Karen Brooks’ post on Tony Abbott’s now infamous interview with the Women’s Weekly is the best piece I’ve read about its implications. Read it here.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
» SUBSCRIBE to LP updates.
Abbott appears to be morphing into K.Packer before our eyes, the new Goanna.
Karen writes in her piece:
Seriously, Abbott is entitled to his views, he’s entitled to raise his family as he wants and instill in them his faith … but what he’s not entitled to do is discuss ‘women’s issues’ (which in many instances are also men’s issues – we live together in this society), as if they are homogenous, framed by a Catholic or Christian principle, and as if he, with his very narrow and privileged world-view and experiences, holds the answers.
That’s not a reasonable position to hold. It suggests that it’s OK for a conservative to hold their views privately but not publicly; that it’s more legitimate for a non-Christian than a Christian to express their views publicly; and that it’s more legitimate for a worse off than a better off person to express their views publicly.
Conservatives would be dills to accept such terms of debate.
Karen was shocked by Abbott’s language which expresses his ‘ownership’ of his wife and daughters. Women were chattels in the Middle Ages and were unable to own property in Victorian England. Most women in Australia condemn the wearing of burqa, hijab and niqab because the see the religious symbolism behind the concept of dressing modestly so as not to inflame male lust. Fellas keep ya trousers zipped.
Abbott reminded all Australian women that a vote for him is a vote for the Vatican. As Senator Kerry Nettle’s T-shirt said “Keep Your Rosaries off my Ovaries”
Urrgh, if the doctors’ wives have ever existed then this is the very man to motivate them to vote against the Liberal Party, vote informal, etc.
Howard almost certainly believed the same things as Abbott, to his very moral core, yet in electoral practice he was a (mostly) secular mainline Protestant, as the Americans would say. And not creepily prurient.
Prurient
prurient [proori ?nt]
adj
marked by unwholesome sexual interest: having or intended to arouse an unwholesome interest in sexual matters
[Mid-17th century. < Latin prurient- , present participle of prurire 'itch, long for']
Yes, that's why the interviewer from the WW was surprised that the Monk just wouldn't stop talking about these subjects. Hello Mrs Dr Volvo Driver, welcome to non-tory land.
Billie,
I doubt that women were chattels in the Middle Ages. In the ordinary sense of the word, a chattel is moveable property. Women were not treated as the property of men, to be bought, sold and traded. Perhaps there is some other technical legal sense of the word “chattel” that you are referring to, but if so it would help if you specified what it was.
It’s true that prior to 1884 married women in England had limited property rights separate to their husbands. They could, however, obtain independent sources of income through trusts and through legal settlements upon marriage.
@2
No I think you’re allowing your own bias to creep in there. Let’s go through it shall we:
but what he’s not entitled to do is discuss ‘women’s issues’ …
as if they are homogenous
Because they aren’t
framed by a Catholic or Christian principle,
Because they’re not
and as if he, with his very narrow and privileged world-view and experiences, holds the answers.
Because he doesn’t.
Or perhaps you’d like to leap in and point out why, given that he is wrong on all counts, Mr Abbott is entitled to propose public policy based on a flawed and worthless analysis.
oh….again with the “Doctor’s Wives” thing. Grah!
Well, his stakes have gone up in Newspoll – so there must be more of those older middle-aged virgins out there than we thought. A year of paranoia and apprehension ahead.
Patrick,
First, I don’t think Abbott was arguing that women’s issues are “homogenous”. He was asked what advice he would give his daughters and he gave his opinion. Second, if you really want women’s issues to be treated as not “homogenous” then it helps if conservative views are aired publicly so that debate is not restricted to liberal views.
And why should Mr Abbott’s supposed “privilege” make him less likely to give good advice to his daughters? If he were poorer, would he then be more likely to be more knowledgeable about relationships?
And why wouldn’t Christians frame issues of any sort from within a Christian perspective? Don’t atheists frame issues from within a perspective of their own?
Patrick, Tony Abbott was not proposing public policy. He obviously feels that it can be damaging for young women to engage in sex too casually. You may feel that this is a flawed and worthless view. But large numbers of people would disagree with you. And we are certainly entitled to hold our view both privately and publicly.
Paul
He’s still in his “Honeymoon Period”: for Tone, this involves endless self-debate about virginity, duty, chastity, child-bearing, Dr Billings, the Cardinal points of the moral compass, et cetera
For Tone, the honeymoon has just begun: he is wooing a bevy of intellects, a swathe of chaste and soon-to-be-chaste ladies (such is the persuasive power of his rhetoric).
You see a man wielding every tool at his disposal, chuckling at his own audacity and prowess. There is nothing to fear. Detumescence will arrive in due course.
post coitum all beasts are sad.
@Mark Richardson
Unlike the time he let his personal moral views on abortion lead him to prohibit the importation of a perfectly safe and useful therapeutic drug, i.e. RU486?
Gee, I wonder why the claim that these are just his private views fails to reassure.
Among other things, one of the virtues of the post is that it undermines the claim that his private beliefs would have no influence on his actions in public policy (and in any case, as tigtog rightly says, his record speaks for itself):
My emphasis.
@Mark Richardson
Women in the middle ages may not have been chattels under the definition you use, but they had even fewer rights with respect to their fathers and husbands than serfs did with respect to their feudal lords. At least the serf had his own household on his master’s land, and could order it how he chose when not working off his feudal obligations.
Mediaeval daughters and wives were “under the rod” of their fathers/husbands. A woman might inherit property, or be dowered with property, but her husband could use and sell his wife’s property without consulting her – she had no redress. She could not appear in a court of law without her husband’s sponsorship, and could not make a will without his permission.
Widows were the only women in the Middle Ages who had some measure of inalienable property rights – they were entitled to inherit one third of their husband’s property and thereafter were viewed as having the same rights as freemen to enter contracts to earn money and buy/sell land and to appear in court to prosecute/defend those contracts. Unsurprisingly, those widows who inherited enough property to make an independent living tended to have no interest at all in remarrying only to lose their newfound autonomy.
NB The above applies only to the English feudal system – feudal Europe was not homogeneous with regard to laws regarding serfs or women.
I think it is a mistake to attack Abbott for being a man speaking about women. It is a weak argument.
We do not usually divide morality into gendered spheres. Women and men share a common culture – even if one part is disadvantaged by said culture. Male behaviour is also subject to cross gender judgement.
There are many women who share Abbott’s ethical stance just as there are many men who oppose it. We should not force a test of which side is currently in the majority.
Abbott will continue to try to generate heat on such issues where he calculates that net vote is to his benefit. His curdled “virginity is a gift” phrase lost him this round – but I see no point in reacting to his deliberate provocations. Coming are calculated attacks on gays & foreigners before the election. All designed to provoke emotional defences that he hopes will polarise opinion in his favour.
Work for an amelioration of ills rather than force an immediate head count. People side in doubt with the strong – they will kick the weak when lead by urgers.
… except that’s not the argument Brooks makes.
Patrickb @ #6…
Ah, but here’s the problem with your analysis:
“but what he’s not entitled to do is discuss ‘women’s issues’ … ”
*not entitled* to discuss public issues in public, whether obtusely or perceptively? So if I may ask, who is it that grants ‘entitlement’ in these cases — you?
“as if they are homogenous
Because they aren’t”
According to who? You?
“framed by a Catholic or Christian principle,
Because they’re not”
According to who? You?
“and as if he, with his very narrow and privileged world-view and experiences, holds the answers.
Because he doesn’t.”
Says who? You?
In all cases of the above, how do we know with confidence that *you’re* entitled to proclaim these opinions? See the problem? Maybe it’ll turn out that it’s you who should be silenced. Or maybe… I know this is crazy, but stay with me here… maybe “entitled” never comes into it at all, and maybe both you and that nasty old Abbott should speak as much as you darn well please. Maybe even argue and engage. As Edna Mode would say, “Fight! WIN!!”
“Or perhaps you’d like to leap in and point out why, given that he is wrong on all counts [according to who? You?], Mr Abbott is entitled to propose public policy based on a flawed and worthless analysis.”
Perhaps you’d like to leap in and point out why, and on what grounds, a citizen in a democracy would not be entitled to propose any public policy he chose to — and then just have it stand or fall on the merits, on the arguments, and on the votes. And if your explanation should somehow entail the proposal of a specific, um, public policy, regarding the revocation of his entitlement… well, I’ll leave you the last part to work out on your own. Cheers!
@j_p_z,
I suspect Patrickb’s use of the word “entitled” is somewhat unfortunate, in that what he meant was that Abbott’s citizen rights to free speech notwithstanding, soapboxing with a wowser platform is unlikely to do any long-term good electorally.
Aussies don’t like our politicians moralising about personal choices* – our national culture tends to view such pronouncements as at best intrusive and at worst downright creepy.
* Howard was typically nuanced and hedged around with layers of obfuscation when he spoke about personal morality issues, and Aussies responded positively. Abbott just can’t help himself from running off at the mouth with the preachiness.
That whole paragraph on how Tony Abbott’s entitled to his views but not entitled to express them in a particular way is a big boo-boo – a shot in the foot for Brooks’ argument. Abbott is entitled to hold any stupid opinion he wants to (there’s no feasible way to stop that). He’s entitled (under principles of free speech) to express those stupid opinions. And the rest of us are entitled to call him a stupid git when he puts his foot in it (free speech again).
Statements like this are a gift to those ranting wingnuts who carry on about TEH LEFT’s constant attacks on free speech but lawyer up as soon as they’re criticised themselves.
Yes. Methinks that Brooks was using entitlement in the ethical rather than the legal sense – that we expect those who have a bully pulpit to be restrained in how they sermonise from it – but the word choice is still a big boo-boo.
Yup. That’s because we, the voters, understand that you cannot serve God and Mammon both. Perhaps Tony needs to read his Bible as a reminder.
If he wants to preach, go be a priest. Oh, wait, he tried that, but the shoe didn’t fit. Hmmmm… something about being ‘half-pregnant’ comes to mind, in a deliciously ironic Catholic sense…
I agree that “entitled” is not the right wording here for the context, but I think there is another part of the same paragraph which I just can’t get on board with-
So, Brooks thinks a man it entitled to absolute power in raising his family as he wants and instill in them his faith? I thought that these days anyone with an ounce of feminist sensibility would say that where there are two parents (taking the heteronormative couple as an example here), the parents are entitled to raise their families as they want and can do their best to instill a faith which has been mutually agreed on? Brooks’ sentence still seems straight-down-the-line patriarchal to me.
Oh, and there are societal limits and rights of children when it comes to raising the children as they want, too. See Fritzl, Josef.
@9
Mark,
“Second, if you really want women’s issues to be treated as not “homogenous” then it helps if conservative views are aired publicly so that debate is not restricted to liberal views.”
This is disingenuous. A conservative discourse of women is restricted to the terms used by Abbott and elaborated in the referenced article. I don’t care whether individuals articulate these conservative views but don’t pretend that they are open, equal or inclusive. Conservatives have resisted the emancipation of women at every step.
If you subscribe to these views them that’s your affair but I don’t like the idea of the alternative PM, who is well positioned to influence public policy, expressing what are clearly patriarch views.
As an aside, whilst a member of the previous government Abbott expressed the view that paternalism would probably be a good thing for indigenous policy. I think you need to take his repressive streak seriously .
“He obviously feels that it can be damaging for young women to engage in sex too casually.”
Why is this not the case for both sexes?
@jpz
I don’t think you get it either. Abbott’s views are well and truly dated. If you and he want to hop in your time machine and head back a century or two you can probably make his views valid. It’s all about context and increasingly you seem to lack one.
PatrickB –
Okay, righty-o, I reckon it’s quite true that apparently I don’t “get it”.
So instead, I’ll just be the soul of patience with your take on things — if you’ll merely be so good as to proudly append “btw, I am a leftist” to each instance of your… well after all, what’s the word? …your, um, grave and well-reasoned pronunciamientos.
So that way at least the folks following along at home will have a kind of reliable pole-star about the whole thing. Wouldn’t want ‘em to be led astray by us ignorant wankers who just don’t “get it,” would ya now. Cheers!
Heh, Karen Brooks is obviously the one responsible for that obscene ‘Say hello to postfeminism’ cartoon that’s been floating around the net.
For godsakes. Austria?!
Ambigulous says:
“Post coitum all beasts are sad”
The girls sense that they’ve been had
And the boys feel a bit of a cad
No wonder they’re sad.
If I were a Dad
I’d tell my lad
Or even my lass if one I had
To get out there and
Copulate like mad.
Gaudeamus igitur!
Yes! Let us be glad!
Nice, PatWA.
Nice.
Thought Tony Abbott crossed the line with what he said. Sounded like a preacher from the exclusive brethren or one of those way over the top religions. Not christian ones either. He came across as manipulative in my opinion.
Nice patois, PatWA.
another try…
“Post coitum all beasts are sad.”
We may be mad,
When we imitate Vlad
The Impaler, and act the cad
Just to shoot our wad
In a bachelor pad –
Since Nature’s merely had
Its way with us. Egad!
We obey a gonad
Or two, and then “Quo vad-
is?” we ask our bad
Conscience later. Or not. Whether a grad
Student, a lifeguard, a wearer of Prad-
a, a tour guide at Gstaad,
Or a president elected by a hanging chad,
We all get to know that great triad
Of youth, and lust, and the passing fad
Of satisfaction. Have we been had?
I know what you’re thinking: “What a load of twad-
dle!” Well I guess, my bad.
. . .
Not as good as Patricia’s, of course, but I just wanted to see how far that rhyme could stretch…
@25
More long winded pointlessness. And I don’t think being patient will help, it’ll merely lead to frustration as you are still failing to grasp the salient points. Still I expect you do well at bingo. At least you’d be able to put your geriatric ideas to a receptive audience.
And I think the use of the word entitlement is an interesting one. The right is peopled by those who have an innate sense that they are entitled to rule and thus entitled to be listened too. The types of views expressed in this context are conservative and traditional, tradition and title being intimately linked.
So Tony as an arch conservative (he’s an ardent monarchist) and traditional Catholic is merely doing what Tories of his stripe have being doing for hundreds of years. He’s saying “Look little people, don’t do as I do, do as I say”. Hands up all those who are so far up themselves they feel entitled to say that (publicly)?
Sorry, no time to stoush any further, we’ve moved on to writing shockingly bad doggerel verse.
Much more interesting than stating the bloomin’ obvious to a fence post. But still not quite as much fun as re-arranging my collection of tiny decorative porcelain frogs. Some people have cats, others have tiny porcelain frogs. What a world, eh?
“…to writing shockingly bad doggerel verse.”
Did someone say Dorothy Parker after tee money martoonies?
No? Well then here’s me channeling the sexy old pint-sized ratbag.
I’m not oversexed
Just getting more
Than the overvexed
Still, great stuff j_p_z! Rhythm and pace manfully maintained. I loved the idea of Vlad, the impaler, and acting the cad! I watched beat-box rapper, ‘Morganics’ on Bush Slam tonight and was entranced by his performance.
This sense of pomes coming upon me is very new and began with LP’s In the Loop competition last month. After watching him I feel challenged to try rap myself! Are there many septuagenarian rappers, out there, I wonder?
“Some people have cats, others have tiny porcelain frogs”
I am a frog made of China
Spawning tadpoles made of clay
But their future will be finer
Once it’s Great Leap Forward Day
Not that anyone should care, but for those who may be puzzled by the whole “tiny frogs” trope (and no, I don’t _actually_ own any tiny porcelain frogs, nor cats neither… although I do have a couple of marvelous little –but not tiny!– Japanese solid-iron animal sculptures), it comes from the pen of the late great Lester Bangs — or at least I think so; at any rate it’s from somebody who wrote for the late great CREEM Magazine: always say Boy Howdy!
Anyway, Lester or someone like him was reviewing the Jerry Harrison (of the Heads) solo album “The Red and the Black,” and he wrote something to this effect (I paraphrase, except for the money quote which I believe is verbatim):
“It’s being said by a lot of people that “The Red and the Black” is an important album, and I suppose that’s true — but only in the sense that it’s also important to surprise your friends by giving them tiny porcelain frogs.”
ex-CREEM readers, you know who you are.
“ex-CREEM readers, you know who you are.”
Oh I do, For those ignorant peons amongst you, CREEM at its peak (between the early seventies and early eighties) was probably the best rock mag ever. All the energy of the NME at the same time but without the theorising and attitude. And wildly eclectic with it. No band was too cool or not cool enough to discuss.
Bit like “Ain’t It Cool” except the CREEM contributers weren’t virgins – in every sense.
Besides what else can you say about a mag that judged Keef’s work on “Sympathy For the Devil” as the best guitar solo ever – because it was short and ended like “a barracuda biting down”.
@27, @30, @36
Guys, you’re in FINE form. The poems’ quality reached a, err, climax, with ‘Great Leap Forward Day’.
I actually do own three tiny porcelain frogs.
They are tiny porcelain frogs with fridge magnets glued to their bottoms, which my wife bought in Thailand and which presently affix a Thai take-away menu to our fridge. How apropos.
I am not in the habit of arranging them, other than to make room for the occasional fridge-magnet absinthe bottle, fridge-magnet Korean dolls, a New Zealand Tiki, and a surfeit of fridge-magnet with the phone numbers of emergency local plumbers. If our toilet ever explodes, I will be able to get a very competitive tender process going.
Anyway:
There’s nothing inherently bad,
It’s standard biology, lad:
You’d be so frustrated,
If you waited and waited, when
Post-coitum all beasts are sad.
But Mercurius
That solo habit will not please the Abbott.
Get on your knees and confess.
Then you can tease Aussie gals with success
And together get breeding like rabbits.
You think? If something happened to make Julia Gillard PM tomorrow and the very first thing she did was start pontificating about ‘men’, dictating what they should and shouldn’t do with their bits and actively trying to get those views enshrined in law, imagine the tohubohu and brouhaha.
It’s truly gobsmacking to see how many men still regard the category ‘women’ as a thing and a problem — as, in fact, a homogenous (and alien) entity — about which it’s appropriate to talk and form views as one talks about ‘the economy’ or ‘poverty’ or whatever. Quoted it before, quote it again: ‘There are two kinds of people: human beings and women.’