9 Oct 2012

Tony Abbott's Good Girls

By Zoe Krupka
Did Tony Abbott overplay his hand when he asked his wife to advocate on his behalf? Does it matter? Zoe Krupka on why being surrounded by 'strong women' is a sign of a man who never grew up

Last week Margie Abbott chose to make a series of public appearances in order to defend her husband's reputation with women. In her plea to Australian voters, she described Tony Abbott as surrounded by strong, capable women. So far, it doesn't appear to have worked. What went wrong? What does it really mean to be a man who likes women? What's grabbed our attention about this latest attempt to soften the image of the leader of the opposition?

Whenever I hear a man described as being "surrounded by strong women", I have a suspicion that we're talking about a guy who has failed to grow up. Not a man who hates women, but a man who is still dependent on women. A man who has not yet become a man. Having no balls of his own, the nearest woman with a strong pair of ovaries is a good place to hang out.

You never hear a man discredited because he's surrounded by weak women. This is because men who truly hate women don't surround themselves with women at all, weak, strong or anywhere in between. It may be reasonable to assume that Tony Abbott doesn't hate women, but his wife's defence of his character has somehow failed to make a dent in the strong public perception of him as a man who is less than receptive to many of the needs and interests of women. Margie Abbott's words are sincere and appear heartfelt, but if many of the women who object to Abbott aren't just talking policy, why don't her pleas move us?

Perhaps a better defence of Tony Abbott, one that we might have felt was instinctively more trustworthy, would have come from the men around him. A man who is really comfortable with women is comfortable with himself as a man. To find a truly feminist man — rather than your garden-variety snag — you look at his male friends and their relationships with each other and to the women in their lives. A man with good men around him is a man who doesn't need women to take care of him. A guy who can do the dishes and cry at movies and doesn't need his wife to tell the world about it for him.

Imagine for a moment that Abbott's male friends had come forward in his defence. Imagine that they spoke admiringly about him as a friend and about his relationships with women. Imagine that they had said something about Abbott being the kind of man they hoped their straight daughters might end up with. Now cast your mind to Abbott's avowed heroes, Howard, Santamaria and Pell. None of them men with a great track record in the women department by any stretch of the imagination.

In a patriarchal desert, strong heterosexual women will often choose a man who prefers to be around women over a bloke's bloke. This is a sensible choice in a limited market. A man who prefers the company of women is often fun to be around, a better lover and a more caring father. This is a decidedly better option than a man who neither likes nor respects women.

But a man who does not have strong friendships with other men who like and respect women is often a man who is conflicted about women and about his own masculinity. Since he's not quite sure about how to be a good man or how to be friends with other men, he chooses to avoid the issue and just hang out with women instead. Because this doesn't help him solve the problem of how to be a man in the world, it leaves him stuck in being a boy. So he can be both highly attuned to and highly resentful of the women he's closest to. I suspect a good many of the majority of women who said they didn't like Tony Abbott, know what it's like to be on the wrong side of this kind of resentment.

After a painful break up, my daughter declared that she would never again date a boy who had "stuff" with his mother. Wise choice really. Men who are unable to resolve their difficulties with their mothers tend to make unreliable partners for women. Sometimes these unresolved feelings stem from a good/mother bad/mother dichotomy that starts in early childhood and manifests later in life in judgements about women for their mothering or childlessness, sexuality, assertiveness, femininity or celibacy. Not unlike the judgements we've seen lobbed at Gillard from the Abbott camp.

The good mother/bad mother split starts early. Many developmental theorists think that babies are unable to experience their feelings as their own, and instead see them as caused by their mothers or the people who care for them most consistently. When they're uncomfortable, they feel bad and when they're comforted they feel good, and they imagine that this comes from their mothers being either good or bad. Over time, with consistent care from someone who can bear their distress without taking it personally, they learn that they are both good and bad and so is everyone else. They learn that there is grey to every situation and within every person.

But sometimes something goes wrong and the integration of the good and bad mother and the good and bad self never happens. Instead, they stay split and so consequently does their world view. For many boys in this situation, women become either good or bad. Bad-Mother/Good-Mother then grows up to become Good Wife/Bad Mother-In-Law, Bad Ex/Good Girlfriend or simply Good Girls/Bad Girls. Many women sense this split in a man instinctively. They know that being on the good side only means they may end up in the dog house sooner or later, and they know that for them to be in the good books, some other woman has to be trashed.

It's not hard to understand Margie Abbott's desire to speak out. It must be painful to hear someone you love publicly criticised for crimes of which you believe him to be innocent. Hard also to see yourself by implication as somehow being the bunny who hooked up with a less-than-desirable man. Who wouldn't want to respond defensively?

Unfortunately, Margie Abbott's defence of her husband dismisses the real concerns of other women affected by his work. She claims to know the "real" Tony, so the women who don't like his attitude to women must of course be mistaken. Instead of being able to see her husband from another point of view, she paints a large proportion of the female population of Australia as misguided. In doing so, she's helped to group women once again into polarised categories. This time we're being told that some of us understand him, and some of us don't. We mustn't know our own minds. And those of us who persist in our view that Tony Abbott doesn't like women become once again the bad girls. That's certainly got our attention.

ABOUT THERAPY FOR NEWS JUNKIES: Why does the news make the news? Why do certain stories gain such traction? Therapy For News Junkies is a regular NM column which looks at why audiences react so vehemently to particular issues. Zoe Krupka is a psychotherapist who uses her knowledge about how we react as individuals to better understand collective responses to the events of the day.
Log in or register to post comments

Discuss this article

To control your subscriptions to discussions you participate in go to your Account Settings preferences and click the Subscriptions tab.

Enter your comments here

jcleeland
Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2012 - 14:52

Zoe, seriously, whenever you hear a man described as being "surrounded by strong women", you have a suspicion that we’re talking about a guy who has failed to grow up.

Are you surrounded by men who didn't grow up? Or are you a weak woman?

What an astoundingly ridiculous statement.

K Brown
Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2012 - 15:01

Tony Abbott doesn't have a problem with women per se just those who dare to stand in the way of his political ambitions whether it was 35 years ago when he stood over and abused Barbara Ramjan after she beat him for the presidency of the Sydney University student representative council (SRC), or Nicola Roxon when she was Minister for Health and he invidiously held the shadow portfolio, or ultimately Julia Gillard who out-negotiated him to win the ultimate prize of Government in 2010 even when he was prepared to do "anything but sell his arse" .

Tony Abbott doesn't like losing to anyone but he can't handle it at all when he is beaten by a woman. His wife, his political henchmen and women may be blind to this trait, but even if they were aware they wouldn't say so. He may include "strong" women on his team but that doesn't camouflage the total antipathy he has for his female political opponents. Women can sense these things and it isn't hard to see Tony's problem. It's obvious to me and I aint a woman!

lev_lafayette
Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2012 - 15:03

Agreed with jcleeland. Strong women are wonderful people and having them in one's company is also illustrative of being able to recognise those strengths with approval.

Concentrate and condemn Abbott's loathsome political attitudes towards women to the n-th degree for what it actually is, but spare us from psychotherapy pretending to be capable of providing universal explanations of behaviour.

davidstephens
Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2012 - 15:29

David Stephens

I actually wondered whether the real tagline was not that TA can deal with strong women but that he is a married family man, with children, sans extra-marital affairs (see recent nasty blogs regarding PM) as a dog whistle or perhaps as a pre-emptive strike or to quell rumours, of which there are bound to be many both new and reheated. Such is the world we live in.

r2rr
Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2012 - 16:10

His wife and daughters are fine, because they are filling the roles that they are meant to in Tony’s orderly and conservative world.
His problem is with women who step outside. Unmarried women, gay women, successful women, strong women, women who have hairdressers for boyfriends.

fightmumma
Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2012 - 16:31

I don't really get what this article is actually about - what are you trying to say Zoe? It meanders all over the place and I don't see the point to it as yet? So "real men" are feminised men?? That's what determines a real man?? Hell, where were all the real men before feminism was invented!!!?

I asked myself that once when grumbling about having no partner, I want a "real man", but then I realised that this is just plain silly - a grown up person is independent and thus able to be depended upon, the gender part (except that I like men!!) isn't the important distinctive factor of making him "real" it is that he is true to himself, is assertive in a balanced way and has his own opinions, interests etc. What makes ANY person "real"? Is it not, that they are not fake or living out some extrenal identity, indeed in this way a woman relying on her "realness" by being a "feminist" is in fact not real, she has adopted a persona - an immature and maladaptive act.

Are you saying that the public knows TA better than his WIFE does? What the?!!!! How well does the public know any person who is a public figure? This logic is not very well thought out IMHO. We are actually most concerned about the TA as a representative of the citizens of Australia and how he will behave in relationships within all the contexts that his jobs will place him in. In this way, what his wife says is relatively insignificant because she does not know him as a politician, as a negotiator, as a policy designer, as a communicator in professional contexts.

Also, how does Zoe end up mocking and belittlling both men and women in one article??!! Or should I say one "type" of man or women...what's with that? As I said, I just don't get this article, and in light of recent articles about women's safety in public spaces, violence against women and sharing a healthy discourse between men and women - this article is very negative for that process. Zoe you just come across to me as a "man-hater" and that the only men you won't hate are "feminised" ones.

fightmumma
Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2012 - 16:34

Gives the saying "flipping the bird" a whole new meaning.

louised
Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2012 - 16:59

This article doesn't make much sense. I think using the fact that Abbot is surrounded by strong women to criticise him misses the mark and smells a little desperate. Yes Abbot is worthy of criticising, but being what you might call a mummy's boy is not a valid criticism because it has nothing to do with his politics. And actually, in my experience, men who surround themselves with strong women are usually awesome.

Venise Alstergren
Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2012 - 18:31

Ummm? I have to say I don't quite get the author's point. Also, why psychoanalyse the infamously, irredeemably anti-women Tony Abbott. What does it matter what motivates this man? It's far too late to change him.

To me this pathetic attempt to bring the women in his family into play smacks of desperation. Not only is Julia Gillard worrying him a lot but he is so lacking in female friends he has had to go to the well known point of last resort-the little woman. The whole set up of this story lacks credibility. It's a Dorothy Dixer writ large and I'm delighted that other women have seen through this flimsy story. How does one know it was flimsy? Easy, the Herald Sun used full-page photos. The last resort of a desperate editor.

Venise Alstergren
Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2012 - 18:35

PS: Looking at New Matilda's shot of Tony Abbott and his family, I would venture to suggest the man looks anything but relaxed and happy. Downright furtive would be closer to the mark.

pooky
Posted Tuesday, October 9, 2012 - 19:19

What an amazingly thought-provoking article. It's rare to come across insightful commentary on a man who has provoked antipathyaiming so many women - neither Labor nor Liberal-voting women take to him. I have shared this article with the men in my life. They "got" it and it resonated with them too. Thank you so much Zoe Krupka! I will look out for your writing in future.

Roddy
Posted Wednesday, October 10, 2012 - 08:27

Who says Abbott's wife is a "strong" woman ? She has been ordered to public support him for political purposes and has obeyed without question. What else has she done to make her a "strong" woman. What would Abbott have done if she refused to speak? Push her up against a wall and punch it on either side of her head, I suspect.

Elbert
Posted Wednesday, October 10, 2012 - 08:48

I'm a man and I thought the article excellent. Seeing TA with his family I felt an overwhelming sense of pity - the bloke is so obviously hen-pecked, no wonder he takes it out on other women occasionally.

jcleeland
Posted Wednesday, October 10, 2012 - 11:15

Having re-read the first few paragraphs a few times I think I'm beginning to understand.. I think now that Zoe is saying that if someone actually has to come out and SAY that they are surrounded by strong women, they must be child-men. This is better than what I originally thought, although still a pretty big claim. Not so "astoundingly ridiculous" :-)

Brooza
Posted Wednesday, October 10, 2012 - 12:28

Hilarious article, though I cringe at the banal self indulgence. And NM saves the best for last.
'Zoe Krupka is a psychotherapist who uses her knowledge about how we react as individuals to better understand collective responses to the events of the day'.
Who wrote that? Gold!
I'm not sure Zoe knows what 'psychotherapy' is, but I bet she makes a fortune peddling it......

Jandamarra
Posted Wednesday, October 10, 2012 - 12:30

Zoe you have talent but this article is all over the shop!!

The title and picture say it all really "Tony Abbott's good girls" and the photo of 'his' woman surrounding him and making him the center of all their adoring attention implies they are Good Christian Girls looking for their own Tony to serve/obey.
This whole episode of Margie coming out to defend 'The stunt man of Aussie Politics', gives an insight into he real Tony....weak as piss and gets 'his women to fight for him, while he hides behind them.
Is it just me or does Margie look like Tony in drag? That old saying must be true - Dog owners and their dogs will eventually look alike.

Acey
Posted Wednesday, October 10, 2012 - 16:09

Personally I dislike 'weak' women - essentially women who do not know their own mind, refuse to take responsibility for their lives & are seeking a man to essentially replace their father as a paternal figure.

I dislike 'weak' men who are the same (but reversed).

I like 'strong' women - self-possessed, know an speak their mind, intelligent, articulate and successful. Ditto 'strong' men. Same qualities.

Abbott is a creature of his generation and worldview - and his wife is the same.

Their traditional roles are not ones applicable to my generation, nor to my children.

While I support liberal philosophies, I cannot support the conservative, confused, abusive, religious views of a man like Abbott. He is neither strong nor weak, he is a void filled by whatever he believes will win him a vote at the time.

As a 'nothing', people project what they want to see on Abbott - which makes him an effective negative politician. It does not make him a leader.

This user is a New Matilda supporter. aussiegreg
Posted Wednesday, October 10, 2012 - 18:00

Will any of those who rightly objected to the "Bob Brown's bitch" signs also take @Jandamarra to task for his equivalent misogyny? Or does he get a pass because he is attacking the wife of a Conservative politician?

This user is a New Matilda supporter. aussiegreg
Posted Wednesday, October 10, 2012 - 18:08

I think @Brooza has tumbled to what is going on here – Zoe doesn't believe a word of this psychobabble, she is just making it up for the money!

I'll bet that like Australia's cartoonists she's praying Abbott survives as Liberal leader – he's so good for business!

By the way, for those of you who took her brain-dead analysis at face value, try substituting Kevin Rudd for Tony Abbott.

This user is a New Matilda supporter. aussiegreg
Posted Wednesday, October 10, 2012 - 18:16

@fightmumma

You ask: <i>Also, how does Zoe end up mocking and belittlling both men and women in one article??!!</i>

Well, those of us who belittle others do so in order to feel bigger.

fightmumma
Posted Wednesday, October 10, 2012 - 20:21

aussie - FEELING better as opposed to BEING a better person...or contributing to someone else being a better version of themselves.

Jandamarra
Posted Thursday, October 11, 2012 - 08:59

Greg
You say "By the way, for those of you who took her brain-dead analysis at face value" but then you go onto say to fightmumma "Well, those of us who belittle others do so in order to feel bigger." So....do you feel bigger now for belittling Zoe and her hard work?

This user is a New Matilda supporter. aussiegreg
Posted Thursday, October 11, 2012 - 14:12

@Jandamarra

You mean her <i>cleverer</i> work, don't you? Making God knows how much out of faking all that psychobabble?

I'm sorry you missed out on the irony gene – you're not American are you?

Now to personal matters: how are you coming along with that apology for your misogyny?

Jandamarra
Posted Friday, October 12, 2012 - 09:16

Apologize to who? You?.... LMFAO!!!!
No I'm a Queenslander - just not bound by an innate sense of bigoted generational hypocrisy, like some.

There you go again calling Zoe's work "psychobabble".

“Well, those of us who belittle others do so in order to feel bigger.” So......do you feel bigger now for belittling Zoe and her hard work?

Jandamarra
Posted Friday, October 12, 2012 - 09:16

Apologize to who? You?.... LMFAO!!!!
No I'm a Queenslander - just not bound by an innate sense of bigoted generational hypocrisy, like some.

There you go again calling Zoe's work "psychobabble".

“Well, those of us who belittle others do so in order to feel bigger.” So......do you feel bigger now for belittling Zoe and her hard work?

This user is a New Matilda supporter. aussiegreg
Posted Friday, October 12, 2012 - 14:34

Don't be cute, @Jandamarra, letting me have it with both barrels! And stop pretending you don't know who a hypocrite like you owes an apology to -- has anyone else on these boards called Margie Abbott a dog?

It's still a pity you missed out on the irony gene -- better get one of your more intellectual Labor friends to explain the joke to you.

fightmumma
Posted Friday, October 12, 2012 - 15:09

Jandie - you are upset at aussiegreg's "critique" of the article, but see no issue with calling other women dogs? Does pot and kettle come to mind at all?

This user is a New Matilda supporter. aussiegreg
Posted Saturday, October 13, 2012 - 03:01

@fightmumma

"Jandie"?? That's a bit intimate! Are you cheating on jackal01 <i>already</i>?

fightmumma
Posted Saturday, October 13, 2012 - 07:17

aussie - you are so annoying...if annoying was in the olympics you'd be tested for performance-enhancing drugs :-P

John Bennetts
Posted Saturday, October 13, 2012 - 13:06

As usual, the comments tend to be monopolised by a few warriors.

Hey, NM, how about limiting the number of each commenter's posts per day per thread to, say, three, and the number of posts to the site to ten or a dozen? That should suffice to let the steam out and provide an opportunity to address the subject of the lead article.

Alternatively, if there is a human moderator, simply by chopping those posts which don't follow the normal rules would result in a much more orderly and concise thread.

Now, my tuppence worth...

This article has sufficient meat on its bones to warrant publishing. IMHO, it is really important for the public, ie the electors, to get whatever help is available to understand both the Leader of the Federal Opposition and the Prime Minister. Both have publicly displayed character flaws and histories which are unlike any of their predecessors. Both are somewhat hobbled by their weaknesses, but who on this earth is not?

So, thanks, NM, for bringing us this perspective. Whether or not it will make any difference in next year's vote is another question. Most of us had pretty well made up our minds and, as the defensive comments indicate, are not going to change our opinions of either any time soon.

This user is a New Matilda supporter. dazza
Posted Saturday, October 13, 2012 - 21:35

Now, I can only speak from near 70 years of observations, and some readings of relevant literature over those years.
I am unmarried, never married, never even close. I learned early in life to be utterly self-sufficient unto myself. My Mother, for whatever reasons, hated men, most particularly her husband and her male children, so we grew up, two sons, at some distance from maternal attention. In later years, I found that I had no need for the support of a woman, strong or otherwise. I can, and do, whatever is necessary, for myself, and always have. Women instinctively know this, and do not approach. Some women resent this, some do not. Generally, strong minded women hate a man who is not interested in them, even if he is heterosexual, and they are otherwise 'settled'.
But looking around me at other rellies and friends, I see one couple of long standing, both of whom are strong personalities, who live in a sort of perpetual war. They sort out their lives by mutual agreement, and it does not appear that there is a constant winner. It does seem to work very well.
Another couple, the woman is strong minded, self absorbed to the point of distraction, and the men in her life just give her what she wants, with no argument. Peace at any price. They have three children, now adults, two men, one woman, and they are all unable to hold relationships. The older boy/man with three failed marriages behind him, is now somewhat settled, with an extremely strong woman, who brooks NO argument.
This same applies to a younger version, he 'used' women for years, until he was 'taken over' by a very strong willed woman, and he is now 'tamed'. Utterly.
I would suspect that TA is indeed a weak man where women are concerned, one who treats those who are seen by him to be subservient/undeserving, and he has surrounded himself with apparently strong willed women because he is not comfortable with strong men, unless he can control them. I would suggest that in his home and with his family, he has been 'tamed'. So he takes out his frustrations on other people. Grovel to him, and you are patted on the head, stand up to his bullying, and he will react strongly and sometimes violently against you. Lots of these people around.

Dazza.

Elbert
Posted Monday, October 15, 2012 - 08:17

Good one, Dazza - couldn't have put it better myself.

Jandamarra
Posted Monday, October 15, 2012 - 11:59

Mumma, Greg

Who says I called Margie a dog or any woman for that matter, what I said is
"That old saying must be true - Dog owners and their dogs will eventually look alike".
It is your misogynist and absolute contempt for women that you automatically presume I meant Margie...a woman. When in fact I could have been referring to Tony. Who I was referring to is irrelevant now, as I have highlighted your own deep rooted misogyny. As hard as one tries, I can never stop misogynists thinking about woman in a degrading way when the word dog is mentioned, or put brains in statues.

It’s still a very big pity you missed out on the irony gene Greg — better get one of your more intellectual Liberal friends to explain the joke to you over a time period in which you can sufficiently adsorb this new info....say 3 months?.

fightmumma
Posted Monday, October 15, 2012 - 16:14

J - you say she looks like a man in drag - a value statement based on appearance and apparently what you think is acceptable appearances for women.Your dog dog owner statement is not clear. She either is the dog and he the owner or he is the dog and she the owner...in both cases references to dog-likeness. It's funny though - I like dogs, so if someone called me a dog, even though I'd understand their attempt at a putdown...it'd see it as a complement...dogs behave better than a helluvalotta people! My best mate is one too! He gives good cuddles although his breath's a bit on the nose...and he doesn't look anything like me BTW!!!

This user is a New Matilda supporter. aussiegreg
Posted Tuesday, October 16, 2012 - 16:33

Now, Jandie, sweetie, if you meant your gender-specific references to "dog" to be ironic, that means you were <i>really</i> making a gender-specific reference to "bitch", after decoding for irony.

So you really <i>were</i> calling Margie Abbott a bitch.

Just as well I hadn't asked either of my Liberal friends to explain the joke to me since they both take a dim view of men who call women bitches.

They are a bit precious about these things though – they really need to spend more time at Union functions in the Great Hall of Parliament to acquire a sense of humour.

Oh, and one of them says I'm the most Left-wing person he knows, so clearly he doesn't get out much.

Now I know I said I'd let you have the last word, but you should have taken that as a post-modern, self-referent, self-mocking, textual reference.

Dr Dog
Posted Friday, October 19, 2012 - 14:47

Thanks fightmumma, I came too late to be part of it but I am deeply uncomfortable with the use of the word dog here, implying that being a dog is somehow inferior to being a person. As far as I am concerned Jandamurra was simply implying that Mrs Abbott has six nipples. Nothing sexist there...

jackal01
Posted Saturday, October 27, 2012 - 05:56

Jandamarra,

"Is it just me or does Margie look like Tony in drag? That old saying must be true - Dog owners and their dogs will eventually look alike".

Far too cruel on a woman who has done you no wrong.
70% of all Australians like me have a vocabulary of 500 words or less, so what ever this private Joke might or might not mean to you over educateds is irrelevant, it is what the majority of us Dumbo's think that counts. You're out of line. Retract.

dazza, Acey you get my vote.

Aussiegreg is still showing his distain for people with foreign sounding names, Zoe Krupka, or anyone who isn't Aussie Hero, AussieGreg, why AussieGreg, aussiegreg.

Are you? or just Pommy Landed Gentry! Who prefers the Oz of old, when the Landed Gentry ruled supreme.

jackal01
Posted Saturday, October 27, 2012 - 05:56

Jandamarra,

"Is it just me or does Margie look like Tony in drag? That old saying must be true - Dog owners and their dogs will eventually look alike".

Far too cruel on a woman who has done you no wrong.
70% of all Australians like me have a vocabulary of 500 words or less, so what ever this private Joke might or might not mean to you over educateds is irrelevant, it is what the majority of us Dumbo's think that counts. You're out of line. Retract.

dazza, Acey you get my vote.

Aussiegreg is still showing his distain for people with foreign sounding names, Zoe Krupka, or anyone who isn't Aussie Hero, AussieGreg, why AussieGreg, aussiegreg.

Are you? or just Pommy Landed Gentry! Who prefers the Oz of old, when the Landed Gentry ruled supreme.

jackal01
Posted Saturday, October 27, 2012 - 06:47

The reality here is that their MIGHT be a bit of Religious control of our Political System going on here.

The Jews haven't forgotten what the Catholics did before and after WW2 to create that mess and the Catholics haven't forgotten the part Samuel Untermeyer played in deviding and Conquereing Europe, putting America on the map at everyone elses expense and jocking for the creation of the state of Israel.

Julia of course has a Jewish Boyfriend which must worry some Catholics and TA of course could be another Adolf, the Protestants are probably again keeping silent but stirring the pot.

Now we don't know for certain but then again we can't afford to ignore it either. So think wisely and lets not become breeding cows, milking cows or just plain stupid sheep.

Our political system is being manipulated, it was, to get us into the coalition of wankers. Hence the Political assasination of Latham who hated Bush. Their was a certain faction within the Jewish lobby who were involved, when the majority of Australian Jews realized they fixed the problem as best as they could, we have to respect and admire them for it.

The actions and behaviour of humanity during WW2 has been mostly forgiven, as it should, but not forgotten, as it should.

We are supposed to be secular but have in fact never been secular or egalitarian, it is this that leads to all of this dribble about our leaders like Kevin Rudd who's wife is? etc.

As a nation we have a lot of growing up to do, yet, so until then we must excercise some caution with our own comments, until we are sure who is behind anything.

Personaly I don't like T.A because he is a Fanatic or somewhat fanatical in his religious old world beliefs.

As the Pedophile problem, the stolen Children problem, explodes in our faces we see that the good old days weren't always the good old days especialy if you were on the wrong side of the fence and many of us are still building fences to devide, to control.
Out of fear, the fear of change, the fear of old, history.

We judge others by our own standards and our standards as a nation were never very high. 15 wars in 143 years, on average 1 every 9.5 years. If you live to the age of 60, man thats a lot of wars in a life time and for what, economic survival, thats all its ever been.
The Jewish leaders know it and the Catholics leaders know it, they just never told the truth about it to the sheep. So stop being sheep.

Now we also have a wild card amongst us, Muslims.

4 big Banks and 4 big religions. Legislated over by Lawyer Politicians with a few Economists thrown in and all payed for by Miners (exports). LOL
No wonder the none tax paying sheep are screwed.

77% of us do not pay tax, we just live, survive of the tax purse, native land.

Classless Society? LOL

This user is a New Matilda supporter. aussiegreg
Posted Sunday, October 28, 2012 - 15:49

Gee, @jackal01, now <i>you're</i> giving me both barrels as well!

Actually, I was given the moniker "AussieGreg" <i>by</i> a group of people with foreign sounding names, namely the staff in a budget hotel in Kathmandu. They already had a "Mr Greg" in residence, an Englishman as it happened, so they distinguished me by the moniker "Mr Australian Greg". I tried unsuccessfully to get them to call the other guy "Mr Pommy Greg" – getting them to drop the honorific "Mr" was a lost cause – and then I suggested shortening "Australian" to "Aussie", and that stuck. Finding myself in a Kathmandu Internet cafe and in need of a username to post to an American bulletin board, "AussieGreg" seemed to fit the bill (minus the "Mr" for egalitarian America, of course).

While I have noted before on these boards that I am as Dinky Di an Aussie as a whitefella can be, going back six generations in this country through each of three of my grandparents, prior to that, after a mere generation or two hiding out in England after the French Revolution, my namesake ancestors apparently hail from French/Spanish Landed Gentry in the Pyrenees.

Hence my Anglicised-Spanish foreign-sounding surname.

But as for me, I doubt my family owning a farm for all of 22 years before being forced to sell qualifies us as Landed Gentry.

jackal01
Posted Sunday, October 28, 2012 - 17:00

AHHH, well. I didn't like that theory anyhow.
But as you well know, by stating Nationality/religion one devides, one tries to gather street Cred, authenticity.

Anyhow, I thought I'd just throw it in for old times sake.

Good to hear your human tho, only joking. LOL.
Nothing wrong with Poms.
Its the Class people I don't stomach, you know the ones. The I am's.

Other then that anything goes.

As long as people don't force their mentality and their brain dead kids onto my personal space, i don't much care.

jackal01
Posted Sunday, October 28, 2012 - 17:53

And Zoe Krupka, I got it.

Good article, good points. I think you got it pretty close to the mark, closer them most.

But as you well know Zoe without a few hours in the chair at 150.00 an hour its pretty hard to read anyone, especialy when they don't want to be read.

Your right with the unresolved feelings stem from a good/mother bad/mother dichotomy that starts in early childhood, but in T.a's case its probably more the Traditional Catholic thing. You know Good Cath. Boy marries good Cath. Girl and all ends well. The taming of T.A had more to do with the daughters wearing him down over the years, my own daughter had that ability on me. T.A's girls all look like lovely young ladies and I'm sure Mrs Abbott can take credit for that. Being a Politician T.A wouldn't have been around that much.

Either way, as far as his Kids go they look like a good bunch. Mrs Abbott the typical mother of 3 girls and as far as T.A goes, the reality here is that their MIGHT be a bit of Religious/Gender based/Nationalistic control of our Political System going on here.

His Pom, his Catholic and a bit Macho not having had a boy to carry the name might have made him defencively macho. I knew a man once who had a Homosexual son, very similar in behaviour. Yet his Son was a brilliant young fellow. I told Tommo once that it was the Mother who past on those Genes hence San Francisco Guys wear T shirts with. "Thanks for the Gene's mom" printed on them. Old Tommo changed almost over night, stopped going to the Gym, stopped banging every thing on 2 legs that had breasts and became rather normal. His wife thanks me everytime she sees me, she doesn't know what i said tho.

My problem with T.A is his somewhat fanatical in his religious old world belief and he don't shoot straight. I like honest people who are up front, say what they mean and mean what they say. His whole negative campaign was all about winning not running the country for the good of the people and on top of that his Liberal, a big "I AM" person who's all Ass instead of clASS. I want more Policy instead of BULL. Howard was a ASS, DOG cunning and hand outs for to the majority in he numbers Game.

He handed money to breeders and that meant 80% of the population, thats why Labour could never defend their Health Policies, they knew it was the Breeders who swamped the system and 50% of those wanted their bellies cut, to keep it tight. So thats $35000 for the OP and $5000 for the baby and Labour wasn't going to go near that, they just took it on the chin and it helped in their defeat. Libs were Dogs and all those babies are already beginning to haunt us, Charities and social services are now beginning to strain under the load.

Once this lot grows up, London Riots here we come, believe me.
write it on a wall, no good will come of it, especialy with Neo Cons tightening everything up.

But talking about kids and the right of women to breed for an income is like a sacret cow in this country. In 50 years from now modern women will look back and wonder how any woman could have been so selfish, to condem her children to an uncertain future for her own short term survival. It was either rape or it wasn't. If it was rape then someone should be behind bars.

As far as T.A goes i suppose a lot of women think his got my opinions on bad breeding practises, others know his side brought it on with the hand outs for votes and that those cows sold of our Gold at $325 dollars for short term Political Gain, its now worth $1770 or so. All that so Howy could look like a good Economic Manager, with a surplus.

Self serving Wankers and arse lickers, thats all the Libs have ever been and labour is catching up fast.

So Tony, nice wife, nice kids, but bugger off.

jackal01
Posted Wednesday, October 31, 2012 - 05:05

Now to anyone who hasn't got it yet.

The Politicians don't listen to the so called voters, because they know that we sold our democating influence to a very powerful lobby group in this country for a $5000 baby bonus. The joke is that they used your own tax money and Gold to buy your vote and go into Iraq and Afghanistan. And Ladies if thats the best you can do to show the rest of us that your as stupid as the blokes, then the west and its Claytons Marilyn Monroe Platex support bra Democracy is and always was doomed.

They needed Howard for Iraq and he brought your votes with hand outs payed by you with your Gold and assets that the Libs and Labour sold of, so that you could have a $5000 baby and a $35000 OP to have it.

And now you complain because politicians now listen to number crunchers, lobby groups and the party machines who tell them how to buy your vote with your nations money, taxes.

Breeding Cows, Milking Cows and Sheep, Dumb asses.

Democracy was and still is "For Sale" Breeding Grubs.

First it was Greed that maintained the silence on this issue and now its guilt. Well you can't escape those kids, because they will haunt you for the next 25 years, so good luck. I hope they were worth it, when they finaly get to riot in the streets because you were all greedy grubs who created no real jobs for those same kids.
Yeh, you brought a few Plasma TV's and added to the Land Fill, but thats about it.

So is this all about Abbott or our own Guilt. He was part of the Howard Gov. that brought your vote for $5000, just so they could follow George into Iraq. Latham wouldn't have.

Come in spinner, spin doctors.

Jandamarra
Posted Monday, November 12, 2012 - 15:12

OK Jackal, when hell freezes over and I'm solely responsible for your interpretation of everything, then I'll retract. But like bogangreg you assume I'm talking about Margie. Sorry but it wasn't the case.

Bogangreg (anyone who puts Aussie in their name must be a bogan) why did you call Margie a Bitch? I certainly didn't, ever. Talk about putting words in my mouth to suite your own pathetic interpretation and biase. I find it funny you associate any dog with a bitch, there are male dogs to you know. Forced to sell the farm - LOL.... there is a GOD.

ngua iprenema qwa waninga dumukwa.. my friend.

This user is a New Matilda supporter. aussiegreg
Posted Tuesday, November 13, 2012 - 14:51

Whoa, Jandie, sweetie, that is way cruel, dancing on a poor man's economic grave!

Don't tell me the lovely fightmumma has dumped you <i>too</i>?

You must be a lawyer, thinking your canine reference could reasonably be read as giving <i>Tony </i>the four paws. It <i> is</i> technically ambiguous, you're right about that, but no-one I know who has read it thinks that after your cruel suggestion that Margie looks like Tony in drag, the immediately following reference to dogs looking like their owners can possibly be a reference to Tony as the dog dog rather than to Margie as the bitch.

And as for my username, I did suggest to the Newari-Nepali-English speakers in Kathmandu who wanted to christen me Mr AussieGreg that they could try BoganGreg instead, but oddly enough they just looked blank, and went right on calling me Mr AussieGreg. So in honour of my bogan nature the best I could do was to drop the honorific and the capitalisation.