Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo was an Australian group blog which discussed politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
Larvatus Prodeo was an Australian group blog which discussed politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
She was great tonight. Smart, articulate and convincing. And has any politician had to face so many questions. Marital status and childlessness, atheism, voice and hair colour. The question, of course, is would any man face so much personal scrutiny?
She was fantastic, Fine! And, yes, so much time wasted with stupid questions selected by the Qanda producers on her hair, personal life choices, etc. Let’s see, if Abbott has the guts to go on the programme next week, if he’s similarly treated!
Will anyone ask him about his sticking out ears or his hairy chest? I doubt it.
It was a relatively sane audience at least. Except for the first bloke who didn’t seem to know that Gillard and Rudd had already met and the woman who didn’t realise that you can affirm an oath.
I guess those questions add up as a plus for Gillard because she answers them so graciously. And her line about Latham was great.
Julia won a lot of extra votes tonight.
Now, please, progressives at LP, go to the Get UP! site. They’re raising money to run a great ad on Abbott.
Ask yourself: do we want three more years listening to an extremely intelligent, poised, sensible PM, or Abbott’s stream-of-consciousness culture war blather?
Although Gillard was never going to impress me, I thought she gave as impressive a performance as she could have, given that she is trying to pitch at rightwingers without alienating traditional ALP supporters enough for them to jump ship. It was very smooth and personable, and one suspects she’d have got a much better than even split of any genuine uncommitteds watching.
Apparently the person who asked the cost-of-living question was a Liberal staffer (via David Bradbury from twiiter).
The string of pearls threw their soft lustre over her pale skin, making her look both engaging and ethereally aloof.
@ 5 – I agree Fran. Surely though she wouldn’t have alienated too many people by saying that she supports gay marriage even if this is not the position of her party??
I missed it, too busy (damn these new courses!) – glad to hear it went well.
The Big Q for tomorrow’s media: did she perform to the Tones @ Hey Hey benchmark?
@ 8 The video is on the Q&A website now but the transcript will not be available until 2pm Tuesday.
I was impressed with the way the PM handled both the substantive questions and the silly questions about voice, hair, K Rudd, etc.
In fact she was good humoured and witty and managed to turn the sillier questions to her advantage. For example, to the question …”how big a tool is Mark Latham” Julia replied, “There are some things that can’t be measured”.
In answer to a question implying that because of her marital status etc that she could not relate to a large section of the electorate. She said that she thought that there is no one Australian who can encapsulate all the experiences but that she could empathaise and understand pressures on families. John Howard, she said, did not know what it was like to be a mother. Tony Jones interrupted to say that JWH knew what it was like to be a father/provider. Julia retorted “I’m the first one to know what it’s like to be a women. That shut Tony up for a while.
@9 sorry for typo – meant to say “empathize”
Yes but Megan at #6, I did think the pink top was not quite the right colour under that horrible harsh ABC studio lighting.
I think it was really good that she didn’t automatically turn every answer into an attack on the Abbott alternative. She actually answered many questions directly, and there was relatively little “spin”.
Can’t wait to see Abbott’s turn.
No problems Lefty E @ 8 you can listen and see here . It turns out a television is not necessary.
It was a good performance but when the questioning turned to indigenous issues right at the end I’m surprised she didn’t talk up Labor’s welfare quarantining policy in the NT and their intentions to roll it out from next year nationwide to everyone on the dole or single parenting benefit.
I mean it’s a great policy right?
Harrington said:
The Catholic/Christian/AFA/Muslim reactionary vote goes then whereas the LBG vote remains imprisoned on lesser evil gtounds on her current position.
Also there’s the “Julia making it up without consultation just like Kevin” stuff that dominates the headlines then. It would also seriously embarrass Penny Wong who ate the “shit sandwich” out of cabinet solidarity on QANDA a couple of weeks back.
So on many grounds, a bad look with no upside at all (apart from being ethically sound human rights policy which from an ALP perspective is beside the point).
So we’re rating performativity here, right? Not policy. So, she was charming. That is her strong suit. Whether Australians want a charmer as PM will be tested. I’m not so sure they do or that the Libs wont now run harder on the matter of trust as charm can be constructed as a the absence of authenticity. It is a common error to misjudge crudeness as authenticity and it plays well among voters (Tuckey, Abbott and numerous others). But she cannot play crud because she is not a crude person. Cold, like Thatcher, would be a winner. Charming is nice but ultimately unconvincing as an act.
If she’d answered the last question with some integrity, something along the lines of “we need to do better…” to Luritja then there would have been a bit of spark. But no. She offers up a shamlessly bland answer thus proving herself to be not even the shadow of a person like Luritja O’Donohue.
Kenneally is charming too. I’d say in NSW that last night’s performance may just have entrenched the voters worst fears that she is the puppet of the back room boys.
Of course, she’s a woman. She can only be a puppet. Charm (a feminine stereotype ) is seen as being inauthentic, crudeness (a masculine attribute) is seen as being authentic.
By who akn? The sexual politics of this are shocking.
Leave it out Fine. Hawke was a charming PM and I’m pretty sure he is a bloke.
I’ve been avoiding election TV and watched qanda by accident – Gillard does a hell of an impression of Hawke when she wants too, including the subtle evasiveness (especially on the excellent climate change question). It’s hard not to be sucked in to that kind of appealing, earthy eloquence but damned if the policies just come across as far-right reactionary sh*t when you see them on paper rather than sold on TV.
I thought Julia performed very well last night.
I was surprised at Tony Jones supplementary questions interrupting her answers, I hope he treats Abbott the same way.
I think Q and A could have selected questions about policy rather than appearance
When you contrast Tony Jones treatment of Julia on QandA with Leigh Sales interview with Barnaby Joyce that followed immediately Barnaby got an easy ride. Leigh should listen to her interviewers response and ask penetrating follow up questions or does she save that for Labor politicians
I see … so on the one hand she was smart, articulate, fantastic, impressive, charming etc etc.
Accordingly she ‘won a lot of extra votes’.
But on the other hand we don’t have presidential elections in Australia, right? The ALP can change its leader any time it likes and it’s nobody else’s business because we vote for parties, not leaders, correct?
I discern a considerable amount of cognitive dissonance amongst some (note ‘some’) Labor supporters recently.
@ 15 – Fran, I’m a practising Catholic and Julia’s atheism doesn’t bother me, nor does the idea of gay marriage. I know plenty of Catholics who share my opinion (and many that don’t unfortunately). And I find it amusing that Tony Abbott and many of his party love to disparage the Greens when as far as I can see, their policies are the most compassionate and largely, the most ‘Christian’. If Christianity is not about helping the less fortunate (Indigenous Australians, the disabled, the homeless, long-term drug and alcohol abusers etc) and the environment, it is nothing!
Sorry, but for me she came across as far too contrived, bland and in the end, boring. Both my wife and I turned before before the end, getting a bit tired of the reflective answers (‘That’s a good question’, ‘thanks for that question’ etc etc), the hand gestures, and the fact that most of the time she didn’t actually answer the question.
Yes she was charming, but there wasn’t actually much substance beneath the superficial charm. Her answer on Latham was a good moment though.
And if I heard once again how passionate she is about education…
Passion is no substitute for ignorance.
Disclaimer: None of the comments above are predicated on the fact that Gillard is a woman.
Fine:
Yes. However, not by me. I’m proposing that this is how it plays out among electors who have never given much thought to sexual politics. In fact I’m offering a gendered analysis of the PM’s presentation and how I reckon it will be perceived both consciously and sub-consciously by sections of electors. I didn’t expect that it would be popular to do so but that is what can happen when there are men around who’ve familiarised themselves with feminist literature and gendered analysis for over 30 years and who are therefore confident enough of their “sexual politics” to voice an opinion contrary to the dominant position of liberal feminism which is obsessed with “glass ceiling” politics to the almost complete neglect of any concern with what’s happening for women who lack tertiary education and aren’t from the middle classes.
In so far as the PM is not a puppet of the right wing male dominant union secretaries who put her in power to defeat the 40% RSPT and reduce that tax to an effective rate of 22.5% then it is of course possible to assert that she was completely agential in that process. The exercise of agency towards that end is undeserving of respect. What I mean by describing her as a puppet is that she is a policy captive of Aarons’ hollow men now. That’s how it goes.
Ken, that is just silly. Our choice of party is determined in part by who the leader is. It has always been so and nobody has claimed otherwise. Sometimes the leader is dominant in the party’s campaign. At other times, such as in 1980 when Hayden was so weak the ALP advertised him as a part of a triumvirate with Bob Hawke and Neville Wran, the leader is just part of a team. Come to think of it, I don’t recall any of Howard’s winning elections where he was pushed as The Leader.
“Leave it out Fine. Hawke was a charming PM and I’m pretty sure he is a bloke.”
Yes, and Hawke’s charm was never perceived as being inauthentic. But women are sneaky. Can’t trust their charm. I’m fascinated when any mention of the sexual politics that underpins so much commentary is disavowed as non-existent or irrelevant.
And thanks skn for mansplianing that you’ve studied feminism and therefore know so much more about it than feminists do.
Harrington said:
And it is that last clause that drives the position in practice. You are pitching at those who will shift not those who are pleased.
I thoughrt Julia was a triumph. I doubt Abbott will be able to stand up to the same sort of scrutiny next week.
Fine wrote:
How about reading what other people write rather than reading you own prejudice into others Fine? I painted Hawke and Gillard with the same brush yet you persist with your hobbyhorse that gillards manifest failures are somehow excused because of the handicap of gender. Who’s the sexist again?
Yes Ute Man. And I was explaining the different ways different attributes are read according to gender.
But of course talking about sexual politics and sexism is being sexist. Hmmm.
And what exactly is my prejudice?
I think that as an electorate we have got out of the habit of actually listening to people. Howard was masterfully evasive, Abbott is slimily so, and Rudd verbose to the point of innocuousness.
Last night I saw a woman who is a politician who is currently Prime Minister of Australia answer questions cogently and directed to the meat of each question’s content.
If we no longer believe a word that comes out of a politician’s mouth, how hard a road is it to travel for someone like Julia Gillard in trying to get beyond spin, past side-stepping?
I believe that she is the true straight-talker of Australian politics. Whether any given set of ears is prepared to really hear her, not filter her expressions through years of schooled cynicism and guided ‘spin’ detection, is another matter.
The political ‘problem’ in Australia is that we have been tutored to mistrust idealism, to spurn appealing to the altruistic in our neighbours (and they in us), to look for what a politician is trying to get from us in ‘buying’ our vote.
So long as election campaigns are about ‘shopping lists’ of which party can do what for less, while ensuring that ‘you’, the individual voter get some extra cash in your pocket, we will have government by bribe.
Time to dig ourselves out of this hole, folks. And really listening to a politician who is really talking seems like a fine place to start.
“Women are sneaky” Fine. Who on earth bothers with that perception or bothers painting others with the idea they believe it? Is it still 1950 and nobody told me, or is it only still 1950 in Fineland?
Maybe your prejudice, Fine, is related to your apparent inability to see any criticism of Gillard (don’t know why so many insist on using her first name) in anything other than gender terms.
Maybe you could begin by acknowledging that much of the criticism is based on her often ridiculous policies, and has nothing whatever to do with her gender.
Shorter Fine: you’re saying that because she’s a woman and you’re a man. How do I know that? Because I do.
I mean Fine where is any evidence for such statements? I could introduce you to 50 blokes who thought Hawke’s charm was an act – in fact the only people I can recall gushing over it were women. And then you go into your usual sarcastic mode, but whose views are you mocking? Who here claims that ‘women are sneaky’? Or believes it? Nobody that I have noticed but you just make these wild assertions as if your perception of gender identities is Holy Writ and anyone who disagrees is dishonest or ignorant. You’re entitled to your opinions of course but it does get a bit wearing after a while.
I saw the last 35 mins.
In terms of delivery Julia was passable. I find her articulation laboured and her continuous ‘sizing’ hand gestures irritating. She kad a tendency to get a slighly panicked tone when handed a difficult question I thought. But I liked her basic sense of rapport with the public.
Most politicians ALP, Lib or otherwise do well in the basically friendly and uninterrupted format provided by last nights Q&A. I think Abbott will be an exception. His styles are:
1) ‘Extended shouting whinge’: only works in a stadium of enraptured followers or as a media sound grab, not in a considered interview.
2) Somewhat dissembling and hair splitting ‘what I meant was..’, ‘the point is…’ which works OK when avoiding traps laid by professional media types but doesn’t when the public asks a straight question and expects a straight answer.
Morrisson and Hockey are far better communicators than Julia but unlike her discard the truth at will (habitually in the case of Morrisson). Rudd and Tanner are also far better communicators: concise, easy on the ear and radiating command of the subject matter. Julia looks and sounds like she’s trying to squeeze 16 eggs into the egg carton.
I think Gillard is still finding her style as a PM. She started out treating the public like Ming Vases that might shatter with any unexpected shock and is now doing better as she loosens up.
In terms of content I thought she put her views quite well. Best moments were the clear explanation of why the MRRT is not inflationary, her repudiation of Abbott’s ‘invasion’ and ‘armada’ nonsense and her rationale for not amending the Marriage Act. She also gave a pretty good answer on ‘Cost Of Living Pressures’.
“Maybe you could begin by acknowledging that much of the criticism is based on her often ridiculous policies, and has nothing whatever to do with her gender.”
Maybe you should begin by paying more attention to the trajectory of this thread and akn’s acknowledgment that he was presenting [his view of] the way the electorate is perceiving this campaign in terms of gender politics. This is what Fine is responding to…geddit?…the gender politics.
Anyone who thinks gender is not playing a part in this campaign isn’t paying attention and most certainly wasn’t listening to the Liberal/National despicable campaign launch – which made me realise why the Libs are letting their future deputy PM fly under the radar.
But feel free to keep railing against every perceived slight, adrain et al. Me thinks you protest too much.
Adrian, wrt to the education answers, I agree. I thought her answers to the lady with the Down’s syndrome were fairly piss poor given that she’s held the education portfolio for over two years – yet she was unable to mention a single initiative targetted at students with disabilities.
I thought this stood out in what was a fairly good performance I thought. I do agree that a man would never get half the bullshit questions the childless, un-married Julia had to endure.
Sorry, but hardly see the audience of QANDA as the target voters who are going to decide the election result, no matter how good or bad anyone is on the program.
“hardly see the audience of QANDA as the target voters who are going to decide the election result”
Then why would she appear on the program?
“I do agree that a man would never get half the bullshit questions the childless, un-married Julia had to endure.”
That’s true, and she handled those questions well. It’s just her handling of the policy debate that I find less than impressive.
Re: “I do agree that a man would never get half the bullshit questions the childless, un-married Julia had to endure.”
Here’s hoping that Mr Rabbit will get some of those questions, by audience, text, web or whatever.
Like, how does he feel about his bald patch? Does his wife like him skinny or would she prefer some love handles? Has he ever considered surgery for his ears? Has he any history of heart disease in his family? And so on ……
Going on Q&A is about locking in Greens’ second preferences. Julia and Labor are quite happy to “win ugly”, as they say in footy.
men around who’ve familiarised themselves with feminist literature and gendered analysis for over 30 years and who are therefore confident enough of their “sexual politics” to voice an opinion contrary to the dominant position of liberal feminism which is obsessed with “glass ceiling” politics to the almost complete neglect of any concern with what’s happening for women who lack tertiary education and aren’t from the middle classes.
Oh, thank you for explaining to us how to do it properly.
Furthermore: the above is not your stunningly original take but merely the conventional wisdom of the 3rd- wavers and younger. It has much to recommend it and bears unpacking and thinking about, but I don’t want to start another thread of Doom.
Maybe your prejudice, Fine, is related to your apparent inability to see any criticism of Gillard (don’t know why so many insist on using her first name) in anything other than gender terms.
Maybe you could begin by acknowledging that much of the criticism is based on her often ridiculous policies, and has nothing whatever to do with her gender.
Look at your first para again. Why do you think people are inclined to use Gillard’s first name, given that you are skeptical that there is any gendered difference in the way she’s perceived?
Ken, as has been noted akn made an explicitly gender based analysis of Gillard’s appearance on Q&A. I was responding to that. If you want to pretend that gender politics have nothing to do with this election, then you’re being deliberately obtuse.
Adrian, there are many policies that Gillard can be criticised on. Climate change is the one that comes to my mind first. But again to pretend that gender is irrelevant and that unconscious sexism doesn’t cause some of the criticism of Gillard here, again is just plain silly.
But I won’t go on because it will derail the thread.
adrian @ 22 said:
I never noticed the hand gestures until the mentioned them on the Gruen Nation. Now I can’t stop laughing when I see them. But its not something unique to Gillard – they all get so much media/communication training that you can’t trust what they “say” whether it be verbal or non verbal.
Perhaps thats why people put so much more value on unscripted moments where in a panic they forget all of the media training and you get a glimpse of the real person underneath.
Helen: you are welcome. I take my bearings from, among others, Jean Curthoys’ “Feminist Amnesia”. Val Plumwood’sreview is a beauty.
Common use of her first name is exactly what the ALP want and they have been pushing for. It was the “Real Julia” campaign switch, not the the “Real Gillard” one. Remember when Rudd was really popular in 07? He was “Kevin” not Rudd.
Yes, her first name is more often thn not used by her supporters, (and of course, beig pushed by the ALP).
The same people who would refer to Rudd, Howard, and Abbott. Even in the Kevin07 heyday, I would doubt that many would have referred to Rudd as Kevin.
So if this is a gendered response, perhaps it’s a bit more complex than some people are suggesting.
Maybe it’s confirmation bias that you are noticing adrian?
Didn’t get to see it, but hope she did well, because frankly for me, regardless of whether she’s progressive or as right-wing as Genghis Kahn, it disgusts me that any female political leader is forced to answer questions about her appearance, marriage and child choices etc. The ABC should be ashamed.
You don’t need to buy into detailed gender analysis to see what blind freddy could point out, no male politician in this country has ever had to defend their marital status, personal beliefs and appearance the way that Gillard has.
Working for a female politician I can also sadly say that this is a consistent trait -focus on how our female leaders look and how well they conform to antediluvian stereotypes, not their substance.
Obviously on content I have areas of strong disagreement with Gillard, but on this drivel she deserves full support.
“Working for a female politician I can also sadly say that this is a consistent trait -focus on how our female leaders look and how well they conform to antediluvian stereotypes, not their substance. ”
I have to confess that last week I was wishing that Christine Milne would speak her replies, rather than shout them. But then I think most of the prominent Greens candidates have problems with delivery. I’ve assumed that many have grown accustomed to having to be more forceful in what they are expressing, in order to be heard – but I find myself wincing at it sometimes. Having said that, I literally recoil and reach for the mute whenever John Howard starts shouting in the way he does.
Maybe because they’ve all been (outwardly) utterly conventional, married with children, middle class, white (and white haired or heading that way) and male.
I don’t buy the idea that there is some kind of inherent sexism in play. It seems to me that 99% of it can be explained by the sheer novelty of the situation.
This discussion seems to have morphed from (what I thought) was a clear point that any criticism of Gillard should not automatically be seen in gender terms, to the equally obvious point that she is being subject to an unreasonable level of personal questioning that is obviously sexist in nature.
It is (equally obviously) quite reasonable to criticise her on policy grounds while at the same time acknowledging the veracity of the second point and its inherent unfairness. The two ‘aint mutually exclusive!
The problem is that it is very difficult in broad conversation to tease out the differences between the PM’s gendered identity, her presentation of that identity, the manipulation of that presentation by male dominated spin meisters of the ALP and the way that that identity has been subject to scrutiny by a reactionary media.
The nub of contention, as Mindy locates it, is with the media scrutiny of her subjective identity (atheist, childless by choice, unmarried); it is unlike anything any male PM has ever been subject to. This is unfair, of course, and deeply reactionary.
At the same time those of us who want decent policy from the ALP and therefore criticise the PM on policy grounds are from time to time confronted with the argument that criticism of the PM buys into a masculnist agenda to exclude women from their rightful place in public office. It is difficult, but not impossible, to position yourelf in relation to this by being explicit: one line of feminist argument, a good one in my view, is that democratic equality requires equality of presence for women at all levels of existing structures. So the PM’s presence as a woman is supportable because it has indeed shattered that particular glass ceiling.
At the same time, I’ve consistently argued, her presence comes at some cost which is, in this case, that she’s been put in place by elements of the ALP who in fact have turned the ALP into the active political agency of the blue collar men’s movement. Howes, Arbib, Shorten, Ludwig et al represent male dominated unions in male dominated industries whose interests are being pursued in alliance with mining capital in relation to the tax base and climate change at the expense of of the rest of us citizens and expecially at the expense of traditional owners of land (Aborigines), white collar workers (a significant number of whom are women in education, clerical services, public service, health) and just born or as yet unborn future generations.
So yeah, good that we’ve finally got a female PM but political support for the politics of presence, in my case at least, does not override an interest in critical appraisal of the policies being pursued nor of who is doing the pursuing.
I don’t know about that Ute Man. What about Bob Brown and a few others that we just don’t get to hear about?
Further to Fine @25 and onwards, two things picked up from comments about Julia’s ‘charm’on this thread: “Charming is nice but ultimately unconvincing as an act.”
“does a hell of an impression of Hawke”
In both cases, emphasis added.
Her ‘charm’ is clearly being used as code for inauthentic, and being portrayed as an act.
No, it’s not.
Think Hawke as archetype: salesman rather than pamphleteer like Keating or Howard. Gillard is the former rather than the latter. In any case, we expect our politicians to be inauthentic so any gender analysis based on some perception that some apparently indefinable section of the community automatically saddles all women with the same stereotype.
It just doesn’t fly this century, no matter how much you desperately want to see it.
Yes Rebekka I do think that the PM’s charm is an act or a mere form of persona for consumption. But only in the same way that I found Hawke’s good ole boy blokeyness an act. Too many ALP men put on working class male drag as an aid to power and it is revolting (think of Doug Cameron whose male supremacist attitudes were once described by Bea Campbell as ‘butch and baronial’). My preference is the authenticity of Dunstan or Bob Brown when it comes to masculinity.
@Ute Man “Maybe because they’ve all been (outwardly) utterly conventional, married with children, middle class, white (and white haired or heading that way) and male.”
And that doesn’t clue you up that there’s “inherent sexism”, as you called it??
@akn “…it is unlike anything any male PM has ever been subject to. This is unfair, of course, and deeply reactionary. ”
Don’t make the mistake of assuming sexist = reactionary. Progressive politics is plenty sexist too. As has been observed around here on more than one occasion.
@ Ute Man at 58, both those comments were from people on this thread
Care to explain how saying something is “an act” or “an impression” doesn’t code something as inauthentic??
Maybe because they’ve all been (outwardly) utterly conventional, married with children, middle class, white (and white haired or heading that way) and male.
Par’n me Uteman, but you kind of miss the whole point when you say the ‘and male’ at the end. That’s the whole point – rarely if ever does the media go digging into the personal lives of our male politicians (and trust me if you spend even a modicum of time in parliamentary halls you’d know there’s plenty to dig very, very close to the surface). But a woman in power – well she needs to answer for her choice of suits, her accent, and her earlobes.
And hello, being in a defacto relationship is extremely common in Australia, as is being athiest, as is being childless.
I’ve met senior members of Cabinet on both sides of parliament who’s dress sense could only be described as shambolic – poor fitting suits, dreadful posture, stained ties (and I’m talking about at public functions) – yet nada.
The double standard is alive and well.
Rebekka: reactionary politics is inherently sexist in so far as it seeks to sustain the staus quo ante across the board including in relation to women. As to progressive politics – we’d have to cross check our meanings on that. What I call “progressive politics” is policy and personal conduct designed to deliver broad the program of democratic equality across all spheres between all citizens. It draws authority from democracy rather than from ideology.
I read/heard somewhere its because of his hearing loss he tends to shout.
akn, I certainly agree that reactionary politics is inherently sexist. But progressive politics – using LP as an example, or even just this thread as an example, progressive men are plenty sexist too.
Perhaps progressive politics in an entirely theoretical form divorced from the real world isn’t, but that’s hardly relevant to how the PM is being treated in the real world, is it?
myriad74 wrote:
Not for senior parliament figures and never for a PM. It’s novelty. If you want post-modern sexism in action, my guess is that Bob Brown’s private life remains private because of the despicable anti-homosexual “ick” factor (see also Penny Wong).
As for Rebekka’s idea that labelling Gillard inauthentic is somehow sexist, my head hurts. It’s a leap of Evel Knievel-esque proportions.
Fine your comment in question @ 25 was a direct response to Ute Man @ 18. Your comment @ 17 consisted of a series of blunt universal assertions followed by a reference to akn at the end which I personally found quite mysterious. But if it pleases you to make an opaque argument supported by zero evidence and then call those who don’t follow it ‘silly’ and ‘obtuse’, go ahead. I suppose it depends whether you are trying to persuade people or antagonise them.
This gives us some idea of how Abbott would perform on Q’n'A – looks like he’s finally trodden on his dick.
“poor fitting suits, dreadful posture, stained ties (and I’m talking about at public functions”…yes indeed, to say nothing of the bad choice of shoes and the appalling haircuts.
Here’s George Mega on the issue – because I’ve come to realise that if a man says it, it maybe be believed. Because all the women posting on this thread must be deluded.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/pity-the-burden-of-the-exotic-candidate/story-e6frgd0x-1225902764269
Ken if you found my comment mysterious, I’m really not going to try to educate you about sexual politics.
‘Because all the women posting on this thread must be deluded.’
Oh FFS! Have you actually read the comments on this thread?
I agree with GM – his point about the sexism cutting both ways is what I was hinting at above.
But let’s not have a nuanced discussion, much more fun to label everyone.
Adrian, we have a stack of men (not all) saying that there’s no sexism being displayed by the way Gillard is being talked about. Nothing to look at here, ladies. Rebekka, Helen, Myriad, Mindy, Furious Balancing and myself having been putting a counter view, and are promptly told we really don’t know what we’re talking about. Doesn’t this split in gender ( and it never will be a complete or clean split and women will disagree with each other as well) tell you something?
Re the “Catholic/Christian/AFA/Muslim reactionary vote” – it doesn’t exist. The Australian Christian Lobby – an entirely different thing – does and it works very hard at complaining very loudly that Chrisitians and their values aren’t getting a fair suck of the sauce bottle. They may influence the pollies, but according to Rodney Smith of Sydney University (Lateline, 2 Aug) they’re not very successful at influencing voters:
The Greens, at least, seem to have figured this out:
“Authentic” is overrated:
Fine @ 70 I doubt that anyone who comments here regularly would disagree with anything in the column you linked to. What I am objecting to is the tendency to make arguments along the lines of “You called Gillard charming/you did that because you attribute certain gender characteristics to charm/therefore you are engaging in gender politics”.
The constant tedious assertions of ‘dog-whistling’ fall into a similar category. Both tactics consist of attempts to explain what another person ‘really means’, or condemn their underlying attitudes and values, based on nothing more than a totally evidence-free collection of assertions and speculations. It’s a game anyone can play (one conservative counterpart is the dismissal of arguments for greater equality as the ‘politics of envy’) and it just distracts attention from issues of substance.
Fine I haven’t got time to go back through all the comments, but as far as I can see, the only person who could remotely be interpreted as saying that ‘no sexism is being displayed’ is Ute Man.
I honestly don’t think that you read the comments carefully, most of which are a lot more nuanced than you give them credit for, even if they may have been written by men.
akn – “What I call “progressive politics” is policy and personal conduct designed to deliver broad the program of democratic equality across all spheres between all citizens. It draws authority from democracy rather than from ideology.”
That’s very noble, if only it hadn’t come from someone who in recent times on this forum, described a person with a different ideology to you as sub-human.
It tells me (again) that commenting on chick threads is like poking bee hives: ill advised, pointless and unedifying.
Tells me nothing about the qanda audience or the nature of the questions though. This is why we can’t have nice things Fine.
adrian – “I honestly don’t think that you read the comments carefully, most of which are a lot more nuanced than you give them credit for, even if they may have been written by men.”
adrian, are you aware how often you imply sexism at the same time as denying it?
It is indeed educative to read this thread for nuance. Thanks for the tip.
That’s OK, furious balancing, glad to be of assistance. Soon you may actually begin to engage with the points made.
How can you expect some commenters to read for nuance when a substantial number can’t read for comprehension?
It is quite clear Ute Man that what you comprehend is being said and I what I comprehend is being said are two vastly different things. It’s not that we can’t read for comprehension it’s that some on this thread won’t accept that their words can be interpreted differently to the way they meant them or that unintented meanings can be read from their words.
Mindy why on earth would anyone deliberately interpret words to mean something the person who wrote them didn’t intend? It’s straightforward bad faith discourse. Anyway it’s clear there’s no prospect of any progress in the discussion and I don’t see any point in pursuing it.
furious balancing @76: Tough.
See the work of Norbert Elias on the civilizing process.
Adhering to democratic principles doesn’t mean treating Hobbesians with respect they don’t desrve especially when their political philosophy would recreate pre-modern social conditions for all of us. Believe me, people who think like that invariably don’t imagine themselves on the bottom of the social hierarchy they want to recreate.
It tells me (again) that commenting on chick threads is like poking bee hives: ill advised, pointless and unedifying.
To deny gender bias in the media while using language like “chick threads”… Sorry, I’d forgotten you were a spoof character, Ute man. Carry on!
Mindy @81:
That’s the problem.
Please apply that sort of nudge-nudge-wink-wink know-wot-I-mean see-the-sexist-bias embedded in unconscious expression textual analysis to the following words by Kim on another thread here on LP:
See what I mean?
Maybe we should all just have numbers instead of names like on The Prisoner like.
Oh, please and I’m being accused of not reading for nuance, when what we’re seeing is bunch of blokes being oafs. But I must remember, you’re all progressive, so sexism is an impossibility.
Helen wrote:
Help me I’m being stereotyped.
Well, isn’t “Ute Man” an archetype? And you must admit “chick threads” fits with it. I mean, you had me thinking you were serious there for a while.
(akn – Ah! Val Plumwood! First and perhaps only woman to survive a crocodile Death Roll. *doffs hat* *remember I haven’t got a hat, replaces hair* If only she was alive today to advise pollies how to survive the Media Death Roll.)
Yes. Crocodile Val as she became known. Quite a philosopher and an irascible soul if ever there was one. I was in a staff room when the news of the attack came over the radio. There was silence before someone said “Oh, that’s gotta be Val”. To which, after a longer and deep silence, came the reply “Fuck, I wonder how the croc’s doing?”.
adrian – “Soon you may actually begin to engage with the points made.”
You mean the points where Fine addressed akn’s comments, and akn confirmed her perceptions re: charm and authenticity and in the middle of said discussion you state that you do indeed read Gillard’s charm as “superficial”. Ute Man offers that he painted Hawke and Gillard with the same brush – which is fair enough – he did, but you were highlighting Gillard’s own ‘charm offensive’ as inauthentic in your post @ 22. And rather than engaging with that point you’ve questioned her ability to read nuance.
I agree with Fine when she says that she believes attributes are being read differently according to gender – I think that’s a fairly uncontroversial point of view but it’s one that most blokes in this thread have got their knickers in a twist over, perceiving it as a gendered attack on them.
Why are you all being so defensive? Ya know I’m getting kind of tired of these bloke threads all turning out this way. I mean really, boo-fucking-hoo – why can’t you all just grow a pair [of breasts].
Does that mean that mine (and Mark Lathams) moobs are not measuring up? ’cause y’know, ragging on (hurr, durr) Lathos Moobs was in no way a sexist attack on the great big idiot.
@Ken Lovell
Because there is such a thing as subtext, and sometimes it leaps to the fore?
No, it’s pointing out that language is often slippery and that one’s meaning and intent is not always so clear to others as it is to oneself.
Now this line here – you’ve said similar things so often that a careful reader would have more than ample justification for believing that what you actually mean here is not what is conveyed by a simple reading of your words. Since you so often do, in fact, come back to pursue discussions further after such pronouncements, we would surely be fools to take this statement at face value.
“As for Rebekka’s idea that labelling Gillard inauthentic is somehow sexist, my head hurts. It’s a leap of Evel Knievel-esque proportions.”
That’s not what I said. I said that labelling Gillard as “charming” and then calling the charm as inauthentic is sexist, as opposed to labelling a man as blokeish and not then continuing to label that as inauthentic. Try not to put words in my mouth, please.
There is nothing sexist about labelling any politician of either gender inauthentic. I was commenting on the specific language being used to do so in this particular case.
Sometimes I’m ashamed to be male and on LP.
This is one of them.
Bleedin’ obvious gender has been made into an issue in this election, and actually I reckon it should be, but its been raised for the wrong reasons, negatively sexist, by the wrong people, males, who instead ought to welcome the long overdue arrival of a strong woman, a real one, not the type Tony calls strong, to the top spot and whose gender can only enhance the political scene in a positive way.
Get used to it fellas, win or lose she ain’t going away.
Those who like and respect bees and understand how to interact with them are those who find their way to the honey without being stung. If you’re hostile from the outset, the bees can smell it and will come after you. ‘Poking’ will always have a bad outcome.
What do you mean I’ve said something suggestive? How dare you accuse me of having a subconscious and not being in total control of language?
And WTF is a “chick thread”, Ute Man, and in what way does this qualify as one? Simply by virtue of there being tiresome women on it who keep making points you don’t like and who won’t shut up when they’re told?
Dammit, can someone fix my hopeless tagging?
[Done - tt]
“Chick thread” is mass shouting down of male opinion while claiming victimhood, tigtog.
All sorts of comments turnup on blog sites, but the one for the ages this week is Tosca’s, 9, ino.
Did I get 100?
Really? And here was me thinking that “chick” was a denigratory tag to denote women. And here was me thinking that describing vigorous debate as “mass shouting down of male opinion” is itself a position of victimhood. This here language thing is subject to interpretation, innit?!
Hint, Ute dude: When you refer to women as “chicks” you are signalling your lack of respect from the get-go. See Pav upthread – Bees, poking, etc.
I never asked you anything about the term. Why do so many people of late confuse comments from Pavlov’s Cat and myself on this blog? It’s not like they aren’t clearly indicated as to who is in fact saying them.
Respect is a two way street Helen, and in this thread it’s obvious who decided they didn’t like travelling on it first.
My two cents’ worth: the use of the phrase “charming” about JG looks like a sexist expression of the general insult that politicians are inauthentic; but it’s only the expression of it, the “genuinely held” belief that she’s inauthentic is in no way related to her sex. Like when someone genuinely hates a person and calls them a bitch rather than a bastard. Is this a sign of sexism, or just sloppy language? As observed above, Hawke was routinely derided for being false, and with much less coded language than JG. Keating even more so. But I don’t think anyone ever said Hawke was charming…
Also any statements about JG’s inauthenticity need to be weighed against the strong class bias inherent in the piss-taking of her accent, intimations of a suspicion that it’s put on, etc. Yet another ALP leader being subjected to the claim that they don’t represent working people – just as Rudd was supposedly unable to understand working people ’cause his wife is rich [which, incidentally, seems like a reversal of standard sexist tropes in the media].
I’m much more concerned by the deep and unedifying level of sexism in the content of the questions, e.g. about family and motherhood and its ties with religion. That stuff is nasty and backward and not at all coded or subtle. I clicked on some SMH report just now about how well JG did, and the first couple of paragraphs are about how she doesn’t have a family. Just because idiots ask stupid, sexist questions doesn’t mean idiots have to report them…
Utes: any sort of discussion is possible with a little of what Armatrading described as love and affection.
I’m much more concerned by the deep and unedifying level of sexism in the content of the questions, e.g. about family and motherhood and its ties with religion. That stuff is nasty and backward and not at all coded or subtle.
Yes.
And what Paul Walter said about Tosca’s comment. Those exchanges on QANDA have made my week.
It’s a very interesting display of Ute Man’s sexism that even apart from referring to women as ‘chicks’ (which, clearly, is Not On), he refers to a thread on which male (identified) comments outnumber female (identified) comments in ratio of 60-40 as a “chick thread”.
Of course this phenomenon is not unique. It’s just we’re so strange, being female and all, that anything like gender equity looks like some weird CHICK THING where it’s just stacks on teh poor menz.
Certainly is, UM: you, at comment #18, which begins “Leave it out Fine.” Or is that your idea of ‘respectful’?
Oh c’mon Tigtog, um, I mean PC, no, Fine, no, Helen, no, furious balancing, oh shit who cares … you know all chicks are the same.
Especially when you don’t bother reading their comments properly. Or at all.
SG, thing is there is a processive element involved as we move from the past into the present and future. The conversation between ute man and feminists can be seen as evidence of its outworkings.
O fcourse the stuff about Gillard’s appearance/”femininity” is atavistic nonsense, it’s just that we’ve not got used to a post industrial social configuration and the changing interpersonal relationships involved in the process.
So ute man will say its a grumble but the feminists will say, “no, you missed the changes and need to see the apparition of a female PM on a different rationale than you employ now, than 1956, when gender roles were configured differently”.
Dont worry ute man, I know how you feel- I just got pinged for using an inappropriate reference to people with disabilities ( andrew peacock is also in ds on this, so am in illustrious company!!), but the rebukes are fair, we live in a different age and now can afford to find out about how disadvantaged people of different types feel, improve our own sensitivites thru conversing with them on a more apt level,and thus help in advancing the Enlightenment Project, for want of a better word. are taskin a society ofplentyis the rewarding one of helping others acheive the same life satisfaction that we more comfortably off already experience..
“I’m much more concerned by the deep and unedifying level of sexism in the content of the questions”
I understand that, but language is incredibly important. Choice of words expresses underlying ideas and assumptions, values and hierarchies, as well as what’s being said on the surface.
Words take on a cultural ‘flavour’ from the contexts in which we’ve heard them previously. Which is one of the reasons why calling someone a bitch is quite different from calling someone a bastard.
Pavlovs Tigtog wrote:
</blockquote> dammit.
You probably ought to quit while you’re behind, Ute Man.
Ken asked:
I can’t imagine what “deliberately” can mean here other than an assertion of bad faith. That aside, what seems to have eluded you Ken is the possibility that the intent of the utterer of words may not be all one needs to know about what they mean, even assuming one could have complete access in real time to the utterer’s intent and the utterer were completely conscious of everything driving the utterance.
Meaning goes beyond the author because the author always exists in contexts of which, at best, he or she can only be partially aware.
One should not be condemned merely because one has only partial knowledge of pertinent context. That applies to us all. Yet the words themselves are fair game for analysis, precisely so each of us can become a little less partial in our insights.
Ute Man you might be mistaken- that was tigtogs cat, mate
Tell me, Ute Man – how was I being inflammatory? By unpacking the way language is used?
Paul Walter, why you have no idea how Uteman feels cause Uteman is in no way reacting in an oversensitive manner to what was a reasonable critique. YOu are the only one doing that, so no need to start beating drums together yet.
No, there is no similarity. You are being a big fat cwy baby and Mr Uteman is provoking see? “chick” thread see?
Now, David, please explain me cause I wanna know:
What manner of thing be this “male” opinion that is being shut down? Is that an homogenous construct that stretches its shadow across this pants nation calling all trousers to arms, victimised as they are by “victimhood”?
????
Or do you lie awake an night, wondering if this “male” opinion circles only in the lonely confines of your febrile Ute brain and the cold isn’t helping much?
My only request: Could PLEASE you make it a cracker?
Many thanks.
Ssssh, Fine, you shouldn’t be
having a political discussionarguing with teh menz. It’s “deliberately unpleasant”.[Ahem] “Deliberately unpleasant“.
You’re leg pulling, Homo Utilis.
Not a bad comment under the circumstances, Casey, but not sure I wanted to see it three times.
The law of diminishing returns has obviously set in. Mine will appear only once.
I guess all that victimhood sent the blog nuts.
See, told you so.
Fine, I don’t think you were so much unpacking the language as kicking it around to see where it might land.
BTW, have you seen Inception? I’ve decided that you can tell a lot about someone by their attitude to this film. Or maybe not.
Ye goode joke, forsooth, yet I must aske all to hearken to my words: when the blog is slow and your comment is not appearing – DO NOT SEND IT AGAIN. Copy it, wait a minute and refresh the page to see if your comments made it through. If yes, hurrah. If not, paste the copied text and then send it again.
NB – duplicate comments in this thread now deleted.
No, what started the stoush was your knee-jerk reaction to that or any feminist reading of anything. And that comment was not ‘disrespectful’ (which was what I was asking about) in the sense that it wasn’t addressed to anyone in particular.
If you mean me, and it’s hard to tell cos you are nearly as crap with your blockquote tags as I am (I blame the loss of the Preview function), then I can only reply that I am never deliberately unpleasant, though I admit to the occasional bit of deliberate baiting, and am also occasionally accidentally unpleasant.
It’s possible for me to admit that because, unlike several people here, I don’t cling to the extraordinarily literal-minded view that I have total control of the meaning of what I say. There seems to be a view abroad that the intention of the speaker or writer is the only criterion for its interpretation. Poets, novelists, dramatists have known for centuries that this is not the case.
But I would argue (and am astonished that these things need to be spelled out, but there you go) that (a) the subconscious does, in fact, exist, and frequently produces things we wish it wouldn’t, in the shape of body language as well as language language, and (b) what we really think is often revealed by the kind of language that we use, separately from or even contrary to what we consciously intended.
“Chick thread”, for example. I’m sure you weren’t deliberately being that unpleasant.
But I did not send it any more than once Pavtig’s Furious Balancing Cat, I swear. The comment got frozen (the screen froze) and I closed the window. Then when I opened Larvatus again there were three comments there. Further the bloody thing published the draft comment and not the final one. But thanks for fixing it. You are so Fine.
Cheers
Casybekka
That’s not what I said, that’s your interpretation of what I said. Thank you for neatly proving my point for me Ken.
Fine, akn said,
*
I can’t read sexism in akn’s comment above. He doesn’t say he has construed charm as an absence of authenticity, but implies that others may do.
A valid comment and not redolent with sexism, considering all the negative connotations there are about charm and its possessors.
Witchcraft (spell binding), insincerity and un-trustworthiness spring to mind, all of which are equal opportunity character traits. Politicians go on charm offensives to get votes.
Chris @64, i just recoil whenever I see John Howard.
*my bold
Adrian, I haven’t seen ‘Inception’ yet, so I can’t help you out.
Tigtog only an ill-informed person would take issue with your observation @ 125 that
What I take vigorous exception to is someone taking it upon themselves to tell me what I ‘really think’ on the basis of their highly tendentious interpretation of my language. Deciding what someone ‘really thinks’ on the basis of their language is informed guesswork at best and necessarily involves selecting one interpretation from many possibilities. The notion that it can confidently be done on the basis of comments made on a blog is simply unsustainable, even if it was a worthwhile project which it isn’t.
Jane @ 128 – sure plenty of reasons to do that, I was just pondering on the realisation that Howard was getting criticised on this site as a result of a physical disability he has.
Mindy @ 127 no it’s not, it’s me not taking the trouble to read what you wrote carefully. My apologies.
@Ken, you do realise that was Pavlov’s Cat at 125, right? You’re being funny now, right?
Or is it just that all us ‘chicks’ really are interchangeable?
@jane, just because YOU can’t read it into it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. And if you didn’t realise witchcraft has gendered layers of meaning, you’re not looking very hard.
Now Ken, I think it has been already pointed out that there is no such person as Pavtig’s Tog.
‘@jane, just because YOU can’t read it into it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.’
Well conversely Rebekka, just because you think YOU can read into it, doesn’t mean it is there.
Fair’s fair. Hey I’m getting the hang of this game.
You sure about that Casey. Just because you don’t know anyone called Pavtig’s Tog, doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
Adrian, I know you think that’s your idea, but the truth is I had to go all the way into your limbo to get you to say that. I aged 50 years down there. Now you owe me one good sedative Adrian.
Oh, Rebekka, I do so very much hope he was. Because it would be so sad if he wasn’t.
Is that Casey’s Cat? Or perhaps it’s Rebekka’s Tigtog. What do I know – I’m just a chick. I’ll wait until the blokes comes along and tells us what’s happening.
Rebekka,
All very true. But it can also just represent differences between the sexes. If it were the case that JG were a slimy ALP apparatchik from central casting, completely false and planning on using spin and lies to deceive the electorate, it’s unlikely that she would present herself as really blokey – she would know that this won’t work for a female polly. So she would present as charming, just as Hawke presented as blokey.
Thus if you’re a two-bit useless journalist with no ability to think past sludgy stereotypes, you immediately pin JG as a false spinmeister, and your immediate assumption is that her falseness would be presented as charm, because she’s female.
This doesn’t say anything about whether you think all women’s charm is false, all women are charming or deceptive, or even whether you think female politicians in general are falsely charming. It’s just a gendered representation of a more profound stereotype in modern politics, the image of the champagne socialist deceiving the workers into a lifetime of welfare dependency.
I think it’s a sign of the media reporting on JG as a woman, but I don’t think that’s a problem. She is a woman and it should be recognised. For me the problem is more with the way the substantive policy issues are being ignored in favour of commentary on what kind of woman she is (barren, etc.). At least the “charming” comment has something to do with what kind of politician she is.
PW@109, awesome comment. And don’t worry – feminists constantly get pinged by other lefties, too. It’s an ongoing project
sg @140, go back and read my first comment. I was not objecting to charm, I was objecting to how charm was being portrayed as fake.
Rebekka @133, akn said “So she’s charming”, noting what had already been acknowledged in previous posts and then, to paraphrase, went on to say that there are those who think charm is not a positive character trait. A trait shared by both sexes, I believe.
So even if akn reckons charm sucks, his disapproval holds true for both men and women. Hardly sexist and hardly anything to get our womanly knickers in a knot about.
Chris @131, lol, but my aversion to the Rodent has nothing to do with his deafness; my mother was as deaf as a post and I can feel myself going down that path. My aversion to him is solely because he’s a scumbag of the first water.
i did rebekka and i was responding specifically to that.
Well, this thread has been quite something thus far – argumentative, demonstrative, iterative, etc. Well done.
@sg, well you’re not making a particularly clear point then.
@jane, once again, I wasn’t objecting to the word charm. Go back and read the FIRST post I wrote.
well sorry about that Rebekka. “Charming can be false” is a gendered representation of the type of politician that the journalist thinks Gillard is. It’s not a sexist interpretation of her as woman rather than politician. This puts it in the same camp as “Hawke’s everyman characteristics are an act.” Male politicians don’t generally do charming and female MPs don’t generally do blokey, so it’s unlikely that a journalist will ever be able to say about a female MP “her blokiness is an act.”
If we accept that JG is charming, then any journo who thinks she is false and full of spin is going to have to attack that charm as fake. But at least they’re criticising her political style.
As opposed to Tony Jones allowing questions about why JG doesn’t have children; that’s not about her political style, but her femininity, and it’s thoroughly and completely sexist.
Helen @ 141:
Paul Walter is one of the most awesome and sensitive people I’ve ever met in the eworld, Helen – so I really hope that you are not being sarcastic.
To get back – probably in vain – to the topic: IMHO PM Gillard performed superbly on qanda. As opposed to the clunker – who couldn’t even be traded in – on the 7:30 Report tonight.
Thanks Helen.
I’ve been chastened by recent events to the extent that something happened dramatically pointed out to me how wrong I was.
A neighbour has been diagnosed with bordline personality disorder. I checked up what that meant, as a result of the challenge I’d received at least to understand others copping a hard time.
The following day, when I was feeling off colour, she helped me out and then we sat down for a chat and coffee.
After the topic arose in conversation, I mentioned (on eggshells) that I’d googled up some info on it and after awhile, I observed that people with her condition sometimes had had it brought on by trauma.
Am still stunned, two days later, at what she told me in response to the remark; I still can’t get over the damage a person can do to another person, by the evidence finally presented in someone elses’ eyes, outside of a textbook in real life.
Cutting to the chase, I was further encouraged to consider tigtog’s hint about “ablest” language, which I dismissed prior to investigation earlier as likely nonsense.
but “ableism” does relate to this thread because it highlights the smoke and mirrors ways in which Gillard has been misrepresented.
Change is not welcome and sometimes not palatable, but “truth (and the work finding it) sets me free”.
ok. so this is a rave. But it may be true that people might not realise the extent that habituation normalises something that can cause distress to others without realisng it.
But the truth is, but for some of my critics here, I might not have considered the pain aspect, from the thought of injuring Paul Burns and been able to then understand the true magnitude of the tragedy that has over taken my neighbour.
To others she’s delinquent, but she’s actually a person still in convulsion, in a sense, suspended with in a suffocating place where the atmosphere is condusive of unrelenting anxiety.
It shows, you think you know it when you know nothing at all and hopefully here most can admit they might not have the real idea of how an “other” may be feeling, at all.
Well said, paul, very well said indeed.
The rest of you, there comes a point where everyone’s just repeating themselves. It’s not conducive to anything.
jane @ 143 – oh sorry I didn’t mean to imply that you were, it was in reference to the earlier comment by someone else talking about how they didn’t like how he shouted. Its likely that he often doesn’t realise he is actually shouting.
Hi Paul Walter, I think what you said just then is really important for people to understand, and very well said. If you read my line above, and you think I’m the one who is your critic, I need to make clear I was only joking, Just jokes Paul. But I am sorry if I upset you, just the same. I understood from your previous comment where you were at, and what you were saying, I and was just ribbing Ute Man cause, well, Ute Man is ribbable. Anyway I hope your friend gets the appropriate treatment and gets better, Paul.
Hi Casey, the thing is the incident was a gift. If it hadn’t been for people pointing out to this complacent bloke, where he missed a point and what that could have meant and remindingme of how I’ve felt when others have likewise misjudged me, I might never have seen my neighbour for who she really is. Her disability is fearsome because there is no apparent wound to stich upbut i hadnever actually “seen” the real magnitude of her suffering and what she’s done even to survive against the odds, understanding her background.
How could I, when I’ve by and large had it so good myself?
Fiona Reynolds was posting while I was posting?
Fiona, you astonish me with such compliments, you dont see what I see, when it comes to me.
She’s an absolute sweetheart. She often gives me a ring just to see how Im going, and her mind has me green with envy.
To the others, for their kind remarks, thanks for the affirmation, when I actually needed it at this time.
Paul Walter, you have my affirmation in spades any time. Take care, and sleep sweetly.
Shortly.
I had to laugh at you firing a shot across Helen’s bows, I have not the slightest doubt from my experience of Helen that she was being both generous and deadly serious.
But gee, its nice to think you’ve got a big sister looking out for you out in the expanses of the playground, during the lunch break.
Rewatched Q&A.
Regarding Gillard suggesting that she admired Don Dunstan, do people remember when Dunstan went down to the Glenelg jetty to ‘hold back the tidal wave’ that a fortune teller had predicted would hit Adelaide?
Maybe this explain’s Gillard’s attempts to make the asylum seeker ‘go away’ – dealing with the imagined threat versus challenging the idea of the threat.
“I understand that some of you think this threat is real so I am going to pretend do something about it”.
versus
“This is not a threat and you are ignorant if you think it is”.
fb,
Yep, back in the ‘seventies. The fortune teller was a Christian fundy, so Don went to the beach, with press in tow, to be present for the great apocalypse.
Remarkable bloke, Dunstan was. But even he got hunted down, in the end.
“I understand that some of you think this threat is real so I am going to pretend do something about it”.
Uh huh. And what do you think of this course, furious?
Why, I think it’s ludicrous and in the case of asylum seekers it’s totally gutless, Casey, but if Gillard has a reform agenda that can match Dunstan’s I could probably learn to forgive her for it.
Now, what did you think of Inception?
*waves shiny things, in an attempt to distract Casey from such serious questioning*
I think fb has forgotten to mention that its the Libs who have pushed the Bogy meme and Labor has been force to operate within the resulting paradigm, until some of the fear and loathing is educated out of the public.
But every time things have started to settle and a commencement made on a more suitable policy, the Right and their press mates, devoid of anything more substantial to offer,have gone back to button pushing as to the fearful with Labor always conceding the battle to avoid losing the war.
I do like shiny things thank you Furious
Regardless of my strong disapproval of Gillard’s performance there, I am voting for her because I live in Bennelong and therefore will vote for McKew who I much admire, (did you know Alexander is door knocking in tennis shoes? the silly @##$) but the other major reason has to do with the level of misogyny that obsessively comes her way. Yes, for this specifically I am voting for her. Or rather, for what she exposes and the way she fractures the security of certain vested interests. Being a woman who rejected a few traditional institutions, she is scaring the crap out of people. Who knew? This is why everyone returns to her marital status, her lack of children, this is why she must bear the burden of placating Rudd, of being asked why she did not call Rudd when he was in hospital, of meeting with Rudd and being called to perform a public expiation in front of the nation on every show on every channel – she is being asked to perform as both the magdalene and the holy maternal. It’s extraordinary really. When did you ever see this before? What male leader had to do this after a successful challenge? To publicly mollify the vanquished by performing ritualised feminine roles. What sexist garbage. As much as I actually felt sorry for Rudd, this is utterly revolting. Let us not go into the stereotypes that were employed at the leadership change again, but in this campaign, having to explain again and again that a lack of children does not make a lack of concern for children etc etc. Of pointing out the psychosis in saying that not being a mother leaves one incapable of understanding parents. What? Not being a mother exempts you for all time from the human experience? Makes you an alien? She threatens some patriarchal interests, surely. Interests which, when questioned, retort by saying they are not there. Julia Gillard, by virtue of her otherness, and her patience in the face of the sexism levelled at her, is a real problem to patriarchal discourses which circulate in the media, on blogs and on the street. The way these attacks focus literally on the body of the PM and on the choices she made for her body are very very interesting I think. It signifies the potential of Julia Gillard, a woman who has refused the institutions by which her body would once have been controlled. And in all of that sexism and misogyny that has been levelled at her, if you listen for long enough, if you let the conversation go for long enough, inevitably it descends into completely irrational psychosis.
Yes, er, none of that is off topic. I was thinking all that when I watched Qanda and heard the gender based questions. That’s what I was thinking. All inspired by Qanda.
Alright then.
Do you really think she does, Casey? Fracture the security of certain vested interests, I mean.
Exposing the sexism, yes. It’s been confronting and depressing to witness the extent of it. But fracturing the security of those responsible for the sexism..? How? It seems to me she yields to it more often than not.
Likewise, her response to the question about gay marriage, in both Q&A and the RSL thingee depresses me. I’ll start to consider that she is rejecting traditional institutions when we see a shift in rhetoric on that issue – she does not even offer a glimmer of hope in her responses.
Argentina recently passed marriage equality laws, joining countries like Spain and Portugal. Ireland now has civil union, even some parts of Italy have civil union….how can an Australian politician still be simply saying, “No”?
There’s a really interesting question there about why traditionally Catholic majority countries have been much quicker to legalise same sex marriage than traditionally Protestant majority cultures.