak out against bigotry when it happens to affect her personally.
I’m not so down on her for the gay marriage position.
She’s had to stand tall as an atheist, childless woman who’s not married to the man she lives with and claim the respect of being the Prime Minister. And, until now, she’s glossed over or ignored a lot of the “make an honest woman” of her stuff – and the women’s magazine interviews asking about Tim proposing marriage to her – and the comments from the opposition about her being “barren”.
And she stands right alongside her cabinet colleague, the Finance Minister, Penny Wong. A christian woman, also unmarried, who has a same sex partner and an infant daughter in that relationship.
So she’s supporting the position that long-term unmarried sexual relationships of any kind are unremarkable within the senior echelons of representative government in Australia and it doesn’t matter whether you are or aren’t a religious believer. That’s pretty good in itself. Wouldn’t have seen that coming 10 or 15 years ago, it was something for the out of left field greenies like Bob Brown.
I don’t care that conservative christian groups are having to swallow their pride (and their prejudice) to get her to pay attention to them. I suspect that she’s pleased that they have to moderate their ‘pro-family’ ‘pro-marriage’ ‘pro-life’ language in order to deal with her.
Given how he trotted out his wife this week to fend off charges that he’s a misogynist. I’m amused at how easily he stumbled into Gillard’s sights.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5pLxRD8IGE
There’s another clip of comedian Dave Hughes grilling opposition member Julie Bishop about the ‘die of shame’ comment. Pity I can’t find it because Bishop’s glazed, Stepford wife response is something to behold. Anyone else know where to find it.
gijoel I had a quick look on “The Project”. But couldn’t get anything searching with “Julie Bishop” as the term. Was it on the day of the speech? Might need to step through a whole hour episode to find the stepford moment if it’s just a brief interview.
“Julia Gillard’s outburst, accusing Mr. Abbott of misogyny without substantiation, was outrageous”–letter writer to The West Australian.
Meanwhile, here on Planet Earth…
I wonder which backbencher gave her the “he needs a mirror” line. Was that Rudd? Kinda sounded like him.
*YAAAWWWNNNN* Thanks, I’ve been having trouble getting to sleep. I imagined your comment spoken in unison by Gerard Henderson and Paul Sheehan.
My American friends are entirely mistaken. From here in Australia, we see this from a different perspective. Gillard may speak strongly here, but it’s over something that’s completely made up, from whole cloth, for a purely political purpose.
Abbott is a decent chap and who speaks strongly whenever the opportunity arises to oppose misogyny, and has been backed recently by his wife, his daughters and his (female) Chief of Staff.
Meanwhile, this week Gillard backed two independent MPs to the hilt because it’s s hung parliament and she desperately needs their votes to stay in power. One used a Union credit card to pay for hookers. The other sent sexts derogatory of women to a staffer. Gillard is a complete hypocrite of the first order.
Nothing to see here, folks.
mildlymagnificent Yeah it was on that day. It’s was kind of funny as she is usually more animated. A la her infamous death stare.
nathanzamprogno:
<snicker>
Yeah, and I’m a Faerie Queen.
skeptifem:
Abbott looked at his watch, a practice that is surely common during time-limited speeches, especially near the end and especially when those speeches are dedicated to shitting all over said watch-gazer. Is looking at your watch a misogynist act now? Gillard had plenty of genuine, unambiguous ammunition, and she should have stuck to it. Nothing is gained by assuming misogyny of the most simple things as looking at your watch.
I’m sorry, what? Aren’t sweeping sexist generalisations something we’re trying to avoid here, and not just when they’re made about women?
maureenbrian:
No, it was not legitimate ammunition, it was a baseless outburst that damaged her otherwise brilliant speech.
Is this what you’d call evidence that Abbott was being misogynistic by looking at his watch? Gillard had actual quotes, on the record, and they were damning enough.
First Dog is, as always, awesome:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/10/10/thats-not-lecture-about-misogyny-this-is-a-lecture-about-misogyny/
you remind me of people I’ve met who offhandedly dismiss emotional reactions to people mocking African Americans by eating watermelon or fried chicken by saying that there’s nothing at all racist about eating watermelon or fried chicken.
context is everything.
Ichthyic:
Yep, and the context was the closing seconds of a timed speech.
By the way, I object to the idea that a man cannot be bored or frustrated with a person speaking, and show it by looking at his watch, just because they’re female. It’s certainly rude, but the (seemingly) automatic assumption that it has something to do with her being a woman is unfounded, and serves nobody.
Winterwind @15
My thoughts exactly. Bigotry sucks.
Portia @60 re Winterwind @15, the genetic fallacy is a fallacy.
(Anything can be labelled as anything — so what?)
|| Abbott is a decent chap […]
|
|
|
|Yeah, and I’m a Faerie Queen.
Morales, you may well be a Faerie Queen, but what you do in your own time is your own business.
I suspect, however, you’ve never met the man. On every occasion I have personally spoken with him, he hasn’t struck me as a misogynist, and I’d invite you to read his response (for example) to the death of the Prime Minister’s father and re-assess your view.
Well I’ve liong been a fan of Julia Gillard and thatwas defintely her at here best. Great to see – & great to see here.
@39. Callinectes :
Tony Abbott youtube clips~wise this one :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVt4-BLFBJU
which show Abbott-bott as the dinosaur he is (metaphorically speaking) quickly and accurately summing him up and which provides 15 reasons not to vote for Tony Abbott just as it promises in the title is my personal fave.
Then there’s this one :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BC49dJSo5k
too which I’d also recommend.
There’s even a whole unauthorised biography :
http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/books/sexist-abbott-blasted-in-new-book-20110929-1kzdi.html
written by Aussie feminist Susan Mitchell on Abbott’s sexism and history if folks really want in depth info on him and where he’s coming from.
@62. nathanzamprogno :
So you’ve met him often and seem to be a fan then? (Liberal party member are you?)
Also from the ‘nathan’ part of your nymn here I’m guessing your male, right?
You do realise that we blokes tend to have a less direct and full understanding of sexism and misogyny and are often unaware of it because we’re privileged and not effected by it and not always or even often great judges and detectors of it, right?
As for his response to the death of Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s father the key tell for me was his use of the despicable “died of shame” line in his speech about a minute before the PM’s response we see in the OP here. Okay he was talking about the government – but given Alan Jones earlier remarks about Gillard’s father to say that was at very least brutally unthinking and insensitive on Abbott’s part.
So he’s good at the formalities. That’s a pretty low bar to set for someone aiming to lead a country when he’s been involved in public speaking since before he left school. I’ve done similar set pieces within organisations when condolences are required. It’s a basic skill.
What he has done is to demonstrate a real lack of judgement in using the “died of shame” line. He’s used it several times before. When Jones’s speech became public knowledge, any half-skilled political operator should have recognised that that particular cliche was off the table for a good long while. It’s tainted, maybe forever.
@64. Correction – make that :
Because patriachial gender “norms” and our sexist rape culture does hurt men too.
So it’s a social problem when sexism and racism lead to more instances of that fallacy.
@2. David Gerard
I strongly disagree.
Your subjective opinion not mine or that of many others.
Rudd certainly had many problems and his popularity was collapsing when he was replaced and as others up thread have noted those who knew him best and worked with him most tend to have the lowest opinions of him.
Gillard was brought into the Rudd removal process very late and reluctantly. She supported him quite loyally up til it was very obvious he was in very serious -probably terminal – political trouble. If Gillard hadn’t replaced Rudd, she’d probably have been dumped along with him and someone else taken over from him instead.
Unless of course Abbott gets dumped by his party maybe being replaced by Turnbull who Abbott only defeated once by one vote as opposed to Gillard defeating Rudd twice – the first time with Rudd not even contesting his sacking as PM, the second time Gillard beating him by about two-thirds of the voters.
Also its not like Gillard has faced the most unrelenting and disgusting blatant political attack from the Murdoch media and radio shock jocks like Alan Jones & Andrew Bolt and the most negative dishonest opposition leader in Aussie political history since she took over is it? Oh wait. it is.
Y’know that just *might* have something to do with it, eh?
Got a short memory problem? Like mythical goldfish short memory span mate? Forgotten already how Julia Gillard had the spine to pass the carbon price and finally get Australia acting to slow the rate of Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating (HIRGO) which is something that Rudd working with Turnbull in a parliament he had majority power over couldn’t pass. Forgotten how Gillard has stood up to so many vicious political and personal attacks and demonisation and still got quite a bit of legislation through a hung parliament have you? Clearly you have. I haven’t.
Julia Gillard has always been an extremely tough leader. Sure she’s not perfect and there are quite a few areas where she could’ve done better – gay marriage, treatment of refugees and communicating with the public among them. But she’s certainly not that bad and show me a politcian who hasn’t disappointed and let us down on at least some issues can you? Many ways she reminds me of Obama.
@garydargan :
Yep. Although he ‘s already aptly been dubbed the Mad Monk & Captain Catholic.
That’s actually :
,
IOW drowned tied up inside a bag used to dispose of garbage and unable to attempt to swim away to provide the full horror of his comments. I think that’s supposed to be considered “funny” or appropriate.
A, you’d hope half-joking, treatment that Alan Jones has also recommended for many other political and cultural figures Jone’s dislikes.
@42. Alethea H. “Crocoduck” Dundee :
^ This. Seconded. The ALP has a long tradition of catholicism, Rudd himself was a famously devout Christian and arguing for gay marriage could well risk splitting the party and losing the power to do anything. I wish Gillard would act legalise gay marriage, euthanasia, dump the school chaplins, etc .. It shits me too that she can’t deliver more but can understand from a pragmatic political calculation point of view why she doesn’t.
@45.Ichthyic
Which is different from New Zealand politics and, for that matter politics anywhere *how* exactly?
Politics generally sucks and is frequently like that.
If Australia is worse its only by a matter of degree I think – and I’d reckon our politics (Aussie here) is far better than US politics in many respects.
Okay, there are probably many nations that are better but also many that are worse and that’s just comparing democracies not mentioning places like Pakistan, Cuba, Somalia and so on.
PS. Oops, before any else says it, make that Syria not Pakistan which is at least nominally classed as a “democracy” albeit being a nation created specifically for Muslims out of India frequently ruled by the military dictators following its regular coups and where 14 year old schoolgirls are shot and poisoned by the Taliban for wanting an education.
Syria, Cuba and Somalia then. To name just a very few worse off nations indeed
Julia Gillard has used voting power of a misogynist.
Tony Abbot is a misogynist.
One of these things is not like the other.
From the transcript quotes from Tony Abbot.
and
and
Do you deny that these are his words?
I suspect you don’t understand that there is ample opportunity for Tony Abbot to show he is a misogynist other than when he speaking to you. I’d invite you to consider the evidence as shown in the speech that is linked to in the post and re-assess your reasoning skills.
I find Julia Gillard’s record on gay marriage appalling.
However recently one of Tony Abbot’s colleagues linked gay marriage with beastiality.
Most commentators pointed out that this is wrong. Tony Abbot was forced to demote him, but stopped well short of condemning what he said. My inference is that Tony Abbot agreed with this position.
Tony Abbot is an arse of a man.
I went to a thing and there was a person who said she was glad Obama didn’t mention the horrible shit Romney and his ilk have said in the months leading up to the debate. Like the “legitimate rape” and “47%” stuff. She said she was glad he was the better person. So for people who do not stalk this stuff online but do watch the debate, they got to see our president omit actual damning statements for the sake of politeness.
Fuck politeness, I want honesty.
I’ll not be lectured on how we see things here in Australia by … er, some commenter I don’t know ;-)
Ah, a fallacy of the universal generalisation from limited personal experience (despite clear counter-evidence in this case). Speaking of which:
Er…no. The examples Gillard gave were direct quotes and reports of Abbott’s words and actions. The fact that you didn’t personally experience them doesn’t make them non-existent.
Indeed! And the people who claim that this:
…somehow means Abbott isn’t a misogynist, or that misogyny is OK, or Gillard is a hypocrite, or something:
a) don’t distinguish between private text messages (that were apparently not known to Gillard at the time) and public words and actions
b) don’t point out that Abbott and his party are currently accepting Slipper’s vote, a.k.a. using the voting power of that very same person, now that the text messages have been revealed to all.
Then again, IOKIYANAAL (AL = Australian Liberal, the party Abbott leads, which is confusingly at what is normally dubbed the Conservative end of politics).
@ ^ Lotharsson :
Okay, what’s the first part of that acronymn tho’ please?
Puzzled.
@40.jonjermey :
Not all *that* hugely unpopular actually – they’ve been going up in the polls lately!
Er, yeah, it might help if I get it right first. IOKIYAAL, styled after IOKIYAR.
@59
shorter lachan: intent is magic.
it doesn’t matter if he is simply bored (if we must pretend that he can divorce the speakers gender from his level of interest in the first place). It is experienced by her as sexism because its the fucking norm to be dismissed as a woman by such gestures. You’re acting like women should just pretend that every dude is not sexist as a default, like that would help anything. are we supposed to believe that he was just bored because you think he was? Do you think you are magically devoid of bias as well, that you are in a better position to judge than the woman subjected to it? I’ll take her word for it, thanks, and if he was just bored he should still be sorry for the result of his action.
@jonjermey
Bullshit. Abbott’s public remarks include the following:
‘If we’re honest, most of us would accept that a bad boss is a little bit like a bad father or a bad husband … you find that he tends to do more good than harm. He might be a bad boss but at least he’s employing someone while he is in fact a boss.’
‘The problem with the Australian practice of abortion is that an objectively grave matter has been reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience.
‘I think there does need to be give and take on both sides, and this idea that sex is kind of a woman’s right to absolutely withhold, just as the idea that sex is a man’s right to demand I think they are both they both need to be moderated, so to speak’
‘What the housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing…’
Slipper’s private texts pale in comparison. (For those who don’t know they include calling a member of his then party an ignorant botch (sic) and comparing ladyparts to mussells)
@nathanzamprogno
There’s plenty of Aussies on this board, Nathan, so there’s no need to speak for all of us. Also, everything she accused Abbott of in her speech was true.
Some of his best friends are women – are you seriously putting this forward as some sort of argument? If every man married or with daughters was magically non-sexist, the patriarchy would surely never existed.
Thompson was asked to resign from the ALP, and Slipper is not a member of any party. Gillards refusal to back Abbott motion to remove him from the Speakers position was certainly to hold onto her numbers, using the somewhat plausible defence that the case is still before the courts. The fact that Abbott tried to play the misogyny card on Slipper was ‘hypocrisy of the highest order’.
I maintain that some grubby text messages between him and James Ashby (who is the person accusing him of harassment) while disgusting, do not hold a candle to the sexist crap that Abbott has said and done over the years he has been in public life.
Here’s a female writer with a perspective on that claim:
Go read the whole thing.
StevoR
“Gillard was brought into the Rudd removal process very late and reluctantly. She supported him quite loyally up til it was very obvious he was in very serious -probably terminal – political trouble. ”
Whatever anyone thinks of either of them, this is more to do with the panicky fractiousness of the Labor party than anything else.
John Howard had lower approval ratings than Rudd at a couple of points during his reign.
skeptifem:
And assuming that every male is sexist by default helps how?
By the way, you keep making sweeping negative generalisations about males. That’s sexism defined. I can’t take you seriously while you’re being an egregious hypocrite. And no, my difficulty taking you seriously has nothing to do with your being a woman.
I don’t think being on the receiving end of a most offensive ‘watch glance’ gives you any special insight as to its purpose. Being overtly aware of, and probably hypersensitive to the idea that it could indicate chauvinism might give you a certain, as you say, bias.
Don’t get me wrong, Abbott is a pig and his watch glance could have meant exactly what Gillard said it meant. Regardless, she didn’t need to go there, and it came off as rather petty in my opinion.
Lol, what? If someone mistakenly takes offense to a completely innocent gesture, then the falsely accused offender should still be sorry? What planet do you live on?
After reading bits of your blog, I think perhaps you’re not somebody I want to continue to engage with.
Read harder. Better. Something. That’s not what she was saying.
Nonetheless, it is demonstrable that the kind of hyperskepticism you’re displaying does hinder progress.
Apparently, Julia Gillard and several other women have claimed this watch-looking business is a thing that men do to women when they’re talking. You actually have no idea, but you’re still somehow convinced that this isn’t a thing, and somehow Gillard should have better pandered to your sensibilities by only mentioning aspects of sexism you’re already on board with.
Why don’t you shut up instead? Listen? Read? Learn something?
Well, that’s just stupid on your part. I mean, not just stupid, but logical fallacy stupid.
The time for you to not engage was a whole lot of comments ago.
Pretty much every man has been brought up in a sexist society. They will have moments where they act or speak as a sexist. To deny that is unrecognised privilege. Understanding that is more helpful than denying it. Why is this hard to understand?
Looking at your watch whilst someone is giving a speech is not a completely innocent gesture. It is rude. Intent is not magic. If his intent was to not be rude, he shouldn’t have looked at his watch. By looking at his watch during this speech (which was explicitly directed to him), regardless of his intent, he was rude.
This is a common ploy used by men to demean women. Julia Gillard brought it up. Women on this post have confirmed this. You don’t get to tell other people what they find offensive. Your opinion of the fact that women are offended by this is petty is evidence of your unrecognised privilege.
So because you don’t suffer from misogyny it doesnt occur on your planet? More evidence of your unrecognised privilege.
Maybe you should have made this decision before commenting.
Brownian:
No, it’s what she’s doing. And she openly admits she’s doing this on her blog when she says: “A rare man can stop listening to the cultural programming and act decent, but I assume a man is a sexist jerk until he proves otherwise.”
Perhaps you should take your own advice and read something. Or read harder, or read better, you condescending prick.
What am I being hyper-sceptical about, exactly? You appear to be claiming that instances of chauvinistic watch-glancing are so pervasive that claims of such are to be taken as true by default. Yes, I reject this idea, and I don’t think it’s hyper-sceptical to do so.
And besides, that’s not even the point. As I said earlier, Gillard could well be right about Abbott’s glance at his watch. In the closing seconds of a time-boxed debate though, I’m not so sure. Either way, it’s irrelevant. She had plenty of quotes, on the record, to hang him with, and her outburst about his watch glance was completely unnecessary, even if watch glances are a ‘thing’ according to some women.
I didn’t actually say she was wrong because she is a hypocrite, I said I had trouble taking her seriously. I suppose knowing the Latin names of logical fallacies is no guarantee that you can actually recognise one.
This is what Julia used to be like before she became PM – fiery, aggressive, cutting and to the point. When she got the top job I was so excited because I thought she’d keep it up.
Instead it looked like the spin squad went into overdrive and she started getting a lot of bad advice: “Don’t get angry – you’ll just look shrill.” “Don’t be sarcastic – You’ll turn off male voters” blah blah blah. It was an awful example of what happens when you pander to polling data – you get a bland, boring cardboard cutout candidate designed by committee. (gee who does that remind me of?)
This is one of the few times old Julia resurfaced and as you can see it was a great fireworks show – almost made me excited again.
As for her stance on gay marriage? The only reason I can fathom that she’s opposed it for so long is that she wants to drop it, Biden-like, at the height of the election campaign as a huge wedge issue to polarise the electorate. Currently gay marriage has about a 65% popularity nation wide – it might be enough (and maybe the only thing) to win her the next election.
Until then though the last thing she wants is a gay marriage bill put forward by a minor party to pass into legislation. They don’t want anyone stealing their thunder.
On the other hand she may just be pandering to the religious-right faction in her own party – I’m a Labor voter but I wouldn’t put it past them to be that bloody stupid.
Brownian certainly made no such claim. Try rereading what he said.
The prime minister of Australia has claimed this happens to her. Women on this post have made the same claim. You reject the idea for no apparent reason other than you dont like it. You are being hypersceptical.
Nice use of scare quotes to tell women that their experiences do not compare to your own.
Oh, is the conversation taking place there? Because you quoted her comment here. And what she said isn’t that.
And what I wrote was “That’s not what she was saying.” In this context. On this blog.
Fixed it in a way that makes this relevant to the conversation here. You know, the one we’re having?
Did you read the fucking link?
No, fuck-face: you were the one who challenged Gillard’s claim and interpretation. Several people here have affirmed this. Rather than sticking your head up your ass and insisting that the only relevant claims she made were ones you already accept, you could shut up and do some reading. Instead, you dug in your heels.
Are you fucking kidding me? That’s the weakest fucking thing ever.
Grow a fucking spine and stand by what you write, you fucking cowardly shit.
Brownian:
Sorry, can you show me where I said she had made that specific claim on this blog post? I asked her a question about the appropriate default attitude to take towards men, knowing what her position is from her blog. So the faulty inference is yours, I’m afraid. Own up to your mistake.
A link to somebody else’s blog post is going to tell me what I’m being hyper-sceptical about? I’m fully aware of the hyper-scepticism shtick bandied about in this community, and this situation does not at all apply.
How ridiculous. Gillard makes a claim about what a man was thinking when he made a gesture. Several other women confirm that they believe it sometimes happens to them as well, therefore, Abbott is guilty. I don’t know nearly enough Latin to describe that one, so I’ll repeat myself again. I fully accept that sometimes men do the very thing Abbott was accused of. I fully accept that Abbott could very well be guilty in this circumstance. I fully accept that it’s worth challenging and pointing out, even if you can’t be sure (and you cannot). I do not think Gillard should have done it in her speech, especially when the rest of it was so well backed up.
Anyway, this minor point has strayed wildly off course, you aren’t making any decent points, and you appear to have lost your shit (quite easily I must say), so I won’t engage you any further.
A gesture that is often used by anti-feminists to silence and belittle women… during a speech given by a woman who feels she has been silenced and belittled… concerning and delivered to an anti-feminist… after has has preformed that gesture… since that is apparently a bad time to point out and challenge that gesture, may I ask what would be a good time to do so?
Yes. Because the seven seconds of “look at the dismissive attitude he is displaying towards me right now!” really sunk her case. Even more so because she dared to use it as evidence of sexism! I mean, sexism is so rare that you need to have the person accused of it sign a document in a triplicate, stating “I only did that action almost exclusively because the recipient of that action was a woman” or else it can’t possibly be called sexism! Not even if it is regarded as further evidence of sexism at the end of a long line of evidence of sexism.
I’m sure you had no part in that.
Oh, and really like that you managed to pull your own version of the “you’re intolerant of intolerance” card when accusing skeptifem of sexism for assuming that men were, by default, sexist. Just like it is racist to assume that most white people are racist to some degree and just like it is bigoted to assume that most Christians have antipathy towards gay people. Oh, the humanity!
By the way, I object to the idea that a man cannot be bored or frustrated with a person speaking
well, aren’t you precious, cupcake.
not that it is in any way relevant, just like what you said, but hey, I can’t but help agree with your statement.
guess who is boring the fuck out of me on this very thread?
And as anyone who actually watched the video would know, Julia Gillard did not ‘champion’ Slipper. She clearly stated she found the texts offensive. But it would set a very bad precedent if the parliament voted on things that were before the court and thus not all the information available for. The main point of her speech was highlighting the sheer hypocrisy of Abbott accusing someone else of sexism and misogyny and of not taking responsibility for that when he himself clearly does not do so.
And for what it is worth, if I passed a man in the street who checked his watch, I wouldn’t think that was sexist. But coming from a person who has frequently used sexist language, in the middle of a speech by a woman, about sexism? Hell yeah. Rude and dismissive and common and she should by all means have highlighted it. If all it does is make other men more conscious of looking at their watches in meetings where a woman is speaking she will have done many people a favour.
Lachlan, read this or don’t. You’re a lost cause at this point.
I’m writing this for the benefit of others who might read this and not recognise themselves in it.
Lachlan’s second post in this comment declares his solidarity with the Prime Minister:
And what then is his next comment?
Why, dear Prime Minister, career politician and lifelong woman, you didn’t make your anti-sexist speech right. You ruined it by getting downright silly.
No sirree, that’s not patronising and condescending. No, not at all.
Now, when several people, including, y’know, actual women for whom sexism isn’t a philosophical issue to be pondered in a detached and abstract way, assure Lachlan that watch-watching is a dismissive technique, what does this ally do?
He tells them that they’re wrong about what sexism is and they’re fighting it incorrectly too.
…and serves nobody.
…and…helps how?
I can’t take you seriously…
No, that’s not hyperskepticality. Not at all.
This is from a man who perceives himself as an ally. Hell, he’s such an ally he’s going to tell you how to do it. By god, if you’re gonna win an argument, Ms. Prime Minister, you’d better run your points by Lachlan lest you ruin it all by getting all hysterical. ‘Looking at your watch.’ Ridiculous! Are you PMSing or something?
You can almost see Lachlan leaning back, wryly stroking his chin at his self-declared victory: “quite easily I must say”. Jeez, I dunno what to tell you Lachlan. If the fucking Prime Minister of Australia can’t keep it together enough to make a speech compelling enough for you, what chance do I have?
But well done. You can rest easy the next time a man checks his watch when you’re talking, ladies. Lachlan’s decreed that you should probably stick to your prepared script. Go off book, and your ovaries betray you.
…
…
…
So guys, this is exactly what we’re talking about. Don’t fucking do that.
I’m still going with Lachlan saying that if I was eating watermelon while talking about segregating “spearchuckers”, why he would of course have no objections whatsoever.
I mean sure, my eating watermelon while I spewed racial epithets might be just pure coincidence.
uh huh.
@80.Lotharsson
Aha. Makes sense now. Cheers.
@85. Muz :
Rudd also had other issues as well. I think a lot of his party have hated him (& still do) for a long time and seemingly not without good reasons. His interpersonal skills are pretty notoriously bad and his treatment of many of his staffers and underlings has, well, left a lot to be desired putting it mildly.
@86. Lachlan :
Because it saves time I guess?
Also, reading comprehension fail on your part Lachlan.
@98. Brownian :
^ This. Seconded.
Lachlan, I’m guessing you ain’t a woman.
Women have different perspectives, different experiences and are better at recognising some things than us blokes are. Because yes, even in the 21st fucking century they’re still being treated differently and worse.
So, y’know, maybe fucken listen for a change when they tell you what *they* experience and how it seems to them because, fuck, they just *might* actually, well y’know, *know* what the fuck they’re talking about when you wouldn’t.
PS. Can I please nominate that comment of Brownian’s for a New Molly Award? Pretty please?
Correction
With exceptions being too fucking rare I’m guessing.
@StevoR
Lachlan’s terminal case of Knowing What Women Go Through Better Than They Do makes it difficult to imagine them as not being a man, but who knows.
On the internet – who knows? fuck yeah.
FWIW, in the news: Gillard’s speech prompts misogyny definition rethink