It might be one of the most scathing takedowns in parliamentary history. Earlier this week, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard stood up in the House of Representatives to attack opposition leader Tony Abbott for misogyny and sexism in a video that has since gone viral.
Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/10...nst-sexism-in-blistering-video/#ixzz28xPNEZ9f
Unbecoming of a Prime Minister to go to that extent.
Unbecoming of a Prime Minister to go to that extent.
Why?
. .
She ought to stop the cowardice acts. She knows very well she is protected by parliamentary immunity.
She ought to stop the cowardice acts. She knows very well she is protected by parliamentary immunity.
She ought to stop the cowardice acts. She knows very well she is protected by parliamentary immunity.
So, you're okay with Australian parliment members referring to the female prime minister as a "witch" and a "bitch", and approve of all the other instances of sexist and misogynistic behavior to which she referred... but you're not okay with her taking exception to those insults and that behavior...
...again, why?
This is excellent.
She's angry, yes, but she is substantive in her claims, and she should be angry.
She's done a service here, speaking out for those who feel or are less able to do so. I wish American female politicians felt similarly empowered.
As Prime Minister she should dismiss her critics politely and gracefully. Period.
As Prime Minister she should dismiss her critics politely and gracefully. Period.
I wonder if you'd say the PM should be more "graceful" if she were a man.
I suspect not. Australia's still a moderately macho country, or at least that's how I found it, and there's an expression, "Aussie Battler" that describes a quality of dogged, even combative, resilience that seems to be much appreciated amongst men, especially in the sports arena, but seemingly less so when shown by women in the social or political milieu. I saw an interview once with Germaine Greer discussing this very phenomenon.
I wonder if that's what RDS is expressing. Of course, I don't know whether RDS is an Aussie, but I suspect he is. Calling for a PM to deal 'gracefully' with the opposition is not something I've ever seen male PMs called upon to do.
As a general rule, yes they have.Have male Prime Ministers historically dismissed their critics politely and gracefully?
What a load of nonsense.As a general rule, yes they have.
Female leadership is still new to Australian politics. It is something we are still adjusting to. Former Australian PM's have included: Kevin Rudd, John Howard, Paul Keating and Bob Hawke, proceeded by others... According to my recollection, each of these leaders were the subject of political and personal attack. Yet they all exuded a certain degree of restraint under such circumstances. They sometimes did level accusations against their opposition, however, such accusations were delivered with a certain degree of sophistication, wit and good humour. Mr Keating was particularly good at put downs. By comparison Ms Gillard's speech was amateurish.
The entire tone of debate within the Federal Government was, frankly, embarrassing. I understand that the speech achieved a following outside Australia. However, such following are not familiar with the context. They are unaware of the poor standing of this Government, or its PM, in the eye of the Australian public. More than anything else, this speech makes me feel embarrassed and ashamed. That the leader of this country would address a more junior MP in such a tone... Surely, if the sexes of the two leaders had been reversed, and the term "Misandrist harpy" used, the speech would have received an entirely different response.
One must understand that Australian political debate is often lively and charged. However, the recent fallout from Ms Gillard’s speech has placed her, as a woman, beyond reasonable reproach. We refer to this as, “playing the gender card", which offends our sense of equal opportunity. We Australians are happy to have a woman in the top job, but she must take everything that goes with it. Effectively, Mr Abbott is in a position where any criticism of the PM is viewed as offensive. Our opposition leader cannot do his job. The PM has undermined our entire political process. Placing herself beyond accountability.
What a load of nonsense.
Abbott deserved everything he got, and the personal popularity levels of both leaders show that most Australians agreed with her.
A bloke who has been charged with indecent assault, had witnesses to him punching the wall next to a woman's head and thinks a woman.s virginity is a "gift" deserves to be called a misogynist - and most Australians agree.
I am pretty sure you are dead wrong. Let's ask Tony shall we?:I'm pretty sure that Mr Abbott was never charged with indecent assault.
Yes. He denied it. But he has admitted we should not believe everything he says. On the other hand - 3 people with nothing to gain from making up stories were witness to the event. And the incident seems very much in character with his general behaviour at that time:That he denied the wall punching incident and that there has been no further information on it.
Yes - well you have demonstrated that you say a lot of stupid things. I expect you will say a lot more.I also fail to see how you could think, "a woman's virginity is a gift", is misogynist. A gift to whom? To herself? You say it is misogynist. I say the opposite is true.
Futhermore, Mr Abbott's challenge to the PM in the, "defense of the indefensable", with regards to Mr Slipper has gone entierly unanswered.
Yes - well you have demonstrated that you say a lot of stupid things. I expect you will say a lot more.
No they don't. It shows that Ms Gillard is a savy politician who knows how to manipulate the views of the electorate, particularly those of women, for her own objectives. There was a 'watershed' of reaction and surge in Ms Gillards popularity. However, this was characterised by many of the female commentators. Who discribed the PM as, "standing up for all women", and, "declaring misongyinists for what they are". There is, I think, an emotional empathy within the female voter. Which is very clever manourvering by the PM. She understands that women are able to emotionally project themselves onto others. That through the victories of others they feel validated. For each woman in that moment, the attack on Mr Abbott was an attack on the men in the personal circumstance of that woman.
This strategy, however, is the politics of division. There was no true and earnest inditement against Mr Abbott. The accusations against him are untested, because he was not granted a reasonable reply. Futhermore, Mr Abbott's challenge to the PM in the, "defense of the indefensable", with regards to Mr Slipper has gone entierly unanswered. Ms Gillard is showing contempt for the political process. By not answering a question directed to her, by the Leader of the Opposition, during question time.
Ms Gillard has in effect made Mr Abbott the 'strawman' of everything that is patriachal and chauvenistic. Then proceeding to assasinate the character of Mr Abbott for things that are implied, and things that he has not said or done. Ms Gillard's speech was filled with loosely connected insinuation and was deeply emotional. Because it connected a concrete objection with male chauvenisim, with a dubious critisim of Mr Abbott. Without offering Mr Abbott the opportunity to explain, defend or make his views known. Indeed, how could he? His defense would be percieved as invalidation of the feelings of many women.
The real tragedy is that Ms Gillard has used the genuine grievances of women, to reinforce her own tenuious position. As a leader in a position of priviledge. It was said she was, "standing up for all women", yet the only woman she representing is herself. She is the one stripping the baby-bonus, and child care. She is the one making it difficult for families and women. The only. Woman. Ms Gillard. Represents. Is. Herself... The sooner you understand that. The better.
If you're going to claim a lot of the things I say are stupid. I expect some pretty convincing argument.
How about you stop writing crap.How about we agree not to call each other stupid and I will agree not to critisize you for lack of debating skills.
Undisclosed?!!? WTF? He has been very public with some of his views on women.I agree that Mr Abbott may have some undisclosed views on women generally.
However, the problem is that most information sighted is circumstancial and subject to interpretation.
No - it was not inconclusive (do you even understand what these words you are using mean?)Your reference to that article BTW was inconclusive. I saw no indication that sentence was passed, or guilty verdict given.
"tantrum"?!?!?!The difficulty now is that after Ms Gillard's 'tantrum', Mr Abbott was not sought to make a reply, or defense. Which I would be interested to hear.
Really?!?!However interesting it may be to review Mr Abbott's past. You must conceede that Ms Gillard is the current PM. Therefore, it is her character that is on the line here. It is not a defense simply to throw comments back onto the questioner. However a questionable person they may be. Ms Gillard has not answered many of the questions asked of her to my satisfaction.
Which "messenger" has she "shot"?Therefore, I have concerns regarding her credibility. I also have concerns, regarding her propensity to "shoot the messenger", instead of making herself accountable to the parliament, or the electorate.
Yes. It is a load of nonsense you are parrotting from Alan Jones. Why would anyone respond to that?I also refer you to this post. Which I note, you did not seek to argue.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?