The Women
December 4th, 2009 by Anna Winter | Published in Media, Politics, Women | 114 Comments
Dr. Cat’s post on women and Tony Abbott is a must-read. She really nails one of the problems I’ve had with the general coverage about Abbott’s “women problem”. So go and read it now. I’ll wait.
I’m not going to repeat anything she’s written because it’s unnecessary, rather I want to talk about another thing I’ve noticed through all the exciting #spillage of the last week, and that’s the role of women in the events themselves. We’re really starting to see the effects of decades of pushing to get women accepted into all areas of public life, while at the same time we’re still seeing the effects of keeping them marginalised for so long.
This week, after Penny Wong negotiated a deal with the Liberal party on the ETS, we’ve had Sophie Mirabella’s exit from the front bench alongside Tony Abbott, triggering a mass walkout of further Liberal frontbenchers. We’ve had “loyal girl” Julie Bishop, who has managed to survive three leadership spills and keep her job. We’ve had the brave and principled senators Judith Troeth and Sue Boyce, who walked the walk when other Liberal Senators toed the party line. While all this unfolded, Kevin Rudd was overseas, leaving Julia Gillard to run the country, while the new opposition leader promises to stop flirting with her. And over in NSW, the ALP caucus voted to make Kristina Keneally their first female premier.
Meanwhile, Annabel Crabb made her ABC debut, becoming one of the go-to journos for smart, insightful political analysis, along with Samantha Maiden and Laura Tingle providing great information and analysis of events as they unfolded. And in another mini-spill, Sophie Black took the reigns and became editor of Crikey.
I’ve forgotten plenty of women, no doubt. I hope I have actually. It shouldn’t be possible to list all of the women involved in events this big.
So… to the Problems. Mirabella and Bishop are criticised for selling Australian women out in supporting Abbott. Keneally can be seen in the long tradition of Labor only making women their leaders when things have gone entirely to shit, further reinforcing the pressure for women to be nurturers, healers and uniters. Meanwhile Bishop is again criticised for playing a uniting role, lining up behind the three leaders democratically chosen by her party. I won’t go on, there are plenty of words to be found about how women are fucking up, some fair, some not.
But the Good Things! We have a new female premier to add to the list, and she’s not from the left. Another step further towards providing enough variety that they are seen as Premiers first, not Women Premiers, as if that’s some kind of category. We have female Liberal MPs putting their electoral and preselection chances at risk in order to stand up for what they believe in, be it Mirabella and Adams or Troeth and Boyce. We have Julie Bishop playing a clever factional game, making it almost impossible for her to be dumped from her spot as deputy leader. We have Ms Crabb, who is seen as one of the most insightful political analysts working today, and hardly anyone is putting the word “woman” or “female” in there. And yet we have Miranda Devine being given a platform to be as mad and wrong as the maddest and wrongest op-edder The Australian has to offer. And while Dr Cat is right about the lack of genuine understanding about what, exactly, Abbott’s women problem really is, it’s now just a given that you cannot win elections by completely alienating women.
I can’t find the exact quote, but Amanda Vanstone once said that women won’t be equal until a woman as useless as the most useless male MP can be elected. While we’re still at a point where women being in the spotlight at all is remarkable, the incredible variety of women we’ve seen this week should give us hope that we’re slowly reaching that point where women will be judged for the work they do, and not the work they do As Women. And hopefully along the way, we’ll all come to understand that men like Tony Abbott don’t have a problem because they don’t get “women’s issues”. They have a problem because they don’t get that women are people, and they are more and more reluctant to put up with anyone believing they are anything less than that.
K, here’s a problem that is holding back feminism and you see it on the blogs. We all hold each other up to an incredibly high standard in a way that men do not. Let’s say a woman directs a movie that’s not very good—everybody piles up on her. It’s, like, “No! You’re representing us! It has to be perfect!” And that’s not how it works! Women should be allowed to make bad movies. Good movies. Porno movies. Terrible made-for-TV movies. Women just need to be out there directing as many movies as men do. We don’t all have to be the model woman—what we need is to be more visible. We really, really are tough on each other.
As long as there are ludicrous opinion pieces being written, I’m going to celebrate that some of them are being written by women, and as long as there are both political ideologues and factional warriors lacking in any sort of policy beliefs at all, I’m going to celebrate that some of them are women, too. Here’s to Crabb and Devine; to Gillard and Bishop; to Mirabella and Troeth.
I guess I’m going out on a limb here, but the fact or absence of a vagina doesn’t mean terribly much to me. Maybe I’m naive, but I think many of us have been judging people by their actions and ideas rather than their gender for a while yet.
To put it perhaps too bluntly, your whole post seems quite dated, quite 20th century.
(but yes, hang my head in shame, I’m a white male, what would I know).
Dr. Cat’s post is great. However, I’m finding it difficult to celebrate Mirabella and Bishop, although I take your point and in the same spirit I’m having a laugh about Bishop’s new nickname, ‘The Cockroach.’
As for Abbott, I find it interesting that in Crabb’s article about his appearance at Bob Ellis’ book launch that he talked about politics as a surrogate for being a warrior. Again, it’s clear that he thinks politics is no place for women, just ‘loyal girls’.
Neither does it surprise me that Bob Ellis admires him. I think he’s also a man who doesn’t see women as people.
“(but yes, hang my head in shame, I’m a white male, what would I know).”
Then try listening and learning, wilful – in all seriousness. I wonder whether you read Dr. Cat’s article?
Agreed. I’m happy to celebrate the fact that terrible women are able to mocked and criticised for reasons that aren’t about gender.
It was up to KOB to note that Abbott’s reference to his public outing in budgie smugglers did not constitute a relevant answer to the question about Abbott’s lack of appeal to women voters.
KOB didn’t.
KOB might also have asked about the meeting of Abbott’s staffers that decided that on the weekend before a spill it might be opportune to present Tone as a piece of eye candy (albeit one fished from the nether regions of the kitty litter tray).
What were they thinking??
“Amanda Vanstone once said that women won’t be equal until a woman as useless as the most useless male MP can be elected.”
I dunno about that, we have some pretty useless women MPs – Lynne Kosky, Transport Minister in Victoria comes to mind – and I’m not sure that we’re seeing perfect equality just yet.
As for Diablo Cody’s comment,
“here’s a problem that is holding back feminism and you see it on the blogs. We all hold each other up to an incredibly high standard in a way that men do not.”
I’m not sure that’s true, either. Prominent men get a pretty vicious bollocking in the media. That cartoonist linked in an earlier entry presented Abbott as having a penis for a nose and scrotal sacs for ears, I can’t imagine a woman politician caricatured as having a vagina for a mouth. This is Australia, we knock everyone really hard.
And to three mature aged lady barristers in NSW I have retained who should be District or Supreme Court judges: the sassiest, most interesting, humorous, humane, highly competent, loyal, helpful, lovable human beings of utmost integrity it has ever been my pleasure to meet.
Holy moly, Wilful, don’t tell me you are buying Devine et al’s ludicrous argument that feminism is somehow old-fashioned and it’s much more up to the minute and smart to go back to the 19th century?* Are you really so anxious about not being seen as old-fashioned as to fall for a trick as transparent as that?
*Actually, that’s a bit of an insult to the 19th century, which is chocker with feminist heroines.
Katz, that is absolutely true — KOB is by no means off the hook in general when it comes to sexist porkerdom, and the only reason I didn’t mention that in my post was that I was already talking about too many things at once as it was, and didn’t want any more red herrings. But you are absolutely right.
(On the other hand, he may have known that, if pushed on it, Abbott would just keep going on about the Speedos, and he’s been an ABC TV journalist for long enough to know his audience’s barf threshold.)
wilful,
I was almost going along with you until this:
Sexist chaunavism is still alive and well, even if perhaps it does not have the same traction as a few decades ago. As for women’s health issues I got no idea why middle aged men want to stick their noses in it anyway. Being a middle aged man myself, I find their interest in it pretty creepy.
But I don’r know that all women will find Abbott distasteful. Traditional female liberal voters will find something worthwhile about him. Somehow. And there are plenty of women who would share his values, anyway.
I have never talked to my missus about Abbott. Just did then. I asked her if she would vote for him she said no, and the number one reason: whatever it is you are supposed to have, he don’t got it. He comes off as weak. Thats what she said. A poll of one. I pressed her on his views on abortion etc and she winced and said “He is so old fashioned!”
So, after exhaustive polling in my house, Abbott’s negatives are:
1/ He don’t got it.
2/ Too old fashioned.
One of mine in the sin bin Anna for no reason I can discern :-)
hannah’s mum was with a bunch of health and social welfare professionals when the news of Abbott came over the TV.
They all cheered.
Yep, I’m in the sin bin too. I’m sure we’ll be liberated shortly.
An interesting discussion. I would have thought that women’s right to control over their own reproductive capacity was done and settled. My daughter is quite shocked at the apparent re-emergence of primitivism in the shape of Abbott. Still, vigilance is the price of freedom and all that. An old fashioned stoush with Catholic reactionaries might do us all good.
Kiashu, I think you’re misunderstanding the Diablo Cody quote. She’s not talking about the MSM, she’s talking about feminist blogs and women holding each other up to unrealistically high standards. As in if it’s not perfect, it’s useless.
But I’d agree that Kosky is an example of mediocrity rising through the ranks.
I’m also over at your place Dr Cat, sans sin bin but “blockquote” verboten. :-)
Verboten blockquoten are the price one pays to use the idiot-proof Blogger for free. Sad.
I don’t reckon Abbott would get away with turning the clock back to the 59s or whenever. Nothing to do with gender, though – too many votes to lose. though I will admit, very readily when you see it all laid out the way PC laid it out, its pretty bloody horrible and a bit acary.
Better to be a bit of a feminist back in the 20th century being very vigilant I reckon and not lose any of the gains made for women, rather than pretend its all going to be all right. Maybe it won’t be.
Dr Cat and I are old friends and have often discussed Tony Abbott’s politics. My constant refrain is that he holds the same general position on abortion as Bill Clinton { safe, legal and preferably rare). Does he propose making contraceptives hard to obtain? No.Are there compelling medical reasons for restricting the availability of RU 486? Yes. Are pregnant women obliged to put up with unwanted lectures from the Pregnancy Counselling Scheme? No.Is Gardasil freely available to secondary schoolgirls and some young adults, though older women with the means are expected to contribute to the cost? Yes. Would an Abbott Government see a return to the era of backyard abortions with coathangers? No,because a)the regulation of abortion is a state issue; b)See above, Clinton “safe”; c)He’s not the hardliner on these issues that the caricature version suggests and neither is his party.
Covenant marriage is an option, yet to win much party room support, for people who say they want to embrace marriage vows with penalties attached for breeching them, roughly comparable with divorce before the introduction of “no-fault” divorce by Lionel Murphy. It’s got a small following in a couple of the American states and has only ever been envisaged as a purely voluntary arrangement. It enjoys a priority on any Australian conservative reform agenda well below the priority that the Left attaches to, say, a republic.
Instead of pronouncing anathemas, however therapeutic for the individual poster,or spooky exercises in psychoanalysis, it would make more sense to read his book, Battlelines, (MUP). If that doesn’t convince you he’s much more modern a man than he’s often painted by Fairfax and the ABC, you might actually try talking to him or to his female colleagues.
Not one conspiracy of liars, but two!
Or is it just one great big conspiracy?
Actually most of the women who were cheering [as mentioned in my previous comment]when they heard the Abbott news have had the misfortune to work with him in the past and recent present and the fact that the Libs have had to scrape the bottom of the barrel and expose their favourite misogynist son to the light was the cause of the laughter and cheering.
He is apparently according to the local Murdoch rag here ‘ready for a fight” which for women working in the field of sexual assault services and domestic violence rings a discordant bell.
He is, we hope anyway, yesterday’s man.
Yeah. Well said HD. There is significant good cause to offer solidarity to women in their right to sustain control over their own reproductive capacity. The Liberals look like they are cleaning out the sumps of their reactionary pipes. First Howard’s peculiarly repressive Protestant vision of Australia made me feel like I was living in a weird David Lynch landscape. Now Abbott’s catholics have crawled out from under their rock. Are they kiddin’? They are members of a church that is internationally synonymous with priests who root and abuse vulnerable little kids. And they think they speak with moral authority? About sex and reproduction?
Abbott is creepy. So are his colleagues.
I reckon the demand that they ‘keep their rosaries off (women’s) ovaries’ is a ripper.
I’m not interested in any Catholic bashing here.
I’d also like to note that this was a post about women, and now the comments thread is rapidly turning its focus to the one man mentioned in it. Just sayin’.
I’m happy for threads to go where they will, mostly. But perhaps it’s worth pondering.
Ah, CP, but are they core or non-core promises? I could have made the post a lot shorter simply by saying that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, which was my real point. Leopard, spots, etc.
I don’t like the sound of therapeutic anathemas at all. They sound like something one could buy only from under the counter at an all-night Hindley Street pharmacy.
Anna, quite right. I can’t help thinking that Kristina Keneally is holding the chalice from the palace (ie the one that has the pellet with the poison), but I wish her the very best of luck.
I can’t help thinking that Kristina Keneally is holding the chalice from the palace (ie the one that has the pellet with the poison),
*Thinks of Joan Kirner*
*Nods*
Yes, Joan Kirner took on the job after Premier John Cain decided his Labor Govt had become unworkable. He couldn’t get factional enemies to work cohesively as a Cabinet.
e.g. trams parked in the CBD for weeks (union strike unresolved) IIRC; Ministers just buggered off on summer holidays, leaving the PR (and public transport) disaster smouldering.
But she WAS the Deputy Premier already. She must have had respect [or strong factional support] to win that post. A strong woman and a good MP.
By contrast to Mrs KK, she wasn’t shoe-horned in as a surprise selection from amongst a squabbling cabal of plotters.
***
Not saying she was subsequently treated fairly by either the press (polka-dot-dresses-in-cartoons) or by her still-venomous colleagues……
Anna @ 22: I don’t reserve my critical attitudes to catholics alone. Any deist will do but there are differences among them. To right the balance of too much attention to one man so far let me nominate Julie Bishop as equally creepy.
Just a little too much neurotic focus on gender issues I think. Time to get over it guys. Gender is not the issue it once was for the bulk of the Australian community. It is only section of the self absorbed left who can’t let go.
Anthony Nolan – showing your ignorance of basic biology. Keep your rosaries off my ovaries. Ummm… Aborion actually happens after the egg has left the ovaries and been fertilised during sex. This creates a new human life that is a person. Nothing to do with ovaries buddy. Yet another catchy but false propaganda push by the abortion lobby who want to normalise a terrible thing. And thanks for the usual anti Catholic bigotry. Are ignorance and bigoty now requirements of the left?
The number one thing Abbott and the liberal party will be doing is making Abbott a small target.
Abbott’s position on global warming. Does anyone know? I’m sure if you pin him down with one of his previous quotes he will come back with another that tacks to another position. Same with women’s issues. Abbott will hide behind Clinton’s quote on abortion. Just like Howard’s even handedness in the Republican debate. Like Thatcher’s hands-off approach on the miner’s strike..etc
Within a few months you will all be scratching your heads to figure out what Abbott actually stands for on anything.
Christopher Pearson @18:
“My constant refrain is that he holds the same general position on abortion as Bill Clinton { safe, legal and preferably rare).”
Clinton’s quote gives no reference to choice or women’s rights.
Interesting. Hate to sound paranoid, but if there is one thing you learn listening to pollies is that they would much prefer to obfuscate than to out and out lie.
Amanda Vanstone’s quote sounds good, but I think it’s more complex than that. In fact there are female MPs who are as bad as any male MP, its just that they are only allowed to be bad in certain ways.
Belinda Neale is the perfect example. It’s hard to say there is a significantly worse male MP, but how did she get there? Not through the usual skullduggery by which a dud male MP finds his way in, but by being married to a major power-broker (and sticking with him when he stays).
The different format of her badness demonstrates just how far we are from equality, something Wilful might wish to contemplate.
Jesus wept, another one.
Wilful, Spana: calling people who disagree with you old-fashioned, neurotic and/or self-absorbed isn’t actually an argument.
Spana@27/28: yes, yes agreed. Every sperm is sacred and all that. Please, send yr collected texts to my new address on the other side of the world which I’ll send you as soon as I leave the room (sotto voce to others: where’s the door?)
A little clarification please. On what basis do you make that claim above? Opinion? What informs your opinion? Second, why do you wish to attach the trope of a mental disorder to the subject of this post by using the adjective ‘neurotic’? What inference are you making by doing that? Lastly, put your opinion and inference together and how does that reinforce one of the main points of this rather excellent post?
Case, Case, have some pity — he’ll never be able to follow that and work it out. Or must he remain an Unpitied Prune?
I’m conflicted about the marriage issue; I don’t think it’s as clear-cut an example of nepotism as the father-son kind, for example.
Politics is a very hard job for anyone, navigating the factional system, campaigns, dealing with the electorate, the trips to Canberra etc. I’m not saying it’s the worst job ever, far from it. But let’s not pretend that it’s an easy one.
It’s not surprising that generations of families get preselection – it’s not always a simple matter of nepotism, rather it’s an advantage of having grown up in that life, and understanding from a young age how to navigate it. Thus, more chance of success. Marriage can be another way to learn that.
But more often, the marriages come after two people are embedded in the system. They’re already in the midst of it, and that can make it almost inevitable that relationships will form. Strong friendships a frequently forged in difficult factional battles, and so are romantic relationships.
It’s not a simple issue, and worse so for women. For them, it must surely not be surprising that often the ones who have the most success are those whose partners are in the same game, and so understand the sacrifices. No doubt it’s very old-fashioned of me to say, but women still find it more difficult than men to find someone who’s willing to help pick up the domestic slack when they’re off sitting in Parliament or meeting the electorate every night.
So rather than judge relationships, I’d rather the focus be on: what are the parties doing to increase the gene pool, and does the person deserve to be there?
On the talent issue, as someone who has been there, let me assure you that we have yet to get a female MP who’s been able to reach the lows of incompetence that some male ones have. One main difference is that the women are more visible when they’re crap. Considering how many MPs there are right now, do you really know about all of them? Consider, perhaps that that’s because there’s a large number of useless male MPs who just cruise, and it’s never questioned the way it is with women who must always prove their merit. I don’t have a problem with that, but I would like to see that standard more rigourously applied to the men, too.
Just an anecdote. The day Cheryl Kernot defected to the Labor Party I was out with friend whose family has been heavily involved with the Labor Party for generations. This friend just shook her head and said, “This will be a disaster for her. Those blokes will rip her to shreds”.
Anna@36: your argument is sound about different performative standards applied to men and women parliamentarians but advocating equality of mediocrity as a solution isn’t exactly going to set the world on fire. Strengthening ‘monitory democracy’ is a positive agenda and this means demanding the highest standards of probity and performance from anyone in parliament regardless of reproductive difference.
Anthony, I quote myself:
It’s a nuanced view, sure, but it isn’t that hard to figure out what I actually said by reading my actual words. It’s about making sure that whatever the standard, it’s applied equally, which is a separate issue to what the standard is, and more importantly what it should be.
Good to see you simply ignoring your own ignorance of biology Anthony Nolan. When in lack of argument just misquote someone. Correct me if I am wrong but did I mention sperm? Ah, no. This has always been a problem with the abortion lobby. They will never address facts. There trade in misinformation. I guess with your views about ovaries your next line will be that a 24 week old unborn baby is “just a bunch of cells”. The abortion lobby knows that to speak the truth erodes their arguments.
Secondly, the point about the obsession with gender issues is the fact that it is not on the radar for most Australians who see talent where there is talent and see the vast lack of it in elected representatives of both sexes. Careerists on both sides have made a living out of the gender movement for too long. Bligh was elected in Queensland with no issue about gender. She has been a disgrace as premier, worse than a tory, but so has Andrew Fraser as her male treasurer. The only ones obsessing about gender are the media commentators and the affirnmative action brigade. Everyone else has moved on.
I’m so glad you’ve put us straight on gender issue, Spana. Good on ya.
This is not a thread about the morality of abortion, and I’ll delete any comments to that effect.
Spana, if you aren’t interested in the actual topic, then piss off and stop trying to convince me it’s irrelevant. If it is, then no doubt the thread will die on its own.
Anna, I’ve seen mercifully little of political life up close, but everything you’ve said at #36 also applies to academic life, where the competition is ferocious and the scrutiny of the female half of an academic couple is unforgiving and never-ending. I’ve seen four different women suffer dreadfully in this sort of situation, and since the woman was always the ‘junior’ partner there was always endless muttering about nepotism. In three of those four cases it was totally unwarranted, and in two of them, she was demonstrably better than he was.
Partly because of the principle underlying that wonderful xkcd cartoon: two male stick figures at a board, one’s writing an equation or something on it and the other is saying ‘Wow, you suck at math.’ Next frame, same male is watching another stick figure, this time female, writing up another equation, and saying ‘Wow, girls suck at math.’
Well PC, I am taking pity. He has wandered lonely as a cloud long enough, IMO.
Oh, Anna, don’t drive him away. I’m missing a movie date this weekend cos I’ve got too much work to do, so the intertubes are my only source of amusement.
First, your trajectory of associating psychological disfunction continues with the use of the noun “obsession”. Please explain to me why you choose to associate mental disorder with an interest in gender issues.
Second, where is the evidence that gender issues is ‘not on the radar for most Australians’ please, taking care to define what makes up the unbounded mass you refer to as ‘most Australians’.
Third, what ‘careerists’ are you speaking of? Please define the ‘careerists’ who are benefitting financially from highlighting gender issues.
Fourth, yes, bingo Spanner. Bligh has been very bad. One of the points of the post I believe. Thank you for agreeing with Anna.
Fifth, you return to my point One and point Two – I don’t know why, but what the hell, I don’t understand your abortion fetish either. You seem to be again focusing on your intent to pathologise the raising of gender with the noun ‘obsession’ and you are again articulating wish/desire for everyone to ‘move on’ which you attempt to mask as the Ausrtalian majority desire. Now. How do you think this scrutiny of gender may be affecting you ?
And finally, Spanner, why do you think you have attracted a reader who is textually analysing your every offering on this thread. What discursive battle, conducted on my part in avoidance of cleaning my closet, is taking place here? Why do you think you represent your interests as ‘normative’ while the interests of feminists are classified as ‘abnormal’? How successful do you think this strategy is?
Casey. I am a feminist. Don’t make assumptions. Secondly, Anna, do you need to swear at people you disagree with? Thirdly, as an ex ALP member I have seen the hours wasted on discussing gender issues while talented people sit by and get bored. People of talent on both sides are able to be recognised for that in this country. Many women are sick of having to be representatives for the gender issues brigade rather than having their talents seen for what they are. In their jobs in my experience their is not an issue here. The issue is raised by sections of the left and the media. Women are out there every day doing what they do. Anna, surely this thread can accomodate an opinion which suggests that the level of analysis given to the issue is over the top. That is my point. Please don’t be so precious. Isn’t that what debate is about. And by the way, I did not raise the abortion issue and rarely do. I respond to others. Just sayin!
Spana, you are getting precious about being told to “piss off”? Nobody I know would actually consider that proper swearing.
Well tigtog, I guess it all comes down to standards doesn’t it. I for one am for raising the level of debate not lowering it to an uncouth exchange.
I wonder why you chose not to answer any of Casey’s questions, Spana?
S, a little further clarification on your part. Where do you think I have assumed you are not a feminist? By giving you the benefit of closely reading your comments? Where I asked you to clarify your generalisations? By teasing out the hidden to your eyes discourses in operation in your commentary? When I asked you to provide evidence to back up your opinion, rather than relying on monolithic generalisations? Where I pointed out the binary of normal versus abnormal at play in your attempts pass off your commentary as a majority view?
Well what a fine mess you have made of assertions, Spana. Unless you are prepared to address the detail of my response to you, where I have done you the courtesy of reading each of your points closely and responding to the detail of your assertions, your arguments will appear rather flimsy to those reading what you have to say.
You have responded with one sentence which attempts to deflect my close and careful reading by suggesting I do not think you are a feminist. A further point if I may and this goes to the basics of a conversation on a blog, or in life really. A debate proceeds on the understanding that one will address the issues raised at each stage of the interaction. You have so far not responded in a way that suggests you are very confident of your ‘move on, move on – nothing to see here, Australians are over gender cause I say so, youse are all a little bit girl strange’ argument.
When you are ready to argue the toss like a grown up, we may proceed. Until then you will have to be satisfied with the sorry sight of your argument lying here in ruins, at the firmly shut door of my crying for attention wardrobe, pulverised by a few obvious questions a 12 year old could and would ask.
Casey, Casey, Casey. If you want to play linguistics we can. You are wrong in your assertion that I am “associating mental disorder with an interest in gender issues.” Anyone who has studied linguistics will know that the meaning of a word is largely dependent on context. What you have done is taken a word and apply one narrow definaition to it and applied this definition across all areas. this is bound to be met with a dead end in conversation because the basis of most conversation is an agreement on shared meanings and intent, even when subject matter raises different opinions. Many words are used in everyday speech which do not adhere to one and only one narrow meaning. Perhaps you need to widen your discussion circles.
Secondly, debate certaily does proceed on the basis which you suggest but there are also other factors which those involve choose to engage. One basis one is respect. Comparing one’s sparring partner to a 12 year old because you disagree with them is not the highest form of intellectual debate and nor is it respectful. Such words will result in the respons they deserve. if you belittle an opponent don’t complain if the debate sours. Respect your oponent. Attack their position.
As for asking why I think you assume I am not a feminist perhaps this quote from you may help. “Why do you think you represent your interests as ‘normative’ while the interests of feminists are classified as ‘abnormal’?” There seems to be a lot of assumption in this sentence. Casting my interests as normative against the interests of the “abnormal” feminists is pretty clear to me. But hey, for a 12 year old what do you expect?
Did you even read the post before deciding to tell me I was speaking about an irrelevant issue?
Because you have just repeated exactly what I argued.
Hey Spana, what’s the manner? You obviously want to be taken seriously but either lack the reading skills, or simply can’t be bothered to discern that Casey did not call you a 12 year old, didn’t even imply that you were a 12 year old. Though I do know some 12 year olds who would have been able to pick that one up quite easily.
Oh and you still haven’t answered her questions.
Describing something as “neurotic” isn’t intended to belittle?
Yes, I thought that was quite funny Anna Winter.
so, Spana does that mean, as a feminist, you think that gender issues are now irrelavent and we should just move on or risk being neurotic? And when you use the word neurotic in this context, what do you mean?
I am not the Lord your God, Spana, there is no need to invoke my name three times. Once will do.
Now let us proceed:
First we may look at your opening paragraph above where your rather curious explication of linguistics, and good luck with that, seems to raise the complaint that I have misread what you meant when you took the words “obsessive” and “neurotic” and attached them to your opinion on the discussions on gender taking place here. By all means then, please clarify for me what meaning you wanted to convey when you did that. As to the connotative power of words and the discourses at work in your comments, well I can lead you to water Spana but I Can’t make you drink. Your feminism might well benefit from a quick course in the history of binarisms and how they work to erase the concerns of women, binarisms upon which your argument rests.
To this end, Feminism 101 is an excellent blog for that and will solidify your understanding of how it is certainly not beneficial to your feminism to argue using a sexist stereotype often employed by the patriarchy – that is, the mythical realm of the irrational. You use this stereotype to attempt to undermine the very validity of gender concerns in this post and you try to gain authority by invoking some group known as ‘the mainstream’ as the site of the normative. Please, for the third time, provide evidence. Not your opinion but evidence. And then, clarify what and who makes up this ‘mainstream’, again.
To your second point: You may note, for future reference, how the well crafted prodding results in drawing your interlocutor where he is too scaredy cat to go. As you have now done, to your utter detriment.
As for your third point, I have addressed it in my first point in response to your first point. I will gently inform you however, that you are very confused as to what I said. Let me be clear. It is you who is ‘casting your interests as normal against the abnormal interests articulated in this post’.
Now Spana, Jesus loves you, this much I know, but even he would would think you are being a belligerent pork chop this afternoon. Now bugger off back to your normative mainstream and let people who actually know their stuff get on with the discussions at hand here.
What has happened to the quality of pork chops on LP? Pfft. Everything changes. Nothing tastes like it used to. Iced Vo Vos are smaller than they used to be and Pollywaffles have disappeared all together.
And Tim Tams are made from palm oil!
Casey, Casey, Casey. You sound like you would be a nice person to talk to at a party. Once again your response is so full of pedantic condescension that it is simply rude. I am a believer in respecting your oponent so I wil not lower myself to the level of belittling that you do. What you perhjaps need to learn is that debate does not have to be a game of arrogance and winner takes all where you attempt to crush your oponent. I usually enter into debate ready to learn and knowking that my opinions change over time. Even though you say you are not God I wonder if you really think you are. A bit of humility goes a long way sometimes.
Sorry Casey, I am back from finishing painting my house so can add a few more comments. Your comments expose you as someone who is firstly very rude. Also, one of your first remarks also demonstrates you ignorance of English langauge (but perhaps linguistics is a new subject for you). Neurotic has a number of meanings. One, used in popular discourse in an informal context is overanxious. Now, I know this does not conform to your definition which by your tone must be the only one ever used. I will inform all people who use this word in a non medical context that they are wrong. I am sure that will assist me in communicating effectively. I can give you a few sociolinguistics links if you wish to read up on this aspect of communication. Given that you begin your questioning with such a false assertion I see little reason to go through pointing out the other errors in your line of argument. A false opening does note bode well for the rest of your argument.
Spana, you haven’t demonstrated that you’ve even read anyone’s contributions here, so I think something about stones and glass houses is relevant.
Anna, I have read the entire thread. Just because you don’t like my opinion does not mean that I have not read the thread. My posts above are totally relevent and respond to other people’s posts and opinions. It seems I am ruffling a few feathers. Might be time to say goodnight and let a few of the more sensitive souls calm down a bit and recover for another day’s debate. Just remember, if you only have your own opinion reinforced you never learn anything.
Are Tim-Tams really made from palm oil? If theyu are I’ll have to give them up on principle.
Sadly, Paul, it is true. http://www.yumclick.com/online-store.asp?id=317
By ‘compelling medical reasons’ I suppose you mean the fact that then minister Abbott decided to ignore the advice of the medical folk with their physical science and data, instead relying on non-scientific faith.
Comedian Jim Carrey has about as many ‘compelling’ facts (probably moreso) on his side in his campaign against mandatory innoculations.
Sorry to get all uncivil, Mr Pearson, but this attack on young women’s access to the vacine that guards against human papillomavirus is… no.
I can’t accuse you of being ‘pro-cervical cancer’. I don’t want to fall into any trap.
Spana. You said: “Waaah Waaah Waaah”
To which I say, oh come on.
You come onto this thread to pronounce the irrelevancy of it’s ideas, based on nothing more than your whiny opinion. You have done nothing to engage with the substance of the questions I put to you in response to that assertion. Nothing. And worse. The minute people argue to the detail of your assertions, you respond with “waaah, waaah, waah”. I mean, really. How is one to proceed with “waah waah waah”?
For your own sake, and pork chop herding techniques aside, let me say this: If you are going to pretend to be an authority on linguistics – at least acquaint yourself with the very basic ideas of denotation and connotation will you? Let’s talk about a ‘rose’ here. The word ‘rose’ denotes a flower. It’s connotation however is one of romance, of romantic love. Are you prepared to entertain that possibility? That perhaps words may convey more than their literal meanings? If you say yes, you must then take seriously my assertion that to use the word ‘neurotic’ on a post called ‘the women’ connotes something more than its denotative common use meaning. In this case I would point you to also to Freud, his work with neurosis and women patients. Perhaps you could read the feminist responses to that. Overall I would ask you to consider the power of idea of Freud, even today and to think about how he fractured enlightenment assurances in the self and how these fractures and their attendant fears have filtered down into a socially bounded area of knowledge which orders us and how words are not innocent constructs, but ordering agents within that discursive formation. I would ask you to consider all that history, all that history of feminism, all that history of language, all the scholarly work gone into the ideas that one litte word connotes. You say you are open to learning. Learn all that history, all that struggle right there.
Finally, if you are going to assert you are a feminist, at the very least inform yourself of the ways in which patriarchal discourse works through words such as these in particular, and the way in which you have been interpellated by the patriarchy you purport to be in opposition to.
I have argued in good faith here. I have attempted to treat you seriously enough to read your arguments and engage with their assertions. Now I have shown you how words may contain other meanings apart from their denotations so do not argue about that anymore.
Rather, you could reciprocate that good faith I have shown you, and provide evidence of your assertions that the issues under discussion in this thread are of no interest to the mainstream and you could detail how ‘careerists’ as you put it gain financially from these discussing these matters. Evidence is not your opinion by the way. Evidence is an authoritative independent source, like say, some reputable stats etc. But could you do that without the “wah wah wah”? please?
Wagon Wheels. Wagon Wheels are really small and the jam is just not what it used to be.
just refreshed and Nickws on the same point of order!
Christopher, this is where the pointy end of Dr Cat’s post meets head-on with your & Tony Abbott’s interpretation of “compelling medical reasons”.
Abbott as Health Minister lost the vote in the Senate to hold onto his ministerial prerogative (The Harradine amendment) in respect of RU-486 with a defintive cross party vote by women Senators.
This is the disconnect – the overwhelming majority of Australian women including Liberal Senators look at the evidence put by medical specialists including its long use in overseas settings and see only compelling medical reasons for this drug to be prescribed in exactly the same way as all other drugs are prescribed, ie. in a consultation between a patient and their medical practitioner. The contrary medical concerns raised were not in relation to it’s efficacy nor overall safety but rather in terms of patient follow-up in very casual doctor/patient relationships. Similar to many medical other interventions where known risk assessments and warnings should be applied by practitioners.
As to Anna’s post – yep, getting there, little by little, everyday.
The photo of Kristina Keneally, Carmel Tebbutt (Deputy) and Marie Bashir, the Governor in the SMH today, wasn’t headlined “New Premier sworn in by the Gov” it was.. “Oath of Office puts three females at top”.
Obviously, something to see here…a first in this nation’s oldest. (For da slow kids..the first time, hasn’t happened before..many, many years gorne by & not happened up until yesterday.)
The day when women vastly outnumber men at the top of Govt, media and business as a matter of course, is the day I’ll take the ‘nothing to see here’ mob seriously…. except by then they’ll be screaming blue murder about the injustice, unequal representation and the lack of male voices in the debate. It’s a day I look forward to, only so I can pat their pretty little heads and say that’s it’s not about gender, and stop being so neurotic and whiny.
“It seems I am ruffling a few feathers.”
Well basically your own while blaming it on the ladies’ hairdryers.
V. simple way to prove yer not a hidebound tightarse wanker blaming the chicks for your failure not be recognised as a total 100% feminist before it was profitable or popular. Just provide some empirical proof for all your sweeping claims.
Disclaimer: I am neither a feminist or a woman. I just know from enjoyably hard won experiences that the more women get involved in running/organising/delivering anything and everything the more productive fun it becomes for everyone involved.
I like fun. Productivity is a welcome bonus. But at not the cost of of the one thing women have always been magnificent and courageous guardians of throughout human history – quality of life.
Also praising women for the stuff they never get rightly praised enough for does measurably increase your chances of getting laid – a simple tactical move that sails right over the head of so many blokes.
And if you genuinely mean it, then the sex and pillow talk after can really approach the transcendental.
I could demonstrate this right now except LP ain’t equipped for live webcam feeds and I don’t have a wonderful woman in my bed at this point in time. Instead I’ve got a very butch male Thai film festival director passed out on my couch from a surfeit of Dalwhinne 15 year single malt and valium.
But whatever my point was, I’m sure it still stands.
Unlike me.
Anna@39: I appreciate your intention to celebrate women’s rates of participation in all spheres. You’ve been quite explicit that the nature of the participation is no matter to you:
“It’s about making sure that whatever the standard, it’s applied equally, which is a separate issue to what the standard is, and more importantly what it should be.”
Does this mean that issues of standards are secondary considerations to be addressed only once rough equality of participation and presence has been achieved? If that is the case when why do you not ‘celebrate’ Miranda Devine’s columns? Or Albrechtson’s? What you are advocating isn’t as nuanced as you think. Nationalism never is and biological nationalism is no exception.
Anna@39: I appreciate your intention to celebrate women’s rates of participation in all spheres. You’ve been quite explicit that the nature of the participation is no matter to you:
“It’s about making sure that whatever the standard, it’s applied equally, which is a separate issue to what the standard is, and more importantly what it should be.”
Does this mean that issues of standards are secondary considerations to be addressed only once rough equality of participation and presence has been achieved? If that is the case when why do you not ‘celebrate’ Albrechtson’s columns as well? What you are advocating isn’t as nuanced as you think. Nationalism never is and biological nationalism is no exception.
Spana, by complaining that Casey was comparing you to a 12 year old – when what she actually said was
the sorry sight of your argument lying here in ruins, at the firmly shut door of my crying for attention wardrobe, pulverised by a few obvious questions a 12 year old could and would ask
…where it was obvious that “12 year old” referred to a hypothetical interlocutor asking you questions – not you
Just proves that you don’t read anything for comprehension. You only come into these threads to push your anti-choice barrow, and your claim to be a “feminist” is just unbelievable. But that aside, the fact that you don’t understand or bother to read what is said to you makes debate with you tiresome.
Yes. Because I am an idiot who doesn’t care about standards and who is only capable of fighting for one thing at a time.
What a ridiculous broad brush to use against feminism, anthony. The likes of Albrechtsen will always be with us. To suggest that the very existence of her and her kind discredits feminist commentary is unfair and illogical. All you’re doing is assigning collective guilt. As for ‘nuance’, I see you choose to go with George Orwell’s petulant argument about how ‘nationalism’ can be any kind of icky belief system that the author doesn’t like.
Even he couldn’t come up with as contemptuous & ahistorical a putdown as ‘biological nationalism’.
Yes, that cracked me up too. It’s right up there with Miranda Devine’s ‘paleo-feminism’ — or even better, considering the WTF factor of Devine invoking old-fashionedness like it’s a bad thing.
As with the endless discussions that take place in literary debates about this sort of thing, it’s also a matter of who decides what the ‘standards’ are, and whose values are informing them. If, for example, a journalist were to be judged ‘aggressive’, this would be generally regarded as a good thing in a male journo but a bad thing in a female one, regardless of where either stood along the left/right spectrum. Before you can even start applying standards, you need to make sure the playing field is level and the goal posts firmly fixed.
NickW and PC @ above. If the suggestion that celebration of womens’ achievements in the public sphere is going to include valorisation of crook, corrupt or incompetent conduct on the basis of reproductive difference (ie, that the people exhibiting those behaviours are women) then the path is open to suggestions of the democratisation of medicocrity and biological nationalism. Personally, I find the conduct of Meredith Hellicar as contemptible as that of any of the male members of the board who preceded her ayt Hardies. The same applies to NSW Premier Keneally who is not a led astray political innocent but an active participant in rolling the Labor left’s attempt to revive NSW Labor.
Would you like to celebrate further? How about Thatcher’s direct 1982 intervention to sink the General Belgrano. It was a breakthrough in international relations as it was the first ship to be sunk by a nuclear powered submarine. George Monbiot (Oct 28, 09) points out that both Blair and Thatcher have cause to be on the run for their criminal conduct:
“Within the UK, there is no means of prosecuting Mr Blair. In 2006 the law lords decided that the international crime of aggression has not been incorporated into domestic law(5). But elsewhere in the world it has been. In 2006 the professor of international law Philippe Sands warned that “Margaret Thatcher avoids certain countries as a result of the sinking of the Belgrano, and Blair would be advised to do likewise.”
In other words let us call it as it is regardless of the reproductive difference.
Can you name those 9 other former directors and executives of Hardies who faced the Supreme Court or is it only Hellicar’s name that rolls readily from the keyboard? If not, why not, and isn’t that evidence in favour of the point being made, that women, having been impeded and obstructed from gaining positions of influence, are then held to a higher standard if they should prevail against the odds.
Su: can you tell me anything about the history of the use of asbestos in Australia? I would name the founder of Hardies as deserving of special contempt if I thought it would convince you but I don’t feel the need to prove my credentials. As to Hellicar she got no more ‘special treatment’ from the courts and the court of public opinion than was due to the chair of the board of a company synonymous with being merchants of deasth. As chair she also got the ‘special treatment’ income package. That is what happens.
Anthony, in your indignation over thinking you’ve been insulted, you’ve almost completely missed Su’s point, and have certainly taken the focus off it. So here it is again:
Anthony, let’s take you through this slowly.
Women have begun to move into positions of authority in business and government.
There is a perception that people in positions of authority in business and government get there via a strict meritocracy, but we can see (Wilson Tuckey anyone?!) that many people in these positions of authority are actually quite mediocre.
Women in positions of authority in business and government are expected to be there via a strictly enforced meritocracy, otherwise we must suspect affirmative action, which is bad.
However, we as a society don’t often question the presence of many mediocre men at the top levels of business and government, while a mediocre woman is seen as evidence of the failure of women in general to measure up.
(This is what we horrible feminists refer to as male privilege).
The fact that we should enforce a meritocracy and discourage mediocrity in our politicians and managers, with which I heartily agree, is a separate issue to the point Anna was making, that this is enforced differently, still, for men and women.
Coincidentally, there’s an article in the Punch today on much the same theme; Female corporate head found to be just as venal as the rest of ‘em, how could that be? They’re supposed to be so soft, caring and cuddly!
Thankyou Pavlov’s Cat. That is it exactly Helen.
I should confess that I couldn’t name those nine men, but I am aware of why that is. Hellicar was the focus of the lioness’s share of the media attention because she broke the stereotype of the nurturing, caring woman. She put her career and her company ahead of the wellbeing of sick and dying men and women and so while her colleagues are unethical, deplorable men, she is worse, she is monstrous.
Mainly it was because she was the Chair and the public spokesperson, while the macabre and duplicitous charade was carried on in front of an incresingly angry public.
Any man on that Board, had he been Chair, would have merited (and I believe gained) equal scorn. AFAIK they all supported the company manoeuvres.
But she was the actual Chair, so we’ll never know.
The sinking of the Belgrano was nasty. Mrs Thatcher seemed to want to cast herself as Winston Churchill (or Budicca? Boadicea?), from day one. The Tories had been doing badly in the polls before Argentina’s Generals gave her a pretext for decisive military action. Those Generals sent the Belgrano to its doom and are equally culpable.
Argentina is still working through the repercussions.
“Biological nationalism”…??? hmmm.
I suppose, I come to this issue from a very different place to Pavlos Cat and others. I am basically a labourer, and I’m an labourer in a role that would generally be considered the domain of ‘the blokes’.
What interests me, is when I am in discussions with my peers, that is to say, other people working in my field. I’m never asked about whether I have a family, kids etc…but EVERY SINGLE time I have met a male who is in a similar situation to me, that is running a small business as well as being actively involved with the labouring side of the business, they consistently tell me that ‘family’, ‘paying the mortgage’ and ‘putting food on the table’ is the reason that their standards in their workplace are less than they would like them to be. For example: they sometimes take on too much work when they know they do not have the staff to do the work in a timely fashion; they do work that they know will not yield the desired outcome etc etc.
I succeed [so far] in business by being outcomes driven, so it’s amazing to me when blokes basically stand there and tell me that they know their work sucks, but run with the ‘I’m a husband and a father and I have bills to pay’ line. Do they think I have inherited a fortune and I’m doing a really physical demanding job just for the fun of it???
So my take on the small steps to equality is pretty similar to Amanda Vanstone’s, except I’d add that add that being able to have a discussion about having kids [a mortgage etc] and balancing all of the things that ALL people have to manage – because currently it seems that only men are able to use it as the reason they may not be managing well.
Of course it is; and that difference is driven by affirmative action. If you have a system that gives out “status” to women on the basis of them being women rather than their performance while men have to gain “status” through performance then of course that “status” will have a lesser meaning and garner less respect for women even when they’ve earned it through performance rather than affirmative action. Get rid of affirmative action and quotas and make everyone complete on an equal playing field if you want people to have equal respect for their achievements. Non-meritocratic methods of gaining status, such as nepotism or corruption, are equally available to both men and women.
Of course it is; and that difference is driven by affirmative action.
Rubbish, desipis, it was true before affirmative action was born or thought of, except much worse. You appear to have no understanding at all of why affirmative action was introduced in the first place or you would not, incredibly, be going on about a ‘level playing field’.
“Non-meritocratic methods of gaining status, such as nepotism or corruption, are equally available to both men and women.”
No, they simply are not. You are wrong about this.
Wrongedy wrong-wrong WRONG.
Because women were frustrated by the sexism against them so their solution was to add more sexism? Two wrongs making a right and all.
What affirmative action? Please explain what you mean.
The 40% female quota by the ALP?
One organisation hardly proves whatever point it is that you’re making.
Over here in the real world you’d get laughed out of court if you believed that it was actually practised beyond a few token gestures.
PC @ 80: I can’t see an insult in here anywhere. Don’t worry about my feelings because they are my therapists job. As to the issue of women being held to higher standards the examples cited so far by me show women being held to the same standards as men and no more. It is a struggle to get justice in any arena and neither powerful men nor women have grounds for special pleading based on gender identity.
Helen @ 81: thank you for speaking slowly and not using too many big words. I am amused by:
“Women in positions of authority in business and government are expected to be there via a strictly enforced meritocracy”.
The logic of which statement means that women so placed as you describe only got there on merit which does not tally with my experiences of women (and men) here on planet earth. What else can I say?
Su @ 82: this sterotype of women as caring and nurturant is over consequent to the real world, real time conduct of women. Condi Rice anyone? However, once that barrier is broken (and to my eyes it is long gone) then other factors such as hewman decency, probity, standards etc need to come into play.
The point of the article initiating the thread, in what I guess is a genuflection to ‘bad girls’ po-mo feminism, adopted a tone of ‘my gender right or wrong’ which I characterised as biological nationalism. My mind is open but unchanged on the point.
Cheers
In my opinion it’s a really offensive term. Keep using it if you wish to offend.
Just as Spana stood by the use of word neurotic, despite people of various levels of education and experience suggesting it was ill-advised.
Your linguistics, right or wrong, I s’pose?
BTW: apologies to all for how inarticulate my earlier post was. Coffee helps [slightly].
I don’t want to belabour this one example because the larger point made in the post is more important, but Hellicar while a non-executive director at the time, only became Chair in 2004, after the duplicitous events took place, ie the hiving off of asbestos liability from the parent company and underfunding of MRCF. Those events took place under the watch of Alan McGregor(deceased) as Chair and Peter McDonald as CEO. Yet their names do not live in infamy to the same extent even though McDonald received the harshest penalty in the August judgement, followed by General Counsel Peter Shafron and CFO Phillip Morley. I saw Hellicar’s image so often I could tell you the shade of lipstick she favours while the other’s faces are unknown to me and I did take some interest in the reports over the years because an uncle of mine died from asbestosis.
Funny how none of the people who like to bring up the subject of Affirmative action ever mention the massive and entrenched affirmative action in favour of men which obtained until the last blip in history, (and fairly large chunks of which still persist – i.e. the elements less formally enshrined in legislation.)
None of the affirmative-action obsessives ever complains about that. It’s quite amusing. But then, that was different, wasn’t it!
Ah yes, vengeance for the sins of your ancestors. Surely there are some more enlightened motivations for progressive policies?
That is a killer argument, Helen.
I think that those who don’t like affirmative action, don’t like it because they can’t see that there is a problem to be addressed in the first place.
They need to understand why it is a problem that only x% of positions in y-sphere of life are held by women.
wbb,
Pointing out a “solution” won’t solve the problem isn’t the same thing as denying there’s a problem in the first place.
<hyperbole>The fact that there are starving women in the world is a problem too. Is killing a few random men and bbq’ing them up to feed the women an acceptable solution to the problem?</hyperbole> I mean affirmative action supporters seem to have no problem causing harm to innocent bystanders to “solve” a problem.
Su: Hellicar was on the board when the compensation funds were quarantined offchore. From the business section of the Oz 25-04-09:
“In the 1980s, Meredith Hellicar and Heather Ridout were two of an unusual breed: women bashing their way against a male-dominated corporate culture, and winning.
“There were very few of us then,” Ridout, who is now the chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, told The Weekend Australian yesterday.
“She was quite a high flyer; I looked up to her quite a lot.”
In a career spanning more than 30 years, Hellicar excelled in some of the most prestigious and toughest endeavours. She reached the stars as a legal manager, a public advocate, a hands-on executive in hard businesses such as logistics and the coal industry, and as a board member and, for a time, chairwoman of some of the biggest companies in Australia.
“I always had a lot of respect for Meredith and her achievements and the way she has gone about things,” Ridout said, adding that she regarded Hellicar as a woman of the highest integrity.
The two women are good friends. For those reasons, Thursday’s NSW Supreme Court finding that Hellicar was one of those who failed in their duties over the James Hardie asbestos compensation scandal has shocked Ridout and her many other admirers.
“I feel very, very sorry with how this has played out,” Ridout said.
“She’s paying a very high price for it.”
To others, judge Ian Gzell’s findings are simply a reflection of justice done.
Federal parliamentary secretary Greg Combet, who as ACTU secretary led the bitter war to make Hardie pay its asbestos victims adequate compensation, told The Weekend Australian the result vindicated what he and the union movement had said all along.
This is that Hellicar, as one of the Hardie board members in 2001 when the company left Australia for The Netherlands, had provided grossly inadequate compensation to asbestos victims when they should have had enough information to know better.
It has been an extraordinary rollercoaster ride for a woman judged, until the Hardie affair, as one of the best and brightest of a class of women who broke the glass ceiling not from riding the feminist bandwagon, but by proving their abilities.
Far from being a radical, Hellicar shows all signs of being pro-establishment — later in life as chairwoman of the Sydney Institute think tank, and early on as a prefect and house captain at Ravenswood School for Girls on Sydney’s north shore.”
What Hellicar and Ridout have in common, I suggest, is class background and privelege. Crikey’s account of the judgement notes the special treatment given to Peter Macdonald:
“The harshest penalty was handed to former chief executive, Peter Macdonald, who was banned from serving as a director for 15 years and fined $350,000. The disqualification was close to ASIC’s request of a 16-year ban (MacDonald’s counsel had earlier argued that a five to seven year prohibition was appropriate). When he departed from James Hardie in 2004, Macdonald received an $8.24 million termination payment, which in light of the recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court, represents a low watermark for corporate governance in this country. Ultimately, Macdonald’s fine amounted to less than five percent of his final payment from Hardie.”
It continues about Hellicar:
“Despite glowing character references, Justice Gzell imposed a significant penalty on the non-executive directors after being especially critical of Hellicar in his early finding, stating that she was “a most unsatisfactory witness” and that “there was a dogmatism in [Hellicar’s] testimony that I do not accept. She was proved to be inaccurate on a number (of) occasions.”
Proved to be inaccurate? Bloody liar more like.
Some of you want to defend the actions, the class privilege and the sheer arrogance of these players (Rice, Thatcher, Hellicar et al) because they are women. I’ve yet to see a single comment in defence of women who’ve been dusted. Not one. Maybe they’re from the wrong class for y’all?
It just goes to show how united front politics is difficult to do, doesn’t it? The point is, however, that negotiatios are always contingent.
Agree totally, Anthony.
Well said brother (from a sister).
The “united front” you speak of is in your imagination. Pointing out the difference in treatment of prominent women doesn’t equal support for any of the other actions of those prominent women. e.g. the writers at Shakesville, who subjected some misogynistic takedowns of Sarah Palin to severe criticism, while still vehemently opposing Palin and all she stood for.
You have the wrong end of the stick Anthony.
Helen: I was referring to a common front between progressive forces including men and women as well as between classes of men and women around unified objectives. Never mind.
BTW – I think quotas an excellent idea and admire the Norwegian approach.
As to ideological demeanour it appears to me that quantifiable inequalities between men and women are intolerable in a democracy hence the need to introduce quotas. Nothing else has worked. But it would be good to support such a project rather than than the sort I’ve been reading here, henceforth known as the poverty of equality approach, whereby women engage in a race to the bottom with men in the belief that this advances anyone’s interests except the already privileged classes. The latter appears to advance women but only one by one.
Interesting points, su.
I didn’t mean that Ms Hellicar initiated the duplicity and under-funding. I meant she continued it, as did the other directors, et al. She was in it like the rest. What a sorry tale.
Thanks for the quotes from the article, anthony.
In the Latrobe Valley, many men have died through asbestos exposure in the power stations. And their families were heavily exposed to dust carried home on overalls. Never forget the dead.
Laura: your locquacious clarity has convinced me. Thanks for that.
desipis, it’s worth noting that in your outrage about the sexism of a 40% quota for women in the ALP, you completely failed to mention that the very same rule also requires 40% for men.
In my many years as a member of a faction, counting, organising and participating in votes in the Labor party, I can point you to one time when the 40% men rule kicked in.
But yes, let’s all cry about how it’s affirmative action for women that’s the problem.
anthony, you’ve been told numerous times that your interpretation of what we’re saying is wrong, and that we are not celebrating women no matter what, nor do we advocate a race to the bottom.
Open mind: I don’t think those words mean what you think they mean.
Anna: this has been a fruitful and well mannered dialogue so far as I’m concerned. However, with respect, I don’t know what to do with this @39:
“As long as there are ludicrous opinion pieces being written, I’m going to celebrate that some of them are being written by women, and as long as there are both political ideologues and factional warriors lacking in any sort of policy beliefs at all, I’m going to celebrate that some of them are women, too.”
You appear to contradict yourself.
People (err men in this thread) need to at least demonstrate that they understand that the particulars of the Hardie case are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not women are held to a higher standard than men before they can be taken seriously.
Comments implying that anybody is suggesting anybody should go soft on anybody at Hardies are embarrassingly missing the point.
I know that I hold women to a higher standard than men despite myself. I constantly catch myself scrutinising women (whether it is Wong or Hellicar or a female sports commentator) more closely than I would a man.
I haven’t been able to determine what percentage of that over-burdened regard is due to my own ingrained sexism; and what is due to other-phobia; and what is due to the subtle “surprise” effect that women in certain places still effects on me.
(I hasten to add in my defense that I am able to discern these responses most of the time – and do compensate for them before I open my mouth or make up my mind.)
Geez Anthony, there’s a difference between acknowledging and endorsing. There are people in politics who many consider undeserving of the office, some may suggest men are over-represented in this regard. The intent with this post is simply to say parity is parity, it’s not an endorsement of mediocrity.
Anthony, I only appear to contradict what you think I’m saying.
wbb: alright, I agree. I have observed one spectacular case in the academy of a genius level woman not being promoted appropriately and in a timely fashion. The reasons mainly had to do with her critical intellectual competence. The people who failed to advance her, however, were mainly women. So it is a complex issue but you are correct in so far as there appears to me to be a surplus of moribund male staff occupying the space.
Things are clarifying for me: the advancement of gender equity through equality of presence and participation of women is a valid democratic political objective in and of itself. It does not and will not serve to advance any other agenda than that of stengthening democracy. This is because the ethical competence and other competencies of women are neither greater nor less than those of men. That said it remains to contest the politics of those in power regardless of their gender. The equal presence of women means an equal presence of reactionaries and progressives, an equal presence of dipshits and democrats.
It would however be an advance for democracy.
Anna: genuine laugh out loud. Thanks and goodnight.
I’m here mostly for the lulz.