There is no doubt that the ascension of Julia Gillard to the Labor leadership, and therefore her becoming Australia’s first female Prime Minister, is a significant moment and raises a number of issues for discussion. Some have posed the question of whether the manner in which she became PM has accentuated a disappointing but predictable expression of misogyny in the public sphere (for example, see these thoughtful two posts by Pavlov’s Cat). Claims that she has “the congealed blood of Rudd still under her nails” are but one example of the absurd hyperbole tossed around.
As tigtog says, “the level of personal vituperation” she’s attracted in some quarters is surely inordinate. However, I agree with her when she also writes that:
…it would be wrong to dismiss all that anger against the new leader as simply a misogynistic response to the reality of a woman finally running the country.
I think gender has been deployed in complex ways in the reaction to Gillard’s rise to power. As ludicrous as her characterisation as Lady Macbeth is (an analogy that could only be made by those that don’t know their Shakespeare), similarly praise of her as some sort of reincarnated Queen Elizabeth I sounds a most odd note.
And it’s been distasteful to read tendentious comments from Labor supporters damning any legitimate criticism of Gillard’s actions as PM as sexist, when a lot of it patently isn’t. This sort of thing is just the flip side of the uncritical fantasies projected on her, and the failure or refusal to assess her performance in the high office she’s attained outside the context of her gender is a common theme.
In part, this sentiment probably derives from a view that was common some time ago, an essentialisation of femininity which led to a belief that women’s presence in politics would bring about a utopia of niceness. Catherine Marshall’s article in Eureka Street partakes of this trope, reinforced by a portrait of Gillard as somehow fragile.
In both instances, whether people are praising Gillard or not, they’re drawing portraits of her in terms of qualities which are putatively of the essence of woman, qualities whose negation also shows forth in the rush to condemn her for the way she became Labor leader.
For what it’s worth, I think a lot of the angst about her successful challenge to Kevin Rudd derives from the fact that it made some of us confront the fact that the Labor Party is not much of a viable vehicle for idealism.
Those of us who’ve seen Anna Bligh’s government trash Labor values with abandon in Queensland over the last few years are left completely disillusioned with a party so prepared to adopt the views of its political opponents on the basis of presumptions about what marginal suburban voters want, now that attitude has also been enthusiastically embraced by the federal party.
On the other hand, we know well that the election of a female leader with a background in the left provides anything but a guarantee that progressive politics will triumph.
The truth is that Julia Gillard should be judged on her own merits.
There is no doubt that she is an impressive politician. Whether or not she fulfills that promise as Prime Minister is something that is not yet evident. While celebrating the fact that a woman is Prime Minister, we need also to be realistic about the fact the elements of the Labor Party who contributed to her ascension are ones whose motives are partly self-serving and partly purely electorally driven. Her election by caucus should prompt us to take stock of what the Labor party has become, and what could be done to change it.
While praising Gillard, rightly, for her significant past contributions to the feminist cause, and to the cause of equality for women in the workplace, Anne Summers is also right to warn us of the complacent attitude that a female PM means that all is now rosy in gender relations in this country. That’s a theme echoed by Shakira Hussein:
… the hardest feminist battles have never been the struggle for a few women to attain positions of power.
And the most difficult battles are also the most important, because they are the battles for the most vulnerable.
In recognising that, we need to make the way the Gillard Labor government responds to the needs of the most vulnerable our yardstick. And in so doing, we need to avoid the danger of lauding her to the skies simply because she is a woman. But we also need to be vigilant about those who can see a female PM only through a misogynist lens.
There is no doubt that the reaction to Julia Gillard’s rise to the top also demonstrates that we, as a society, have a long way to go in escaping the snares of a culture still too marred by misogyny. If we become more collectively conscious of that, then that would be a true gain from the events of the last few weeks.
To idealise her as akin to the Virgin Queen or to denigrate her with other stereotypes are just two sides of the same sexism. Same old binary.
Good, very good post.
To idealise her as akin to the Virgin Queen or to denigrate her with other stereotypes are just two sides of the same sexism. Same old binary.
Good, very good post.
“And it’s been distasteful to read tendentious comments from Labor supporters damning any legitimate criticism of Gillard’s actions as PM as sexist, when a lot of it patently isn’t”
Kim, do you have any links to that sort of thing?
“I think a lot of the angst about her successful challenge to Kevin Rudd derives from the fact that it made us all confront the fact that the Labor Party is not much of a viable vehicle for idealism.”
I’m not sure that’s convincing – as you say, there’s your local Bligh, but in fact it’s almost every ALP leader you can think of. (Still waiting to hear if Stanhope is a hero). When St Carmen was Premier of W.A. we had the introduction of the infamous ‘three strikes’ legislation which seemed aimed at incarcerating young aborigines. To me it’s a bit suspect to say that it’s just this Julia episode that has woken people up to the ‘pragmatism’ of the ALP.
“And it’s been distasteful to read tendentious comments from Labor supporters damning any legitimate criticism of Gillard’s actions as PM as sexist, when a lot of it patently isn’t”
Kim, do you have any links to that sort of thing?
“I think a lot of the angst about her successful challenge to Kevin Rudd derives from the fact that it made us all confront the fact that the Labor Party is not much of a viable vehicle for idealism.”
I’m not sure that’s convincing – as you say, there’s your local Bligh, but in fact it’s almost every ALP leader you can think of. (Still waiting to hear if Stanhope is a hero). When St Carmen was Premier of W.A. we had the introduction of the infamous ‘three strikes’ legislation which seemed aimed at incarcerating young aborigines. To me it’s a bit suspect to say that it’s just this Julia episode that has woken people up to the ‘pragmatism’ of the ALP.
I’m scratching my head to recall any statements of what I would describe as misogyny in the media or on blogs directed at JG either before or after she became leader.
The anger directed at her and the rest of the ALP parliamentary leadership following Rudd’s ousting as far as I can see was overwhelmingly based on a shared, widespread, common view that this was an unwarranted political coup dictated by corporate and monopoly MSM media interests and carried out by a tragically subservient ALP. Of course as the chief individual beneficiary and in the end instigator of the challenge, JG was always going to be the repository of a lot of that anger.
But that’s not misogyny in action or I don’t see it as such in her case in this instance.
I’m scratching my head to recall any statements of what I would describe as misogyny in the media or on blogs directed at JG either before or after she became leader.
The anger directed at her and the rest of the ALP parliamentary leadership following Rudd’s ousting as far as I can see was overwhelmingly based on a shared, widespread, common view that this was an unwarranted political coup dictated by corporate and monopoly MSM media interests and carried out by a tragically subservient ALP. Of course as the chief individual beneficiary and in the end instigator of the challenge, JG was always going to be the repository of a lot of that anger.
But that’s not misogyny in action or I don’t see it as such in her case in this instance.
“And the most difficult battles are also the most important, because they are the battles for the most vulnerable.”
But they are the battles this blog never fights, and anyone who attempts to raise difficult issues is liable to smeared as rascist by the LP commentariat.
“When St Carmen was Premier of W.A. we had the introduction of the infamous ‘three strikes’ legislation which seemed aimed at incarcerating young aborigines. ”
I rest my case.
“And the most difficult battles are also the most important, because they are the battles for the most vulnerable.”
But they are the battles this blog never fights, and anyone who attempts to raise difficult issues is liable to smeared as rascist by the LP commentariat.
“When St Carmen was Premier of W.A. we had the introduction of the infamous ‘three strikes’ legislation which seemed aimed at incarcerating young aborigines. ”
I rest my case.
Not sure that there are many left who would be put off by having a female leader they I guess some somewhere will. There are many world examples of same. I don’t see it as negative issue at all.
In fact in Australia I see it as quite positive electoral thing for JGillard in that she will be the first, and as such quite the novelty that goes with people wanting a first. It will increase her vote of the normal honeymoon I would say. The same thing happened with Rudd, he was also something right out of the box, a genuine novelty for Labor and as a leader, the energetic, consistently positive nerd.
But I don’t think she is breaking ground by it really, very few would think that being a woman is an impediment for anything now days. I don’t know that for sure of course. Also I don’t see the ascension of a woman to PM as having any bearing on woman’s issues generally.
There will be a danger for under estimating JGillard because she is a woman (that idea of woman being the fairer and more fair sex no doubt lingers). The danger is they may let her get away with more by giving her more of the benefit of the doubt, whereas with a man they may have a greater level of suspicion of motives for actions.
However among a group of woman at work I saw none of them cutting her any slack in knifing Rudd, in fact they were quite angry with her, and she has lost all of them.
My issues with her are her blatant and uncalled for power grab. You just depose the PM of the country (that was in reality popularly elected) just because you want power, and in the final analysis that is what she did.
My further beef with her is her so far decidedly right wing policy and rhetoric and distasteful dip into dog whistling. My further concern with this is that it also has bearing for the future balance of politics and pushes the centre to right and will continue to do so.
Her pragmatism knows no ideology apart from wining, and I see no indication that this is not how she will continue. I do get amused that people just think it is a trick to win more votes, but after wining she will change back. She didn’t need to do this at all, it is more likely this is how she really thinks.
I do suspect that she will get more slack generally as a PM early on but, if she begins to fail I wonder if the public would be harder on her than a man, by applying the stereotype of women being weaker?
So far her performance has been pretty poor and it has been very lucky that she has a poor opponent.
Not sure that there are many left who would be put off by having a female leader they I guess some somewhere will. There are many world examples of same. I don’t see it as negative issue at all.
In fact in Australia I see it as quite positive electoral thing for JGillard in that she will be the first, and as such quite the novelty that goes with people wanting a first. It will increase her vote of the normal honeymoon I would say. The same thing happened with Rudd, he was also something right out of the box, a genuine novelty for Labor and as a leader, the energetic, consistently positive nerd.
But I don’t think she is breaking ground by it really, very few would think that being a woman is an impediment for anything now days. I don’t know that for sure of course. Also I don’t see the ascension of a woman to PM as having any bearing on woman’s issues generally.
There will be a danger for under estimating JGillard because she is a woman (that idea of woman being the fairer and more fair sex no doubt lingers). The danger is they may let her get away with more by giving her more of the benefit of the doubt, whereas with a man they may have a greater level of suspicion of motives for actions.
However among a group of woman at work I saw none of them cutting her any slack in knifing Rudd, in fact they were quite angry with her, and she has lost all of them.
My issues with her are her blatant and uncalled for power grab. You just depose the PM of the country (that was in reality popularly elected) just because you want power, and in the final analysis that is what she did.
My further beef with her is her so far decidedly right wing policy and rhetoric and distasteful dip into dog whistling. My further concern with this is that it also has bearing for the future balance of politics and pushes the centre to right and will continue to do so.
Her pragmatism knows no ideology apart from wining, and I see no indication that this is not how she will continue. I do get amused that people just think it is a trick to win more votes, but after wining she will change back. She didn’t need to do this at all, it is more likely this is how she really thinks.
I do suspect that she will get more slack generally as a PM early on but, if she begins to fail I wonder if the public would be harder on her than a man, by applying the stereotype of women being weaker?
So far her performance has been pretty poor and it has been very lucky that she has a poor opponent.
Moze – I used the word sexism to describe some of the stuff happening on this blog – and my computer can hardly handle long threads so I’m not going back to gather evidence! – but that may not be the exact right word.
But take for example a recent thread here where someone called Gillard an ideolgical hooker (and I don’t recall any objections to it), which is a bit like Abbott saying that “Julia is faking it” on refugee policy.
Why are blokes using this sexual language to talk about her, dismiss her? Blokes calling a male politician a whore isn’t quite the same thing is it? Men know that only women are really hookers, whores – only women really belong in that role, the role that has the quality of cheap, trashy, valueless, disposable.
A woman has made it to a symbolically powerful position – this language is one way to bring her right down. It helps men regain power in their own minds. I reckon that before Gillard became PM any use of this kind of language about her would have been picked up and denounced on blogs like this one. Didn’t happen.
Moze – I used the word sexism to describe some of the stuff happening on this blog – and my computer can hardly handle long threads so I’m not going back to gather evidence! – but that may not be the exact right word.
But take for example a recent thread here where someone called Gillard an ideolgical hooker (and I don’t recall any objections to it), which is a bit like Abbott saying that “Julia is faking it” on refugee policy.
Why are blokes using this sexual language to talk about her, dismiss her? Blokes calling a male politician a whore isn’t quite the same thing is it? Men know that only women are really hookers, whores – only women really belong in that role, the role that has the quality of cheap, trashy, valueless, disposable.
A woman has made it to a symbolically powerful position – this language is one way to bring her right down. It helps men regain power in their own minds. I reckon that before Gillard became PM any use of this kind of language about her would have been picked up and denounced on blogs like this one. Didn’t happen.
Thanks Kim, well said.
Aaaand…Salient gets away on a flyer, first out of the gate in the It’s All About Me Stakes over 300 comments.
Preparing for Thread of Doom in 3…2…1…
Thanks Kim, well said.
Aaaand…Salient gets away on a flyer, first out of the gate in the It’s All About Me Stakes over 300 comments.
Preparing for Thread of Doom in 3…2…1…
@1 – thanks, Casey.
@2 –
I could link, Russell, to several tedious sets of repeated comments on this blog in that vein by different commenters, but I’d rather not make the post about individuals. They’re there if you choose to look.
As to the point about Labor governments, I think the difference is that the ALP hadn’t been in government federally since 96. I think some people expected more than from the populist state administrations. I think, as I’ve said a number of times, the fact that Rudd in many cases wasn’t the standard ALP leader both fueled this set of expectations, and led to disillusionment when he was done away with for being, amongst other things, not the standard ALP leader. (And, yes, I think we need to distinguish between the sorts of hopes he fostered and his own personal failings as a manager of people and process).
Anyway, with the obsession with focus groups of Western Sydney denizens (or rather, some of them – there’s lots of people living in the ‘burbs who don’t share the attitudes ascribed in toto to them), reiteration of “marriage is between a man and a woman”, the attack on so-called political correctness, etc, etc, we’ve very much back in the quotidian reality of lowest common denominator politics from the federal ALP.
@3 – Moze, I agree in large part with the way you’ve characterised the source of the anger, but I can assure you that there are misogynist comments and attitudes out there. As I emphasised in the post, there are legitimate reasons to be concerned by the way the spill played out, and by no means all who’ve criticised it, as I said, are playing into the misogynist discourse or motivated by it. But it’s there, and I’d say the same I said to Russell – I don’t want to link to any such comments to avoid turning this into an argument with particular people, but if you go looking, you’ll find.
@1 – thanks, Casey.
@2 –
I could link, Russell, to several tedious sets of repeated comments on this blog in that vein by different commenters, but I’d rather not make the post about individuals. They’re there if you choose to look.
As to the point about Labor governments, I think the difference is that the ALP hadn’t been in government federally since 96. I think some people expected more than from the populist state administrations. I think, as I’ve said a number of times, the fact that Rudd in many cases wasn’t the standard ALP leader both fueled this set of expectations, and led to disillusionment when he was done away with for being, amongst other things, not the standard ALP leader. (And, yes, I think we need to distinguish between the sorts of hopes he fostered and his own personal failings as a manager of people and process).
Anyway, with the obsession with focus groups of Western Sydney denizens (or rather, some of them – there’s lots of people living in the ‘burbs who don’t share the attitudes ascribed in toto to them), reiteration of “marriage is between a man and a woman”, the attack on so-called political correctness, etc, etc, we’ve very much back in the quotidian reality of lowest common denominator politics from the federal ALP.
@3 – Moze, I agree in large part with the way you’ve characterised the source of the anger, but I can assure you that there are misogynist comments and attitudes out there. As I emphasised in the post, there are legitimate reasons to be concerned by the way the spill played out, and by no means all who’ve criticised it, as I said, are playing into the misogynist discourse or motivated by it. But it’s there, and I’d say the same I said to Russell – I don’t want to link to any such comments to avoid turning this into an argument with particular people, but if you go looking, you’ll find.
@7 –
Yep, Merc, that’s one reason I was reluctant to write this post, but I guess it has to be done. I’m not going to engage with those sort of comments, except to say that I see no evidence that teh hive mind of LP has been accusing any commenter of racism. I try my very best to avoid personalising comments, and I would urge people contributing to this thread to do likewise.
@7 –
Yep, Merc, that’s one reason I was reluctant to write this post, but I guess it has to be done. I’m not going to engage with those sort of comments, except to say that I see no evidence that teh hive mind of LP has been accusing any commenter of racism. I try my very best to avoid personalising comments, and I would urge people contributing to this thread to do likewise.
“Anyway, with the obsession with focus groups of Western Sydney denizens (or rather, some of them – there’s lots of people living in the ‘burbs who don’t share the attitudes ascribed in toto to them), reiteration of “marriage is between a man and a woman”, the attack on so-called political correctness, etc, etc, we’ve very much back in the quotidian reality of lowest common denominator politics from the federal ALP.”
Kim, this is not new. The parties have been driven by polls and focus groups for a long time. Gillard’s statement on marriage is identical to Rudd’s – nothing much has changed, so that isn’t the reason for the hostility to Gillard.
“Anyway, with the obsession with focus groups of Western Sydney denizens (or rather, some of them – there’s lots of people living in the ‘burbs who don’t share the attitudes ascribed in toto to them), reiteration of “marriage is between a man and a woman”, the attack on so-called political correctness, etc, etc, we’ve very much back in the quotidian reality of lowest common denominator politics from the federal ALP.”
Kim, this is not new. The parties have been driven by polls and focus groups for a long time. Gillard’s statement on marriage is identical to Rudd’s – nothing much has changed, so that isn’t the reason for the hostility to Gillard.
I think it will cut subtly at first, paparazzi tricks to catch out Gillard looking vulnerable or being framed as alone or/and isolated.
I fear it will all be presented as a sort of new series of “Westwing”, Gillard has about six months before she has to make a final decision on a snap poll before this choice moves out of her hands.
I think it will cut subtly at first, paparazzi tricks to catch out Gillard looking vulnerable or being framed as alone or/and isolated.
I fear it will all be presented as a sort of new series of “Westwing”, Gillard has about six months before she has to make a final decision on a snap poll before this choice moves out of her hands.
@10 – yes, Russell, but some people thought that Gillard would take a different view, largely based on the sort of projection grounded in her personal characteristics I talked about.
All this is complex, but think back to late 2007 and early 2008, and consider what was involved in Rudd’s “New Leadership” – signing Kyoto, a promise to lead the world on climate change action, a more humane stance on refugees, the Apology, the 2020 summit, working for an end to nuclear proliferation, a commitment to social housing and halving homelessness, etc.
Sure you can contrast those high aims with the focus group driven stuff, but I think there was a tendency to think he had to do a bit of the latter to beat Howard.
But, nevertheless, there was a sense that a new era had dawned, after the Howard era which many progressive folks found deeply disturbing.
Rudd began to fall off the rails after the Liberal leadership change (and the important coincidence of that on the back of the disappointing Copenhagen conference). It was clear for a while he’d descended into machine territory, but also became clear that he regretted the ETS backflip, and some of us thought he was turning things round and applauded the stand on the resources tax.
So, even if it had gone subterranean, some of the hopes invested in him were still alive, and they sort of resurfaced through a feeling of loss after he was deposed. Then we had the ‘tick a box’ approach from Gillard – denouncing PC, taking David Bradbury along for a photo op with navy patrol boats, talking about “special privileges” refugees supposedly ensured.
Rudd had warned people of that lurch to the right, and also reminded us of what did make him admirable in the manner of his departure.
Anyway, that’s how I felt. I don’t presume to speak for everyone, but I dare say I’m not alone.
@10 – yes, Russell, but some people thought that Gillard would take a different view, largely based on the sort of projection grounded in her personal characteristics I talked about.
All this is complex, but think back to late 2007 and early 2008, and consider what was involved in Rudd’s “New Leadership” – signing Kyoto, a promise to lead the world on climate change action, a more humane stance on refugees, the Apology, the 2020 summit, working for an end to nuclear proliferation, a commitment to social housing and halving homelessness, etc.
Sure you can contrast those high aims with the focus group driven stuff, but I think there was a tendency to think he had to do a bit of the latter to beat Howard.
But, nevertheless, there was a sense that a new era had dawned, after the Howard era which many progressive folks found deeply disturbing.
Rudd began to fall off the rails after the Liberal leadership change (and the important coincidence of that on the back of the disappointing Copenhagen conference). It was clear for a while he’d descended into machine territory, but also became clear that he regretted the ETS backflip, and some of us thought he was turning things round and applauded the stand on the resources tax.
So, even if it had gone subterranean, some of the hopes invested in him were still alive, and they sort of resurfaced through a feeling of loss after he was deposed. Then we had the ‘tick a box’ approach from Gillard – denouncing PC, taking David Bradbury along for a photo op with navy patrol boats, talking about “special privileges” refugees supposedly ensured.
Rudd had warned people of that lurch to the right, and also reminded us of what did make him admirable in the manner of his departure.
Anyway, that’s how I felt. I don’t presume to speak for everyone, but I dare say I’m not alone.
Just making the general point that you don’t have to be a man to be misogynist, any more than you have to be non-human to be misanthropic.
Just making the general point that you don’t have to be a man to be misogynist, any more than you have to be non-human to be misanthropic.
It’s often been said, I think, that part of the reason the Liberals find themselves in the parlous state they’re in is that Howard quashed all dissent and all attempts to rejuvenate the party, and so the party of yes-men and non-thinkers it has become.
The ALP, on the other hand, regularly… ah … refreshes the top levels of the leadership. I can’t help thinking that this is at least partially a good thing, because while it may make them look nasty from the outside, it also means they don’t get hidebound and they don’t allow sentiment to interfere with the business of good government (which is what retaining your appeal to the electorate is, right…?)
One could even interpret the machine men of the factions as a good thing. Not only does it keep the leadership aware of what everyone is thinking (or being told to think…?) but it also means that the machinery of … ah … replacing someone is removed from the … er… replacer, which makes it more likely they’ll carry out the act.
In short, I see Gillard’s move as of a piece with ALP history. This is how ALP leaders go, and I fully expect JG will go the same way in the future. And I think a lot of the discomfort that is driving criticism of this mechanism may be due to a feeling that such behaviour, while acceptable in a Hawke-like man, is unbecoming of the fairer sex. As if JG got to the position she was in by being sweetness and light and sisterly love…
… this is why I think the bloody nails image has been so popular. In a man, it’s just political skullduggery, but a woman who does it is the countess of Bathory.
It’s often been said, I think, that part of the reason the Liberals find themselves in the parlous state they’re in is that Howard quashed all dissent and all attempts to rejuvenate the party, and so the party of yes-men and non-thinkers it has become.
The ALP, on the other hand, regularly… ah … refreshes the top levels of the leadership. I can’t help thinking that this is at least partially a good thing, because while it may make them look nasty from the outside, it also means they don’t get hidebound and they don’t allow sentiment to interfere with the business of good government (which is what retaining your appeal to the electorate is, right…?)
One could even interpret the machine men of the factions as a good thing. Not only does it keep the leadership aware of what everyone is thinking (or being told to think…?) but it also means that the machinery of … ah … replacing someone is removed from the … er… replacer, which makes it more likely they’ll carry out the act.
In short, I see Gillard’s move as of a piece with ALP history. This is how ALP leaders go, and I fully expect JG will go the same way in the future. And I think a lot of the discomfort that is driving criticism of this mechanism may be due to a feeling that such behaviour, while acceptable in a Hawke-like man, is unbecoming of the fairer sex. As if JG got to the position she was in by being sweetness and light and sisterly love…
… this is why I think the bloody nails image has been so popular. In a man, it’s just political skullduggery, but a woman who does it is the countess of Bathory.
@13 – Yep.
@13 – Yep.
The media’s been a bloody sight easier on her than Kevin Rudd. They attacked him personally almost every time they mentioned him.
The media’s been a bloody sight easier on her than Kevin Rudd. They attacked him personally almost every time they mentioned him.
Kim
I am curious as to the source of your perceptions of what Julia Gillard is about as a political, PM, and person. Why did you think she would take a “different view?” And what makes you think that would include ignoring Labor’s heartland in the western suburbs of Sydney?
I am really quite baffled at the person who many posters have presented is the REAL Julia Gillard, which is based on no evidence whatsoever.
Kim
I am curious as to the source of your perceptions of what Julia Gillard is about as a political, PM, and person. Why did you think she would take a “different view?” And what makes you think that would include ignoring Labor’s heartland in the western suburbs of Sydney?
I am really quite baffled at the person who many posters have presented is the REAL Julia Gillard, which is based on no evidence whatsoever.
I never knew there was a particular ideology required to take the centremost forward position on a rugby field.
I never knew there was a particular ideology required to take the centremost forward position on a rugby field.
Well, good for you for having been optimistic Kim. I get a little more cynical each year, and I’ve got a few years more than you. The ALP doesn’t surprise me much any more.
I don’t hold out great hopes for Julia PM – on the basis of her performance as education minister – but I think the chance of some progressive policies coming through, after the election is out of the way, is just as great under Gillard as under Rudd. And the ALP is still preferable to the present Liberals.
Well, good for you for having been optimistic Kim. I get a little more cynical each year, and I’ve got a few years more than you. The ALP doesn’t surprise me much any more.
I don’t hold out great hopes for Julia PM – on the basis of her performance as education minister – but I think the chance of some progressive policies coming through, after the election is out of the way, is just as great under Gillard as under Rudd. And the ALP is still preferable to the present Liberals.
Lady Macbeth was a woman and yes so is JG. Comparing women to other women in history or literature is not necessarily misogynist. Women will get compared to women as men will to other males. It’s an unavoidable and normal part of human conversation to reference gender in this way.
Rudd was politically executed. Lady Macbeth was involved in a political execution. JG is not the first Australian politician to be accused of having blood on her hands following a successful leadership challenge. The Lady Macbeth analogy was a familiar, if not exactly precise or accurate in the context reference, but still broadly understood by most when used in this way.
I doubt the “blood on her hands” metaphor would have been meant literally by those using it about JG or taken literally by those reading or hearing it used about a politician of either gender in these or similar circumstances.
So where’s the misogyny?
Lady Macbeth was a woman and yes so is JG. Comparing women to other women in history or literature is not necessarily misogynist. Women will get compared to women as men will to other males. It’s an unavoidable and normal part of human conversation to reference gender in this way.
Rudd was politically executed. Lady Macbeth was involved in a political execution. JG is not the first Australian politician to be accused of having blood on her hands following a successful leadership challenge. The Lady Macbeth analogy was a familiar, if not exactly precise or accurate in the context reference, but still broadly understood by most when used in this way.
I doubt the “blood on her hands” metaphor would have been meant literally by those using it about JG or taken literally by those reading or hearing it used about a politician of either gender in these or similar circumstances.
So where’s the misogyny?
@19 – yeah, Russell, I’m fast approaching 40 and it is getting a bit harder to hope for all that much from our political system as constituted currently!
But I do think there was a sense of expectation from a lot of voters associated with Kevin07 – perhaps, particularly younger voters. Now maybe it’s back to politics as usual, and The Greens will be the major beneficiaries of that sense of hope.
Incidentally, Galaxy today has the ALP primary falling again and The Greens’ primary jumping three points to 14%:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/07/11/galaxy-52-48-to-labor-2/
@19 – yeah, Russell, I’m fast approaching 40 and it is getting a bit harder to hope for all that much from our political system as constituted currently!
But I do think there was a sense of expectation from a lot of voters associated with Kevin07 – perhaps, particularly younger voters. Now maybe it’s back to politics as usual, and The Greens will be the major beneficiaries of that sense of hope.
Incidentally, Galaxy today has the ALP primary falling again and The Greens’ primary jumping three points to 14%:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/07/11/galaxy-52-48-to-labor-2/
Kim – I was just asking myself where an example of positive change might come from. What do you think about Europe – France or Spain ?? They seem to have stronger traditions of demanding things from politicians, and more awake to the fact that most of the population is being asked to pay a very heavy price, after the GFC, to protect the position of the wealthy. If not Europe, where do you think a new progressive politics is likely to emerge?
Kim – I was just asking myself where an example of positive change might come from. What do you think about Europe – France or Spain ?? They seem to have stronger traditions of demanding things from politicians, and more awake to the fact that most of the population is being asked to pay a very heavy price, after the GFC, to protect the position of the wealthy. If not Europe, where do you think a new progressive politics is likely to emerge?
Russell’s point raises the reality that Australia is one of the “luckiest” countries. In an ideal world, Australia would be the minimum standard not the maximum, less than our current standard of living would not be tolerated. Its also a modern reality that all political parties involved will be using focus groups, as well as vested interests seeking access to capital and media.
Let’s not forget how long the Murdoch press and tabloid teev have been at pushpolling confected issues, despite the disatrous impact it had in inducing the Howard implosion for the right, they still haven’t learnt to not tinker at things that are not their concern.
Russell’s point raises the reality that Australia is one of the “luckiest” countries. In an ideal world, Australia would be the minimum standard not the maximum, less than our current standard of living would not be tolerated. Its also a modern reality that all political parties involved will be using focus groups, as well as vested interests seeking access to capital and media.
Let’s not forget how long the Murdoch press and tabloid teev have been at pushpolling confected issues, despite the disatrous impact it had in inducing the Howard implosion for the right, they still haven’t learnt to not tinker at things that are not their concern.
@17 –
There’s a few questions here.
(a) I don’t think Western Sydney is “Labor’s heartland”. It’s a particular part of Australia with its own issues, and which is usually stereotyped – even reading the various Vox Pops published in the press over the last week shows that the claim that living in Western Sydney is equivalent to being obsessed by “border protection” is a false one.
Rather than being some sort of heartland, the various seats in that region range from safe for Labor to Liberal held to being very close marginals. But it’s a slogan which is supposed to imply a particular type of politics – driven more by the views of some in focus groups and an assimilation of the views of talkback radio and the tabloid press with those of voters.
It is also not the case that no Western Sydney seats were held by Liberals prior to John Howard’s election in 1996, and there’s a fair amount of social and ethnic diversity in and among them.
I suspect that the economy is actually among the largest issue in those electorates, and the fact living standards are being squeezed for many is one of the big things hurting Labor. I doubt that “cultural” issues have the weight afforded to them in most commentary;
(b) I didn’t say that I thought Gillard would be “different”. I was referring to the assumption by some that her personal life choices, her gender and lack of religious belief, would lead to her being some sort of progressive champion. That’s what I’m criticising as a projection;
(c) I don’t know who the “real” Julia Gillard is. It’s a pretty meaningless thing to try and know, and just betrays the obsession with personalities, and new personalities as saviours, I criticised in my previous post. FWIW, I have some views on what her views are based on her previous performance in her portfolio, but that’s actually not imo the topic of this thread.
@17 –
There’s a few questions here.
(a) I don’t think Western Sydney is “Labor’s heartland”. It’s a particular part of Australia with its own issues, and which is usually stereotyped – even reading the various Vox Pops published in the press over the last week shows that the claim that living in Western Sydney is equivalent to being obsessed by “border protection” is a false one.
Rather than being some sort of heartland, the various seats in that region range from safe for Labor to Liberal held to being very close marginals. But it’s a slogan which is supposed to imply a particular type of politics – driven more by the views of some in focus groups and an assimilation of the views of talkback radio and the tabloid press with those of voters.
It is also not the case that no Western Sydney seats were held by Liberals prior to John Howard’s election in 1996, and there’s a fair amount of social and ethnic diversity in and among them.
I suspect that the economy is actually among the largest issue in those electorates, and the fact living standards are being squeezed for many is one of the big things hurting Labor. I doubt that “cultural” issues have the weight afforded to them in most commentary;
(b) I didn’t say that I thought Gillard would be “different”. I was referring to the assumption by some that her personal life choices, her gender and lack of religious belief, would lead to her being some sort of progressive champion. That’s what I’m criticising as a projection;
(c) I don’t know who the “real” Julia Gillard is. It’s a pretty meaningless thing to try and know, and just betrays the obsession with personalities, and new personalities as saviours, I criticised in my previous post. FWIW, I have some views on what her views are based on her previous performance in her portfolio, but that’s actually not imo the topic of this thread.
@22 – Russell, in some European countries, there is, of course, a stronger sense of social care, and in some, a stronger push towards a socially progressive state. Neither is without its ambiguities, and having spent a significant part of my life living overseas, I’d say my bottom line is that we in Australia have to work out our own priorities, what we consider to be realistic progressive change, and how to get there.
@22 – Russell, in some European countries, there is, of course, a stronger sense of social care, and in some, a stronger push towards a socially progressive state. Neither is without its ambiguities, and having spent a significant part of my life living overseas, I’d say my bottom line is that we in Australia have to work out our own priorities, what we consider to be realistic progressive change, and how to get there.
I think everyone is overstating everything here, and reading too much into everything.
The only place gender politics exists in Australia in 2010 is in the minds of some old media hacks and certain university undergraduate courses, surely? JG has proven herself to be a true politician (ambitious, ruthless, guileful, etc, etc), hasn’t she? And there are a number of female forerunners ….. in Britain, India and Israel. These PEOPLE are just that, politicians. Gender has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I don’t think JG is any better than KR. And, I don’t think TA’s team will be any better, either. I believe we have a huge problem in the calibre and basic intelligence of most our politicians (but I don’t include KR, JG, or TA in that group), but we have an bigger problem with the idiots who advise them – the public service boffins.
We are being run – at all levels of government – by the most incompetent people (female and male) in my living memory ….. (and I studied Politics, and Gender Politics, Feminist Literature etc, etc, etc, back in the 1980s)!
I think everyone is overstating everything here, and reading too much into everything.
The only place gender politics exists in Australia in 2010 is in the minds of some old media hacks and certain university undergraduate courses, surely? JG has proven herself to be a true politician (ambitious, ruthless, guileful, etc, etc), hasn’t she? And there are a number of female forerunners ….. in Britain, India and Israel. These PEOPLE are just that, politicians. Gender has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I don’t think JG is any better than KR. And, I don’t think TA’s team will be any better, either. I believe we have a huge problem in the calibre and basic intelligence of most our politicians (but I don’t include KR, JG, or TA in that group), but we have an bigger problem with the idiots who advise them – the public service boffins.
We are being run – at all levels of government – by the most incompetent people (female and male) in my living memory ….. (and I studied Politics, and Gender Politics, Feminist Literature etc, etc, etc, back in the 1980s)!
@ 20
Ah, it was the insertion of fingernails into the metaphor that’s the problem, it would seem to me. Male politicians don’t normally have fingernails worth commenting on(?).
I’m disappointed that Kim thinks “‘the congealed blood of Rudd still under her nails’” is prima facie evidence of the sexist “absurd hyperbole tossed around.”
Forget Lady MacBeth, it’s meant to be an allusion to this act of damned impertinence.
@ 20
Ah, it was the insertion of fingernails into the metaphor that’s the problem, it would seem to me. Male politicians don’t normally have fingernails worth commenting on(?).
I’m disappointed that Kim thinks “‘the congealed blood of Rudd still under her nails’” is prima facie evidence of the sexist “absurd hyperbole tossed around.”
Forget Lady MacBeth, it’s meant to be an allusion to this act of damned impertinence.
The only place gender politics exists in Australia in 2010 is in the minds of some old media hacks and certain university undergraduate courses, surely? JG has proven herself to be a true politician (ambitious, ruthless, guileful, etc, etc), hasn’t she? And there are a number of female forerunners ….. in Britain, India and Israel. These PEOPLE are just that, politicians. Gender has absolutely nothing to do with it.
“A number of”. Not in proportion to the population. Why, if gender politics doesn’t exist any more?
If your reply is “family”, why is it that the majority of the male politicians have families themselves? What’s your explanation for the disparity?
The only place gender politics exists in Australia in 2010 is in the minds of some old media hacks and certain university undergraduate courses, surely? JG has proven herself to be a true politician (ambitious, ruthless, guileful, etc, etc), hasn’t she? And there are a number of female forerunners ….. in Britain, India and Israel. These PEOPLE are just that, politicians. Gender has absolutely nothing to do with it.
“A number of”. Not in proportion to the population. Why, if gender politics doesn’t exist any more?
If your reply is “family”, why is it that the majority of the male politicians have families themselves? What’s your explanation for the disparity?
I think it is interesting that Gillard has positioned herself in her speeches as the daughter of migrants (who, as she has said, don’t like seeing others get stuff they don’t get themselves) and not as a woman crashing the glass ceiling.
I am frequently struck by the fact that many of the voices against refugees and increased mining taxes have english or other accents (at least in vox pops and on talk-back). From an electoral perspective, many of these new australians either live in marginals like western sydney, and/or in self-funded retirement enclaves along the coastal fringes.
It seems to me that Gillard is pitching for, and identifying with, the very significant migrant vote (hence her tilt on asylum-seekers, and on resources taxation) more than she is pitching for, and identifying with, the female vote, which will probably drift to her anyway.
I heard an australian mine worker on the radio the other day explaining that he would not be voting for Julia because she was born a “pom”. I guess he won’t be voting for Tony Abbott either. He was also born a “pom”.
Two “poms” contesting the top job in Australia. This might be another first, and perhaps a sign of the times.
I think it is interesting that Gillard has positioned herself in her speeches as the daughter of migrants (who, as she has said, don’t like seeing others get stuff they don’t get themselves) and not as a woman crashing the glass ceiling.
I am frequently struck by the fact that many of the voices against refugees and increased mining taxes have english or other accents (at least in vox pops and on talk-back). From an electoral perspective, many of these new australians either live in marginals like western sydney, and/or in self-funded retirement enclaves along the coastal fringes.
It seems to me that Gillard is pitching for, and identifying with, the very significant migrant vote (hence her tilt on asylum-seekers, and on resources taxation) more than she is pitching for, and identifying with, the female vote, which will probably drift to her anyway.
I heard an australian mine worker on the radio the other day explaining that he would not be voting for Julia because she was born a “pom”. I guess he won’t be voting for Tony Abbott either. He was also born a “pom”.
Two “poms” contesting the top job in Australia. This might be another first, and perhaps a sign of the times.
Thanks Nickws. I mistakenly thought people here would be familiar with that famous encounter between Hawke and ABC journo Carleton without having to spell it out. And I was definitely referring it when I said this was not the first time a “blood on the hands” comment had been made in such a political context. It was a good question then and an apt point to make now. Hawke’s anger reflected that. People do think this way about human behaviour without thinking a person has been literally murdered. I thought that would’ve been obvious too.
To my mind Gillard as a politician has been remarkably or unusually free from misogynist attack in the public sphere, for reasons perhaps worth reflecting on. As Janet Albrechtsen from the Oz conceded on Q&A, she’s seen as a first-class politician on many levels even by her opponents. Combined with this she’s hard to effectively attack from sexist or misogynist positions because of a range of personal and physical attributes which have afforded her personal respect and even grudging admiration: her intelligence, poise, directness, humour, communication skills, combativeness, and no-nonsense dress sense, to mention a few important defensive assets that spring to mind.
Thanks Nickws. I mistakenly thought people here would be familiar with that famous encounter between Hawke and ABC journo Carleton without having to spell it out. And I was definitely referring it when I said this was not the first time a “blood on the hands” comment had been made in such a political context. It was a good question then and an apt point to make now. Hawke’s anger reflected that. People do think this way about human behaviour without thinking a person has been literally murdered. I thought that would’ve been obvious too.
To my mind Gillard as a politician has been remarkably or unusually free from misogynist attack in the public sphere, for reasons perhaps worth reflecting on. As Janet Albrechtsen from the Oz conceded on Q&A, she’s seen as a first-class politician on many levels even by her opponents. Combined with this she’s hard to effectively attack from sexist or misogynist positions because of a range of personal and physical attributes which have afforded her personal respect and even grudging admiration: her intelligence, poise, directness, humour, communication skills, combativeness, and no-nonsense dress sense, to mention a few important defensive assets that spring to mind.
“I guess he won’t be voting for Tony Abbott either. He was also born a “pom”.”
Point of detail: he was actually born an Australian to Australian parents on an expatriate sojourn in London.
“I guess he won’t be voting for Tony Abbott either. He was also born a “pom”.”
Point of detail: he was actually born an Australian to Australian parents on an expatriate sojourn in London.
I had Abbott’s parents marked for being English because his father served in the RAF—not the RAAF—during the Second World War.
If Abbott père (geddit?) was in the UK at the start of the war then he was one socially mobile Australian.
I had Abbott’s parents marked for being English because his father served in the RAF—not the RAAF—during the Second World War.
If Abbott père (geddit?) was in the UK at the start of the war then he was one socially mobile Australian.
A related aspect to my remarks above is that I don’t think that misogyny exists so much today as it once did in terms of what is now widespread acceptance, in the Western world at least, of the fact that women in general are able to do anything, just as well as men in general. Girls today are raised with this notion firmly instilled in schooling and through most cultural forms they encounter. Sure women are by no means equally represented in high office, at political, executive, senior professional or bureaucratic levels, or in the most highly remunerated jobs and specialties, and unequal wages for even similar or identical work still exists and so on.
It’s just that in many cases only *some* or a relatively small handful of women can practically do these jobs or win these positions because of all the other indirect barriers, financial, economic, cultural, psychological, material, placed in their way. Barriers directly linked to women’s still predominant caring and nurturing social role in the personal/domestic realm, in the family, and the demands that places on women wishing to work inside and outside the home, bear children, have fulfilling personal relationships, a successful career or steady employment, or just what many would sum up as “a life” worth living.
A related aspect to my remarks above is that I don’t think that misogyny exists so much today as it once did in terms of what is now widespread acceptance, in the Western world at least, of the fact that women in general are able to do anything, just as well as men in general. Girls today are raised with this notion firmly instilled in schooling and through most cultural forms they encounter. Sure women are by no means equally represented in high office, at political, executive, senior professional or bureaucratic levels, or in the most highly remunerated jobs and specialties, and unequal wages for even similar or identical work still exists and so on.
It’s just that in many cases only *some* or a relatively small handful of women can practically do these jobs or win these positions because of all the other indirect barriers, financial, economic, cultural, psychological, material, placed in their way. Barriers directly linked to women’s still predominant caring and nurturing social role in the personal/domestic realm, in the family, and the demands that places on women wishing to work inside and outside the home, bear children, have fulfilling personal relationships, a successful career or steady employment, or just what many would sum up as “a life” worth living.
@33 Moze, the situation you described in your second paragraph is precisely why it is accurate to portray our present social-cultural-economic matrix as one in which misogyny prevails and is perpetuated.
You don’t recognise it as such, for the same reason that a fish doesn’t know it is wet.
There are also many other dimensions and axes on which misogyny is active and can be practiced. Your condensing the issue down to the single-issue of workforce/political participation is a blinker that prevents you from seeing the wider issues.
The position you have taken is akin to saying that the problem of racism was solved by the abolition of slavery…
@33 Moze, the situation you described in your second paragraph is precisely why it is accurate to portray our present social-cultural-economic matrix as one in which misogyny prevails and is perpetuated.
You don’t recognise it as such, for the same reason that a fish doesn’t know it is wet.
There are also many other dimensions and axes on which misogyny is active and can be practiced. Your condensing the issue down to the single-issue of workforce/political participation is a blinker that prevents you from seeing the wider issues.
The position you have taken is akin to saying that the problem of racism was solved by the abolition of slavery…
WTF is ‘no-nonsense dress sense’ and WTF does it have to do with political leadership?
WTF is ‘no-nonsense dress sense’ and WTF does it have to do with political leadership?
GP @ 29,
The miner wuz wrong. She’s not a pom. She’s Welsh, like Billy Hughes.
As you rightly point out, Gillard’s origins are pretty irrelevent. Our political system is similar to the Poms, though they seem to have more freedom in their parliamentary vote. )And, to bring up Kristina Kenneally – she was brought up under the American system, which is markedly different in practice to ours, but she has no preoblems either fitting in. (Though I suppose ALP machine politics has some similarity with the US Democrats machine politics. Maybe that’s why she fits in so well.)
The issue of Gillard being a woman, apart from being an historical first – doesn’t seem to be producing any kind of noticeable misogynist upsurge – in fact perhaps less than what might be expected given the alleged cgaracter of the beastly Australian male. The real test will come when she really falters, as, like all politicians she eventualy will. If there is an underlay of misogyny about her having the top job, that’s when it will rise to the surface.
GP @ 29,
The miner wuz wrong. She’s not a pom. She’s Welsh, like Billy Hughes.
As you rightly point out, Gillard’s origins are pretty irrelevent. Our political system is similar to the Poms, though they seem to have more freedom in their parliamentary vote. )And, to bring up Kristina Kenneally – she was brought up under the American system, which is markedly different in practice to ours, but she has no preoblems either fitting in. (Though I suppose ALP machine politics has some similarity with the US Democrats machine politics. Maybe that’s why she fits in so well.)
The issue of Gillard being a woman, apart from being an historical first – doesn’t seem to be producing any kind of noticeable misogynist upsurge – in fact perhaps less than what might be expected given the alleged cgaracter of the beastly Australian male. The real test will come when she really falters, as, like all politicians she eventualy will. If there is an underlay of misogyny about her having the top job, that’s when it will rise to the surface.
I’d agree with this. My grandmother (the most die-hard of die-hard Labor voters who would never hear a bad word said about the Party) is really upset. She didn’t like Rudd, but she’s really distressed by the way in which the leadership putsch happened. A straw poll of my friends indicates a similar distress. Alas, my idealism was withered long ago.
I’d agree with this. My grandmother (the most die-hard of die-hard Labor voters who would never hear a bad word said about the Party) is really upset. She didn’t like Rudd, but she’s really distressed by the way in which the leadership putsch happened. A straw poll of my friends indicates a similar distress. Alas, my idealism was withered long ago.
@35 Adrian, it’s obvious. The default humans automatically have a no-nonense dress sense, and all we ask, in our reasonably post-sexist way, is that the non-default humans observe the same protocol…
…We know, naturally, that a man dressing up in lycra bodysuits or parading for the cameras in a pair of swimwear briefs is an authentic action man with a no-nonsense dress sense.
Indeed, a man who goes wildlife-hunting bare-chested is exactly the kind of head-cracking tough guy you’d want for President and Prime Minister of Russia, especially given his no-nonsense dress sense.
And a guy who goes body-surfing or dons shorty-shorts to dribble basketballs at the White House has all the natural cool, charm and co-ordination it takes to be POTUS, most especially a no-nonsense dress sense.
And I need hardly remind you that a suavely-dressed raconteur who wears high-heel shoes and stands on boxes for photo ops is de rigeur to lead France with his no-nonsense dress sense.
I mean, when you really think about, the women have it easier than the blokes, don’t they? All they have to do is find a broad-shouldered jacket with angular collars and keep the cleavage and calves out of sight. Can’t see what they’re complainin’ about really. Nothing sexist about it — they just have to tone. down. the. nonsense, same as the men.
@35 Adrian, it’s obvious. The default humans automatically have a no-nonense dress sense, and all we ask, in our reasonably post-sexist way, is that the non-default humans observe the same protocol…
…We know, naturally, that a man dressing up in lycra bodysuits or parading for the cameras in a pair of swimwear briefs is an authentic action man with a no-nonsense dress sense.
Indeed, a man who goes wildlife-hunting bare-chested is exactly the kind of head-cracking tough guy you’d want for President and Prime Minister of Russia, especially given his no-nonsense dress sense.
And a guy who goes body-surfing or dons shorty-shorts to dribble basketballs at the White House has all the natural cool, charm and co-ordination it takes to be POTUS, most especially a no-nonsense dress sense.
And I need hardly remind you that a suavely-dressed raconteur who wears high-heel shoes and stands on boxes for photo ops is de rigeur to lead France with his no-nonsense dress sense.
I mean, when you really think about, the women have it easier than the blokes, don’t they? All they have to do is find a broad-shouldered jacket with angular collars and keep the cleavage and calves out of sight. Can’t see what they’re complainin’ about really. Nothing sexist about it — they just have to tone. down. the. nonsense, same as the men.
If a no-nonsense dress sense is required to be an effective politician then back in 1972 a certain political legend was, as usual, breaking all the rules.
I think I know what Moze means, at least in terms of dodging judgemental voters and media bullets, but it doesn’t actually help. When Joan Kirner was Premier of Victoria she dressed the part very carefully, almost exclusively in suits (skirt suits, of course I mean — what I think the UK or at least Scotland calls a two-piece), in sober dark solid colours, usually with some sort of rather fetching girly silky casmisoley sort of thing under the jacket. But the cartoonists persisted in drawing her as a sphere in polka dots, and when it was pointed out to the one who started it that she didn’t own a single garment with any sort of dots on it he replied ‘Oh but she just seems like the polka dot type.’ What he was actually seeing was his own view of a woman of a certain age and appearance, something that probably had its origins in those old British seaside postcards. It doesn’t really matter what the reality is; if they’re going to get you, they’re going to get you.
If a no-nonsense dress sense is required to be an effective politician then back in 1972 a certain political legend was, as usual, breaking all the rules.
I think I know what Moze means, at least in terms of dodging judgemental voters and media bullets, but it doesn’t actually help. When Joan Kirner was Premier of Victoria she dressed the part very carefully, almost exclusively in suits (skirt suits, of course I mean — what I think the UK or at least Scotland calls a two-piece), in sober dark solid colours, usually with some sort of rather fetching girly silky casmisoley sort of thing under the jacket. But the cartoonists persisted in drawing her as a sphere in polka dots, and when it was pointed out to the one who started it that she didn’t own a single garment with any sort of dots on it he replied ‘Oh but she just seems like the polka dot type.’ What he was actually seeing was his own view of a woman of a certain age and appearance, something that probably had its origins in those old British seaside postcards. It doesn’t really matter what the reality is; if they’re going to get you, they’re going to get you.
Uh huh. And why aren’t we paid the same?
http://www.actu.org.au/Images/Dynamic/attachments/6895/NATSEM%20factsheet.pdf
cause we are women natch.
Next?
Uh huh. And why aren’t we paid the same?
http://www.actu.org.au/Images/Dynamic/attachments/6895/NATSEM%20factsheet.pdf
cause we are women natch.
Next?
Thanks for clearing that up, Mercurius.
Thanks for clearing that up, Mercurius.
@39 – Dr Cat, let’s not forget Al Grassby’s no-nonsense ties.
Actually, let’s.
@39 – Dr Cat, let’s not forget Al Grassby’s no-nonsense ties.
Actually, let’s.
Helen @ 28 said:
They may genetically speaking have children, but what sort of relationship are they really able to have with their children? The job is incredibly family unfriendly. The father of a school friend of mine was a federal politician and at the time it was quite a surprise to me just how little my friend got to see his father.
Men either didn’t realise what they miss out on, or been willing (or don’t seen an alternative) to sacrifice the quality of their relationships with their children in exchange for better career prospects. And society hasn’t judged them badly for doing it either.
In the more general population I think the attitude is changing though – amongst my male peers I see quite a few more willing to consciously sacrifice career advancement in exchange for better family relationships.
Helen @ 28 said:
They may genetically speaking have children, but what sort of relationship are they really able to have with their children? The job is incredibly family unfriendly. The father of a school friend of mine was a federal politician and at the time it was quite a surprise to me just how little my friend got to see his father.
Men either didn’t realise what they miss out on, or been willing (or don’t seen an alternative) to sacrifice the quality of their relationships with their children in exchange for better career prospects. And society hasn’t judged them badly for doing it either.
In the more general population I think the attitude is changing though – amongst my male peers I see quite a few more willing to consciously sacrifice career advancement in exchange for better family relationships.
Casey, is Julia paid less than Kevin was?
Does that document you linked to mean anything? It says:
“NATSEM found that ‘being a woman’ was the single largest reason for the pay gap (60%). This is consistent with results for other Australian studies which highlight the considerable impact that being a woman has on wages. ‘Being a woman’ could include complicated factors such as women’s choices of careers, jobs and work hours, consideration of caring responsibilities, women’s work motivations, bargaining power and appetite for risk, as well as discrimination against women that occurs in the workplace.”
We have equal pay for equal work so couldn’t it be the case that women choose to not chase those higher paid jobs, or are less qualified in terms of experience? I’m not saying the choice is made without constraints, but you would need to link to research which shows that women want things to change, and what things they want to change.
Casey, is Julia paid less than Kevin was?
Does that document you linked to mean anything? It says:
“NATSEM found that ‘being a woman’ was the single largest reason for the pay gap (60%). This is consistent with results for other Australian studies which highlight the considerable impact that being a woman has on wages. ‘Being a woman’ could include complicated factors such as women’s choices of careers, jobs and work hours, consideration of caring responsibilities, women’s work motivations, bargaining power and appetite for risk, as well as discrimination against women that occurs in the workplace.”
We have equal pay for equal work so couldn’t it be the case that women choose to not chase those higher paid jobs, or are less qualified in terms of experience? I’m not saying the choice is made without constraints, but you would need to link to research which shows that women want things to change, and what things they want to change.
Interesting and balanced take.
It’s legitimate for people to investigate the manner, amount, contradictions inherent in criticism of Gillard. She’s our first female leader, a fact that in itself makes a pretty good prima facie case for the inherent sexist elements built into the structure and attitudes of so many.
But equally we live in a nation characterised by awkwardness (to put it very nicely) around race, boats, etc., so this also colours a deeper reading of all the apologia floating around.
Someone panning Gillard COULD be a misogynist. Someone defending her vigorously COULD really be an otherwise progressive person who finds themselves nodding when they hear crap about jumping queues and floodgates on talkback.
Interesting and balanced take.
It’s legitimate for people to investigate the manner, amount, contradictions inherent in criticism of Gillard. She’s our first female leader, a fact that in itself makes a pretty good prima facie case for the inherent sexist elements built into the structure and attitudes of so many.
But equally we live in a nation characterised by awkwardness (to put it very nicely) around race, boats, etc., so this also colours a deeper reading of all the apologia floating around.
Someone panning Gillard COULD be a misogynist. Someone defending her vigorously COULD really be an otherwise progressive person who finds themselves nodding when they hear crap about jumping queues and floodgates on talkback.
They may genetically speaking have children, but what sort of relationship are they really able to have with their children? The job is incredibly family unfriendly. The father of a school friend of mine was a federal politician and at the time it was quite a surprise to me just how little my friend got to see his father.
Men either didn’t realise what they miss out on, or been willing (or don’t seen an alternative) to sacrifice the quality of their relationships with their children in exchange for better career prospects. And society hasn’t judged them badly for doing it either.
This supports my point, that work as it is socially constructed, especially at the top echelons, favours men as the “perfect employee” and the default human, while women are still seen as the default carers.
They may genetically speaking have children, but what sort of relationship are they really able to have with their children? The job is incredibly family unfriendly. The father of a school friend of mine was a federal politician and at the time it was quite a surprise to me just how little my friend got to see his father.
Men either didn’t realise what they miss out on, or been willing (or don’t seen an alternative) to sacrifice the quality of their relationships with their children in exchange for better career prospects. And society hasn’t judged them badly for doing it either.
This supports my point, that work as it is socially constructed, especially at the top echelons, favours men as the “perfect employee” and the default human, while women are still seen as the default carers.
Well it favors those who are willing to sacrifice family relationships for careers whether they be male or female. When my wife was pregnant one of her senior executive managers told her that in the year she had her child, she still managed to get 100% billable hours.
Well it favors those who are willing to sacrifice family relationships for careers whether they be male or female. When my wife was pregnant one of her senior executive managers told her that in the year she had her child, she still managed to get 100% billable hours.
That wouldn’t tell you much. It’s not about stats and individual women; it’s not even about what people say (or think) they want. These essentialist arguments never get anyone very far in trying to analyse behaviour. It is, as it always is, systemic, and it’s to do with the culture in which various generations of women grew up.
My own generation (Boomer, sue me) spent its girlhood being taught to be girly and being shown models of how to be girly, and one of the things that included was a kind of unconscious willed helplessness and dependence, at least financially, that was part of the notion that finding a hubby to take care of you was the proper goal and the destiny of all womankind, and wanting independence, property and/or a career of your own was just downright unnatural and unfeminine.
This kind of stuff goes deep and is hard to get rid of in adulthood, just as the ‘Boys don’t cry, be a man’ mantra, chanted at little boys, has probably wrecked the lives of many men. (Was anyone else intrigued by Kevin Rudd’s choice of the self-contemptuous word ‘blubbered’ in his farewell speech?)
What it’s resulted in is a generation of women who’ve spent their lives either chasing this ideal of dependence or living it, then being dumped for a newer model, and suddenly now in their fifties and sixties finding themselves without adequate savings or super, much less an unmortgaged roof over their heads.
Jen up there at #26 will of course be all right, since she doesn’t believe in this silly old gender nonsense, but can I use this space to beg any other women reading this comment to get her finances in order pronto. The number of homeless women over 45 has just now, for the first time, started to exceed the number of homeless men of the same age. And there’s a reason for that.
That wouldn’t tell you much. It’s not about stats and individual women; it’s not even about what people say (or think) they want. These essentialist arguments never get anyone very far in trying to analyse behaviour. It is, as it always is, systemic, and it’s to do with the culture in which various generations of women grew up.
My own generation (Boomer, sue me) spent its girlhood being taught to be girly and being shown models of how to be girly, and one of the things that included was a kind of unconscious willed helplessness and dependence, at least financially, that was part of the notion that finding a hubby to take care of you was the proper goal and the destiny of all womankind, and wanting independence, property and/or a career of your own was just downright unnatural and unfeminine.
This kind of stuff goes deep and is hard to get rid of in adulthood, just as the ‘Boys don’t cry, be a man’ mantra, chanted at little boys, has probably wrecked the lives of many men. (Was anyone else intrigued by Kevin Rudd’s choice of the self-contemptuous word ‘blubbered’ in his farewell speech?)
What it’s resulted in is a generation of women who’ve spent their lives either chasing this ideal of dependence or living it, then being dumped for a newer model, and suddenly now in their fifties and sixties finding themselves without adequate savings or super, much less an unmortgaged roof over their heads.
Jen up there at #26 will of course be all right, since she doesn’t believe in this silly old gender nonsense, but can I use this space to beg any other women reading this comment to get her finances in order pronto. The number of homeless women over 45 has just now, for the first time, started to exceed the number of homeless men of the same age. And there’s a reason for that.
Well it favors those who are willing to sacrifice family relationships for careers whether they be male or female. When my wife was pregnant one of her senior executive managers told her that in the year she had her child, she still managed to get 100% billable hours.
Does this look like a level playing field to you?
Well it favors those who are willing to sacrifice family relationships for careers whether they be male or female. When my wife was pregnant one of her senior executive managers told her that in the year she had her child, she still managed to get 100% billable hours.
Does this look like a level playing field to you?
You need to consider how sexism can inhere in the structures of a society so that this gender inequity occurs where pay is concerned. Women’s choices are indeed constrained by many factors and while it may not be personal, sexism can be structural. This is not surprising. What it means is that I linked you to only a very short summary of the most recent findings from the Office of Women. I’m not going to chase the report for you. If you are interested you can google it. It was a fairly wide ranging report and was heavily reported upon back in March.
You need to consider how sexism can inhere in the structures of a society so that this gender inequity occurs where pay is concerned. Women’s choices are indeed constrained by many factors and while it may not be personal, sexism can be structural. This is not surprising. What it means is that I linked you to only a very short summary of the most recent findings from the Office of Women. I’m not going to chase the report for you. If you are interested you can google it. It was a fairly wide ranging report and was heavily reported upon back in March.
At least Jen is consistent, Dr Cat. She began her contribution with “I think everyone is overstating everything here, and reading too much into everything…”
And the rest of her contribution provided a neat demonstration of such.
As Lindsay Tanner said “in politics, everyone exaggerates everything all the time”.
At least Jen is consistent, Dr Cat. She began her contribution with “I think everyone is overstating everything here, and reading too much into everything…”
And the rest of her contribution provided a neat demonstration of such.
As Lindsay Tanner said “in politics, everyone exaggerates everything all the time”.
Casey – this is all too off-topic but your argument/summary sounds too simplistic: “this gender inequity occurs where pay is concerned” – makes it sound like you can just somehow raise salaries for women to solve the problem.
The pay thing is the very end result of all the ways we have organised our lives – how to organise everything differently in ways to suit us better is almost too complex to think about. We make what we think are progressive changes, and some of those backfire with unintended consequences. Being of the same generation as PC I look back at back at improvements, but also am bewildered at where we have come to. We don’t seem to know what we want – oh, that’s right, we want it all.
Casey – this is all too off-topic but your argument/summary sounds too simplistic: “this gender inequity occurs where pay is concerned” – makes it sound like you can just somehow raise salaries for women to solve the problem.
The pay thing is the very end result of all the ways we have organised our lives – how to organise everything differently in ways to suit us better is almost too complex to think about. We make what we think are progressive changes, and some of those backfire with unintended consequences. Being of the same generation as PC I look back at back at improvements, but also am bewildered at where we have come to. We don’t seem to know what we want – oh, that’s right, we want it all.
Are the misogynists who plague Kim any more real than the communists who plague Angela? Nothing I’ve read on this thread dissuades me from thinking both are battling monsters that are constructs of a hyperactive imagination.
As I’ve said previously, I’m a great fan of Gillard and I’m over the moon by her rise to power, but I see the vitriol directed at Gillard to date is not exceptional. I mean, how many of the good folk here refer to John Howard as Ratty for example? Heck I know I do.
Are the misogynists who plague Kim any more real than the communists who plague Angela? Nothing I’ve read on this thread dissuades me from thinking both are battling monsters that are constructs of a hyperactive imagination.
As I’ve said previously, I’m a great fan of Gillard and I’m over the moon by her rise to power, but I see the vitriol directed at Gillard to date is not exceptional. I mean, how many of the good folk here refer to John Howard as Ratty for example? Heck I know I do.
@53 – “Ratty” isn’t a term of abuse drawing on gender stereotypes, salient.
The question is not whether Gillard cops more flak than other pollies, but why that flak manifests itself quite frequently in gendered terms.
@53 – “Ratty” isn’t a term of abuse drawing on gender stereotypes, salient.
The question is not whether Gillard cops more flak than other pollies, but why that flak manifests itself quite frequently in gendered terms.
Russell I don’t much disagree with some of what you are saying. I was suggesting that sexism can be structural that’s all. That society itself can make it difficult for women sometimes. But these reports come in and the results seem to always be the same. Women are paid less. Now at some point you have to ask how that is, how is it that men are paid more? You have to start looking at the very structures of the culture in which you live and you have to look at how gender inequity inheres at every layer, imo, from the cradle to the grave.
Anyway, you might like to read the report if you are interested. All this is getting off topic I fear, so I will leave it here.
Russell I don’t much disagree with some of what you are saying. I was suggesting that sexism can be structural that’s all. That society itself can make it difficult for women sometimes. But these reports come in and the results seem to always be the same. Women are paid less. Now at some point you have to ask how that is, how is it that men are paid more? You have to start looking at the very structures of the culture in which you live and you have to look at how gender inequity inheres at every layer, imo, from the cradle to the grave.
Anyway, you might like to read the report if you are interested. All this is getting off topic I fear, so I will leave it here.
Casey – if you put it as ‘women earn less over their lifetime” that’s certainly a statement of fact, and probably helps us see the whole problem, rather than ‘women are paid less’. I’ll leave it there too.
Casey – if you put it as ‘women earn less over their lifetime” that’s certainly a statement of fact, and probably helps us see the whole problem, rather than ‘women are paid less’. I’ll leave it there too.
You are conflating two problems there Russell. Even women without children are often paid less for equivalent jobs (with the exception of the PM I assume).
You are conflating two problems there Russell. Even women without children are often paid less for equivalent jobs (with the exception of the PM I assume).
@56 – Russell, there are two aspects to gender inequity in the workforce:
(a) vertical gender inequality – where men are concentrated at the top of particular professions and occupations;
(b) horizontal gender inequality – where women at the same occupational level are paid less then men and where professions dominated by women enjoy less remuneration than those where the gender balance is more equal or skewed towards men.
Both are still large features of our workforce, and show no particular signs of going away in a hurry. It’s also the case in many occupations where pay is not set transparently by awards or enterprise agreements that women earn less than men doing substantially the same work.
So it’s not just a matter of lower earnings across the life course.
There’s an endless number of reports from reputable sources showing basically the same thing.
But I think this is a tad tangential to the actual post, so I’ll leave it there too.
@56 – Russell, there are two aspects to gender inequity in the workforce:
(a) vertical gender inequality – where men are concentrated at the top of particular professions and occupations;
(b) horizontal gender inequality – where women at the same occupational level are paid less then men and where professions dominated by women enjoy less remuneration than those where the gender balance is more equal or skewed towards men.
Both are still large features of our workforce, and show no particular signs of going away in a hurry. It’s also the case in many occupations where pay is not set transparently by awards or enterprise agreements that women earn less than men doing substantially the same work.
So it’s not just a matter of lower earnings across the life course.
There’s an endless number of reports from reputable sources showing basically the same thing.
But I think this is a tad tangential to the actual post, so I’ll leave it there too.
@33 Moze, the situation you described in your second paragraph is precisely why it is accurate to portray our present social-cultural-economic matrix as one in which misogyny prevails and is perpetuated.
You don’t recognise it as such, for the same reason that a fish doesn’t know it is wet.
Mercurius I didn’t say I thought misogyny no longer exists. It most certainly does. It permeates our society and affects all women and in some ways I think it’s more openly and shamelessly expressed today than ever it was in the past.
I argued that I don’t think JG the politician has been exposed or subjected to much misogynistic commentary in the public sphere. I think that is related to the fact that, in theory, most people today would agree women are capable of doing any work, any job, as well as a man and have a right to do so. That’s a major advance from even just a couple of decades ago. And up to now she’s done a reasonably good job as far as it goes comparable to other MPs and that is recognised across the political spectrum.
Personally, I don’t like her at all and don’t trust her to be a good PM and I never have.
There are also many other dimensions and axes on which misogyny is active and can be practiced. Your condensing the issue down to the single-issue of workforce/political participation is a blinker that prevents you from seeing the wider issues.
I don’t think the issue of women’s oppression can or should be condensed down to the single factor of workforce, political participation either.
What are the wider issues coming to bear on the way JG is discussed that can be exclusively sheeted home to misogyny in any demonstrable instance? I still haven’t seen one convincing example put forward here. Comments about her physical appearance, the way she talks, dresses, or the way she won the ALP leadership may be trivialising, hyberbolic, banal etc but I don’t see how in the way in which they have been discussed either here or elsewhere, for the most part – admittedly I don’t read misogynist blogs like those run by Andrew Bolt or Tim Blair or Sinclair Davidson – as being examples of misogyny.
The position you have taken is akin to saying that the problem of racism was solved by the abolition of slavery…
My position is that we live in a patriarchal, class divided, racist society that is still deeply sexist and imbued with misogyny that negatively affects the lives of everyone, above all of course women, though some women more than others too.
But thanks for the no-nonsense pics. Very droll.
@33 Moze, the situation you described in your second paragraph is precisely why it is accurate to portray our present social-cultural-economic matrix as one in which misogyny prevails and is perpetuated.
You don’t recognise it as such, for the same reason that a fish doesn’t know it is wet.
Mercurius I didn’t say I thought misogyny no longer exists. It most certainly does. It permeates our society and affects all women and in some ways I think it’s more openly and shamelessly expressed today than ever it was in the past.
I argued that I don’t think JG the politician has been exposed or subjected to much misogynistic commentary in the public sphere. I think that is related to the fact that, in theory, most people today would agree women are capable of doing any work, any job, as well as a man and have a right to do so. That’s a major advance from even just a couple of decades ago. And up to now she’s done a reasonably good job as far as it goes comparable to other MPs and that is recognised across the political spectrum.
Personally, I don’t like her at all and don’t trust her to be a good PM and I never have.
There are also many other dimensions and axes on which misogyny is active and can be practiced. Your condensing the issue down to the single-issue of workforce/political participation is a blinker that prevents you from seeing the wider issues.
I don’t think the issue of women’s oppression can or should be condensed down to the single factor of workforce, political participation either.
What are the wider issues coming to bear on the way JG is discussed that can be exclusively sheeted home to misogyny in any demonstrable instance? I still haven’t seen one convincing example put forward here. Comments about her physical appearance, the way she talks, dresses, or the way she won the ALP leadership may be trivialising, hyberbolic, banal etc but I don’t see how in the way in which they have been discussed either here or elsewhere, for the most part – admittedly I don’t read misogynist blogs like those run by Andrew Bolt or Tim Blair or Sinclair Davidson – as being examples of misogyny.
The position you have taken is akin to saying that the problem of racism was solved by the abolition of slavery…
My position is that we live in a patriarchal, class divided, racist society that is still deeply sexist and imbued with misogyny that negatively affects the lives of everyone, above all of course women, though some women more than others too.
But thanks for the no-nonsense pics. Very droll.
john @16: “The media’s been a bloody sight easier on her than Kevin Rudd. They attacked him personally almost every time they mentioned him.”
Not in 2006, they didn’t. Let’s wait and see what the media’s doing re: Julia in 2012, shall we, before we start comparing apples with…
moze@30, if you honestly can’t see there’s a gendered difference between “blood on his hands” and “blood under her fingernails”, I’m officially flummoxed.
john @16: “The media’s been a bloody sight easier on her than Kevin Rudd. They attacked him personally almost every time they mentioned him.”
Not in 2006, they didn’t. Let’s wait and see what the media’s doing re: Julia in 2012, shall we, before we start comparing apples with…
moze@30, if you honestly can’t see there’s a gendered difference between “blood on his hands” and “blood under her fingernails”, I’m officially flummoxed.
Helen @ 49 – Is it any more fair to expect a man to work the same (quite high) hours as he did before, after having a child, in order to have the same career prospects? I think a lot of the the difference in opinion over fairness comes about because only one half of the ledger is looked at – career prospects. Without also considering what career focussed fathers typically miss out on with respect to family relationships when they have children.
I’m all for making it easier for people (and couples together) to choose how they want to balance their work and non work life – having a “fairer” parental leave scheme would be a good start. But to only look at the benefits (income/career) and not look at the cost (experience and relationship with children) is quite misleading. And there are many men out there who have only found out when its way too late what they have sacrificed in exchange for their career.
Helen @ 49 – Is it any more fair to expect a man to work the same (quite high) hours as he did before, after having a child, in order to have the same career prospects? I think a lot of the the difference in opinion over fairness comes about because only one half of the ledger is looked at – career prospects. Without also considering what career focussed fathers typically miss out on with respect to family relationships when they have children.
I’m all for making it easier for people (and couples together) to choose how they want to balance their work and non work life – having a “fairer” parental leave scheme would be a good start. But to only look at the benefits (income/career) and not look at the cost (experience and relationship with children) is quite misleading. And there are many men out there who have only found out when its way too late what they have sacrificed in exchange for their career.
The contention that the gender wage differential is about sexism has been put to rest by numerous studies, whereas the studies that lend weight to the sexist thesis are generally flawed and the outcome is merely an artifact of poor design. See this for example:
“In particular, most studies are unable to adequately take into account the effect of career interruptions and the number of hours worked in the past. Thus another reason the average woman will earn less than the average man is simply that the average woman has less experience as a result of the tendency for many women to put their careers on hold while their children are growing up and the apparent preference of women for jobs offering fewer hours.
The effect of this is reflected in empirical research that I published in the late 1990s showing that among young people (aged under 30), where employment histories of men and women tend to be similar, the pay gap is zero. It is among older cohorts, when the careers of men begin to take off and women’s career interruptions begin to affect pay structures, that large pay gaps emerge. It also explains why the gaps are more prevalent among skilled, educated workers; experience matters more for skilled work than it does for unskilled work.
The bottom line is that some of the 13 percentage point pay gap will be the result of differences in average experience levels, which are rewarded in the labour market through higher pay.
But isn’t there evidence of women’s work being undervalued? Yes, past research has demonstrated that part of the reason women earn less than men is that while male and female employees doing similar work are required to be paid the same, work of comparable value in different occupations is not equally remunerated. That is, female-dominated occupations (say, hairdressers) seem to be less well rewarded than male-dominated occupations (say, motor mechanics). The size of this effect, however, is not large: perhaps about four percentage points.
But just because some occupations seem to be better rewarded than others provides no case for intervening in the market.
Relatively low earnings for hairdressers, for example, may simply reflect competition and the amount consumers are prepared to pay.” http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/governments-cant-close-gender-pay-gap/story-e6frg6zo-1111115731356
Almost invariably social researchers operate expect to see certain outcomes due to their pre-existing ideological convictions and lo and behold that is what they get. It is precisely because expectations influence outcomes that double blind trials are used in medical research.
Sorry for being OT.
The contention that the gender wage differential is about sexism has been put to rest by numerous studies, whereas the studies that lend weight to the sexist thesis are generally flawed and the outcome is merely an artifact of poor design. See this for example:
“In particular, most studies are unable to adequately take into account the effect of career interruptions and the number of hours worked in the past. Thus another reason the average woman will earn less than the average man is simply that the average woman has less experience as a result of the tendency for many women to put their careers on hold while their children are growing up and the apparent preference of women for jobs offering fewer hours.
The effect of this is reflected in empirical research that I published in the late 1990s showing that among young people (aged under 30), where employment histories of men and women tend to be similar, the pay gap is zero. It is among older cohorts, when the careers of men begin to take off and women’s career interruptions begin to affect pay structures, that large pay gaps emerge. It also explains why the gaps are more prevalent among skilled, educated workers; experience matters more for skilled work than it does for unskilled work.
The bottom line is that some of the 13 percentage point pay gap will be the result of differences in average experience levels, which are rewarded in the labour market through higher pay.
But isn’t there evidence of women’s work being undervalued? Yes, past research has demonstrated that part of the reason women earn less than men is that while male and female employees doing similar work are required to be paid the same, work of comparable value in different occupations is not equally remunerated. That is, female-dominated occupations (say, hairdressers) seem to be less well rewarded than male-dominated occupations (say, motor mechanics). The size of this effect, however, is not large: perhaps about four percentage points.
But just because some occupations seem to be better rewarded than others provides no case for intervening in the market.
Relatively low earnings for hairdressers, for example, may simply reflect competition and the amount consumers are prepared to pay.” http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/governments-cant-close-gender-pay-gap/story-e6frg6zo-1111115731356
Almost invariably social researchers operate expect to see certain outcomes due to their pre-existing ideological convictions and lo and behold that is what they get. It is precisely because expectations influence outcomes that double blind trials are used in medical research.
Sorry for being OT.
Rebekka, men have fingernails too, no?
And tending one’s nails is not a thing that only women do. Plenty of men particularly in jobs where good personal grooming and smart dress expectations are relatively high look after their nails. Some, shock-horror, even have manicures, if only self-administered.
I think it is over-analysing and plain wrong to say reference to blood on fingernails as opposed to hands is incontrovertibly gendered. And even if it was, why is it misogynist?
Rebekka, men have fingernails too, no?
And tending one’s nails is not a thing that only women do. Plenty of men particularly in jobs where good personal grooming and smart dress expectations are relatively high look after their nails. Some, shock-horror, even have manicures, if only self-administered.
I think it is over-analysing and plain wrong to say reference to blood on fingernails as opposed to hands is incontrovertibly gendered. And even if it was, why is it misogynist?
True Chris, but is it the matriarchy expecting men to work like this?
True Chris, but is it the matriarchy expecting men to work like this?
@moze, blood under the fingernails conjures up an image of a particular way of fighting that would get blood under the fingernails, and if you can’t see that scratching someone in a fight as opposed to, say, punching them is a gendered image, once again, flummoxed.
And I never used the word misogynist.
@moze, blood under the fingernails conjures up an image of a particular way of fighting that would get blood under the fingernails, and if you can’t see that scratching someone in a fight as opposed to, say, punching them is a gendered image, once again, flummoxed.
And I never used the word misogynist.
Rebekka at 60: Seeing Kevin Rudd did not become Opposition Leader until December 2006, the media did not have much time to attack him as Labor leader during that year. Take a look at 2007 and see the difference.
Rebekka at 60: Seeing Kevin Rudd did not become Opposition Leader until December 2006, the media did not have much time to attack him as Labor leader during that year. Take a look at 2007 and see the difference.
@moze,
Blood under fingernails was the imagery, and one has to scratch to get blood under fingernails rather than on fingernails in a fight. Scratching in a fight is definitely a gendered stereotype in my experience.
@moze,
Blood under fingernails was the imagery, and one has to scratch to get blood under fingernails rather than on fingernails in a fight. Scratching in a fight is definitely a gendered stereotype in my experience.
@johnL, and seeing as Julia’s been leader of the Labor party for a similar length of time as KRudd had at the end of 2006…
@johnL, and seeing as Julia’s been leader of the Labor party for a similar length of time as KRudd had at the end of 2006…
Speaking of sterotypes, Julia and KRudd indeed. Is it always goodies and baddies in Rebekkaworld?
Speaking of sterotypes, Julia and KRudd indeed. Is it always goodies and baddies in Rebekkaworld?
tigtog@67 –
Blood specimens or human skin found under a murderer’s finger nails is a bog standard evidence device in crime fiction. This mirrors real life because the contents of the underside of fingernails of victims, and attackers, often provide extraordinarily important forensic information leading to criminal identification and conviction in acts of one-on-one violence.
Actually, from memory, the original quote by Cybele was “fresh uncongealed blood still staining her fingernails” which I read as a reference to the feminine practice of using nail-polish, often blood-red with femme fatales, if not um literally “blood”.
But then even fingernail staining is not an exclusively female practice anymore, as I’ve alluded, though admittedly men are more likely to use clear polish.
tigtog@67 –
Blood specimens or human skin found under a murderer’s finger nails is a bog standard evidence device in crime fiction. This mirrors real life because the contents of the underside of fingernails of victims, and attackers, often provide extraordinarily important forensic information leading to criminal identification and conviction in acts of one-on-one violence.
Actually, from memory, the original quote by Cybele was “fresh uncongealed blood still staining her fingernails” which I read as a reference to the feminine practice of using nail-polish, often blood-red with femme fatales, if not um literally “blood”.
But then even fingernail staining is not an exclusively female practice anymore, as I’ve alluded, though admittedly men are more likely to use clear polish.
If she wheeled out his policy positions from 2006, rather than from 2010 when I and many others gave up on him and spat chips in his direction, then I’d send copious amounts of warmth her way.
Blood under nails is a bit gendered. Those of us who went for Brutus and the Ides of March can take some comfort in the fact that we showed her a measure of respect there.
If she wheeled out his policy positions from 2006, rather than from 2010 when I and many others gave up on him and spat chips in his direction, then I’d send copious amounts of warmth her way.
Blood under nails is a bit gendered. Those of us who went for Brutus and the Ides of March can take some comfort in the fact that we showed her a measure of respect there.
@Adrian, I have no issues with KRudd. Overall I think he did good as PM, but like in any tragic ending, his fatal flaw was his undoing. I suppose it’s just what one is used to seeing when reading about the person in question. I think of Hawke, but PJK, KRudd, and now Julia. If I think of the last few leaders of the Libs, Howard, but Malcolm, Abbott, but sometimes also Tony.
I don’t think you need to read too much into it, and contrary to your snide remark it’s not actually the case that I see things in black and white. Perhaps you were looking in the mirror rather than reading what I’ve actually written about anything?
@Adrian, I have no issues with KRudd. Overall I think he did good as PM, but like in any tragic ending, his fatal flaw was his undoing. I suppose it’s just what one is used to seeing when reading about the person in question. I think of Hawke, but PJK, KRudd, and now Julia. If I think of the last few leaders of the Libs, Howard, but Malcolm, Abbott, but sometimes also Tony.
I don’t think you need to read too much into it, and contrary to your snide remark it’s not actually the case that I see things in black and white. Perhaps you were looking in the mirror rather than reading what I’ve actually written about anything?
Look, imho, the “femme fatale” is a feminist hero and the sort of protagonist and player many ambitious, clever and hot-blooded women aspire to emulate, to be – in any sphere.
And if that involves knocking off a pesky man or two on her way up the magic faraway tree to Power then what feminist would be so churlish and moralistic to decry her initiative, determination and bravado?
Look, imho, the “femme fatale” is a feminist hero and the sort of protagonist and player many ambitious, clever and hot-blooded women aspire to emulate, to be – in any sphere.
And if that involves knocking off a pesky man or two on her way up the magic faraway tree to Power then what feminist would be so churlish and moralistic to decry her initiative, determination and bravado?
@moze, way to shift the goal posts.
Last time I checked with teh feminist hive-mind, “femme fatale” wasn’t a feminist hero, being as her role is largely defined by her (good) looks, but you know, keep digging there, maybe you’ll dig your way out eventually.
@moze, way to shift the goal posts.
Last time I checked with teh feminist hive-mind, “femme fatale” wasn’t a feminist hero, being as her role is largely defined by her (good) looks, but you know, keep digging there, maybe you’ll dig your way out eventually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femme_fatale
Let’s see – women are emotional and dangerous creatures who use allure to corrupt or kill men. I’m with Rebekka on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femme_fatale
Let’s see – women are emotional and dangerous creatures who use allure to corrupt or kill men. I’m with Rebekka on this.
Keep digging – you can’t even get this right. Such tissue is nearly always found under the victim‘s finger nails, very rarely the murderer’s/attacker’s. If an attacker is scratching in situation of one-on-one violence, rather than stabbing or shooting or strangling, then it’s a “catfight” rather than a serious, premeditated attack, and that takes us right back to the gendered stereotypes again.
So you admit you read it as a reference to a feminine practice, and you’re still saying that it wasn’t gendered? Also: please point us to the plethora of marketing material that trumpets superior congealing speeds for one brand of nail polish over the over. You are pulling a very long bow.
Keep digging – you can’t even get this right. Such tissue is nearly always found under the victim‘s finger nails, very rarely the murderer’s/attacker’s. If an attacker is scratching in situation of one-on-one violence, rather than stabbing or shooting or strangling, then it’s a “catfight” rather than a serious, premeditated attack, and that takes us right back to the gendered stereotypes again.
So you admit you read it as a reference to a feminine practice, and you’re still saying that it wasn’t gendered? Also: please point us to the plethora of marketing material that trumpets superior congealing speeds for one brand of nail polish over the over. You are pulling a very long bow.
tigtog@76
No, a feminine practice may or not be exclusively gendered. I contest that referring to the state of a person’s fingernails in the immediate aftermath of a metaphorical assassination is gendered. In fact, such a reference is more likely to refer to males given that males are generally in positions of political, executive or judicial power, over and above women, and far more likely to be in a position to knife, disembowel or whatever predecessors, superiors, rivals.
Kim@75 – that’s a partial definition of femme fatale.
I don’t want to try and write a mini thesis on it, but I’d argue that the popular, culturally shared and understood, and loved by women, femme fatale of the recent past, in Hollywood films of the 40-50s and later incarnations, brought to life by actors not necessarily conventionally beautiful or sexually attractive to most men, such as Barbara Stanwyck, Bette Davis, Joan Crawford and others, were indeed feminist heroes.
Maybe not everyone’s ideal of feminism, but feminist nevertheless.
tigtog@76
No, a feminine practice may or not be exclusively gendered. I contest that referring to the state of a person’s fingernails in the immediate aftermath of a metaphorical assassination is gendered. In fact, such a reference is more likely to refer to males given that males are generally in positions of political, executive or judicial power, over and above women, and far more likely to be in a position to knife, disembowel or whatever predecessors, superiors, rivals.
Kim@75 – that’s a partial definition of femme fatale.
I don’t want to try and write a mini thesis on it, but I’d argue that the popular, culturally shared and understood, and loved by women, femme fatale of the recent past, in Hollywood films of the 40-50s and later incarnations, brought to life by actors not necessarily conventionally beautiful or sexually attractive to most men, such as Barbara Stanwyck, Bette Davis, Joan Crawford and others, were indeed feminist heroes.
Maybe not everyone’s ideal of feminism, but feminist nevertheless.
Rebekka at 68: But, I think if you check you won’t find that many attacks on Rudd in December 2006.
Rebekka at 68: But, I think if you check you won’t find that many attacks on Rudd in December 2006.
@77 – fair enough, Moze, and there was a tendency in neo-noir films to reappropriate the femme fatale figure in a pro-feminist, or at least, more gender aware and ironic direction.
But I don’t want to have that discussion (interesting as it might be) on this thread.
@77 – fair enough, Moze, and there was a tendency in neo-noir films to reappropriate the femme fatale figure in a pro-feminist, or at least, more gender aware and ironic direction.
But I don’t want to have that discussion (interesting as it might be) on this thread.
For those above who tried, you can’t win an argument about misogyny on this site. Just trust me on that.
It seems that every comment, and every cartoon, and every statement, about Julia Gillard is going to be analysed as to whether it was sexist or otherwise, regardless of the intent of the person making the comment, drawing the cartoon, or making the statement.
If JG makes a policy decision that is not necessarily “pro-feminist,” for whatever reason she may have at the time, she will be attacked by people who think that as a woman, all her decisions should be “pro-feminist,” even though her decision may be in line with her party’s policy, her own personal principles, or simply what she believes to be the best decision at the time, (after all, she is a politician). Anna Bligh is in a similar position, which suggests it will happen with JG.
I noticed yesterday that Peter Fitzsimmons, in his column in the Sun-Herald, said, “Of course Julia Gillard should get an expanded clothing allowance as Prime Minister,” and went on to point out that a male politician can get away with “three dark suits and 20 ties,” but as a female politician, JG is subject to 20 times the scrutiny, and if she wore the same dress twice in 6 months, it would be noticed. Although I don’t think much of Fitzsimmons, I agree with him here, but it is obviously sexist to suggest that a female PM should be treated differently because she is female, even though I doubt Fitzsimmons would get much argument from anyone on this thread. Realistically, doing the “sexist” thing, and giving her a higher allowance because of her gender is the best thing to do here, but then again, to do so could be seen as giving in to a “sexist” expectation.
The mere expectation by people that JG will be a different sort of PM simply because she is female, is sexist in nature, but then, if no-one expected her to be any different from a male PM, what would be the point of getting excited because she is the first woman in that job? It is almost as if some sexism is acceptable, but some is not. How does one tell the difference?
Casey, I don’t want to get into an argument, but I think that everyone is sexist to some extent, even if they don’t necessarily see themselves that way. Life itself, aside from the social structures etc that humans have created, is sexist, because it divides people into two genders, and we all see things from the perpsective of who we are. JG is going to be criticised, lampooned, mocked, and have outrageous cartoons drawn to represent her, and that’s just a fact of life. It’s going to happen whether people like it or not, so what is the point of stressing out over whether they are motivated by “sexism” or not. Sometimes they will be, and sometimes they won’t.
I’m not excusing sexism, but just pointing out that we all have an element of sexism in us. Isn’t looking at JG in terms of gender politics, because she is a woman, just buying into the whole sexist thing?
For those above who tried, you can’t win an argument about misogyny on this site. Just trust me on that.
It seems that every comment, and every cartoon, and every statement, about Julia Gillard is going to be analysed as to whether it was sexist or otherwise, regardless of the intent of the person making the comment, drawing the cartoon, or making the statement.
If JG makes a policy decision that is not necessarily “pro-feminist,” for whatever reason she may have at the time, she will be attacked by people who think that as a woman, all her decisions should be “pro-feminist,” even though her decision may be in line with her party’s policy, her own personal principles, or simply what she believes to be the best decision at the time, (after all, she is a politician). Anna Bligh is in a similar position, which suggests it will happen with JG.
I noticed yesterday that Peter Fitzsimmons, in his column in the Sun-Herald, said, “Of course Julia Gillard should get an expanded clothing allowance as Prime Minister,” and went on to point out that a male politician can get away with “three dark suits and 20 ties,” but as a female politician, JG is subject to 20 times the scrutiny, and if she wore the same dress twice in 6 months, it would be noticed. Although I don’t think much of Fitzsimmons, I agree with him here, but it is obviously sexist to suggest that a female PM should be treated differently because she is female, even though I doubt Fitzsimmons would get much argument from anyone on this thread. Realistically, doing the “sexist” thing, and giving her a higher allowance because of her gender is the best thing to do here, but then again, to do so could be seen as giving in to a “sexist” expectation.
The mere expectation by people that JG will be a different sort of PM simply because she is female, is sexist in nature, but then, if no-one expected her to be any different from a male PM, what would be the point of getting excited because she is the first woman in that job? It is almost as if some sexism is acceptable, but some is not. How does one tell the difference?
Casey, I don’t want to get into an argument, but I think that everyone is sexist to some extent, even if they don’t necessarily see themselves that way. Life itself, aside from the social structures etc that humans have created, is sexist, because it divides people into two genders, and we all see things from the perpsective of who we are. JG is going to be criticised, lampooned, mocked, and have outrageous cartoons drawn to represent her, and that’s just a fact of life. It’s going to happen whether people like it or not, so what is the point of stressing out over whether they are motivated by “sexism” or not. Sometimes they will be, and sometimes they won’t.
I’m not excusing sexism, but just pointing out that we all have an element of sexism in us. Isn’t looking at JG in terms of gender politics, because she is a woman, just buying into the whole sexist thing?
Mindy @ 64 said:
Well I probably don’t know enough to talk in matriarchy/patriarchy terms and how that changes things. But I think that most men when they’re at the age when they have young children and making these sorts of decisions have very little influence over the environment they work in.
Mindy @ 64 said:
Well I probably don’t know enough to talk in matriarchy/patriarchy terms and how that changes things. But I think that most men when they’re at the age when they have young children and making these sorts of decisions have very little influence over the environment they work in.
Absolutely Chris, but when they do they have to be willing to give other young blokes the opportunities – to have flexible working arrangements and time with their kids – they never had. /derail.
@ Phillip – all JG need do is channel the People’s Princess and the Queen. Both ladies often appeared in the same outfit, cleverly altered (and in the Queen’s case still does) to make a new outfit fit for the occasion.
Absolutely Chris, but when they do they have to be willing to give other young blokes the opportunities – to have flexible working arrangements and time with their kids – they never had. /derail.
@ Phillip – all JG need do is channel the People’s Princess and the Queen. Both ladies often appeared in the same outfit, cleverly altered (and in the Queen’s case still does) to make a new outfit fit for the occasion.
Are you serious?
Are you serious?
From Skeptic Lawyer, an exceptionally talented and insightful woman who refuses to succumb to the cult of victimhood: “Single people who never have kids (of which I am one) can cry me a river. Life is made immensely easier for a woman if she opts not to have kids: no gender pay gap, an uninterrupted income stream for pension purposes, steady (male equivalent) career advances.”
http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2010/06/01/paid-maternity-leave/#comment-69573
From Skeptic Lawyer, an exceptionally talented and insightful woman who refuses to succumb to the cult of victimhood: “Single people who never have kids (of which I am one) can cry me a river. Life is made immensely easier for a woman if she opts not to have kids: no gender pay gap, an uninterrupted income stream for pension purposes, steady (male equivalent) career advances.”
http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2010/06/01/paid-maternity-leave/#comment-69573
“Rebekka at 68: But, I think if you check you won’t find that many attacks on Rudd in December 2006.”
@JohnL, yes, exactly my point. John @16 said “The media’s been a bloody sight easier on her than Kevin Rudd. They attacked him personally almost every time they mentioned him.”
I was pointing out that the media wasn’t attacking Rudd when he’d only been leader for a matter of weeks either.
“Rebekka at 68: But, I think if you check you won’t find that many attacks on Rudd in December 2006.”
@JohnL, yes, exactly my point. John @16 said “The media’s been a bloody sight easier on her than Kevin Rudd. They attacked him personally almost every time they mentioned him.”
I was pointing out that the media wasn’t attacking Rudd when he’d only been leader for a matter of weeks either.
Every single one of Skepticlawyer’s points is bullshit.
I doubt they are even worth refuting for most people reading here.
Every single one of Skepticlawyer’s points is bullshit.
I doubt they are even worth refuting for most people reading here.
@83 — Sadly Helen, he is serious. None so blind as those who will not etc. etc.
Phillip, it’s an historic precedent, which people may well feel excited about, for a woman to become political leader of Australia (it’ll be even more historic and exciting if she wins the election) for the same reason that people got excited about the election of Obama in the USA.
Hint: women’s struggle for equality did not end with enfranchisement in 1901, any more than it has ended with the appointment of Julia Gillard as Prime Minister in 2010.
And that’s all the help you’ll be getting from me. Work it out for yourself.
@83 — Sadly Helen, he is serious. None so blind as those who will not etc. etc.
Phillip, it’s an historic precedent, which people may well feel excited about, for a woman to become political leader of Australia (it’ll be even more historic and exciting if she wins the election) for the same reason that people got excited about the election of Obama in the USA.
Hint: women’s struggle for equality did not end with enfranchisement in 1901, any more than it has ended with the appointment of Julia Gillard as Prime Minister in 2010.
And that’s all the help you’ll be getting from me. Work it out for yourself.
Helen,
I was serious. Obviously I can see the point in getting excited, for all sorts of reasons. However, her gender is always going to be a subject of discussion, and there will always be those who look for the sexist angle. I believe that no matter what she does, there will be people whingeing about it. All PM’s have that problem, but unfortunately in this imperfect world, JG will have another dimension to deal with because of her gender. I really don’t see any way of “fixing” that.
Helen,
I was serious. Obviously I can see the point in getting excited, for all sorts of reasons. However, her gender is always going to be a subject of discussion, and there will always be those who look for the sexist angle. I believe that no matter what she does, there will be people whingeing about it. All PM’s have that problem, but unfortunately in this imperfect world, JG will have another dimension to deal with because of her gender. I really don’t see any way of “fixing” that.
Mercurius says:
“Hint: women’s struggle for equality did not end with enfranchisement in 1901, any more than it has ended with the appointment of Julia Gillard as Prime Minister in 2010.”
Well, Mercurius, here’s some facts that suggest the picture is rather more complicated:
- females now routinely outperform males in year 12 and thus have a broader range of options for tertiary study
- females outnumber males in prestige university courses like law and medicine and have done so for a number of years now
- females are significantly less likely than males to commit suicide
- females are significantly less likely than males to be victims of violence
- females are significantly less likely than males to be imprisoned
- females live longer than males
- according to international research by the Pew Research Centre, females are happier than males
- etc…
Of course there is work still to be done, but let’s not risk our credibility by exaggerating the differentials.
Mercurius says:
“Hint: women’s struggle for equality did not end with enfranchisement in 1901, any more than it has ended with the appointment of Julia Gillard as Prime Minister in 2010.”
Well, Mercurius, here’s some facts that suggest the picture is rather more complicated:
- females now routinely outperform males in year 12 and thus have a broader range of options for tertiary study
- females outnumber males in prestige university courses like law and medicine and have done so for a number of years now
- females are significantly less likely than males to commit suicide
- females are significantly less likely than males to be victims of violence
- females are significantly less likely than males to be imprisoned
- females live longer than males
- according to international research by the Pew Research Centre, females are happier than males
- etc…
Of course there is work still to be done, but let’s not risk our credibility by exaggerating the differentials.
Oh, well, everything’s obviously fine then salient. Silly us. I’ll be expecting appointments to boards and invitations to be a CEO/run in a safe seat any minute then.
Oh, well, everything’s obviously fine then salient. Silly us. I’ll be expecting appointments to boards and invitations to be a CEO/run in a safe seat any minute then.
Oh noes salient believes the men’s movement propaganda. Objective measures of equality fail (him?) however when he collapses into a list of how badly done by men are with:
Yes, yes and men are far more likely to die from prostate cancer as well. What about that then, eh?
This is the politics of victimhood run by men who have confused the category of class disadvantage with gender disadvantage. For example, if you unpack the stats on women who live longer than men you’ll find that class and ethnicity are much more significant factors than gender. Aboriginal mortality rates are clearly much more determined by Aboriginality than gender. Simlarly, OH+S rates of mortality and morbidity are are intersected much more by class (ie, relative powerlessness) than by gender.
Overwhelmingly, I repeat overwhelmingly women and children are the victims of DV. No other stat matters so much as this one because the domestic reign of terror exercised by men over women and children robs those parties of the security necessary to the exercise of their full rights as citizens.
If you expected that particular fusillage comrade then perhaps it might be better to keep your head below the parapet.
Oh noes salient believes the men’s movement propaganda. Objective measures of equality fail (him?) however when he collapses into a list of how badly done by men are with:
Yes, yes and men are far more likely to die from prostate cancer as well. What about that then, eh?
This is the politics of victimhood run by men who have confused the category of class disadvantage with gender disadvantage. For example, if you unpack the stats on women who live longer than men you’ll find that class and ethnicity are much more significant factors than gender. Aboriginal mortality rates are clearly much more determined by Aboriginality than gender. Simlarly, OH+S rates of mortality and morbidity are are intersected much more by class (ie, relative powerlessness) than by gender.
Overwhelmingly, I repeat overwhelmingly women and children are the victims of DV. No other stat matters so much as this one because the domestic reign of terror exercised by men over women and children robs those parties of the security necessary to the exercise of their full rights as citizens.
If you expected that particular fusillage comrade then perhaps it might be better to keep your head below the parapet.
“Overwhelmingly, I repeat overwhelmingly women and children are the victims of DV. No other stat matters so much as this one because the domestic reign of terror exercised by men over women and children robs those parties of the security necessary to the exercise of their full rights as citizens.”
Actually I think you’ll find that men in gay relationships and women in lesbian relationships experience DV at about the same rate as women in heterosexual relationships. This is very well documented.
“The typical image of a battered woman is a heterosexual woman attempting to hide a black eye in the grocery store. But domestic violence does not just happen to straight couples. Domestic violence statistics show that violence is just as prevalent in gay and lesbian relationships as it is in heterosexual couples. In fact, 30% of couples struggle with domestic violence of some sort. ” http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianhealth/a/DVFactsMyths.htm
The existence of a relationship itself is thus more central to DV causation than gender.
Let’s keep to the facts.
“Overwhelmingly, I repeat overwhelmingly women and children are the victims of DV. No other stat matters so much as this one because the domestic reign of terror exercised by men over women and children robs those parties of the security necessary to the exercise of their full rights as citizens.”
Actually I think you’ll find that men in gay relationships and women in lesbian relationships experience DV at about the same rate as women in heterosexual relationships. This is very well documented.
“The typical image of a battered woman is a heterosexual woman attempting to hide a black eye in the grocery store. But domestic violence does not just happen to straight couples. Domestic violence statistics show that violence is just as prevalent in gay and lesbian relationships as it is in heterosexual couples. In fact, 30% of couples struggle with domestic violence of some sort. ” http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianhealth/a/DVFactsMyths.htm
The existence of a relationship itself is thus more central to DV causation than gender.
Let’s keep to the facts.
Hmmm. If it is that well documented you won’t have trouble providing links to reliable sources then eh? In terms of the raw numbers I’ll stand by my point unless you claim that there are more women and children involved in DV relationships centred within gay and lesbian couples in which case I’ll really be very interested in seeing a link to sources. No-one disputes that DV crosses sexxual preference boundaries but the numbers…?
Hmmm. If it is that well documented you won’t have trouble providing links to reliable sources then eh? In terms of the raw numbers I’ll stand by my point unless you claim that there are more women and children involved in DV relationships centred within gay and lesbian couples in which case I’ll really be very interested in seeing a link to sources. No-one disputes that DV crosses sexxual preference boundaries but the numbers…?
This furphy has come up before, I’m not sure whether from salient or someone else. Let me just observe that there are incidents of DV in lesbian relationships, but anyone who thinks that lesbian relationships aren’t touched to some degree by patriarchal culture has never been in one.
salient appears to be on a one person crusade to prove that there is no such thing as sexism in our culture. That’s not the topic of the post, I thought. People might try to at least stay vaguely relevant to it. This thread isn’t supposed to be a sounding board for people to air their views on gender relations generally. Thanks.
This furphy has come up before, I’m not sure whether from salient or someone else. Let me just observe that there are incidents of DV in lesbian relationships, but anyone who thinks that lesbian relationships aren’t touched to some degree by patriarchal culture has never been in one.
salient appears to be on a one person crusade to prove that there is no such thing as sexism in our culture. That’s not the topic of the post, I thought. People might try to at least stay vaguely relevant to it. This thread isn’t supposed to be a sounding board for people to air their views on gender relations generally. Thanks.
“salient appears to be on a one person crusade to prove that there is no such thing as sexism in our culture.”
Actually I very clearly said there is sexism in our culture but that it is pointless and counterproductive to exaggerate it. I also very reasonably put forward evidence that shows the current day reality is rather more complicated and messy than left culture warriors are prepared to admit.
What does this have to do with Gillard? Well I’m suggesting that “misogyny” and “patriarchy” are a minor, although not insignificant, factor in how she is treated by the public, media etc..
Anthony, as much as I’d like to continue our discussion Kim owns this thread and I take #94 as a ban on further comment.
“salient appears to be on a one person crusade to prove that there is no such thing as sexism in our culture.”
Actually I very clearly said there is sexism in our culture but that it is pointless and counterproductive to exaggerate it. I also very reasonably put forward evidence that shows the current day reality is rather more complicated and messy than left culture warriors are prepared to admit.
What does this have to do with Gillard? Well I’m suggesting that “misogyny” and “patriarchy” are a minor, although not insignificant, factor in how she is treated by the public, media etc..
Anthony, as much as I’d like to continue our discussion Kim owns this thread and I take #94 as a ban on further comment.
What does this have to do with Gillard? Well I’m suggesting that “misogyny” and “patriarchy” are a minor, although not insignificant, factor in how she is treated by the public, media etc..
So why not stay on topic and talk about that?
I take #94 as a ban on further comment.
No it isn’t (see above).
What does this have to do with Gillard? Well I’m suggesting that “misogyny” and “patriarchy” are a minor, although not insignificant, factor in how she is treated by the public, media etc..
So why not stay on topic and talk about that?
I take #94 as a ban on further comment.
No it isn’t (see above).
Sorry, didn’t mean to derail but was responding to silliness.
There will continue to be a subterranean percolation of sexist commentary and language about La Gillardine and it will generally come from the mass media who will eventually whip themselves into a frenzy of speculation and a froth of commentary over gender bias because they are too lazy or inept to pay serious attention to agenda issues. La Gillardine will live or die in the job on her improved policy results over Rudd of which, so far, no sign yet. The Timor solution is a dud piece of neo-colonialism that reeks of paternalism towards the Timorese. I bumbed into Lee Rhiannon (Greens, NSW Upper House) handing out ‘Green Voice’ at my local railway station yesterday morning in the chill. She’s running for Federal Senate. Now, there is a left wing woman I can trust.
Sorry, didn’t mean to derail but was responding to silliness.
There will continue to be a subterranean percolation of sexist commentary and language about La Gillardine and it will generally come from the mass media who will eventually whip themselves into a frenzy of speculation and a froth of commentary over gender bias because they are too lazy or inept to pay serious attention to agenda issues. La Gillardine will live or die in the job on her improved policy results over Rudd of which, so far, no sign yet. The Timor solution is a dud piece of neo-colonialism that reeks of paternalism towards the Timorese. I bumbed into Lee Rhiannon (Greens, NSW Upper House) handing out ‘Green Voice’ at my local railway station yesterday morning in the chill. She’s running for Federal Senate. Now, there is a left wing woman I can trust.
Now, when I say that I “bumbed into her” I should add that I did in fact misspell my way towards her but she gave me the money for coffee so all was good.
Now, when I say that I “bumbed into her” I should add that I did in fact misspell my way towards her but she gave me the money for coffee so all was good.
Anthony, given the source, I hope you proceeded to buy a rainforest-friendly Fair Trade coffee in a bring-your-own-mug!
Anthony, given the source, I hope you proceeded to buy a rainforest-friendly Fair Trade coffee in a bring-your-own-mug!
I hope everyone buys that sort of coffee whenever they buy coffee.
I hope everyone buys that sort of coffee whenever they buy coffee.
I’ve just deleted 9 comments about femme fatales, and domestic violence, and arguing about comments and moderation.
*No* further off topic comments will be tolerated, and any further off topic comments will see the commenter go into moderation.
Please also note that it is contrary to the comments policy to discusss moderation on thread, and anyone who wishes to raise something about moderation should instead email our administrator address.
Thanks.
I’ve just deleted 9 comments about femme fatales, and domestic violence, and arguing about comments and moderation.
*No* further off topic comments will be tolerated, and any further off topic comments will see the commenter go into moderation.
Please also note that it is contrary to the comments policy to discusss moderation on thread, and anyone who wishes to raise something about moderation should instead email our administrator address.
Thanks.
It might be a long bow to draw in actual outcome given the record of other female heads of state historically but it does follow and is reasonable to assume that the excitement attendant on the ascension of an Australian woman to the highest political office, accompanied as it obviously is by heightened feminist expectations of her leadership, that JG’s supporters trust she will use her position to improve the lives of (not exclusively) but certainly women in general.
So, then, precisely what policies or statements indicate that JG as PM will in fact advance or even address women’s specific interests and needs?
It might be a long bow to draw in actual outcome given the record of other female heads of state historically but it does follow and is reasonable to assume that the excitement attendant on the ascension of an Australian woman to the highest political office, accompanied as it obviously is by heightened feminist expectations of her leadership, that JG’s supporters trust she will use her position to improve the lives of (not exclusively) but certainly women in general.
So, then, precisely what policies or statements indicate that JG as PM will in fact advance or even address women’s specific interests and needs?
@102 – Moze, on that, see Anne Summers’ piece I linked to in the post for her past record.
My understanding based on what I’ve seen happening is that she’s chosen to tell her story in terms of being the daughter of migrants rather than emphasise her gender, and the significance of her achievement as the first female PM. So I suspect that’s why we don’t have an answer to your question.
Mind you, the Rudd government hardly trumpeted what it was doing on issues of specific concern to women…
@102 – Moze, on that, see Anne Summers’ piece I linked to in the post for her past record.
My understanding based on what I’ve seen happening is that she’s chosen to tell her story in terms of being the daughter of migrants rather than emphasise her gender, and the significance of her achievement as the first female PM. So I suspect that’s why we don’t have an answer to your question.
Mind you, the Rudd government hardly trumpeted what it was doing on issues of specific concern to women…
Well, given that she’s currently rating at appx the same as Rudd prior to his sacking she had better win the upcoming election or, gender aside for the moment, she’ll be seen as the biggest Labor turkey in memory. No competititon, Latham included.
As to gender, I pin no hopes on La Guillotine to advance the particular cause of women and would hope, should she lose the election, that her acions in disposing of Rudd aren’t used against the general cause of women’s liberation. But you never know.
Well, given that she’s currently rating at appx the same as Rudd prior to his sacking she had better win the upcoming election or, gender aside for the moment, she’ll be seen as the biggest Labor turkey in memory. No competititon, Latham included.
As to gender, I pin no hopes on La Guillotine to advance the particular cause of women and would hope, should she lose the election, that her acions in disposing of Rudd aren’t used against the general cause of women’s liberation. But you never know.
Kim, it’s a telling sign of the times in many ways. In so many areas including wages, all the gender differentiated categories and types of employment, hours, childcare provision, t’s hard to see what any government can do to address women’s exploitation and disadvantage unless radically different tax and other policies are first instituted.
And if government is hard pressed or reluctant to address these things through whatever possible means available, what incentive exists or why should we hope that the private sector is going to invest and capacity build in such a way as to build community, provide necessary infrastructure from transport systems to equitable education and healthcare, housing provision. And these are just the basics. Admittedly all these goods are foundational, but they still don’t address women’s specific needs do they?
Kim, it’s a telling sign of the times in many ways. In so many areas including wages, all the gender differentiated categories and types of employment, hours, childcare provision, t’s hard to see what any government can do to address women’s exploitation and disadvantage unless radically different tax and other policies are first instituted.
And if government is hard pressed or reluctant to address these things through whatever possible means available, what incentive exists or why should we hope that the private sector is going to invest and capacity build in such a way as to build community, provide necessary infrastructure from transport systems to equitable education and healthcare, housing provision. And these are just the basics. Admittedly all these goods are foundational, but they still don’t address women’s specific needs do they?
@105 – a start has been made on wages, Moze, and it was good to see Gillard specifically backing the test case on work value for the childcare sector. But, in many ways, the FWA Act is inferior to some state legislation which was superseded by WorkChoices. And despite vigorous campaigns by unions and other groups, these issues are just not discussed in any great detail publicly or seemingly seen as priorities for state action.
@105 – a start has been made on wages, Moze, and it was good to see Gillard specifically backing the test case on work value for the childcare sector. But, in many ways, the FWA Act is inferior to some state legislation which was superseded by WorkChoices. And despite vigorous campaigns by unions and other groups, these issues are just not discussed in any great detail publicly or seemingly seen as priorities for state action.
I think work value cases were used in the 80s to increase nurses’ wages. But we still have a nursing shortage which latterly has come about not so much a result of a shortage of actual potential employees, new graduates, or of experienced practitioners who’d opted out because of the crap pay and conditions, but because of the inability of the public sector to accommodate (literally) and pay for the nurses willing to work in our hospitals.
I think work value cases were used in the 80s to increase nurses’ wages. But we still have a nursing shortage which latterly has come about not so much a result of a shortage of actual potential employees, new graduates, or of experienced practitioners who’d opted out because of the crap pay and conditions, but because of the inability of the public sector to accommodate (literally) and pay for the nurses willing to work in our hospitals.
I work in the state public sector. The pay differentials in low to middle level staff across agencies are mind blowing, thanks to the abolition of comparative wage justice, the taming and gutting of unions, and the intro of enterprise bargaining/ Proud ALP achievements one and all.
Pay levels are often completely arbitrary. It’s not just a gender bias either. It’s a bias or discrimination against those who have less power, for a myriad of reasons. In practice it means people with identical job descriptions or who are required to do much more useful and essential work than others are paid far less for reasons ranging from lack of patronage to the elevation of certain “skills”, such as balancing budgets and project planning, rather than say literacy, radical policy development or actual delivery of services, or even the attempt of genuine taxpayer accountability, transparency, ethical business conduct, grassroots community consultation etc.
I work in the state public sector. The pay differentials in low to middle level staff across agencies are mind blowing, thanks to the abolition of comparative wage justice, the taming and gutting of unions, and the intro of enterprise bargaining/ Proud ALP achievements one and all.
Pay levels are often completely arbitrary. It’s not just a gender bias either. It’s a bias or discrimination against those who have less power, for a myriad of reasons. In practice it means people with identical job descriptions or who are required to do much more useful and essential work than others are paid far less for reasons ranging from lack of patronage to the elevation of certain “skills”, such as balancing budgets and project planning, rather than say literacy, radical policy development or actual delivery of services, or even the attempt of genuine taxpayer accountability, transparency, ethical business conduct, grassroots community consultation etc.
Anthony Nolan @ 104, “Well, given that she’s currently rating at appx the same as Rudd prior to his sacking she had better win the upcoming election or, gender aside for the moment, she’ll be seen as the biggest Labor turkey in memory.”
By rating, I assume you actually mean Labor’s 2PP rating, not her rating as preferred PM, on which scale she is outrating Rudd by a long way.
“As to gender, I pin no hopes on La Guillotine to advance the particular cause of women”
Why not? She identifies as a feminist, she’s strongly pro-choice, and she was responsible for drafting Labor’s affirmative action targets. She’s also on the record as being disturbed by raunch culture. That’s ticking most of my boxes to say that the causes (note the s) of women will get more emphasis under a leader who not only cares about those issues but has also experienced the effects of them herself.
Anthony Nolan @ 104, “Well, given that she’s currently rating at appx the same as Rudd prior to his sacking she had better win the upcoming election or, gender aside for the moment, she’ll be seen as the biggest Labor turkey in memory.”
By rating, I assume you actually mean Labor’s 2PP rating, not her rating as preferred PM, on which scale she is outrating Rudd by a long way.
“As to gender, I pin no hopes on La Guillotine to advance the particular cause of women”
Why not? She identifies as a feminist, she’s strongly pro-choice, and she was responsible for drafting Labor’s affirmative action targets. She’s also on the record as being disturbed by raunch culture. That’s ticking most of my boxes to say that the causes (note the s) of women will get more emphasis under a leader who not only cares about those issues but has also experienced the effects of them herself.
Rebecca: we’ll see I guess but my view of the Labor mates is that she won’t be able to advance any specific policies unless they can be shown the guarantee of electoral advantage. So, no moves for her that do not have immense broad based support.
Rebecca: we’ll see I guess but my view of the Labor mates is that she won’t be able to advance any specific policies unless they can be shown the guarantee of electoral advantage. So, no moves for her that do not have immense broad based support.
Bloody well hope so. Elections are won at the middle. I don’t understand people who want the ALP to be the Greens.
They seem to want to be able to Vote 1 Greens and Vote 2 Greens. Bit unreasonable.
I don’t understand people who prefer electoral loss to policy pragmatism.
I don’t understand people who blame majority political attitudes on a lack of political leadership.
People (with a strong dose of mass-media) know their own minds. And they vote them. Tony Abbott is a hell of an opponent. He has no scruples. Very hard to defend against.
Bloody well hope so. Elections are won at the middle. I don’t understand people who want the ALP to be the Greens.
They seem to want to be able to Vote 1 Greens and Vote 2 Greens. Bit unreasonable.
I don’t understand people who prefer electoral loss to policy pragmatism.
I don’t understand people who blame majority political attitudes on a lack of political leadership.
People (with a strong dose of mass-media) know their own minds. And they vote them. Tony Abbott is a hell of an opponent. He has no scruples. Very hard to defend against.
If the Labor party was a party cpable of representing the interests of the working classes then I’d be content with that.
The ABCC still exists and has astonishing powers that go beyond even those powers given to national security agencies. No moves from the ALP, or Gillard, to disband it despite it being the single most serious attack on industrial citizenship in Australian history.
So it is the Greens 1 and I’m very happy to do so after examining their policies.
If the Labor party was a party cpable of representing the interests of the working classes then I’d be content with that.
The ABCC still exists and has astonishing powers that go beyond even those powers given to national security agencies. No moves from the ALP, or Gillard, to disband it despite it being the single most serious attack on industrial citizenship in Australian history.
So it is the Greens 1 and I’m very happy to do so after examining their policies.
Last year Rudd not only used the term “evil” in regard to people smugglers, he went on to say they were “scum of the earth” and should “rot in hell”. Was there an outpouring of disgust at Rudd’s language amongst the broadly progressive/pro labor? No. Double standard? Yes.
Last year Rudd not only used the term “evil” in regard to people smugglers, he went on to say they were “scum of the earth” and should “rot in hell”. Was there an outpouring of disgust at Rudd’s language amongst the broadly progressive/pro labor? No. Double standard? Yes.
su, I think you’re wrong on the first count, and therefore wrong on the second.
su, I think you’re wrong on the first count, and therefore wrong on the second.
Oh rubbish Adrian, there is not one skerrick of outrage on that thread, there are measured examinations of the rhetoric with a whole lot of analysis of the realpolitik Rudd faced, nothing at all like the recent thread on Gillard.
Oh rubbish Adrian, there is not one skerrick of outrage on that thread, there are measured examinations of the rhetoric with a whole lot of analysis of the realpolitik Rudd faced, nothing at all like the recent thread on Gillard.
Lol – your own contribution on that thread was to, wait for it, blame the MSM! I’m glad
Lol – your own contribution on that thread was to, wait for it, blame the MSM! I’m glad
Whoops. I’m glad, at least, that a woman as PM has prompted you to abandon that tack.
Whoops. I’m glad, at least, that a woman as PM has prompted you to abandon that tack.
Exactly.
Exactly.
I guess you see what you want to see, su. That thread, which is just one example among others, was a robust discussion with criticism of Rudd’s language and attitude.
Before claiming double standard you should acknowledge that Gillard has taken Labor policy further to the right on this issue, and that in large part is the reason for the ‘outpouring of disgust’. I think you also need to acknowledge the understandable reaxtion to the way in which Rudd was overthrown, and the reasonable expectation that it might have been for a reason, and that reason may have had something to do with actual policy.
As it stands, from a progressive perspective the coup was a betrayal of the left, because it has undoubtedly resulted in even more policy deterioration.
I actually think that the double standard comes from those rusted on Laborites and/or Gillard acolytes who would be screaming to high heaven if Howard had adopted the kind of policies we see from Gillard.
I guess you see what you want to see, su. That thread, which is just one example among others, was a robust discussion with criticism of Rudd’s language and attitude.
Before claiming double standard you should acknowledge that Gillard has taken Labor policy further to the right on this issue, and that in large part is the reason for the ‘outpouring of disgust’. I think you also need to acknowledge the understandable reaxtion to the way in which Rudd was overthrown, and the reasonable expectation that it might have been for a reason, and that reason may have had something to do with actual policy.
As it stands, from a progressive perspective the coup was a betrayal of the left, because it has undoubtedly resulted in even more policy deterioration.
I actually think that the double standard comes from those rusted on Laborites and/or Gillard acolytes who would be screaming to high heaven if Howard had adopted the kind of policies we see from Gillard.
There’s a lot of double standards around the asylum seeker debate. The proposed regional processing solution is something that Howard would have been proud of. And I’m sure if he had suggested it whilst in government there would have been widespread opposition to it by ALP supporters. And yet when Gillard proposes it, its apparently seen by many in the ALP to be a reasonable solution.
As others have suggested before, a lot of public debate on politics is about barracking for your team, not looking at the actual policy. And so you end up with quite contradictory views of the same policy because people are Rudd supporters, Gillard supporters, ALP supporters, Abbott supporters, liberal supporters etc and they judge ideas on who proposes them, not an analysis of the idea.
There’s a lot of double standards around the asylum seeker debate. The proposed regional processing solution is something that Howard would have been proud of. And I’m sure if he had suggested it whilst in government there would have been widespread opposition to it by ALP supporters. And yet when Gillard proposes it, its apparently seen by many in the ALP to be a reasonable solution.
As others have suggested before, a lot of public debate on politics is about barracking for your team, not looking at the actual policy. And so you end up with quite contradictory views of the same policy because people are Rudd supporters, Gillard supporters, ALP supporters, Abbott supporters, liberal supporters etc and they judge ideas on who proposes them, not an analysis of the idea.
‘I’m glad, at least, that a woman as PM has prompted you to abandon that tack.’
Believe me, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with Gillard being a woman, and I’m beginning to resent this implication. Nothing could be further from the truth.
‘I’m glad, at least, that a woman as PM has prompted you to abandon that tack.’
Believe me, it’s got absolutely nothing to do with Gillard being a woman, and I’m beginning to resent this implication. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I absolutely agree with your last sentence Chris @ 120. But since this is a thread about gender, that was my focus. The extreme language that has been directed at Gillard and people’s sudden discovery of their idealism, an idealism that will lead them to drop their support for Labor in 2010, instead of last year when the rhetoric was at its most extreme or in the nineties when Labor introduced detention or in the 80′s when Labor described Cambodian refugees as queue jumpers is highly suspicious and I attribute it at least partly to different expectations of male vs female politicians. It is no coincidence that now, when a woman is PM, all of a sudden Labor is beyond the pale. BTW I am a long time Green voter and prior to that I voted for the Dems.
Adrian, have you noticed that you and others have been simultaneously claiming that Gillard has not altered the policy direction established by Rudd and therefore there was no justification for leadership change, and also that she is lurching to the right. Make up your mind.
I absolutely agree with your last sentence Chris @ 120. But since this is a thread about gender, that was my focus. The extreme language that has been directed at Gillard and people’s sudden discovery of their idealism, an idealism that will lead them to drop their support for Labor in 2010, instead of last year when the rhetoric was at its most extreme or in the nineties when Labor introduced detention or in the 80′s when Labor described Cambodian refugees as queue jumpers is highly suspicious and I attribute it at least partly to different expectations of male vs female politicians. It is no coincidence that now, when a woman is PM, all of a sudden Labor is beyond the pale. BTW I am a long time Green voter and prior to that I voted for the Dems.
Adrian, have you noticed that you and others have been simultaneously claiming that Gillard has not altered the policy direction established by Rudd and therefore there was no justification for leadership change, and also that she is lurching to the right. Make up your mind.
@wbb, I couldn’t agree more. Someone on a previous thread referred to “bad policy that appeals to middle Australia”. Talk about a lack of fundamental respect for democracy.
@antony nolan, more than half the electorate is women. Done the right way, there is clearly electoral advantage in “women’s issues”. I have no doubt that Labor insiders are watching the gender split closely, given the gender disparity in the Labor vote in 2007 (i.e more women voted Liberal, more men voted Labor).
@wbb, I couldn’t agree more. Someone on a previous thread referred to “bad policy that appeals to middle Australia”. Talk about a lack of fundamental respect for democracy.
@antony nolan, more than half the electorate is women. Done the right way, there is clearly electoral advantage in “women’s issues”. I have no doubt that Labor insiders are watching the gender split closely, given the gender disparity in the Labor vote in 2007 (i.e more women voted Liberal, more men voted Labor).
su there’s actually very little ‘extreme language’ being directed at Gillard, especially if you consider the direction in which she’s taking the party. But you seem resolutely unable to engage on this issue on anything other than gender terms.
So you tell me – why was Rudd overthrown, and do you think it was justified?
su there’s actually very little ‘extreme language’ being directed at Gillard, especially if you consider the direction in which she’s taking the party. But you seem resolutely unable to engage on this issue on anything other than gender terms.
So you tell me – why was Rudd overthrown, and do you think it was justified?
I can only speak for myself, but I think what it’s about is more to do with the fact that, whatever his performance, a lot of hopes were invested in Rudd (eg. climate change, the Apology, and much as it was derided, a lot of people I know in the arts sector were genuinely enthused and heartened by the 2020 summit). There was a strong feeling for change and for long term problems being properly addressed that coincided with the 2007 election and the end of the Howard era.
Rudd’s removal from office, whatever its merits, has led to a belief that we are not going to see a government serious about doing what we think has to be done on the big issues. So we get a return to the grim world of electoral politics as usual, with a school uniform allowance and homilies on the value of hard work rather than a transformative climate change policy.
So, if we look back at the way things were talked about last year, I suspect beneath the surface there’s a view that Rudd had to tack to the right on some issues, but was doing so in order to preserve the space for acting in a progressive way on the bigger ones. That’s why the dropping of the ETS – even though it was really flawed – was such an important moment. It signified the capitulation of major reform to quotidian electoralism. So this shift predates Gillard.
I’d also point to what anthony nolan was saying about the resources tax being viewed as the last chance for Labor to frame a social democratic mode of governing.
“Better than the other mob” doesn’t inspire hope, and I fear anyway we’re odds on to get Abbott as PM.
Now, as I said in the post, there is no doubt in my mind gender stereotyping and misogyny has come into play with Julia. But it’s by no means the whole story, and I’d be wary of assuming that a lot of people who are thoroughly turned off by what’s occurred are caught within it. I think there has been something of a “disturbance in the force” and what we’re seeing is the result of that.
I can only speak for myself, but I think what it’s about is more to do with the fact that, whatever his performance, a lot of hopes were invested in Rudd (eg. climate change, the Apology, and much as it was derided, a lot of people I know in the arts sector were genuinely enthused and heartened by the 2020 summit). There was a strong feeling for change and for long term problems being properly addressed that coincided with the 2007 election and the end of the Howard era.
Rudd’s removal from office, whatever its merits, has led to a belief that we are not going to see a government serious about doing what we think has to be done on the big issues. So we get a return to the grim world of electoral politics as usual, with a school uniform allowance and homilies on the value of hard work rather than a transformative climate change policy.
So, if we look back at the way things were talked about last year, I suspect beneath the surface there’s a view that Rudd had to tack to the right on some issues, but was doing so in order to preserve the space for acting in a progressive way on the bigger ones. That’s why the dropping of the ETS – even though it was really flawed – was such an important moment. It signified the capitulation of major reform to quotidian electoralism. So this shift predates Gillard.
I’d also point to what anthony nolan was saying about the resources tax being viewed as the last chance for Labor to frame a social democratic mode of governing.
“Better than the other mob” doesn’t inspire hope, and I fear anyway we’re odds on to get Abbott as PM.
Now, as I said in the post, there is no doubt in my mind gender stereotyping and misogyny has come into play with Julia. But it’s by no means the whole story, and I’d be wary of assuming that a lot of people who are thoroughly turned off by what’s occurred are caught within it. I think there has been something of a “disturbance in the force” and what we’re seeing is the result of that.
adrian, I don’t believe su used the term “extreme language”, and as this is a thread about “gender terms”, as you put it, isn’t that what we’re meant to be discussing??
adrian, I don’t believe su used the term “extreme language”, and as this is a thread about “gender terms”, as you put it, isn’t that what we’re meant to be discussing??
Take a look at the title of this thread Adrian. I didn’t even mention gender on the long and bizarre thread which prompted my first comment here.
That’s OT and I gave my opinions as to the likely reasons based on what credible commentators said on the threads about the demise of Rudd.
Take a look at the title of this thread Adrian. I didn’t even mention gender on the long and bizarre thread which prompted my first comment here.
That’s OT and I gave my opinions as to the likely reasons based on what credible commentators said on the threads about the demise of Rudd.
Rebekka @ 126 meet su @ 122. You’ve also missed the point of my gender comment.
.
Kim @ 125 – that sums it up for me – you’ve expressed it very well.
Rebekka @ 126 meet su @ 122. You’ve also missed the point of my gender comment.
.
Kim @ 125 – that sums it up for me – you’ve expressed it very well.
@ adrian, I stand corrected on the use of the term.
I did not, however “miss the point” of your comment about gender:
This is a thread about gender terms, hello.
@ adrian, I stand corrected on the use of the term.
I did not, however “miss the point” of your comment about gender:
This is a thread about gender terms, hello.
Blood, nails, Lady Macbeth, more blood both dripping and on carpets, dresses like cheap hotel bedspreads, something else to do with her nails, iterations of the above, I could find more but it would be too depressing to go searching for this crap.
Kim I accept what you are saying, which is why I said that I thought it was at least partly due to gendered expectations.
Blood, nails, Lady Macbeth, more blood both dripping and on carpets, dresses like cheap hotel bedspreads, something else to do with her nails, iterations of the above, I could find more but it would be too depressing to go searching for this crap.
Kim I accept what you are saying, which is why I said that I thought it was at least partly due to gendered expectations.
@130 – yes, we agree, su.
I think it is important to observe the other factors, though.
@130 – yes, we agree, su.
I think it is important to observe the other factors, though.
Yes the roots of a lot of the criticism that Gillard is catching pre-date her become leader, and while some are being expressed in gendered terms would have been expressed in other ways regardless of who was currently the leader. The ALP are now paying for the unrealistically high expectations that were raised during the 2007 election campaign.
su @ 122
Given what happened to Rudd and a clear demonstration of how little power a Labor leader really has, I suspect that many of those now rather optimistic that Gillard will be able to give much more than token support to women causes are going to be rather disappointed in the long term.
Brian’s quote about Bob Hawke on his thread about asylum seekers should be a reminder to remove the rose coloured glasses that many ALP supporters acquired during the Howard years about how progressive the ALP have been in the past:
Yes the roots of a lot of the criticism that Gillard is catching pre-date her become leader, and while some are being expressed in gendered terms would have been expressed in other ways regardless of who was currently the leader. The ALP are now paying for the unrealistically high expectations that were raised during the 2007 election campaign.
su @ 122
Given what happened to Rudd and a clear demonstration of how little power a Labor leader really has, I suspect that many of those now rather optimistic that Gillard will be able to give much more than token support to women causes are going to be rather disappointed in the long term.
Brian’s quote about Bob Hawke on his thread about asylum seekers should be a reminder to remove the rose coloured glasses that many ALP supporters acquired during the Howard years about how progressive the ALP have been in the past:
Chris, #132, I’d dispute that expectations were “unrealistic”, the decisive victory offered a clear mandate for change. Murray/Darling, SerfChoices, climate change, Aboriginal affairs, boat people, repeal of the laws that created the Haneef situation- come to mind.
All of these were clear problems requiring of solutions. The only folk who held out were the rich, like the cotton industry and mining companies, these are always unwilling to put in their whack and instead pay big money into anti reform campaigns.
Had Labor ensured, through alliance with the Greens, that the relevant issues received the treatment they required, there would be less problems now, but the Ludwigs and Fergusons, etc, “forgot” who they were supposed to be representing.
Chris, #132, I’d dispute that expectations were “unrealistic”, the decisive victory offered a clear mandate for change. Murray/Darling, SerfChoices, climate change, Aboriginal affairs, boat people, repeal of the laws that created the Haneef situation- come to mind.
All of these were clear problems requiring of solutions. The only folk who held out were the rich, like the cotton industry and mining companies, these are always unwilling to put in their whack and instead pay big money into anti reform campaigns.
Had Labor ensured, through alliance with the Greens, that the relevant issues received the treatment they required, there would be less problems now, but the Ludwigs and Fergusons, etc, “forgot” who they were supposed to be representing.
@ paul walter
“but the Ludwigs and Fergusons, etc, “forgot” who they were supposed to be representing.”
Really, Labor is supposed to be representing Greens Party voters now?
@ paul walter
“but the Ludwigs and Fergusons, etc, “forgot” who they were supposed to be representing.”
Really, Labor is supposed to be representing Greens Party voters now?
Better than Clive
Palmer or the Cotton Growing ecological vandals of QLD or the forestry vandals of Tassie and Victoria, Rebekkah, you’d think?
At least Greens voters are A) ecologically informed, B) Australians and humans.
Perish the thought that politicians should represent the people, who pay their wages, rather than the vested interests who rob society and corrupt its leaders with brown paper bags full of dollars for corrupt and toxic “development”.
Better than Clive
Palmer or the Cotton Growing ecological vandals of QLD or the forestry vandals of Tassie and Victoria, Rebekkah, you’d think?
At least Greens voters are A) ecologically informed, B) Australians and humans.
Perish the thought that politicians should represent the people, who pay their wages, rather than the vested interests who rob society and corrupt its leaders with brown paper bags full of dollars for corrupt and toxic “development”.
Actually paulh, I’d say Labor should be representing the bulk of the people in the middle, not the extremes on either end.
Actually paulh, I’d say Labor should be representing the bulk of the people in the middle, not the extremes on either end.
rebekkah: I’m a bit shocked to see anyone considering ecological issues as important being described as “an extreme”. Are you serious?
rebekkah: I’m a bit shocked to see anyone considering ecological issues as important being described as “an extreme”. Are you serious?
Yes Rebekka, it would have been nice if New Labor had indeed been for “all people”, instead of robbing “all people”, to prop up scum like Johnh Grabbe(Cubbie Creek) and John Gay’s Gunns, in returnun fo whatever “backhanders” come their way via the developers, later.
But I guess it does boil down to personal choice, either you want democracy, for your children’s future or corporatism, for the benefit of the powerful and corrupt, now.
You keep the Tripodis and Lennons and Blighs. I want for some thing better than to be asked to smile, while I’m being shafted.
Yes Rebekka, it would have been nice if New Labor had indeed been for “all people”, instead of robbing “all people”, to prop up scum like Johnh Grabbe(Cubbie Creek) and John Gay’s Gunns, in returnun fo whatever “backhanders” come their way via the developers, later.
But I guess it does boil down to personal choice, either you want democracy, for your children’s future or corporatism, for the benefit of the powerful and corrupt, now.
You keep the Tripodis and Lennons and Blighs. I want for some thing better than to be asked to smile, while I’m being shafted.
” … I suspect that many of those now rather optimistic that Gillard will be able to give much more than token support to women causes are going to be rather disappointed in the long term. … ”
I was going to write something like that, Chris, but you beat me to it.
I was having a discussion with a female patron of my pub today, a lady who leans leftward herself, and she said, “We got rid of Little Johnny Howard and we got Little Johnny Rudd, and now we’ve got Little Johnny Gillard.” I think that comment drives home the point that irrespective of her gender, JG is first and foremost a politician, and in the long run, she’ll do what all politicians do, which is, whatever it takes to stay in power. At the moment, she seems to be trying to be all things to all people, and it will be interesting to see how far she can go with that.
At present, it appears that the best my side of politics can come up with is Tony Abbott, who unfortunately is a tool, so at the moment I don’t really care who wins the next election. If Julia keeps up with her present course, the only people she’ll really disappoint are the lefty-lefts, so if she keeps five-eighths of the electorate happy she’ll have more chance of keeping Labor in power. The reality is, that’s what it’s all about.
Then again, way up the post somewhere, Rebekka said,
” … She identifies as a feminist, she’s strongly pro-choice, and she was responsible for drafting Labor’s affirmative action targets. She’s also on the record as being disturbed by raunch culture. That’s ticking most of my boxes to say that the causes (note the s) of women will get more emphasis under a leader who not only cares about those issues but has also experienced the effects of them herself. … ”
I didn’t know those things about Gillard, because I was never really interested enough to find them out, so I guess having her as PM is a big foot in the door for those issues. I’m not really sure how the “raunch culture” affects her, though, or how it is likely to influence her in her role as PM. Anyway, Julia’s balancing act has got me a little more interested in politics than I have been for long time.
” … I suspect that many of those now rather optimistic that Gillard will be able to give much more than token support to women causes are going to be rather disappointed in the long term. … ”
I was going to write something like that, Chris, but you beat me to it.
I was having a discussion with a female patron of my pub today, a lady who leans leftward herself, and she said, “We got rid of Little Johnny Howard and we got Little Johnny Rudd, and now we’ve got Little Johnny Gillard.” I think that comment drives home the point that irrespective of her gender, JG is first and foremost a politician, and in the long run, she’ll do what all politicians do, which is, whatever it takes to stay in power. At the moment, she seems to be trying to be all things to all people, and it will be interesting to see how far she can go with that.
At present, it appears that the best my side of politics can come up with is Tony Abbott, who unfortunately is a tool, so at the moment I don’t really care who wins the next election. If Julia keeps up with her present course, the only people she’ll really disappoint are the lefty-lefts, so if she keeps five-eighths of the electorate happy she’ll have more chance of keeping Labor in power. The reality is, that’s what it’s all about.
Then again, way up the post somewhere, Rebekka said,
” … She identifies as a feminist, she’s strongly pro-choice, and she was responsible for drafting Labor’s affirmative action targets. She’s also on the record as being disturbed by raunch culture. That’s ticking most of my boxes to say that the causes (note the s) of women will get more emphasis under a leader who not only cares about those issues but has also experienced the effects of them herself. … ”
I didn’t know those things about Gillard, because I was never really interested enough to find them out, so I guess having her as PM is a big foot in the door for those issues. I’m not really sure how the “raunch culture” affects her, though, or how it is likely to influence her in her role as PM. Anyway, Julia’s balancing act has got me a little more interested in politics than I have been for long time.
Phillip, your post is a good example of what I find troubling about Labor just now, the notion that policy should be about the satisfaction of whims emanating from a sort of out of touch, commodified lala land of the mortgage belt, rather than something that addresses real issues that impact on the long term good of the (sustainable) economy, the Australian mindset and Australian democracy.
Phillip, your post is a good example of what I find troubling about Labor just now, the notion that policy should be about the satisfaction of whims emanating from a sort of out of touch, commodified lala land of the mortgage belt, rather than something that addresses real issues that impact on the long term good of the (sustainable) economy, the Australian mindset and Australian democracy.
@ Phillip “I’m not really sure how the “raunch culture” affects her, though, or how it is likely to influence her in her role as PM.”
It affects her like it affects all women, both through how society views and values women, and through our own self-image being developed in the context of raunch culture. I don’t know how it’s likely to influence her in her role as PM, but she at least thinks we should be having a debate about it:
(source )
@ Phillip “I’m not really sure how the “raunch culture” affects her, though, or how it is likely to influence her in her role as PM.”
It affects her like it affects all women, both through how society views and values women, and through our own self-image being developed in the context of raunch culture. I don’t know how it’s likely to influence her in her role as PM, but she at least thinks we should be having a debate about it:
(source )
I really wish we could put this one to bed now, although I’m not optimistic it will happen, ‘cos it’s like the Lernaean Hydra.
While there are many policy areas where an alliance with the Greens could hypothetically have led to a better policy outcome (i.e. climate change), it’s an unavoidable fact that an alliance between Labor and the Greens was not possible in the current parliamentary term, because the Greens don’t have the numbers in the Senate to deliver legislation, and, on the key issues, there was no realistic policy that could be devised which would secure the support of both the Greens and a sufficient number of independents and/or Coalition floor-crossers. That is all there is to it.
Paul @140: Your point is taken but I think it’s something to do with democracy. It’s not perfect, but I like to think it’s better than the alternative.
Rebekka @ 141: Thanks for explaining that, and adding the quote. Like I said, I don’t really know much about her.
Paul @140, “your post is a good example of what I find troubling about Labor just now, the notion that policy should be about the satisfaction of whims emanating from a sort of out of touch, commodified lala land of the mortgage belt”
And that’s what I find disturbing about the rest of the political spectrum, with particular reference to the Greens Party. The idea that middle Australia’s wishes are somehow “whims” to be treated dismissively, and that your own policy whims in contrast “addresses real issues that impact on [sic] the long term good of the (sustainable) economy, the Australian mindset and Australian democracy” is not just intellectual snobbery, it also shows a fundamental lack of respect for the “Australian democracy” you purport to think important.
You do realise, don’t you, that democracy means the “out of touch, commodified lala land of the mortgage belt” gets to decide who’s in government?
Paul @140, “your post is a good example of what I find troubling about Labor just now, the notion that policy should be about the satisfaction of whims emanating from a sort of out of touch, commodified lala land of the mortgage belt”
And that’s what I find disturbing about the rest of the political spectrum, with particular reference to the Greens Party. The idea that middle Australia’s wishes are somehow “whims” to be treated dismissively, and that your own policy whims in contrast “addresses real issues that impact on [sic] the long term good of the (sustainable) economy, the Australian mindset and Australian democracy” is not just intellectual snobbery, it also shows a fundamental lack of respect for the “Australian democracy” you purport to think important.
You do realise, don’t you, that democracy means the “out of touch, commodified lala land of the mortgage belt” gets to decide who’s in government?
“I’m a big fan of Jennifer Hawkins”
wtf, Julia Gillard said THAT?
Now why should JG be a big fan. And how is Ms Hawkins in any way a feminist role model do you think Rebekka?
“I’m a big fan of Jennifer Hawkins”
wtf, Julia Gillard said THAT?
Now why should JG be a big fan. And how is Ms Hawkins in any way a feminist role model do you think Rebekka?
@Cybelle, I didn’t say it. I don’t think Hawkins is a feminist role model. But seriously, put it in context. Julia was trying to make it clear that she wasn’t critising Hawkins, she was critising the culture that puts naked women on billboards.
@Cybelle, I didn’t say it. I don’t think Hawkins is a feminist role model. But seriously, put it in context. Julia was trying to make it clear that she wasn’t critising Hawkins, she was critising the culture that puts naked women on billboards.
Also, just to be clear, she didn’t say Hawkins was a feminist role model, she said she’s a big fan of Hawkins.
She’s also a professed big fan of the Bulldogs – do you think that makes them feminist icons as well?
Also, just to be clear, she didn’t say Hawkins was a feminist role model, she said she’s a big fan of Hawkins.
She’s also a professed big fan of the Bulldogs – do you think that makes them feminist icons as well?
Carn the ‘Dogs!
Especially when they start emulating the SA Bulldogs and start winning premierships.
Carn the ‘Dogs!
Especially when they start emulating the SA Bulldogs and start winning premierships.
Oh criticising was she? Who was her audience? 14-year-old girls? Why does she think it necessary to talk at large on these familiar issues and explain them pitched at the level of pubescent girls?
Don’t you find it insulting and condescending and telling that she should do so?
Oh criticising was she? Who was her audience? 14-year-old girls? Why does she think it necessary to talk at large on these familiar issues and explain them pitched at the level of pubescent girls?
Don’t you find it insulting and condescending and telling that she should do so?
I have no idea who the Bulldogs are, apart from, well, bulldogs, which I don’t particularly like, so I don’t get that fawning reference either.
I have no idea who the Bulldogs are, apart from, well, bulldogs, which I don’t particularly like, so I don’t get that fawning reference either.
Yeah, Rebekkah, 144.
Unfortunately, in many respects ( mortgage belt, not humans putting governemts into office.)
But don’t blame all the ignorance on the mortgage belt. Blame the culture that manufactures and proliferates such ignorance on such a vast scale.
Then you might realise the difference between the Greens and Labor: Labor perpetuates and reinforces political stereotypes for votes; the Greens challenge these and stand on issues on their merits.
That’s why the Greens are picking up voters off of Labor; because it betrayed its own election promises on REAL issues, both federally and involving that wretched creature Bligh.
Yeah, Rebekkah, 144.
Unfortunately, in many respects ( mortgage belt, not humans putting governemts into office.)
But don’t blame all the ignorance on the mortgage belt. Blame the culture that manufactures and proliferates such ignorance on such a vast scale.
Then you might realise the difference between the Greens and Labor: Labor perpetuates and reinforces political stereotypes for votes; the Greens challenge these and stand on issues on their merits.
That’s why the Greens are picking up voters off of Labor; because it betrayed its own election promises on REAL issues, both federally and involving that wretched creature Bligh.
WTF? A feminist makes it clear she’s critising the system and not the woman in it, and you find that “insulting and condescending” and like it’s pitched at 14 year olds?
No, I don’t find it “insulting and condescending”, and nor do I think it’s spoken like it’s pitched at 14 year olds. I think it’s great that she’s raunch culture as sh*t for women but not ‘blaming the victim’.
And the Bulldogs are a football team.
WTF? A feminist makes it clear she’s critising the system and not the woman in it, and you find that “insulting and condescending” and like it’s pitched at 14 year olds?
No, I don’t find it “insulting and condescending”, and nor do I think it’s spoken like it’s pitched at 14 year olds. I think it’s great that she’s raunch culture as sh*t for women but not ‘blaming the victim’.
And the Bulldogs are a football team.
whoops, “I think it’s great that she’s raunch culture as sh*t for women but not ‘blaming the victim’.”
should of course have read I think it’s great that she’s critisising raunch culture as sh*t for women but not ‘blaming the victim’.
whoops, “I think it’s great that she’s raunch culture as sh*t for women but not ‘blaming the victim’.”
should of course have read I think it’s great that she’s critisising raunch culture as sh*t for women but not ‘blaming the victim’.
@ paulh walterh 151 says: “But don’t blame all the ignorance on the mortgage belt.”
I don’t actually think the mortgage belt is ignorant. I think that entire attitude is nothing more than thinly disguised intellectual snobbery of the worst kind. The Greens Party loves to label middle Australia ignorant, it’s one of those perpetuations of stereotype things.
It comes down to this: The Greens Party thinks they are better and smarter than middle Australia, an attitude I think stinks.
“Then you might realise the difference between the Greens and Labor: Labor perpetuates and reinforces political stereotypes for votes; the Greens challenge these and stand on issues on their merits.”
It’s very easy to “stand on issues on their merits” when you’re not in power. But I don’t actually think the Greens Party does that – they’re politicians like any others. Let’s consider how much flack the Greens Party in Victoria copped over their policy of phasing out select entry high schools shall we, and the fact that they’ve now quietly removed that item from their policy because voters didn’t like it?
“That’s why the Greens are picking up voters off of Labor; because it betrayed its own election promises on REAL issues, both federally and involving that wretched creature Bligh.”
I’m not going to comment on Queensland state politics, because I don’t follow it closely enough to have an infomed opinion, but you can’t comment on whether the Greens Party is picking votes up off Labor until after the federal election, really. The opinion polls aren’t particularly accurate when it comes to measuring the Greens Party vote, and it usually contracts back to single digits once the focus is really on an election campaign. Like it almost certainly will again.
@ paulh walterh 151 says: “But don’t blame all the ignorance on the mortgage belt.”
I don’t actually think the mortgage belt is ignorant. I think that entire attitude is nothing more than thinly disguised intellectual snobbery of the worst kind. The Greens Party loves to label middle Australia ignorant, it’s one of those perpetuations of stereotype things.
It comes down to this: The Greens Party thinks they are better and smarter than middle Australia, an attitude I think stinks.
“Then you might realise the difference between the Greens and Labor: Labor perpetuates and reinforces political stereotypes for votes; the Greens challenge these and stand on issues on their merits.”
It’s very easy to “stand on issues on their merits” when you’re not in power. But I don’t actually think the Greens Party does that – they’re politicians like any others. Let’s consider how much flack the Greens Party in Victoria copped over their policy of phasing out select entry high schools shall we, and the fact that they’ve now quietly removed that item from their policy because voters didn’t like it?
“That’s why the Greens are picking up voters off of Labor; because it betrayed its own election promises on REAL issues, both federally and involving that wretched creature Bligh.”
I’m not going to comment on Queensland state politics, because I don’t follow it closely enough to have an infomed opinion, but you can’t comment on whether the Greens Party is picking votes up off Labor until after the federal election, really. The opinion polls aren’t particularly accurate when it comes to measuring the Greens Party vote, and it usually contracts back to single digits once the focus is really on an election campaign. Like it almost certainly will again.
And don’t get me wrong, I applaud the Greens Party for doing a backflip on their disgraceful policy of phasing out select entry high schools and all forms of streaming. I think listening to the voters is a sign of political maturity.
And don’t get me wrong, I applaud the Greens Party for doing a backflip on their disgraceful policy of phasing out select entry high schools and all forms of streaming. I think listening to the voters is a sign of political maturity.
Rebekkah, I forgot to observe on your point concerning the righteousness of “middle class whims”, altho you have had much praise for it from Phillip.
Perish the thought that monies should be spent on, say, medicine for a kid in a slum or refugee camp somewhere in agony from gastro, before we contemplate sacrificing that new parquetry or this quarters bo-tox !
Btw. What’s you thoughts on asylum seekers, Rebekkah?
Are their lives to be put on hold until this weeks consumer durables and luxuries are purchased (wouldn’t want to upset the luxuriating middles classes,w hoahh!)
I recall reading some where that you reckoned you were “Labor”. I’ll keep searching even for a skerrick of evidence for it, but dont worry about the “middle classes” in the meantime- there is already ample evidence that they will always look after number one every time at every/any one else’s expense.
Worry about that old Labor shibboleth,these days observed more in the breach than the observance; the “disadvantaged”.
Rebekkah, I forgot to observe on your point concerning the righteousness of “middle class whims”, altho you have had much praise for it from Phillip.
Perish the thought that monies should be spent on, say, medicine for a kid in a slum or refugee camp somewhere in agony from gastro, before we contemplate sacrificing that new parquetry or this quarters bo-tox !
Btw. What’s you thoughts on asylum seekers, Rebekkah?
Are their lives to be put on hold until this weeks consumer durables and luxuries are purchased (wouldn’t want to upset the luxuriating middles classes,w hoahh!)
I recall reading some where that you reckoned you were “Labor”. I’ll keep searching even for a skerrick of evidence for it, but dont worry about the “middle classes” in the meantime- there is already ample evidence that they will always look after number one every time at every/any one else’s expense.
Worry about that old Labor shibboleth,these days observed more in the breach than the observance; the “disadvantaged”.
Rebekka, Jennifer Hawkins is not a victim. She is a very successful entrepreneur.
“The Greens Party loves to label middle Australia ignorant”
No, as I have just indicated the ALP in this case Julia Gillard talks at large at the entire community as if we are young teenagers. She is doing it increasingly. This is a worry apart from being condescending and insulting.
The Bulldogs are a male football team, eh. Wtf does THAT have to do with politics, the national interest, feminism, eh?
Rebekka, Jennifer Hawkins is not a victim. She is a very successful entrepreneur.
“The Greens Party loves to label middle Australia ignorant”
No, as I have just indicated the ALP in this case Julia Gillard talks at large at the entire community as if we are young teenagers. She is doing it increasingly. This is a worry apart from being condescending and insulting.
The Bulldogs are a male football team, eh. Wtf does THAT have to do with politics, the national interest, feminism, eh?
paulh, I didn’t say “middle class”, I said “middle Australia” – meaning the great mass of people who are neither left nor right wing, but in the middle. Not the middle class.
And I don’t particularly think my personal views on asylum seekers or disadvantage are relevant to a thread about Gillard and feminism.
paulh, I didn’t say “middle class”, I said “middle Australia” – meaning the great mass of people who are neither left nor right wing, but in the middle. Not the middle class.
And I don’t particularly think my personal views on asylum seekers or disadvantage are relevant to a thread about Gillard and feminism.
@ Cybele says: “Rebekka, Jennifer Hawkins is not a victim. She is a very successful entrepreneur.”
*headdesk*. There’s a reason why I had ‘blame the victim’ in quote marks. I don’t think Hawkins is literally a victim. Women are complicit in patriarchy in a variety of ways, that doesn’t make patriarchy women’s faults. When stock phrases like ‘blame the victim’ are in quote marks, it generally means they’re not being used literally.
“No, as I have just indicated the ALP in this case Julia Gillard talks at large at the entire community as if we are young teenagers. She is doing it increasingly. This is a worry apart from being condescending and insulting.”
Just because you claim it repeatedly doesn’t mean there’s any evidence for it. As far as I’m concerned, this is bullsh*t unless you can offer some actual evidence for your statements.
“The Bulldogs are a male football team, eh. Wtf does THAT have to do with politics, the national interest, feminism, eh?”
Again, you’ve managed to miss the entire point. Which was that just because Gillard says she’s a “fan” of Hawkins doesn’t mean she’s suggesting Hawkins is some sort of feminist role model, any more than she’s suggesting the Bulldogs are a feminist role model when she says she’s a fan of them.
Actually, I think she talks to. us. as. though. we. were. in. primary. school. I know quite a few primary school teachers who tend to talk like this because they’re so used to explaining everything so slowly.
I was trying to be generous, Adrian. She’s aiming to be a leader for primary school aged little people. At best. I’d could put a less kind interpretation on who she appears to be speaking to these days. Whoever it is either she holds us all in absolute contempt or it’s actually an fair indication of the depth of her intellect. Scary thought.
I was trying to be generous, Adrian. She’s aiming to be a leader for primary school aged little people. At best. I’d could put a less kind interpretation on who she appears to be speaking to these days. Whoever it is either she holds us all in absolute contempt or it’s actually an fair indication of the depth of her intellect. Scary thought.
Paul,
Just deviating off topic slightly now, and I hope they let me get away with it. I find it ironic in the extreme to think that anything I could write would be an “example of what [someone] find[s] troubling about Labor.”
Paul,
Just deviating off topic slightly now, and I hope they let me get away with it. I find it ironic in the extreme to think that anything I could write would be an “example of what [someone] find[s] troubling about Labor.”
A lot of this discussion is going off topic.
A lot of this discussion is going off topic.
@Cybele says “I was trying to be generous, Adrian. She’s aiming to be a leader for primary school aged little people. At best. I’d could put a less kind interpretation on who she appears to be speaking to these days. ”
And once again, repeating it doesn’t make it any more true. Have you got an actual examples of where you think she’s done this? Because if not, I could equally validly say that Bob Brown lives entirely on cabbage and consequently no-one wants to sit next to him in Parliament because of the dreadfully smelly wind he produces. Without evidence, it’s all just empty hyperbole.
“Whoever it is either she holds us all in absolute contempt or it’s actually an fair indication of the depth of her intellect. Scary thought.”
She (a) holds Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws degrees from the University of Melbourne and (b) was the youngest person ever to make Partner at Slater & Gordon, in industrial law, aged 29, so whatever rubbish you’re alleging about her communication style (absent any evidence) it clearly would have no reflection on the depth of her intellect even if it was true outside of your own lunchbox.
@Cybele says “I was trying to be generous, Adrian. She’s aiming to be a leader for primary school aged little people. At best. I’d could put a less kind interpretation on who she appears to be speaking to these days. ”
And once again, repeating it doesn’t make it any more true. Have you got an actual examples of where you think she’s done this? Because if not, I could equally validly say that Bob Brown lives entirely on cabbage and consequently no-one wants to sit next to him in Parliament because of the dreadfully smelly wind he produces. Without evidence, it’s all just empty hyperbole.
“Whoever it is either she holds us all in absolute contempt or it’s actually an fair indication of the depth of her intellect. Scary thought.”
She (a) holds Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws degrees from the University of Melbourne and (b) was the youngest person ever to make Partner at Slater & Gordon, in industrial law, aged 29, so whatever rubbish you’re alleging about her communication style (absent any evidence) it clearly would have no reflection on the depth of her intellect even if it was true outside of your own lunchbox.
This all could actually be indirectly relevant, because I don’t recall anyone alleging similar things (“she talks down to us like we’re children”) about a male politician…
This all could actually be indirectly relevant, because I don’t recall anyone alleging similar things (“she talks down to us like we’re children”) about a male politician…
Kim, whose comments are “off topic” and why?
Am keeping in mind the topic is:
“Julia Gillard, feminism and gender politics”.
For a start, what is meant by gender politics, for this thread.
Are we talking about the possibilities for a feminist politics to change things, perhaps thru Gillard, or referring to gender politics in the sense that it relates to attempts by opponents to destabilise female politicians?
Kim, whose comments are “off topic” and why?
Am keeping in mind the topic is:
“Julia Gillard, feminism and gender politics”.
For a start, what is meant by gender politics, for this thread.
Are we talking about the possibilities for a feminist politics to change things, perhaps thru Gillard, or referring to gender politics in the sense that it relates to attempts by opponents to destabilise female politicians?
@166 – paul, we’re talking about both. The post discusses the fact that Gillard has been subject to misogynist attacks and also looks at the significance for women and feminists of her becoming PM.
However, segueing into some sort of open discussion about her communication style, the chances of The Greens at the election, etc, etc, seems to me to have strayed a fair way from what the thread is meant to be about.
@166 – paul, we’re talking about both. The post discusses the fact that Gillard has been subject to misogynist attacks and also looks at the significance for women and feminists of her becoming PM.
However, segueing into some sort of open discussion about her communication style, the chances of The Greens at the election, etc, etc, seems to me to have strayed a fair way from what the thread is meant to be about.
Kim, etc, do you agree she is keeping a low profile and trying a form of small target politics, for the moment?
Kim, etc, do you agree she is keeping a low profile and trying a form of small target politics, for the moment?
For Gillard to espouse any overt expression of gender politics at the present moment, or an overt expression of feminist ideology at the present mement would demonstrate a political ineptitude of the highest order. One of the Opposition’s first attacks on Gillard was in regard to her membership of Emily’s List, whereby they falsely tried to represent her and the Labor women associated with Emuily’s List as ball-breaking vagina dentita type harpies. Thankfully, the Coalition’s unprincipled misrepresentation went nowhere. I wouldn’t mind betting JG’s attack on political correctness was partly gauged to neutralise this kind of mysoginist bull-shit. It also meant any discussion of the issue, at least until this electoral cycle is over, was off the table. It might be sad, and an example of Gillard’s realpolitik, but its also true.
For Gillard to espouse any overt expression of gender politics at the present moment, or an overt expression of feminist ideology at the present mement would demonstrate a political ineptitude of the highest order. One of the Opposition’s first attacks on Gillard was in regard to her membership of Emily’s List, whereby they falsely tried to represent her and the Labor women associated with Emuily’s List as ball-breaking vagina dentita type harpies. Thankfully, the Coalition’s unprincipled misrepresentation went nowhere. I wouldn’t mind betting JG’s attack on political correctness was partly gauged to neutralise this kind of mysoginist bull-shit. It also meant any discussion of the issue, at least until this electoral cycle is over, was off the table. It might be sad, and an example of Gillard’s realpolitik, but its also true.
Oh, I left out the Coalition trope of the women on Emily’s List being some kind of green-of-tooth socialist/communists. Gillard is a subtle politician. Comparisons with Howard, who was little more than a devious liar, are invidious. It is that subtlety, which of itself demonstrates a tremendous power of intellectual thought, that we must rely on if we want to see her advance, however cautiously, a progressive agenda for gender politics.
Oh, I left out the Coalition trope of the women on Emily’s List being some kind of green-of-tooth socialist/communists. Gillard is a subtle politician. Comparisons with Howard, who was little more than a devious liar, are invidious. It is that subtlety, which of itself demonstrates a tremendous power of intellectual thought, that we must rely on if we want to see her advance, however cautiously, a progressive agenda for gender politics.
@168 – I don’t think she’s keeping a low profile, paul. She’s been all over the news. Whether or not she’s concentrating on a small range of issues is another question.
@168 – I don’t think she’s keeping a low profile, paul. She’s been all over the news. Whether or not she’s concentrating on a small range of issues is another question.
Well, if we look at Newspoll for the entire period that it’s been including the Greens in its poll of Federal voting intentions, on no occasion prior to 2008 have the Greens ever polled in double digits prior to a Federal election, and the eventual Greens vote has been either higher than or as high as the Newpoll trend.
As for Victoria, where Rebekka and Julia Gillard are domiciled, in the two State elections held since Newpoll started asking about the Greens vote (2002 and 2006), the Greens did better in the election than in the polls, expanding from single digits in the polls to double digits in the election in 2006.
Much the same pattern can be seen in NSW.
Now back on topic!
Well, if we look at Newspoll for the entire period that it’s been including the Greens in its poll of Federal voting intentions, on no occasion prior to 2008 have the Greens ever polled in double digits prior to a Federal election, and the eventual Greens vote has been either higher than or as high as the Newpoll trend.
As for Victoria, where Rebekka and Julia Gillard are domiciled, in the two State elections held since Newpoll started asking about the Greens vote (2002 and 2006), the Greens did better in the election than in the polls, expanding from single digits in the polls to double digits in the election in 2006.
Much the same pattern can be seen in NSW.
Now back on topic!
@Paul, yes, newspoll was until recently an exception, because they weren’t asking a specific question about the Greens Party. The other polls, however, all overestimate the Greens Party vote. It’s likely newspoll now does as well, as they changed their methodology after the 2007 election.
@Paul, yes, newspoll was until recently an exception, because they weren’t asking a specific question about the Greens Party. The other polls, however, all overestimate the Greens Party vote. It’s likely newspoll now does as well, as they changed their methodology after the 2007 election.
Back on topic, I find the habit some have of referring to JG as “La Gillardine” as offensive and trivialising. Arthur Sinodinos, for example, never uses her proper name:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/kevins-shadow-is-spooking-the-pm/story-e6frg6zo-1225891819015
@Kim, “Arthur Sinodinos, for example, never uses her proper name” – the man’s a nasty little weasel who was Howard’s chief of staff. Is it any wonder he sneers at Gillard? I do, however, note that he refers to Rudd as either Rudd or Kevin Rudd (excepting in the headline, which he probably didn’t write) and also this:
The contrast between “President of Indonesia” and “Gillard”. Not so subtle, acshully.
Also, ugh, I wish I hadn’t clicked through to read that article while I was eating…
@175 – Yep, he’s a real piece of work.
I didn’t realise that Sinodinos refers to the PM as La Gillardine as well and now shall cease the practice so as to avoid guilt by association. As I never refer to the Rodent by name because of my distaste for his politics and as my distaste for the Prime Minister’s politics is only marginally less I will henceforth refer to her only by the name of the office that she occupies on behalf of Big Dirt and the sewer living gangsters who have coagulated at the Sussex St Office of the ALP in Sydney.
And now Laurie Oakes has revealed that Rudd offered to stand down in October if the polls hadn’t improved. Gillard initially agreed, but then went and consulted some of her colleagues, and changed her mind.
Interesting. I wonder her leaked this and why.
…who leaked and why.
@adrian, there’s now a thread about that:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/07/15/laurie-oakes-claims-kevin-rudd-proposed-a-kirribilli-style-deal-to-julia-gillard-on-24-june/
I might close this thread soon, btw. Obviously it’s subject to endemic thread drift!
Sorry!