18 Jun 2013

The Sexism The Polls Don't Show

By Catriona Menzies-Pike

When the chapter on Julia Gillard gets written in the history of Australian women, it will relate how the treatment our first female PM exposed entrenched habits of sexism, writes Catriona Menzies-Pike

What an appalling week for Australian women. It started with a debate about the joker in the pack — the gender card — after the PM made a speech that tried to unite women voters under the ALP banner.

Right now it’s hard to tell just who is playing which gender card: Julia Gillard or her detractors. However you cut the deck, it is stacked against her. Gillard is subject to sexist treatment because she’s a woman, and she’s copping flak for discussing women’s issues. She is invoking sexist treatment as grounds for women to vote for her, and she’s being told to toughen up and stop spinning gender. There is obviously more than one gender card available for play.

When the PM delivered her speech to the Women for Gillard event early last week, many viewed her effort to claim the feminist vote with cynicism. But as the week went on, the call became more urgent.

Gillard's misogyny speech in October last year struck a chord because she gave voice to the inchoate rage felt by so many women at being told what to do and how to think. She articulated something of what it’s like to feel you’re not taken seriously because you’re a woman.

Her stand against sexism and Abbott’s galling hypocrisy was all the more admirable given the tenor of the nasty personal attacks that have been directed her way since she took office. There were plenty of women who don’t vote Labor who nevertheless cheered when she roared that she would not be lectured on sexism by that man. Why? They could relate to the sexist gibes the PM has endured and were delighted to see such a thorough response.

I experienced a similar twinge of recognition when I heard Sattler’s bullying interview. I don’t think I’m alone in recognising the smug needling tone that Howard Sattler adopted when he talked to Gillard. “It’s what people say, isn’t it?” That insinuating pose of civility gets used to push women around too often — and it’s just as disingenuous as Sattler’s claims that he would have retreated had she asked him to. This sham gentlemanliness is a mask for the everyday bigotry women are routinely asked to tolerate.

It got worse: The PM mentioned abortion at the end of her speech, warning that it could become the “plaything” of men if Abbott is elected. Abortion was not the focus of her speech but Gillard was nonetheless criticised for being alarmist and straying beyond her jurisdiction. We know about the fragile web of state laws that allow women to access safe abortions, but as Jenna Price wrote in The Conversation, “while abortion is funded through Medicare it remains a federal issue”. Gillard was hardly scaremongering when she pointed to the real access issues that currently exist for many women. Listen to what veteran women’s health campaigners Caroline da Costa and Deb Bateson had to say about it on Life Matters recently.

As if that all weren’t enough, we heard about ADF personnel trading videos of their sexual conquests. Need it be stated that the mindset that helps some jerk chop up a woman’s body into a menu item allows other jerks to film their sexual partners without consent and circulate it? When Janet Albrechtsen says feminists should focus on more “serious” issues such as female genital mutilation, as she did on 730 last week, she ignores the fact that this practice too relies on the dehumanisation of women. To speak in terms of degrees of seriousness sidesteps the constitutive connection between these various forms of violence against women. These aren’t isolated instances of sexism, they’re symptoms of a sexist society. Call it patriarchy.

Essential polling released last week showed that 61 per cent of women and 41 per cent of men think sexism is a problem. A week later, just as I was wondering whether a shocking week for women in politics would change those figures, polling was released that showed a decline in male support for Gillard. We shouldn’t take the polls as gospel, but it’s hard not be be disheartened by such a slump.

When the history of Australian women in the first decades of the 21st century is written Gillard’s contribution may be hard to measure. She’s our first female PM, a huge achievement. As many have observed, her lawmaking hasn’t included a huge number of substantial reforms to benefit women — and has involved some damaging cuts, most notably to single parent payments. Women continue to carry the burden of poverty under a female prime minister.

She certainly hasn’t slacked off the job. Gillard leaves a strong legislative record and has held together a minority government under extremely difficult conditions. There are more women on her front bench than across the chamber and she has shown considerable grace under fire. She has shown — as if it needed to be shown — that women are capable of meeting the demands of high office. Remember those feminist slogans about a woman needing to do twice as much as a man to be taken half as seriously, or Ginger Rogers doing the same thing as Fred Astaire but backwards in heels?

But perhaps, sadly, Gillard’s most immediate legacy will be one that you don’t need numbers to measure. We don’t need polls to tell us that many Australian men are not comfortable with a female prime minister. The indisputably sexist attacks against Julia Gillard forces us to acknowledge the deeply ingrained habits of sexism in Australian public life. If the Prime Minister is treated this badly, how do less powerful and privileged women fare?

We know that women are paid less than men. We know that women are underrepresented in boardrooms, in the media, in politics. There are all kinds of inequalities that we’ve been able to quantify for decades. But the assaults on Gillard reveal the unspoken double standards that govern the treatment of men and women.

Because it is so often administered sotto voce, in the fashion of Sattler’s “that’s what people say”, this pervasive sexism is hard to explain; we're expected to laugh off. The intensification of the barrage against the PM this week has made it impossible to deny that she’s copping unfair treatment. Even after Anne Summers’ convincing and widely circulated speech on misogyny last year, there are plenty of punters ready to dismiss claims that Gillard is getting a raw deal.

As Gillard battles to the end of her second term — and Mary Delahunty’s characterisation of her as a warrior is very apt — she’s put to rest any furphies that women get treated just like men. Just as the ascent of a women to the highest office in the country was a clarion call about women’s capacity and accomplishment, the abuse meted out to the PM is a deadening and undeniable reminder that sexism flourishes.

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

aaron
Posted Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 11:54

Julia will be remembered as an incompetent prime minister who wasn't up to the job. A prime minister who lied and tried to divivide the nation, and who could not admit fault but rather tried to blame everyone else.

Lets look at julia's debacles:

-The mining tax, a tax that spends more then it raises with an amazingly poor design.

-The carbon tax, doing nothing to help the environment while adding costs to Australian businesses.

-Failure to stop the flow of illegal arrivals.

-The botched media reforms.

-The knee jerk live cattle ban.

-The surplus that never appeared.

etc etc etc

Not only is she an incompetent but she is also a hypocrit, lecturing about sexism while hanging out with Kyle Sandilands and putting Peter Slipper into the speakers chair.

Anna Bligh was female yet she had respect because she at least did a half decent job, same with Kristine Kennellay. Both these woman took office in much more difficult situations then Gillard. Australians don't dislike Julia because she is female, they dislike her because she can't govern.

 

 

mem
Posted Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 12:27

#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
aaron - we get the government we deserve, and if you think this one's bad, just wait until the liberal turkey's get in.  They can't stop the boats either.  Direct action is a rubbish policy and stupidly expensive.  They will fail to bring in a surplus because of declining revenue, something they will be unable to fix.  We have real problems to address and they have no solutions. LOL

 

aaron
Posted Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 13:01

The Liberal government can't be worse then this one.

calyptorhynchus
Posted Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 13:44

"The Liberal government can't be worse then [sic]  this one"

Would you like a recession with your election choice, sir?

RossC
Posted Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 14:11

Aaron.

Yes, lets "look at julia's so-called 'debacles':

-The mining tax, a tax that business only has to pay when it makes a 'Super Profit'. When times get tough, you don't make a super profit, so you don't have to pay. Like now. What an amazingly good design! The fact that business still whinges says more about their knee-jerk reaction to anything from a party not totally in their back pocket, that their capacity for rational thought.

-The carbon price- aligning Australia with other progressive nations, with an initially fixed price to give market certainty and a stable platform to compensate the community (including businesses), then reverting to a market price in 2 more years.  The first thing any Australian government has done to direct a shift towards renewable energy industries, which will inevitably help the environment (no matter how much the Libs and their coal mining mates don't like it) while adding virtually no costs to most Australian businesses in the short term (since they get compensated- just like all Australian families do too) . We get compensated because a rich country like Australia can afford it. Rich, western, established first-world nations like Australia have to set an example here. If we don't, how can we expect the larger 3rd world nations to? (oh. that's right, I forgot - 99% of peer-reviewed specialist scientists are wrong, and armchair 'specialists' like Andrew Bolt are right - the climate isnt warming up because of human activity anyway. so lets just 'plant a few trees and bury some wood-chips' to keep those sciency nuts happy - the Tony Abbott approach.)

-"Failure to stop the flow of illegal arrivals".  Hello Aaron - they are not illegal. End of story. 

-The botched media reforms. (I don't know enough to comment on this)

-The knee jerk live cattle ban. (that was a bit silly - hey I'm not saying that this government is perfect)

-The surplus that never appeared. (that's what happens when the worlds economy starts going down the toilet again. More ruthless designed mining tax could fix that, I guess - something youd be happy with Aaron?  Most independant economists credit this government from saving us from the worst impacts of the first financial meltdown. They did this by pursuing, and pulling off, a brave economic agenda that was roundly critisized by the Liberal Opposition at that time. The coalition advocated an approach that mirrored that subsequently taken by many European countries...... That has worked 'well' hasn't it?). Lets just look at  Europe for a second - an insight into how Australia might have looked with Abbott at the helm. Yuk!

Aarons "etc etc etc";   presumably, in this you include the NBN, a visionary transformative technology change that, while obviously challenging to impliment, will future-proof communications and business in this country. Lets compare that with the coalitions NBN-lite policy, which for over half the cost deliveres about 1/10th of the performance. Another brilliant idea from the house of Abbott. (Turnbull was right to look abashed at the 'launch' of that shocker)

And you reckon the coalition couldnt be worse when in government? They are worse already.     

aaron
Posted Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 14:28

Ross you prove nothingm, I understand how the mining tax work, yes when prices fall it raises much less. So if this is the case why put all the revenue into general spending when you know their will be large variences in income? Not to mention the poor design whereby the states can increase royalties and the mining companies offset these against the tax.

You blame another global recession on the failure to return to surplus. However Australia has not entered recession and we have had the best terms of trade in histroy. Infact government revenue has grown, only problem is government spending growth has grown even further. Another Rudd/Gillard blunder there. BTW it was China which saved Australia from recession not the BER or pink batts.

And I won't even bother with your carbon tax comment. Just to say the carbon tax is not high enough to drvie increased investment into renewables, and if it was high enough it would send industry offshore, plunge us into recession and give us a whole lot of windmills and solar panels which couldn't provide reliable base load power.

The Liberals will perform much better in government then this lot.

 

This user is a New Matilda supporter. lillianlaura3
Posted Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 14:44

Tony Abbott was at the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) dinner in Melbourne recently which  Rupert Murdoch, Gina Reinhart, Cardinal Pell and Andrew Bolt also attended. In his speech Tony Abbott praised the IPA and said the Coalition will implement the following IPA policies :"...repeal the carbon tax, abolish the Department of Climate Change, abolish the Clean Energy Fund. We will repeal Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, at least in its current form. We will abolish new health and environmental bureaucracies. We will deliver $1 billion in red tape savings every year. We will develop northern Australia. We will repeal the mining tax. We will create a one stop shop for environmental approvals. We will privatise Medibank Private. We will trim the public service and we will stop throwing good money after bad on the NBN."

http://tinyurl.com/krby52u

The IPA has a wish list of 75 policies. How many of them with Tony Abbott implement? The list includes the following aims:

http://tinyurl.com/c5kcao4

7 Return income taxing powers to the states

15 Eliminate laws that require radio and television broadcasters to be 'balanced'

17 End local content requirements for Australian television stations

18 Eliminate family tax benefits

19 Abandon the paid parental leave scheme

20 Means-test Medicare

23 End mandatory disclosures on political donations

25 End public funding to political parties

26 Remove anti-dumping laws

27 Eliminate media ownership restrictions

28 Abolish the Foreign Investment Review Board

29 Eliminate the National Preventative Health Agency

38 Repeal plain packaging for cigarettes and rule it out for all other products, including alcohol and fast food

44 Devolve environmental approvals for major projects to the states

48 Privatise Australia Post

50 Break up the ABC and put out to tender each individual function

51 Privatise SBS 

53 Repeal the Fair Work Act

64 End all hidden protectionist measures, such as preferences for local manufacturers in government tendering

65 Abolish the Office for Film and Literature Classification

68 Allow people to opt out of superannuation in exchange for promising to forgo any government income support in retirement

69 Immediately halt construction of the National Broadband Network and privatise any sections that have already been built

71 Reject proposals for compulsory food and alcohol labelling

72 Privatise the CSIRO

74 Close the Office for Youth

75 Privatise the Snowy-Hydro Scheme

The IPA  policies that Tony Abbott has promised to implement will create major changes in Australia. If he follows through on the rest then Australia will be entirely unrecognisable. Why is Julia Gillard being subject to revolting attacks while Tony Abbott and his links to a financially shadowy organisation with extreme right wing views being ignored? http://tinyurl.com/kxna254

It is vital that this is discussed widely. Leaving it until after the election is far too late.

 

Will
Posted Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 14:47

There's no mention of the charges she may/will face in relation to the AWU scandal. S&G offices have been raided, documents seized. There are two people from the 3 involved that will face serious charges. Ralph Blewitt has immunity from prosection in relation to crimes he has given police information on.

How will Australians judge a former PM if she is found guilty of serious crimes?

mem
Posted Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 14:49

#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
aaron - it is surely something of a leap of logic to state that the Libs are good <i>because</i> they are not Labor.  By inference, then you might also vote for the Greens <em>because</em> they are not Labor, but somehow I don't think you would.

So far the Libs have promised us "Hope, Reward and Opportunity" with no detail as to how that might be achieved. How do you think the drongos are going to respond when the carbon tax is gone and the electricity prices remain as they are.  What happens when the boats keep coming? After all, the number of refugees when up when TPVs were introduced and you cannot tow the boats back.

The day after the election , the public service (yep - they are the ones who actually run the country) will walk into the offices of the new Lib ministers and plant a truckload of work on the desk's of the new government.  No longer can they hide behind News Ltd with their slogganeiring, they have to actually make real decisions that affect real people.  Then we're in real trouble because they are a pretty mean bunch, and they don't like facts much.

Note also Aaron that all the talent in the Libs in on the back bench, which Tony won't bring forward because he promised his supporters positions just becuase they were nice to him. We're in for a bumpy ride.

 

#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

 

#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }

 

Dr Dog
Posted Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 15:03

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating aaron, but I notice that you didn't include a statement about how the Coalition will do all the wonderous things you claim for them.

Stopping the boats how exactly, and on what scale will you decide they have done better than the current government - like if Abbott decides to shoot the boats out of the water, will that be a successful strategy from your viewpoint?

I mean you guys talk about this stiuff and make sweeping statements about things being better, but you rarely seem to indicte just how, or what your measure will be.

Is a surplus your only tool for evaluating the health of the economy, and what is your response to the many millions of people who consider the Australian economy to be doing very well, including all the main bodies whose job it is to evaluate national economies?

When you say 'the Liberals will perform much better than this lot' I suspect you have very little to back that up other than the same tired assertions by Abbott, NewsLtd and a range of shock jocks.

Enjoy the bite of reality when an Abbott government fails to stop the boats, perhaps creates a surplus at the expense of our most disadvantaged and rolls over for rich miners like you seem to want them to. Your assertions are hollow and do nothing to promote a better or fairer society.

Dr Dog
Posted Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 15:20

Caught up in Aaron's bullshit I forgot to say that it is clear that critics of Julia Gillard are using gender as a means of abuse. That is sexism, pure and simple. Claiming that you hate Julia Gillard personally does not excuse the gendered nature of the attack.

If indeed you do hate Julia Gillard I would suggest that you take a long look at your attitude toward women, because she has done little to deserve the level of distatste expressed by many of the commentariat.

The polls won't show it, and writers like Aaron won't ever admit it, perhaps even to themselves, but there are men and women that feel uncomfortable with a female leader. This is sexism.

aaron
Posted Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 15:29

Dr Dog I don't hate Gillard, I just think she is an incomptent, dimwitted and power hungry person who shouldn't be leading Australia. I think the same about Rudd too.

As for stopping illegals, the Howard policies worked, especially temporary protection Visas. Once the coalition brings temporary protection visas in the flow will slow. Remeber Howard stopped the boats.

And Gillard deserves to be called incompetent and a rubbish prime minister because that is what she has proven to be. Which is why she is going to be voted out in September.

 

mem
Posted Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 16:30

Do your research aaron. The number of refugees increased when Howard introduced TPV. That is not because of TPVs, that is because we have little control over refugee arrivals.

Speaking of dimwitted, you might want to check how effective this government has been at negotiating legislation through parliament. Do you even know the number of bills passed?

Take a good look at that Liberal front bench again and see if you can say truthfully that they will represent the interests of all Australians Aaron. Even the libs believe that Abbott will struggle once in power. He is not exactly the consummate statesman. Nor has he a comprehensive grasp of economic or scientific fundamentals. He is good in a fight, but when it comes to being in charge... not so much... *sigh*

This user is a New Matilda supporter. DrGideonPolya
Posted Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 17:08

PM Julia Gillard's endless, false and offensive playing of the gender card stands in marked contrast to President Obama who has resolutely refused to play the race card.

I have never voted for the Coalition but must say that Tony Abbott behaves in a firm  but courteous manner in question time whereas the PM dishes out horrible, shrill abuse in endlessly evading giving straightforward answers to straightforward questions.

The Sattler episode was tacky and offensive but even worse is the failure of any Australian Mainstream media "journalists"  to ask pro-war, pro-Zionist, US lackey Julia Gillard about the horrendous human cost of the Zionist-promoted US War on Muslims (12 million dead since 1990 from violecne or from war- and hegemony-imposed deprivation, with half the victims being female and half children; see "Muslim Holocaust Muslim Genocide": https://sites.google.com/site/muslimholocaustmuslimgenocide/ ).

In contrast, back in 1996 when the Sanctions had "only" killed 0.5 million Iraqi children, American journalist Lesley Stahl asked  former Secretary of State (1997-2001) Madeleine Albright  on “60 Minutes” about the “half a million children” who had died under Sanctions on Iraq.

 Lesley Stahl asked Albright  "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it." .(see Lesley Stahl and Madeleine Albright quoted in “Madeleine Albright”, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright ).

Nearly 20 years later with under-5 infant deaths totalling 2.0 million in Iraq (1990-2013) and 3.0 million In Afghanistan (2001-2013), not one Australian presstitute has dared ask pro-war PM Julia Gillard "is the price worth it?"

Articles 55 and 56 of the Geneva Convention relative to the protection of Civilan Persons in Time of War demand that an Occupier must provide life-sustaining food and medical requisites to the comquered subjects "to the fullest extent  of the means available  to it" and  it is horribly clear to decent, numerate people that the US Alliance (including the Labor Government under Gillard) has grossly violated this convention (see:https://sites.google.com/site/muslimholocaustmuslimgenocide/geneva-convention ).

Most Australian Lib-Lab politicians should be arraigned before the International Criminal Court for horrendous crimes against  women and children.

 

 

martyns
Posted Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 17:21

Note to Mem, Doctor Dog, Calyphlorhynchus: Your comments are in my humble opion spot on in reply to a good aricle by ms Catriona Menzies-Pike and I thank you. However I expect you've heard the advice "You can't educate mugs" and "Don't argue with idiots as people often can't tell the difference". This applies to Aaron. Aaron, I feel I know you. I have friends, right wingers who not only hate anything 'progressive' but have the gall to tell the rest of us how to vote and are mortally wounded if they are told a different party. They say, "How dare you". One of these gentlemen in company with others (who applauded him) told me "Gillard has a fat bum"  My response was that he and his cheer squad had fat heads. So Aron, I know you are enjoying yourself with your comments, but you too have a fat head .. why don't you go and boil it?

fightmumma
Posted Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 18:14

Iillian - what a scary list!!  And what a scary thought that this is who our next PM fratnernises with!! 

perthamy
Posted Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 18:53

TROLL -
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

Sigh. Oh aaron. There's nothing worth wasting my breath on towards you.
Martyns has brought up a very good point which i will adhere to.

What I will say though is that I thank God I get my news from websites such as this and have not donated my brain to the 7, 9 and 10 network, or worse, the daily newspaper.

In time the lemmings will see that this was all a game. A game of Murdoch, a game of Fairfax (probably Abbott even think he's playing somehow!). Future journalism students will shake their heads in awe at how adults could be so manipulated and bought. But I guess in the future, 2013 will seem as backward and ridiculous as 1950 does now.

I'm so glad I'm on the right side of history. No matter what we will have to endure for the next 4 years of phoney tony, at least I can hold onto the fact that I never chose what we're about to face.

aaron
Posted Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 23:01

Martyns don't resort to personal insults, if you read my previous comments you will see that I made no mention of Gillards fat arse. I merely stated she was incompetent and a rubbish prime minister, is this a personal attack or sexist? No it isn't.

Mem Howard did stop the boats, he reduced the pull factors so they stopped coming, that is a fact. When Rudd increased the pull factors the numbers of illegals grew massively.

Perthany the funny thing about you progessives is you would rather come up with bizarre conspiracy theories about Murdock and the media etc etc then accept the clear fact Gillard has been an incompetent prime minister and this Labor government as bad government. The Australian people are not stupid, if this government had been any good it would be coasting to victory just like the ling running Hawke and Howard governments did. But rather then accept reality you "progressives" leave the mainstream (reality) and congretate onto new matilda to engage in Group Think and denial. However the reality is september is coming and day by day and liberal goverment is coming closer to reality, and all your whingeing and complaining won't stop it from happening.

Maybe if Gillard had spent more time listening to the mainstream and less time listening to the twittering twit "progressives" she would not have been such a bad prime minister.

mem
Posted Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 07:39

LOL. You're funny Aaron,

You just keep telling yourself it was the pull factors that stopped the boats if it makes you feel safer, and not global circumstances. Like I said, the ALPs policy is identical, other than TPVs, and they keep coming. Although, interesting is it not that they are from different regions than the ones under Howard don't you think. However facts never seem to make conservatives feel safe, so best to ignore them eh.

It's no conspiracy that Murdoch want the ALP gone. Read the editorial, Bolt, the tele, etc. the NBN is a huge threat to his cable empire, or can't you see that? Poor Turnbull has to sell a complete dud.

As an aside. I hope you don't mind a few socialist policies with your conservative government Aaron. After all, the libs are tearing themselves up over Abbott's desperate attempts to win the female vote by introducing the PPS. Lets not forget his corporate welfare policies with direct action (soil magic), Once again proving that conservatives have a limited grasp on science. Yep, it's going to be a painful few years, but amusing in some ways. Ironically the ALP are now more neo-liberal than the coalition.

martyns
Posted Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 09:18

Asron, Once again you aren't listening and don't presume to lecture me. I'm as susceptible to your comments as you are to mine. Try listening to the other respondents to this blog. I really can't be bothered arguing with you for the reasons I already mentioned.

jennyn
Posted Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 09:35

I wonder about sexism on Gillard's own side as well.  Would that silly man Fitzgibbon and Kim Carr have waged a continued campaign of destabilisation if they had been sacked by a male PM?  Would Doug Cameron and Kim Carr have spoken out in the Senate yesterday criticising the PM if the PM was a man?

This possibly will sound fanciful to male readers.  However I think these men would accept being pushed out by a male leader because it is part and parcel of the male contest for status.  To be pushed out by a woman is an affront to their male pride. I have seen men behave this way in the workplace when women are given management positions that they thought they should have had (by virtue of being a man not because of competence) and it is quite a different resentment to when another man is promoted. this is accepted as part of the game. 

I am not saying all men behave this way but I think it is a strong factor in the way some of these men have behaved.  I know that Trish Crossin spoke out at her farewell about her treatment which is to be expected, but the two men didn't have to get up and attack the PM as well and I don't think they would have done so if the PM were a man.

RossC
Posted Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 11:01

jennyn - I think you are spot on. Julia has been fighting a battle on several fronts here. Something Australia should look back on in shame (apart from a significant minority who will feel no shame.....) 

pacofa68
Posted Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 12:02

Aaron, first of all when you talk about Asylum seekers & refugees use these terms instead of the term illegal as it is not ILLEGAL to seek asylum in Australia, even if arriving by boat. Haward never stopped the botes, and no other government will be succesful in this area. Aaron look at your underwear, your shirt and pants and tell me if they haven't been made in SWEAT SHOPS, look at your beautiful house and check if the majority of your stuff has been made by people in other countries that get paid $5 per month. Check how multinationals go to these contries and pay a pitiful ammount of money to people for their job, display people from their land, poison their rivers and food sources and only leave more poverty in their paths (if you work in the mining industry you may be aware of this). We are part of the problem so we have to be part of hte solution. It is not Howard or other polititians who will stop the boats-they don't have a concience anyway. It is up to us as a collective to create a just world.

pacofa68
Posted Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 12:04

Sorry type error  I meant  'displace people from their land'

Hardy
Posted Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 16:00

@ Dr Dog. You seem to be back to your normal self after a temporary lapse it seemed. Good  comments. Keep it up. 

Mercurial
Posted Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 16:45

I would say the fact that aarond continues to say "better then" even after it is pointed out to him that it is not correct is a fair indicator of the type of argument you're going to get from him.

 

aaron it isn't sufficient to claim "she's incompetent" and leave it at that.  You have mnot demonstrated her incompetency - er, competently, have you?

Mercurial
Posted Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 16:47

... and as for 'bizarre conspiracy theories' aaron, I'd sooner believe Murdoch is in it for the money (even at 83) than the wild conspiracy that climate change is all put on by the UN in a quest for world government.  Now there's a conspiracy theory for you!!!

punch
Posted Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 18:06

Hmmm not only is the intelligent Julia Gillard our first female Prime Minister but she is also very feminine.

One only has to watch Julia Gillard out and about with the Australian public - there is a genuine warmth, a gentleness or helping hand towards those unsure or intimidated, laughter at some of lifes absurdities, a preparedness to praise where praise is due and present moderation and understanding when people become too shrill or behave stupidly. You won't ever witness our PM talk down to people but will simplify language when required.

Julia Gillard takes on the good, the bad and the ugly with absolute grace. Check out question time - she coolly wipes the floor with Tony Abbott ane he knows it - watch the body language. The optimists are looking forward to the leadership debates. 

These are fine qualities. Our PM is an impressive woman - a class act and no amount of misinformed online or offline abuse takes away she leads a good, effective government who has legislated excellent policies to benefit a majority of Australians not the few.

Julia Gillard is a high-achiever, a game-changer, a person who believes in serving Australians and making a differnece for the better. This is what drives our Prime Minister. Did I mention our PM is a feminine woman - well I like smart, feminine, strong women. She's a winner in every way.

 

jackal012
Posted Wednesday, June 19, 2013 - 18:15

Man, I can't believe that a nation of Hero's who treat their women better then those Muslims even have to have this discussion.

 

Its the Economy Stupid and giving our Gold away for nothing did not improve our chances and neither did the 5000 baby bonus. Thats the Libs for you.

as far as Gillard goes, the only 2 things I don't like about her, she is a Historical Incompetent, she is a Lawyer trained to twist facts to suit. Other then that she just works for the Bankers.

As far as AWU scandal goes, go to "Choose Your Own Labor Disaster" here on NM and read Paul Munro's piece on who created, financed the AWU, then ask yourself which AWU Faction Bosses are wrecking the Labour Movement, the Labour Party, Unuion Influence in Politics.

 

Trojan Horses. Political Terrorism.

 

Mark Mighell
Posted Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 13:42

Deception of a master illusionest and his apprentice 
The Conspiricy of The Honrable Christopher Pyne Propaganda business Managment.

A Royal Inquest into the media using
"NEWS of the WORLD" Tactics.
Call for the CEO of 3AW to step down.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151439854157793&set=a.132102302792.112368.116765482792&type=1&theater
the CEO of the AGE to step down.
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/the-age-calls-for-gillards-head-20130622-2oow0.html
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151670197036422&set=a.131409591421.135734.119817336421&type=1&theater

The CEO of Australian Broadcasting Corporation 
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/3/25/politics/another-labor-spill-june-pyne
http://www.abc.net.au/
For allowing proliferation of political propaganda to bring into disrepute, the institution of Australian Journalism.
A Royal Inquest into the media using
"NEWS of the WORLD" Tactics

 

 

Harry the breaker
Posted Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 11:58

Return voyage of the Titanic

Whilst those ashore argue whether their dislike of the Captain of the ship is based on their perceptions that appointing a female Captain wasn’t such a good idea in the first place others argue that it simply that they did not like a power crazed alpha female deposing the former Captain on the first voyage, Captain Julia stands resolutely in the wheel house trying to grab hold of the wildly spinning steering wheel vainly trying to get the ship back on course whilst being surrounded by a motley crew intent on mutiny but lacking the resolve to either take over the ship, rearrange the deck chairs or man the bilge pumps.

As the ship makes its slow descent into the murky depths of despair, other crew members secreted below decks check their terms of employment contract and the generous redundancy packets on offer and decide to abandon ship offering fond vocal rejoices to past and more profitable voyages enjoyed then grabbing the lifejackets on offer rapidly leap overboard.

Harry

Disgruntled Passenger

Harry the breaker
Posted Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 12:00

Return voyage of the Titanic

Whilst those ashore argue whether their dislike of the Captain of the ship is based on their perceptions that appointing a female Captain wasn’t such a good idea in the first place others argue that it simply that they did not like a power crazed alpha female deposing the former Captain on the first voyage, Captain Julia stands resolutely in the wheel house trying to grab hold of the wildly spinning steering wheel vainly trying to get the ship back on course whilst being surrounded by a motley crew intent on mutiny but lacking the resolve to either take over the ship, rearrange the deck chairs or man the bilge pumps.

As the ship makes its slow descent into the murky depths of despair, other crew members secreted below decks check their terms of employment contract and the generous redundancy packets on offer and decide to abandon ship offering fond vocal rejoices to past and more profitable voyages enjoyed then grabbing the lifejackets on offer and rapidly leap overboard.

Harry

Disgruntled Passenger

Harry the breaker
Posted Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 12:02

Return voyage of the Titanic

Whilst those ashore argue whether their dislike of the Captain of the ship is based on their perceptions that appointing a female Captain wasn’t such a good idea in the first place others argue that it simply that they did not like a power crazed alpha female deposing the former Captain on the first voyage, Captain Julia stands resolutely in the wheel house trying to grab hold of the wildly spinning steering wheel vainly trying to get the ship back on course whilst being surrounded by a motley crew intent on mutiny but lacking the resolve to either take over the ship, rearrange the deck chairs or man the bilge pumps.

As the ship makes its slow descent into the murky depths of despair, other crew members secreted below decks check their terms of employment contract and the generous redundancy packets on offer and decide to abandon ship offering fond vocal rejoices to past and more profitable voyages enjoyed then grabbing the lifejackets on offer before rapidly leap overboard.

Harry

Disgruntled Passenger

Harry the breaker
Posted Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 12:04

Return voyage of the Titanic

Whilst those ashore argue whether their dislike of the Captain of the ship is based on their perceptions that appointing a female Captain wasn’t such a good idea in the first place others argue that it simply that they did not like a power crazed alpha female deposing the former Captain on the first voyage, Captain Julia stands resolutely in the wheel house trying to grab hold of the wildly spinning steering wheel vainly trying to get the ship back on course whilst being surrounded by a motley crew intent on mutiny but lacking the resolve to either take over the ship, rearrange the deck chairs or man the bilge pumps.

As the ship makes its slow descent into the murky depths of despair, other crew members secreted below decks check their terms of employment contract and the generous redundancy packets on offer and decide to abandon ship offering fond vocal rejoices to past and more profitable voyages enjoyed then grabbing the lifejackets on offer rapidly abandon the ship.

Harry

Disgruntled Passenger

Harry the breaker
Posted Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 12:05

Return voyage of the Titanic

Whilst those ashore argue whether their dislike of the Captain of the ship is based on their perceptions that appointing a female Captain wasn’t such a good idea in the first place others argue that it simply that they did not like a power crazed alpha female deposing the former Captain on the first voyage, Captain Julia stands resolutely in the wheel house trying to grab hold of the wildly spinning steering wheel vainly trying to get the ship back on course whilst being surrounded by a motley crew intent on mutiny but lacking the resolve to either take over the ship, rearrange the deck chairs or man the bilge pumps.

As the ship makes its slow descent into the murky depths of despair, other crew members secreted below decks check their terms of employment contract and the generous redundancy packets on offer and decide to abandon ship offering fond vocal rejoices to past and more profitable voyages enjoyed then grabbing the lifejackets on offer rapidly leap overboard.

Harry

Disgruntled Passenger