Tony Abbott will be appearing on Q&A in a few minutes. Please use the comments thread to, well, comment on his performance. As usual, there’ll be lots of Twitter action, under the hashtag #qanda.
NB: Discussion of Julia Gillard’s appearance last week at LP can be found here.
If this man gets up, we are all doomed. He is on his best behavoiur now, but when he gets across the line, he will destroy a lot of what Australia is capable of becoming.
Oh so Rabbit’s paid Maternity Leave is not middle-class welfare, but ‘paid for’ by business and is therefore an ‘entitlement’. Just because tax-payers’ money is laundered through to private businesses to pay Mat Leave at the salary recipients are ‘entitled to’ doesn’t make it ‘middle class welfare’….
And funnily enough, no-one’s yet asked him about his hair, relationship or parenting.
My better half refuses to watch anymore of this God-awful drivel. Back to the sport.
Your better half is right – what a joke!
@3 – Yeah, funny that, Rebekka!
The other day Megan (on the Insiders) he insisted that the ALP’s scheme was welfare but his was a work entitlement.
Gee it’s hard not to like him though:)
Saying that, I was surprised that the questioning was so tame. Tony J was on radio today explaining that the Q&A audience would be drawn from a register (of 25,000 I think) compiled way before the election was called – so presumably with not so many party hacks.
It’s very easy not to like him PeterTB. People who make reckless, ignorant and malicious claims to achieve political office are well down my list of people to even respect.
I’m sure as you get to know hium as Prime minister…….
I couldn’t watch as I had to pay attention to my toenails.
Thought Q&A showed the positives (Abbott’s reasonably personable, or at least he doesn’t dribble) as well as the negatives (total policy-free zone, apart from the Great God Market).
Speaking tactically, the young Muslim man’s question *could* have been answered with a simple “I’d be honoured” (liked the tweet about seeing a mosque from his electorate!), and the disabled woman’s question deserved a more complete answer (in particular, he should have given Peacock a serve). Fortunately, Tones doesn’t think on his feet that well, which I find a bit odd in an “attack dog” Parliamentarian.
I think it’s partly that attack dogs go first, in the hope of rendering the opposition incapable of speech before any actual exchange has taken place. It’s really only when responding and rebutting that one needs to be quick on one’s feet. Example: ‘There are some things that can’t be measured.’
The other thing is that in order to be any good at repartee you do actually have to have an open mind, to listen to what is being said, and to be a bit other-directed, if only so that you can read their minds and mess with them. But Abbott’s indifference, if not hostility, to the claims of any form of Other (women, atheists, the Left, people who went to state schools, people who understand the internet, Enemies on Boats) is the backbone of his political philosophy, so it’s not really surprising that he gets clumsy when required to engage with it.
Again…why is business not up in arms about his paid parental leave plan?
Because it just isn’t going to happen.
Abbott did his “softly spoken salesman” routine to charm the audience…I’ve seen many a salesman & priest do the same.
The public are easily swayed by the use of persuasive language that is often distracting waffle, a touch of humour, giving them what they think they want to hear in a vague fashion…w/ oodles of faux, priest-like sincerity. The kind of concern not demonstrated when talking about Brogden, Bernie Banton and others in the past.
And Abbott was not pressed much or put in many awkward positions like Gillard at Rooty Hill.
In fact he received a number of questions that were loaded (as joni noted) that served to criticise Labor…or mock Kevin Rudd/Julia Gillard.
I noted tho he panicked when pressed on the “paid parental leave scheme”…he not only confirmed that this would be paid for by taxpayers…and had to rush back to mentioning the “levy” but then couldn’t answer how long the “levy” would exist on companies…
Abbott then became confused…and came across as BSing when he stumbled over the cost of the PPL scheme.
The big tells were his furiously nodding head, change in tone/pitch, rapid speech, waving hands, panicked eyes…and then waffle followed by an accusatory statement directed at Jones & the audience in defence of his “uncosted” & “back of a postage stamp”, “solo decided” grandiose policy.
I thought it interesting that the mocking of Rudd via a crap impersonator came to the rescue just as Abbott was panicking…so w/ pressure off him he was able to calm & compose himself during this unwarranted distraction…and once more turn on the charm offensive. Sadly he was not pressed on much again after this.
Abbott’s vague, nothing response to an earnest question about the Coalition’s lack of policy or feeble demonstration of support for The Arts during the election campaign was insulting to anyone interested in or employed in this area.
He managed to deftly deflect the query regarding the “boatphone”. More scrutiny and diverse questions should’ve been posed.
And it was annoying to hear Abbott get away w/ an insincere answer regarding whether his religious beliefs would interfere w/ government decision-making. Jones should’ve taken him up on this…considering his approach on the abortion pill previously…and views on divorce etc.
Abbott’s a smooth operator of late…but he’s being thrown softballs much of the time. Doesn’t take much to hit them back to the audience and get them purring.
N’
TSSK you cant have it both ways you will have to make up (euphemism)your own mind it’s a conundrum.
It’s important that voters realise too that Abbott will play this “softly spoken”, “compassionate conservative” bit a fair bit whilst in government, not unlike many Tories & neo-CONS before him…
it’s the other ministers & the supporting shock jocks, newspapers, TV hosts and the likes of Bolt/Ackerman that will do most of the dirty work for him.
That’s the way it works.
N’
Nasking what I saw was a vacuum salesman with a propensity to suck, the vacuum was vacuous ( literal translation/lack of thought/mindless)That cleans that up for me.
Good summaries, nasking!
Pavlovs Cat Listening to Tony created the impression in me of a eunech without integrity.Tony doesn’t think well Period
Commentators applaud Tony if he can get through a session with making a complete goose of himself. He has a very low bar to get over for most of the media because the expectation was that he would implode.
I am finding it a tad annoying though that even though he continually puts in poor and insipid performances on the debates, he is proclaimed as performing well for no other reason than he did not completely stuff up.
Sad really that we have such low expectations of our potential leader.
Tony doesn’t think well Period
That seems a bit harsh Brian62. Hasn’t he got a couple of degrees and a Masters? Or do you think he bribed someone like George Bush did for his MBA?
I notice that while he hammered the idea that parental leave was an entitlement and not “welfare” he later referred to it as a “benefit”.
The ability to get through university courses does not entail being able to think on your feet. And even thinking about things away from moements when you are questioned about them is constrained by one’s paradigm, one’s constituency, prior claims etc …
If we were a less docrtrinaire conservative he’d have more wiggle room.
I think it amusing though that he specifies that he voted for, of all people, Barrie Unsworth in 1988, surely the worst ALP premier in NSW since 1976 and utterly emblematic of the Sussex St gang Abbott now complains about. One need not be a supporter of Greiner to see why he looked a lot more appealing to most mainstream voters than “the killer in a cardigan”. The fellow was instantly unpopular and people here will recall how he made Rockdale the most marginal seat in NSW and how even Bass Hill after his ascension went over to the other side.
The fact that Abbott would switch sides for this character shows not merely poor judgement but really, where his head was at — Unsworth was your archetype ugly DLP-style reactionary by contrast with the much more liberal and contemporary Greiner. Really, Unsworth was born 40 years too late — like Tony Abbott himself.
ooops …
[If he were a much less doctrinaire conservative]
Fran, you’ve been swatting up on Tony?
Baby steps……..
I did the swatting up back in December, PeterTB.
Helen @ 24 – I don’t see how thats contradictory. We have after all a Fringe Benefits Tax which is certainly not targeted at taxing welfare unless you see employee lunches and cars as corporate provided welfare
And on that topic I wonder if a large company now announces a paid maternity leave benefit for their employees at their normal salary rate, if they’ll get criticised for causing a price rise of their products.
I thought it was amazingly obvious how stacked the audience was. I liked the Asian woman who started her question by saying Given the Labor Party’s catastrophic economic policies … Then there was the old guy who prefaced his question with a line about Labor wanting to “destroy are future.”
So PeterTB, how much are you set to collect after an Abbott win?
I’m pretty sure David that the woman who asked that challenged TA to “take the ALP to task” over this and asked about why we couldn’t have more Town Hall debates (albeit with a panel format) basically paving the highway for Abbott to roll down.
Abbott, in true Monty Burns style, did his “tough but fair” response while trying to avoid sounding ironic …
I do agree though that episodes like this are healthy, in that one can see that Dorothy Dix need not be a western woman. That has to be a step forward. KUDOS to QANDA for that …
Oh … and the Rudd impersonator. Tony was clearly ruffled at that turn of events! Gosh … if only they had thought of something equally vacuous for Gillard to deal with.
Goodness me, PeterTB, you make it sound as though you think there’s a lot to learn.
PC,
I think you’re going a bit overboard here:
Paid Parental leave is a woman-friendly policy.
How do you justify the assertion of indifferent/hostile to people wjo understand the internet, atheists and state schoolers ?
Taking a similar approach one might also say Bob Brown is scared of the Other because he is indifferent/hostile to the right, people who believe in God and private schoolers.
It is good to see #14 back in good form.
Sorry Tony, you are truly an empty vessel and a triumph of appearance over substance.
It is good that Peter TB turns up here, he is a much better troll than those at other sites.
Id simply like someone to explain why I have to pay for other people to have kids. Kids are a lifestyle choice, my lifestyle choice is to take 6 months off to ride a Ducati through Italy but I wouldnt expect anyone else to pay for it. You want kids fine, have em, just dont put your hand in my pocket unless its to gee me up to help you make em. PS, if we do make em, your keeping em!
I thought he was about to explode when asked the question about gay marriage. The horror on his face was classic. Overall, he was nowhere near as polished as Gillard. Couldn’t perform the showman’s trick of breaking the fourth wall to destroy thge illusion he was just anoyjrer shifty politician. Except, it ain’t no illusion. With the couyntry in this guy’s hands we’re going to hell in a handbasket, eg that nasty answer on welfare – which proved, if it needed to be proved over again – that when it comes to screwing the unemployed, the Coalition are just slightly worse than Labor.
I expect nothing less (or better) from their ABC.
What struck me was the way Tony gazed up into space after most questions were asked as though seeking inspiration. It was almost as though he was listening to a little speaker concealed in his ear before answering.
Cuppa @ 37. Yes it is quite unbelievable. But why?
John D @ 38,
I think you have a point there. I wonder who the puppeteers were?
It was God, of course!
Just ‘cos you can’t see Him, doesn’t mean he’s not there…
“I thought he was about to explode when asked the question about gay marriage. The horror on his face was classic. Overall, he was nowhere near as polished as Gillard.”
Totally agree that he’s not as polished a performer as Julia Gillard but I thought that he handled the gay marriage question quite well, certainly better than Gillard and Penny Wong who quite clearly don’t personally believe what they’re saying on the topic – and the political expedience shows. Didn’t notice any ‘horror’ on his part Paul. The question was hardly unexpected given the regularity with which it has surfaced to date and his response seemed pretty considered and thoughtful to me. I don’t agree with him on gay marriage or most other things but I don’t accept that he’s the sum total of the caricature that emerges from LP comments threads, either.
GH # 43,
Abbott may have – or as you infer – should have known the topic of gay marriage would come up – but I suspect he expected it to come from a gay or a lesbian, not a parent who was a Vietnam Vet and a Liberal supporter. Hence the panic. His briefed answer wasn’t going to work. Sorry, I should have made myself clearer.
As for Abbott being a caricature on LP. More a self caricature. Though I’ve no doubt one could get into an enjoyable conversation with him on any number of topics on a personal level.
Or, to put it another way – if Turnbull had been leader of the Opposition, the ALP would be toast. Tones is just not up to the job – hence my tendency to mock him. (And I despise his politics and his policies.)
I thought Abbott’s performance was abysmal – when he had trouble answering he frowned, glared and blabbered. The other thing that struck me was how often he didn’t directly answer the question, either jumping back on his “Labor/Julia did this or that..) or claim he wasn’t a scientist, tech-head etc
Which all begs the question what does he offer? Exactly what is it that he does know? Seems to me the only job he could credibly carry with any kind of knowledge behind him is Sports Minister. He certainly didn’t convince me that he would do a good job as Australia’s first citizen. Julia’s performance last week was a lot more prime ministerial and she addressed the hard questions – not once did she dodge the issue by talking instead about Abbott’s policy. And she came across as a better PM on the Four Corners program as well.
So PeterTB, how much are you set to collect after an Abbott win?
I wish I had put money on when the odds were over $4, but I am really not at all confident of an Abbott win. I am however encouraged that he seems to be getting his self discipline problems under control, and I think he has done well enough to retain the leadership after an election loss.
Is there any hope of Labor poaching Malcolm Turnbull? He would make a better PM than Julia, and Tony wouldn’t be sorry to see the back of him.
Much as he doesn’t appeal to most who frequent sites like this, he may appeal to many of the politically disengaged, because on a certain level he comes across superficially plausible, and not quite as smooth most politicians.
I hope that most people can see through this to the charlatan beneath, but when you’re only half concentrating and couldn’t care less…
“what I saw was a vacuum salesman with a propensity to suck, the vacuum was vacuous”
Well said Brian. Abbott sucks big time.
Thnx Nick. I remembered more in bed, it was late, but things have moved on now. Gutless Tony is still playing a form of “rope-a-dope” w/ Julia.
In these final days of the election campaign I think it’s essential that the focus move onto some of the alternative (shadow) ministers who may take up influential positions in an Abbott government.
Abbott’s Motley Crew: Moving Backwards?
http://cafewhispers.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/abbotts-motley-crew-moving-backwards/
N’
As I’ve noted before (Patrick and PeterTB) Hubby and I put money on an Abbott win some time back. We will collect over $2000 if he wins.
It was a hedge though, to cover our personal disgust if he did.
I didn’t think the audience was stacked; the hard questions were applauded and the obvious Dixers were not. Dodgy answers generally weren’t applauded, thought I felt that the audience was giving him the benefit of the doubt some of the time.
My favourite creep was the GP with the God-complex; I’m glad I don’t live in the Blue Mountains! But I can vouch for the time-travelling Viking as being no friend of Abbott.
“one might also say Bob Brown is scared of the Other because he is indifferent/hostile to the right, people who believe in God and private schoolers.”
The Other (in a social science sense, which I assume is what we’re talking about here) is people who _don’t_ fit into society.
John D @ 38, perhaps the Archbishop was feeding him answers through an earpiece??
Rebekka,
Are you sure that your definition of The Other is canonical ?
Wikipedia offers a good article which suggests that The Other may be employed in relation to any arbitrary group, not just thr dominant group.
In any case, the point of my question to PC was about the fairness or otherwise of her summary of Abbott’s putative indifference/hostility to various groups.
I suggested that if PC used the same criteria and applied it to Bob Brown then she may also conclude (with a similar lack of fairness) that Bob Brown also has a generalised fear of people who are different to him.
Paul.
If Turnbull was still the leader of the Libs the ETS would have been passed through the senate, the libs would be even more divided and turnbull would still have gremlin gretch hanging around his neck. Turnbull may be a good pollie but he was only ever a chair warmer for the real libs alter boy. Had to keep the focus off Tones for as long as possible and turbull was the right distraction
Baraholka, I was actually using the word as much or more in the psychoanalytic sense as in the social-science ditto, and the point of my comment was about fear and rejection, on which, I repeat, Abbott’s emphasis has been consistently placed not just in his campaign but in his entire career.
His main mantra in this election has been ‘Stop the boats’, and if you don’t think that phrase expresses rejection and plays on the electorate’s fears, then nothing I can say will help. If you can’t see for yourself what his overall attitude to women’s autonomy as equal human beings is, then nothing I say will help. If you can’t see that saying homosexuality makes him feel ‘threatened’ is an expression of fear, then nothing I can say will help.
My point is that fear and/or rejection of anyone different from him is what shapes Abbott’s political philosophy. It is clearly not what shapes Bob Brown’s.
PC,
On two of the topics you mention @55 – homosexuality, boats – I agree that TA displays fear in relation to the first and hostility in relation to the second.
On the third you mention @55, women’s autonomy, I would say TA is a mixed bag with RU486 being a negative for him from a feminist viewpoint but paid parental leave being a positive. But ‘women’s autonomy’ is a more nuanced concept than ‘women’ and it was ‘women’ that you said TA displayed indifference/hostility toward @14.
Where I disagree with you @14 is your statement that TA also displays indifference/hostility toward women (in general), atheists, people who understand the internet and private schoolers.
I think you were going a bit overboard.
Bob Brown is no special friend of the Right, believers in God or private schoolers but neither would I say because of that that he is indifferent/hostile toward them, nor would I extrapolate that the has a generalised fear of The Other.
Brilliant Rebekka, 52.
Because “othering” is often a subconscious thing and inscribed through culture, which makes it sometimes the more damaging, for that.
Cannot think of a person less likely to “other” anyone else than Bob Brown or more self reflexive, imo.
I wonder what gives at the ABC? I worked there during the 90s and there was a sort of predictable robotic left bias among a lot of the staff. Well meaning centre-left stuff. I remember the fin review described RN at the time as producing endless undergraduate essays on women, aborigines and the environment.
Alot of the staff are still there, so there doesn’t appear to have been any great shakeout of staff. I work across the road at the University of Technology and constantly run into old colleagues. There a self-absorbed bunch twice I’ve been asked why I’m keeping such a low profile and had to point out that I left the ABC 12 years ago!
Now we have this weak tea impersonation of the Murdoch press. The concept of an independent media outlet is a tough gig but the thought of yet another right-wing attach dog, albeit a fairly toothless one, isn’t something tax payers should fund in my opinion.
And you are very welcome so to think, Baraholka. There is no law that says you must agree with me, nor any that says I must retract. I do however think you are being puzzingly literal-minded about matters of language, attitude, philosophy and belief, none of which are susceptible of proof in the way you seem to want them to be. Especially not by using Wikipedia as an authority.
‘Overboard’, eh? Thrown there by my evil boat-person parents, or mayhap by the Navy following Mr Rabbit’s orders via Boatphone?
baraholka:
That’s because there is no evidence that his “no special friend” opinions are driven by a generalised fear of The Other. For such proof you’d need images of him nearly exploding when asked a question pertinent to his position on his particular Other.
You won’t see Bob Brown talking to a mining magnate in public the way Abbot did to Roxon. There’s your hint, right there…
PC,
If the Wikipedia article is defective or incorrect please feel free to point out its flaws.
If TA really has displayed indifference/hostility toward women (in general), atheists, people who understand the internet and private schoolers then feel free to post the examples.
Neither, of course.
I would guess that you’re just letting off some steam against TA in the LP clubhouse and let your typing figures run ahead of considered criticism of TA, of which much can be made.
Gosh SG, pity the poor mining magnates?
Baraholka, you may want to read a bit further down the article to where it talks about how theorists such as de Beauvoir and Said use it. That may give you a better idea of how othering functions. You might want to also look at the idea of the ‘subaltern’.
A thought-provoking small book by Ryszard Kapuscinski (The Other)(Verso, 2008) gives great insight into the concept of “the Other” from a number of angles. Well worth the read and re-read.
It is Tony Abbott’s shifting eyes which fascinate me from a psychological point of view. He seems to silently gloat after delivering an answer to a question which may have been tricky but which he appears to think he has glossed over. His sideways glances on Q&A almost looked like he was trying to read Tony Jones’ running sheet with the questions.
The thought that his mentors like John Howard, the creepy Kevin Andrews and the merciless Philip Ruddock might be back makes me shudder.
The thought that the Labor Party will actually fail to steer the middle line through the issues which are causing the public so much angst is too much. Pragmatism and consensus make uneasy bedfellows as far as I can see.
Baraholka @ 61
“If TA really has displayed indifference/hostility toward women (in general)…..”…
Abbott is the man that turns sexuality into a commodity by referring to virginity as “a gift”..Not a man’s’ virginity mind you, it’s a gift for the girls apparently…to be given to husband, and only after marriage of course.
That’s an indifference and hostility informed by Stone Age morals. Australia really does not need somebody this out of touch with the 21st century to lead it.
Eric,
TA’s comment’s you cite are not indifferent toward women, therefore you must think they are hostile, however his comments are not hostile.
Hostile would be ‘If a woman is not a virgin she must be punished.’.
TA says ‘A woman’s virginity is a gift to men’. This is a value judgement but is not in itself hostile toward women.
If TA does not also believe that men’s virginity is a gift to women that would be a double-standard, but not hostile.
If he means ‘women should not have sex before marriage’ that would be a statement of restriction on women’s automony, but is not a statement of hostility toward women.
Baraholka,
re Wikipedia as a reliable information source. Its value is absolutely nil. Nothing on it is guaranteed to be accurate. Its only research use is for the bibliography and references at the end of each article. Having got hold of them, one can check them for oneself as to whether they’re useful. And, its my understanding uni students lose marks if they use Wikipedia as a reference. And if they don’t, they should.
@ 66 “TA says ‘A woman’s virginity is a gift to men’. This is a value judgement but is not in itself hostile toward women.”
I rest my case.
‘A woman’s virginity is a gift to men’
Women as property. No, not at all hostile.
Baraholka, again, you are being pointlessly literal-minded to no useful purpose. It’s not about individual people or individual examples. It’s about the general point.
If you look at the original comment at #14, you will see that I said ‘indifference, if not hostility, to the claims of any form of Other’. I said nothing about indifference or hostility to said Others themselves. I was expression an opinion (which I have a right to hold, and sure as hell intend to continue to hold) about Abbott’s attitude to other people in general and the way he sees himself in relation to them, an observation based on the evidence of his rhetoric and his policies, and everyone engaged in this discussion seems to understand that except you.
As I’ve said, you’re free to disagree, but this combing through details looking for nits and totally ignoring the general argument is, as wastes of time go, second only to attempts to convince anyone with half a brain that Abbott’s general attitude to womankind is in any way acceptable in the 21st century.
PB @67
Your comments about Wikipedia are over-stated.
While it may be true that Uni students lose marks for referencing Wikipedia it does not follow that there is no accurate information on Wikipedia or that any particular article on Wikipedia contains significant errors.
If any Wikipedia article is in error then this can be proved by citing the reliable source.
Simply to say ‘Its Wikipedia and therefore incorrect’ is an ad hominem atttack against Wikipedia (NB not the citer).
The usual use of the argument ‘You used Wikipedia therefore you are wrong’ on blog discissions is as cheap rhetoric, (not that I am saying you have used that argument in that way).
Fine, it’s only hostile if the woman doesn’t do her chattelic(?) duty, and then clearly it’s the woman’s fault.
Am I entitled yet to claim that Tony Abbot’s campaign has jumped the shark? Today he has managed to reveal that
a) he doesn’t want to live in Kirribilli or the Lodge, but wnats to live like a real Australian
b) he thinks the earth has been cooling for the past 10 years
c) he thinks that
though I think the mining companies will beg to differ with him on this point if he wins.
Meanwhile of course, we get the media attacking Julia’s “off the cuff speech” because actually she had notes (though she didn’t look at them, apparently).
wtf is wrong with this campaign?
Baraholka @ 71,
Rubbish. Good scholars actually read books and articles relevant to their subject. They do not rely on Wikipedia. Instead they go to a library and take out the relevant book or journal.
Paul
libraries are a socialist program. Therefore you can’t trust anything you read in them.
I’ve warned you before about reading books. It’s clearly not doing you any good.
Fine @69
It is possible to use the word ‘gift’ without conveying ‘property’… as in ‘my love is a gift to you’.
It means ‘freely given’ not ‘chattel’.
PC @70
claims of any form of Other
Ok, well, the claims of women seem to be well heard in relation to paid parental leave, but I agree not heard in relation to feminist aspirations for women’s autonomy.
So as I understand you, you are saying that when you say TA is indifferent/hostile to the claims of people who understand the internet, atheists and public schoolers, that you don’t mean that TA is actually indifferent/hostile toward those claims, he is just indifferent/hostile in general to the claims of people who are unlike him.
@Baraholka, your arguments seem to position hostility as if it is always snarling aggression. If this is truly your belief, then you don’t appear to have been paying attention to the sneakier types of bully during your life, which may indicate some great dollops of good luck on your part, but doesn’t say much for your perception of what goes on around you.
Anything that has the effect of encouraging limits and rigidity regarding women’s social roles is hostile. Abbott is on record over and over again with stereotypical views on women’s social roles. Such views may well be traditional, so what? That hardly makes them immune from hostility towards women.
BTW, Abbott has ‘sneaky bully’ written all over him.
After having watched a bit of Abbott’s press club performance today, I have to agree with those here who reckon the man is into dehumanising/lowering the status of political opponents, or at least those he puts into that category.
His bit about the NSW Liberal candidate who practiced a ‘citizens arrest’ on some kids was pretty amazing. I mean, I expected some political arse covering was in order to protect his man, but the complete refusal to admit the kids were human entities was just bizarre.
Any other party leader I’ve seen would’ve admitted responsibility on behalf of the candidate, would’ve thrown in an apology to the families, AND THEN DEFTLY PIVOTED TO how accidents will happen, and he didn’t blame the kids for being irresponsible little scamps, and anyway we don’t know the details yet. Instead they were just a ‘problem’ that was handled ‘correctly’ by the local Lib who, after all, wasn’t actually himself arrested after this happened.
No human reference at all in any of it, even before he turned it into an attack on some Qld Labor candidate who likes to punch on. No good cop, bad cop routine from our Tone—just vacant cop, aggressive cop.
Paul,
A blog discussion is not the same thing as a University essay and does not require the same levels of citation, though of course it should be equally as factual.
The unsupported statement ‘Wikipedia article X is wrong’ is, by definition, ad hominem against Wikipedia and actually would be marked down in any University essay, so by your standards should not be admitted here.
If you want to dispute some Wikipedia article, post the rebuttal, not just the ad hominem assertion against Wikipedia.
hmmm, back from shop.
Have I missed anything?
No
Tigtog,
Such views may well be traditional, so what? That hardly makes them immune from hostility towards women.
Nor does it mean traditional views are in fact hostile toward women.
Paid parental leave does not imply ‘a woman’s place is in the home’. In itself that explodes a lot of TA’s supposed ‘limits’ on social roles.
‘Virginity before marriage is best’ is not equal to hostility. Does anyone really think TA does not hold the same belief in regard to men ?
yes
Not sure if this got a run on LP the other week, but for your listening pleasure:
http://blog.une.edu.au/tunefm/2010/08/05/election-2010-an-abbott-interview-from-1979/
I think I agree btw, with Kate Doak’s remark:
What is extremely remarkable however is that Tony was able to present himself in such a manner at such a young age, and that his positions were soo deeply entrenched at the time.
“‘Virginity before marriage is best’ is not equal to hostility. Does anyone really think TA does not hold the same belief in regard to men ?”
Well I certainly don’t believe it – especially as he certainly doesn’t believe it in regards to himself. Or have you forgotten the ‘love child’ that wasn’t?
Paul Burns@73. I’m sure this is still true and great libraries still exist and are being patronised despite the growing online means of obtaining information. But our towns and cities too are dotted with priceless specialist collections that are unpatronised and under threat because of lack of $ and resources to sustain or conserve them and people to defend them. Very sad.
Polly @84
Haven’t forgotten TA’s ‘love child.’
TA wouldn’t be the first person in history to fall short of their own standards.
TA’s applies his views on virginity to men and women equally , saying he would also advise
So if TA’s views on virginity represent generalised hostility toward women and stem, then he must also have generalised hostility toward men.
Oh Goddess, why are men so in denial?
Lemme explain about “the maid” as it stands in Abbotstralia. using Tony’s views on both men and women side by side as reported in the Age:
“Asked to reveal his advice to his daughters, Mr Abbott told Neil Mitchell on 3AW: ” They shouldn’t give themselves away lightly.”
His advice to males? “Much the same – treat people with respect and don’t act in ways that demean other people.”
Not much the same, not at all.
:
“Don’t give yourself away lightly” as if you are some confected package, and an object to be bequeathed is not, i repeat, is not the same as “treat people with respect’.
Now do you see how women are the object? (to give oneself away as if one is a transferrable item to be given?) and note the limited agency in that. The only power women have is to withhold the object of value. but what is the object? To not give yourself away? In what way? Sexually and with that thin skin of hymen, a few cells, easily ruptured, a trickle of watery fluid and blood in most cases. This is it. This is the locus of the gift. The thing of worth not to be given lightly. The abject expulsion of the body.
Of course there is a way to give yousrself unlightly. A way to give yourself rightly: It goes like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyHVQT8aIBM
Now I’m sure she’s probably got several rings on it after that and bully for her, but still, my point is this:
What of men in Abbotstralia?
Men on the other hand have full agency and may choose to treat people with respect and not demean other people. The skin of their penis is not part of the equation. There is no once and only for them. no gift to be given lightly. Where are the skin cells of value for them? Nothing. Because the gift does not reside in the body. Men here are the subject not the object. Please note in his instructions to males, a distancing occurs. The matter of virginity (the object to be given where women are concerned) and the matter of sex is diffused and distanced. Indeed there is no direct reference to it at all. Men are to respect and not to demean. Well pardon me these are general human values that could be applied to my stupid next door neighbour’s stupid ceramic statue of a greek goddess with a clock in the middle of her stomach. Another kristevan abjection but never mind about that, I will deal. Where is the gift of virginity not to be given where men are concerned? Where are the thin membranes in which the gift resides? Why does not Tony adjure them to put a ring on it?
Now I think my work is done here.
Big Cuddle for Casey.
Am staying sane following the blogs tonight.
$77, This election is the gift that keeps giving.
Was this reported widely at msm level?
Casey, yes. Or as Twisty Faster would put it, to a person like Mr Rabbit, men are the default human, women are the sex class.
Not necessarily Helen. You would be the “cuddling classes”, rather, but are standoffish at our good intentions.
Hi Casey,
Eric @65 and Fine @69 have stated Abbott’s comments on female virginity represent a commodification of women and are therefore indicative of hostility toward them…
…to which I responded that ‘gift’ does not necessary mean ‘chattel’, but can also mean ‘freely given’ as in ‘my love is a gift to you’.
In your comment you reiterate ‘gift = chattel’ and also dispute that Abbott equally values male and female virginity.
Some short points:
- Why do you insist ‘gift = chattel’ and not allow ‘gift = freely given’ ?
- Agency is in fact present in gift/giver. The giver chooses to bestow the gift.
- Are you sure that the gift is the hymen in Abbott’s thinking ? Could it not be the gift of one’s sexual self, emblemetic of one’s whole self, never given to another hence confirming both the agency of the giver, the high value of the giver’s whole person and the honour in which the giver esteems the one gifted ?
I see a mutual confirmation of the value of each participant in the relationship, not the transaction of a few skin cells. Can we not allow that Abbott might too ?
In regard to ‘once and only’, contrary to what you say, Abbott does laud male virginity. To re-quote Abbott:
That’s men and women, not just women, ‘should’ be virgins at marriage. So, in Abbott’s thinking there is indeed a ‘once and only’ for men.
Now, demean/respect. This indicates Abbott is thinking in stereotypical ways in regard to the sexual proclivities of men and women where ignoble men take emotional advantage of tender maids and not vice-versa.
While Abbott’s demean/respect framework is indeed gendered, it does not demand interperetation in the context of sexual agency or commodification. I have proferred an interperetation based on stereotype that can validly fit the data.
Where is the gift of virginity not to be given where men are concerned?
A valid observation. But Abbott does laud male virginity. I consider it unlikely that the gifting of oneself as a husband to a wife is completely absent from his thinking here. To insist that it must be absent is to argue
from silence, though I conceded Abbott has had fair opportunity to state ‘male gift’ if he wanted to.
Where are the thin membranes in which the gift resides?
In my opinion you have incorrectly identified the gift.
Why does not Tony adjure them to put a ring on it?
He does.
To return to PC’s statement that started all this, does
Abbott display indifference/hostility to women ?
I would say, no, he does not. Parental leave is a direct
response to the claims of women and Abbott lauds both
female and male virginity. His statements about ‘gift’ in this context do not mandate the appellation of ‘chattel’.
what are “the rules” that men and women should abide by, baraholka? Equal rules for both sexes? Casey seems to have clear evidence that TA’s rules are not the same for both sexes. Do you have a counter view?
Oh dear.
Let me repeat (see #14 and again at #70) that that is not what I said.
Either you are being deliberately obtuse, or it’s not deliberate.
PC,
My apologies, that should have read ‘does
Abbott display indifference/hostility to the claims of women ?’.
sg,
Abbott’s ‘Rules’ are ‘Virginity before marriage’. As his comments show, these are the same for men and women.
I have to admit this is much worse than Wikipedia:
http://www.myjournalcourier.com/news/instead-28438-knowledge-encyclopedias.html
And Baraholka, the last Wikipedia article I looked out left out an essential primary source reference. Just sayin’.
@Baraholka “Are you sure that your definition of The Other is canonical ?
Wikipedia offers a good article which suggests that The Other may be employed in relation to any arbitrary group, not just thr dominant group.”
As I specified I was using the social science sense of the word, and what you’re referring to on Wikipedia is the Continental Philosophy sense of the word, I think you’re confusing two different concepts that happen to have the same name.
“In any case, the point of my question to PC was about the fairness or otherwise of her summary of Abbott’s putative indifference/hostility to various groups.
I suggested that if PC used the same criteria and applied it to Bob Brown then she may also conclude (with a similar lack of fairness) that Bob Brown also has a generalised fear of people who are different to him.”
Yes, and since Tony Abbott has clearly said that he feels
“threatened” by homosexuality (source) and I don’t believe Bob Brown has ever used such language about any of the groups you previously mentioned, this would see to be a furphy, and PC’s statement was perfectly valid based on the available evidence.
As for your disingenous argument that “gift” can just mean something freely given, you’re ignoring a whole history of several thousand years in which women were treated as property, and somehow thinking that the way Tony used the word is completely divorced from that context? Especially considering the man’s religious views. Puh-leese.
And as for Abbott not displaying indifference/hostility towards women:
1. housewives, ironing.
2. “…abortion is the easy way out… the most convenient exit from awkward situations.” and “The problem with the Australian practice of abortion is that an objectively grave matter has been reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience.” and “Why isn’t the fact that 100,000 women choose to end their pregnancies regarded as a national tragedy approaching the scale, say, of Aboriginal life expectancy being 20 years less than that of the general community? (ugh to that last in particular”
3.”this idea that sex is kind of a woman’s right to absolutely withhold … need[s] to be moderated, so to speak” – in other words, Tony thinks rape is okay in some circumstances. If that’s not hostility towards women, I don’t know what is.
4.”I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons”
5. “…we just can’t stop people from being homeless if that’s their choice…” – and considering how disproportionately homelessness affects women, and how much of that is because of violence and abuse against women, that’s possibly the worst of all.
Baraholka 92 ‘ … Parental leave is a direct ?response to the claims of women …’
Except, Baraholka, parental leave should not be seen as an issue that affects women only, and instituting it as such in policy, in my view, reflects a regressive view of today’s relationships, and a pretty backward model for the future. Paid parental leave scheme is in itself a good idea, but if we continue to see childcare as a mother’s business only, I don’t see how a few months of paid leave, calculated on a mother’s income only, will remove the subtle and less subtle discrimination that women with children face in the workforce. Although the scheme is promoted as being a real contribution to equity and employment participation, as far as I see it, it is coloured by regressive views on nurturing, perceived predominantly as a woman’s domain, and it’s difficult to reconcile this with raising a daughter, as I do, thinking that we really haven’t done all that much to change precisely these sorts of perceptions about parenting, relationships and childcare for the younger generation of women, and men, currently growing up to potentially benefit from these schemes.
@Tatyana, what you said!
Reinforcing Tatyana’s comments, yesterday I found a Liberal National Party leaflet in my letterbox informing me that the Coalition was supporting paid parental leave “so that mothers can stay home with their children”.
Rebekkah,
I will get back to your thoughtful reply in a couple of days. Real Life intervenes.
In the meantime, some quick points:
I do not think TA’s viewed are divorced from a spiritual perspective and never said so.
TA’s comments do indeed emanate from a ‘family values’ context informed by (but not totally constituted from) Modern Australian Catholicism, which is not exactly the same thing as several thousand years of generic religious tradition that you cite. Modern Australian Catholicism does not view women as chattels.
The issue is whether TA’s ‘family values’ are in fact hostile to women or merely to ‘female autonomy’ which I understand is PC’s primary concern from her later clarification.
Abortion on Demand is one of the most important aspects of the Feminist aspiration for female autonomy. I propose it is possible to be opposed to Abortion On Demand/RU486 without being ‘hostile’ to women.
‘Conjugal Rights’ is not the same thing as supporting Rape. You have made a very sloppy confluence there. Importantly TA’s views on Conjugal Rights also include the notion that husbands should respect their wife’s wishes. You have omitted this aspect of TA’s thinking.
Your point 4 is a good one. I will Google it for context.
Your point 5 is a long bow and in my view does not support your argument.
Good supporting evidence adduced by your supporters in later points.
I will address your post in a bit more detail when I have time.
Hi Rebekka,
Tony Abbott is not hostile to women, but he is opposed to
the full Feminist aspiration for wome, notably Abortion
On Demand.
‘Hostile to women’ would imply beliefs like
‘women are inferior beings to men’, ‘men are entitled to
rape women without penalty’ or ‘women are worth less than
men’. Abbott believes none of those things and nothing like them.
Do you agree that there is a difference between ‘
the concepts ‘opposition to the full feminist aspiration’ and ‘hostility toward women’ ?
If Abbott is hostile toward women then one would expect that
hostility to be expressed where he has most opportunity to do so, in his family, but his wife has a professional manageral career and as far as I am aware he is not denying any educational or professional opportunity to his wife or daughters.
I am not aware that Abbott beats his wife or daughters or in any way expresses any other form of hostility toward them.
You have stated that since Abbott is a Catholic he must therefore believe women are chattels. Please supply any evidence that Modern Australian Catholicism considers women to be chattels. There is none.
I would say that your comments on religion/chattel are informed by a general Feminist/Atheist perspective which sees Christainity as oppresive, misogynist and perhaps even evil. Typically the Feminist strawman of Bible teaching ignores the following directive to husbands from Ephesians:
“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her”
Considering the supremely self-sacrifical love of Jesus for His followers, it is in fact anti-Biblical for husbands to behave autocratically toward their wives. To what extent do you, Rebekka, include this directive in your understanding of Abbott’s attitudes to his wife and to his ‘family values’
generally ?
In a similar vein, the Feminist strawman in regard to ‘conjugal rights’ as expressed in Scripture typically ignore the fact that scripture also assigns wives conjugal rights:
You have typified Christian teaching as condoning rape in marriage (your point 3 above). Does the above passage change your opinion ?
Your point 4 above about women and equal representation is supported by a “Tiny Tony” quote from his University days located in the
Four Corners profile from March this year.
It is a little unfair to represent that Abbott’s views on women are completely identical to those he held 31 years ago, just as it is unfair, or perhaps sad, to think that Julia Gillard is still a Revolutionary Socialist or still subscribes to whatever degree of serious Left views she once held when she was at Uni.
No doubt Abbott does still possess a fairly conventional ‘family values’ philosophy in which women are most often the primary domestic contributor. But the equation of this to ‘hostility to women’ is, I think, not justified.
Abbott does not believe that men cannot be the primary domestic contributor, that women can never be Managers of
corporations or any other organisation. He does not believe that education of any form should be denied to women and he does not believe that women should not have paid
work or that they should not be paid equally. Indeed the fundamental proposition ‘primary domestic contributor = hostility toward women’ is itself a non-sequitir.
Paid Parental Leave (PPL) is a direct acknowledgement that working women should not have to lose their jobs because of pregnancy or maternal imperatives. Quite frankly this alone
should explode the proposition that Abbott is hostile to women. His statements that PPL will assist women to have more time with their children is a statement of fact rather
than hostility and increases the choices available to women. If this represents backwards and regressive thinking let’s have more of it
So to summarize:
Opposition to the full Feminist aspiration for women is not the same thing as hostility toward women.
Feminists typically misrepresent the Bible.
Modern Australian Catholicism (Abbott’s religion) does not view women as chattels.
Abbott’s family life shows he is not hostile to women.
Abbott’s views on women in education and work show he is not hostile toward women
‘Family Values’ are not hostile to women though they may offend Feminists
PPL increases women’s choices and cannot be seen as proof of hostility toward women.
Tatyana @98
The link between maternity and nurturing is, I think, uncontroversial but PPL does not imply that men cannot nurture.
PPL is not designed to remove everything that Feminists or other women may consider to be discrimination in the workplace. No-one ever said it would.
I agree that Abbott’s presentation of PPL is coloured by a traditional Family Values perspective. Can you demonstrate how this is hostile toward women ?
regressive views on nurturing, perceived predominantly as a woman’s domain”
I would agre that the nurturing side of men is not valourised but how therefore that PPL can be considered to be hostile toward women is not clear. If you are not arguing that PPL is hostile to women it would seem you do not challenge my point that Abbott is not hostile to women.
“The issue is whether TA’s ‘family values’ are in fact hostile to women or merely to ‘female autonomy’ which I understand is PC’s primary concern from her later clarification. ”
You can’t be serious. Women are human beings with the right to bodily autonomy and any view other than that is hostile to women. We’re not half-humans with only half the rights of men.
“Abortion on Demand is one of the most important aspects of the Feminist aspiration for female autonomy. I propose it is possible to be opposed to Abortion On Demand/RU486 without being ‘hostile’ to women.”
No, it’s not. If you believe a woman should be forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy and birth, that is hostile.
“‘Conjugal Rights’ is not the same thing as supporting Rape.”
Dude, rape within marriage is still rape. If a woman says no, it’s rape. If a woman doesn’t consent, it’s rape. There’s no such thing as “conjugal rights” – it’s just another way of saying it’s okay for a man to rape a woman.
“There’s no such thing as “conjugal rights” – it’s just another way of saying it’s okay for a man to rape a woman.”
Yes, quite.
One could argue that in certain kinds of relationship a duty exists to take care of each other’s sexual needs, but that doesn’t come from some inalienable right to have sex on tap whenever you want it.
Rebekka -
I am surprised that a person of your intellect can so completely miss a point.
To reiterate: in the Bible, women as well as men have Conjugal Rights ergo the Bible concept of conjugal rights is not, as you have purported, ‘women must always submit to the sexual demands of their husabands’. Surely you can see this.
Further on this, the right to conjugal relations is not total and is always balanced by other scriptural principles. For the husband, as I mentioned but which you are determined to ignore, he is to love his wife self-sacrificially i.e. laying aside one’s own preferments, which naturally can extend to frequency and timing of sex.
Indeed, the scriptures state that in regard to sexual desire, one should exercise self-control (1 Thessalonians) which of course is the antithesis of rape.
So, Rebekka, the statement of conjugal rights is a principle that the man and wife belong physically to each other equally as is plainly stated in 1 Corinthians quoted above. Try reading it. Its only a few lines. It is not a statement equating to sex on demand and of couse it should be read in the context of the totality of scriptural teaching on relationships. Fitting a meaning of ‘rape is ok’ onto it most likely shows you haven’t read the passage, or if you have, deliberate misrepresentation.
FDB @103 has expressed the scriptural position succintly:
Abortion. Well this is really the touchpoint of Feminist opprobium towards Abbott. I suspect that for many Feminists, perhaps you as well, opposition to a total right to Abortion On Demand is enough to ‘prove’ hostility toward women.
But you must realise that Abbott’s opposition to Abortion On Demand is not predicated on hostility toward women but on his view that the Fetus is a human being and that therefore has its own inaliable right to life. He is not hostile to women, but hostile to killing, as he sees it.
Do you accept this? That Abbott is not opposed to women, he is opposed to termination of the Fetus ?
It would only be accurate to say that Abbott’s views on Abortion amount to hostility to women if he opposed Abortion merely because he believes it would inflict misery on women.
But that is not his thinking.
He is opposed to Abortion on Demand because he believes it is the killing of a person.
He is opposed to killing, not women.
You have misplaced the locus of Abbott’s opposition and should in fairness withdraw your assertions.
Baraholka, you are determined to polish that turd, aren’t you?
When did you acquire the power to read Mr Rabbit’s mind?
Zoot
So you believe Abbott opposes Abortion because he believes it will heap misery on women ?
See, you can’t read my mind.
BTW, the answer to your puerile question is don’t be so frickin stupid.
Zoot
So you don’t believe Abbott opposes Abortion because he believes it will heap misery on women.
Do you then believe that Abbott opposes Abortion because he thinks that the Fetus is an embryonic human with a right to life ?
Baraholka, I don’t give a flying toss what the Bible says about men and women and their relations, although FYI I have a degree in religious history and have actually read the whole thing (I will admit I skipped some of the “begat” bits) – we live in a secular state and it has two-thirds of nothing to do with anything. Nor do I give a flying anything why Abbott opposes abortion.
The fact that he does means he thinks it’s okay to force women to go through pregnancy and childbirth when we don’t want to. That’s not okay.
Bangs head against wall, tears hair out, etc, etc. (btw, I’m on the anti-Abbott side.)
Rebekka,
If you couldn’t care less what the Bible says about anything then you shouldn’t state that Abbott’s religious tradition, which draws from the Bible, is hostile to women. Surely you must expect a counter-view to your own ? Strange that you should want to silence those counter-views or simply denounce them as irrelevant.
It is entirely possible to have a degree in Religious History without understanding major chunks of the Bible. In your case you couldn’t parse a few lines on Conjugal Rights without missing or deliberately ignoring the pro-woman content
Look, you may think that opposition to Abortion on Demand is not OK, fine, but the issue at hand is whether or not Abbott’s opposition to Abortion On Demand is because he is hostile to women.
The obvious rebuttal, that his motivation is pro-Fetal life and not misogny, seems too plain for you to handle at the moment.
Baraholka, being anti-abortion is equivalent to being for forced pregnancy. It doesn’t matter how much you or Abbott might cherry-pick Bible references to pretend that that isn’t oppressive to women, Rebekka’s point is that is just is, whether you are referencing the bible or not.
Baraholka, “If you couldn’t care less what the Bible says about anything then you shouldn’t state that Abbott’s religious tradition, which draws from the Bible, is hostile to women.”
I didn’t. I said Abbott’s views on abortion, and his claims that rape is okay under some circumstances, are hostile to women. I don’t give a toss what tradition he’s basing those on, the results are the same whether he believes it because he’s a Christian or whether he believes it because he’s been touched by the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s noodly appendage.
Helen,
From Abbott’s viewpoint the Fetus is an embryonic human being with a right to life. You disagree with him and may well consider the Fetus no more significant than a lump of plasticene. That’s fine. But Abbott is entitled to his viewpoint too, one that is shared by many women.
So in the case of unwanted pregnancy Abbott is presented with an ethical dilemma: kill the Fetus or support the woman through an unwanted pregnancy.
If supporting the women through the pregnancy is possible and does not destroy the woman then Abbott says we should avoid killing the embryonic human.
In my view avoiding the killing of innocent persons is a valid ethical position and is not hostile to women.
NB: Abbott does not say Abortion should be outlawed. he says it should be rare.
Obviously the trouble of unwanted pregancy falls almost totally on women.
But how else, given Abbott’s views on the humanity of the Fetus, would you suggest that he approach the ethical dilemma ? Is killing better than support through pregnancy or vice-versa ?
Helen, I will ask you the same question I asked Zoot.
Do you think that Abbott’s opposition to Abortion On Demand is predicated on his views on embryonic right to life ?
Ethical dilemmas have no easy answers and normally can only be properly considered on a case by case basis. Given this I find Abbott’s view ‘Let Abortion be rare’ better suited to reasoned ethical thinking than the one size fits all ‘Let Abortion be accepted in all cases without question’
Baraholka, I’d have a lot more respect for Abbott’s views on abortion if he demonstrated an awareness of his patent shortcomings on other ‘ethical’ issues like honesty and the misrepresentation of his opponents’ equally ‘ethical’ points of view on things like basic rights for working people.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive Baraholka, the second just means that you have to trust women to make their own decisions about their own bodies and support them in their decisions. Tony Abbott does neither.
Another Thread of Doom is on the way. I’ve decided I’m not going to bother with the anti-abortion, pro- forced birth threads anymore. They’re just too distressing and a waste of time. And there, I’ve just contributed to one.
Baraholka @102: The parental leave policy, as it is currently drafted, is focused on allowing the mother to stay at home with her newborn baby for six months. That in itself is a good thing, provided the mother chooses to take that kind of leave. Under this policy, however, if the father, or a gay partner [shock and horror] decides he or she would rather mind the baby, while the mother returns to work, the leave provision is calculated only on the mother’s income (which can, in reality, be lower than the male partner’s income). I don’t think you need a sociology degree to recognise this is not equitable or that it is a socially regressive policy: it reiterates an outdated model of relationships that sees the mother as the sole carer of her baby—it doesn’t formulate the approach to childcare as a shared concern between partners, and a shared concern is a social reality nowadays. There is a series of adverse personal, employment and social ramifications that this kind of model would produce long term: virtual non-recognition of shared parental responsibilities is one, very likely leading to discrimination in career progression being an automatic side-effect, and none of this analyses the inherently middle-class bias of the scheme.
I disagree with you that the policy never intended to remove various forms of discrimination: it was explicitly advertised as a model that would advance the cause of women as well as support business productivity (which removes the idea of it being social welfare, given that the scheme would be implemented by a liberal government). [See Q&A with Abbott during the election campaign.]
Socially progressive childcare policy, by contrast, would support a wider range of care arrangements and relationships, recognising the needs of partners to share the care for their children as well as facilitating a gradual change of attitudes in the workplace, and you can look at parental leave models in Scandinavian countries, which are frequently cited as being ‘progressive’ and ‘inclusive’, producing a measurable impact on workplace culture, with flexible work arrangements being a norm.
Any government policy is drafted with a view to broader social and economic conditions. The parental leave scheme was definitely drafted with these broader ideas in mind, but it falls short on many of them: it pays the mother to stay at home with her baby, and that’s all it does. As Paul Norton @100 mentioned, this was also stated in the advertising pamphlets, and I received one in the mail too, a smiling woman holding a baby and standing with another woman in a kitchen. If that’s not a turn-off for many women and men, I don’t know what is.
As far as this statement is concerned: ‘If you are not arguing that PPL is hostile to women it would seem you do not challenge my point that Abbott is not hostile to women’: I’ve noticed that other respondents have addressed your narrow and almost obsessive request for clearer substantiation of the ‘hostility to women’ idea, but as I’m a bit lost as to what your overall argument might be exactly, if there is one, and as this is quite an old thread and the line of comments is no longer fresh in my mind, I’m not sure you will ever be satisfied. I’ll just reiterate that, in my view, the parental leave scheme does very little to advance the concern of women or men in relation to childcare, and is a poor model for the future. In that sense, yes, you could, theoretically, argue the scheme is ‘hostile’ to women if the definition of ‘hostile’ in this specific narrow context is ‘regressive’ to the cause under discussion.
Baraholka @109: false dichotomy.
Rebbeka
You did indeed adduce Abbott’s religious background as proof that he is hostile to women
You @97
Funny that it is in fact you who wishes to exclude consideration of Abbott’s Catholicism where once you were eager to include it. Why is that ?
Contra you, why Abbott opposes Abortion on Demand (AOD) is the very substance of the argument. Your equation ‘anti-AOD proves hostile to women’. One might as well say, with equal inaccuracy ‘Pro-AOD = pro-killing’.
My invitation to you is to explore the basis of Abbott’s stance because that’s where we will discover exactly what he is pro- and anti-.
And, of course, in line with his Catholicism he is anti-killing of the Fetus because he thinks they are human beings.
So the basis if his stance is not hostility to women but because he sides on the anti-killing side of the ethical dilemma.
Zoot @120
Ok, you tell me why Abbott opposes Abortion on Demand if not because his belief in a putative right to life for the Fetus.
Tatynan @119
Good points. Get back to you when I have a bit more time.
My argument is this:
Abbott’s is anti-AOD because he is pro Fetal life not because he is hostile to women.
Being pro-fetal life puts the existence of a bunch of cells that may or may not survive until birth (remembering how many pregnancies spontaneously abort) above the rights of a living breathing woman. That is why this POV is hostile to women. It reduces them to an incubator.
@121 Baraholka. Re: ‘Tatynan @119 Good points. Get back to you when I have a bit more time.’
That’s fine, but please don’t address your response to me personally because I won’t be engaging in any further exchanges on this thread.
Any particular reason you are asserting so aggressively that the two stances must be either/or rather than entertaining the possibility of both/and?
Believing in the sanctity of fetal life doesn’t mean that one is therefore immune from being hostile to women.
Indeed a lot of the rhetoric used in the anti-choice debate seems to position women as so easily swayed, by greedy abortion clinics or caddish seducers seeking to avoid fatherhood, that they simply haven’t realised their “true feelings”, which are apparently all wrapped up in nothing but motherhood. That sounds very hostile to the concept of women as autonomous beings capable of making informed choices about their own reproduction to me.
While we’re on the subject of the rhetoric – “Abortion on Demand” helps to create a negative image of pro-choice women as demanding something, rather than requesting or obtaining. When people front up for a knee reconstruction or a tumour operation they’re not described as “demanding” it. The use of the word “demand” is a subtle way to engender a mental image of pro-choice women as in your face, aggressive.
Context, please Barahhhhoulka, my whole comment was “As for your disingenous argument that “gift” can just mean something freely given, you’re ignoring a whole history of several thousand years in which women were treated as property, and somehow thinking that the way Tony used the word is completely divorced from that context? Especially considering the man’s religious views. Puh-leese.”
The pertinent point here was several thousand years of history, and I was in no way suggesting that Tony Abbott’s religious views are what makes him hostile to women. I wasn’t so much “eager to include” his views as mentioning them in passing.
Why Abbott thinks what he think is utterly, completely irrelevant. Being anti-choice is hostile to women no matter why he thinks it. Once again, I don’t give a rats why he believes abortion is wrong, I just care that thinks his views are more right than those of actual women who might actually be pregnant.
It matters not one bit whether he believes it because of x or believes it because of y, the outcome is the same, and the outcome is hostile to women.