PDA

View Full Version : On Sexism.



Meli
10-10-2012, 12:27 AM
Our PM has just given the leader of the Australian opposition a huge serve in Parliament.

Apparently it's gone global :D

You go girl!! :D

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-10/international-reaction-to-gillard-speech/4305294

Chip-skiff
10-10-2012, 12:58 AM
Gave him a proper hiding, she did.

What she said is only part. Her assurance and conviction carry as much weight.

P'raps she ought to coach Mr. Obama for the next debate.

Meli
10-10-2012, 01:00 AM
Well they are good mates :D

Farfalla
10-10-2012, 01:06 AM
Now that's a great one!:d:d
Thanks for posting that Meli.

Time for that guy to crawl back under his rock!

The Bigfella
10-10-2012, 04:29 AM
Our PM has just given the leader of the Australian opposition a huge serve in Parliament.

Apparently it's gone global :D

You go girl!! :D

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-10/international-reaction-to-gillard-speech/4305294

She only did it to draw attention away from her support of an idiot who was texting his staff about female genitalia and shelled mussels.

She's a shallow idiot.

Peerie Maa
10-10-2012, 04:49 AM
Do I detect the imminent sound of splashing urine? I do hope not.

Farfalla
10-10-2012, 04:51 AM
She's a shallow idiot.

Ah the ever reliable and sadly predictable BF!
What other sort of comment would one expect from him but this on a thread about sexism:arg

Peerie Maa
10-10-2012, 04:53 AM
Do I detect the imminent sound of splashing urine? I do hope not.


Ah the ever reliable and sadly predictable BF!
What other sort of comment would one expect from him but this on a thread about sexism:arg

Still hopeful.:o

Farfalla
10-10-2012, 05:00 AM
Hi Nick,
Isn't it the plan to live in hope but accept reality?
Or something like that:d
I don't think the American system has quite the level of debate and exchange that the Parliamentary system with question time and the regular debating that goes on in Parliament. Must be a bit less entertaining. Though sometimes you'd wonder how they justified getting paid for what they do.

Bernadette
10-10-2012, 05:17 AM
she who didnt get rid of thompson and slipper months ago when both of them were caught out.
she's more than a shallow idiot: she is the person who took over office not by being elected, but by deceipt and subterfuge. she is a vile calculating evil woman who is slowly but unmistakenly, eroding away the good of this country.
she was ranting: she has personal experience of NOT using due process AND employing double standards for her own gain. BOO! HISS! she is a witch!

Paul Pless
10-10-2012, 05:31 AM
ever reliable and sadly predictable. . .indeed

Farfalla
10-10-2012, 06:49 AM
Wow!!:D
I thought this thread was about sexism, I guess the Aussies must be feeling jealous of the Yanks and now want to have a bunch of political threads running as well.
At a guess I'd say Bern and BF are not Labour voters and Meli is.

To help out all you Americans, in a Parliamentary system the leader of the majority party is the leader of the Government, we don't elect the Prime Minister separately, the leader changes as the party decides.

So this is just standard practice

the person who took over office not by being elected, but by deceipt and subterfuge

I wonder if it's worth losing a thread on sexism to watch.:D

Phillip Allen
10-10-2012, 07:01 AM
obviously a very sharp woman... kudos to her

aside: I have found it very distracting to hear all the interruptions in that systems... everybody's taking at once! Just an observation and not meant as criticism of that system. Perhaps getting used to it is all I need.

Ian McColgin
10-10-2012, 07:03 AM
They are indeed used to it. A parlimentary democracy is profoundly different from our separation of executive from legislative powers.

Phillip Allen
10-10-2012, 07:06 AM
I understand that, Ian. I have always thought that someday I would try to study it a bit but have not yet found that particular 'round-to-it'

I would rather sit at a table with a cup of coffee and hear it from someone I can interrupt from time to time though :)

Peerie Maa
10-10-2012, 07:09 AM
obviously a very sharp woman... kudos to her

aside: I have found it very distracting to hear all the interruptions in that systems... everybody's taking at once! Just an observation and not meant as criticism of that system. Perhaps getting used to it is all I need.

The Speaker tries to refferee and keep the rabble in check with cries of "order", considering that Question Time is for show whilst the majority of the work is done in committee or better regulated debates they rub along fairly well.

Phillip Allen
10-10-2012, 07:10 AM
The Speaker tries to refferee and keep the rabble in check with cries of "order", considering that Question Time is for show whilst the majority of the work is done in committee or better regulated debates they rub along fairly well.

no doubt...

Flying Orca
10-10-2012, 07:13 AM
Yep - best to think of Question Period as theatre, and bad theatre at that.

Paul Pless
10-10-2012, 07:16 AM
To help out all you Americans, in a Parliamentary system the leader of the majority party is the leader of the Government, we don't elect the Prime Minister separately, the leader changes as the party decides.

So this is just standard practiceAll because some German dude couldn't be bothered to speak English. . .

Peerie Maa
10-10-2012, 07:17 AM
I understand that, Ian. I have always thought that someday I would try to study it a bit but have not yet found that particular 'round-to-it'

I would rather sit at a table with a cup of coffee and hear it from someone I can interrupt from time to time though :)
You might like to dip into Hansard (http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/by-date/#session=62738&year=2012&month=9&day=8) for a flavour of what goes on. The link is to the Commons, but there is also a record published for "the other place".

Phillip Allen
10-10-2012, 07:17 AM
Yep - best to think of Question Period as theatre, and bad theatre at that.

perhaps that is the reason our news outlets prefer to show it to us... circus

Peerie Maa
10-10-2012, 07:20 AM
All because some German dude couldn't be bothered to speak English. . .

Que?

Duncan Gibbs
10-10-2012, 07:29 AM
They are indeed used to it. A parlimentary democracy is profoundly different from our separation of executive from legislative powers.

I think you may be confusing electoral systems that place representatives and leaders in office in different places by different means.

Our legislative assembly and our executive (public service) are two different beasties.

The institution of Parliament is a lot older than the Hapsburgs Paul.

Larks
10-10-2012, 07:36 AM
Despite the reported "hysteria" over her behaviour, here is a well written article on what I'd consider a more balanced view of Julia Gillards attack on Tony Abbott. The writer is a political analyst and, as far as I could find, has no political party affiliations:
from Peter Hatcher, SMH)


JULIA GILLARD confronted a stark choice - the political defence of her parliamentary numbers, or the defence of the principle of respect for women.
She chose to defend her numbers. She chose power over principle. It was the wrong choice. It was an unprincipled decision and turned out not to be pragmatic either. The Prime Minister gained nothing and lost a great deal.
The opposition moved a motion to remove the Speaker of the House, Peter Slipper, on an accusation of denigrating women, and obscenely so, in private text messages to a staff member. Slipper said in a public apology that "a number of these text messages refer to women and nothing excuses their content".
The moment Gillard rose to defend Slipper and keep him in office, she chose to defend the indefensible, to excuse the inexcusable. The government had spent a month vilifying Tony Abbott for having "a problem with women". But when one of the bulwarks of the government was exposed as having a problem with women, it was suddenly acceptable.
Advertisement
But isn't that what we've come to expect from all politicians - choosing power over principle? Don't they all do that? That is the point. If there was one thing that should have been different about Gillard's prime ministership, it should have been that Australia's first female prime minister should have been a flag bearer for women.
Remember when she ascended to the prime ministership? She was greeted with a surge of approval in the polls as Australians anticipated a refreshing change.
She started on her long trajectory of electoral disillusionment when, bit by bit, she revealed herself to be just another politician. That trajectory reached its lowest point when she showed she was prepared to defend even the denigration of women if it would help her keep power. If Gillard will not defend respect for women, what will she defend? Just another politician indeed.
Gillard berated the Coalition for endorsing Slipper as a candidate for Parliament in his former life as a Liberal before he betrayed his party to take the Speaker's job. But after abusing the Coalition for defending Slipper in the past, she mobilised her government to defend him in the present. The government managed to garner the barest majority, 70 votes to 69.
Four hours later, this was revealed to be a waste of political capital when Slipper resigned. He recognised what Gillard could not - that he was a lost cause.
Gillard's judgment was flawed. All she achieved was a serious loss of credibility.

Peerie Maa
10-10-2012, 07:40 AM
I think you may be confusing electoral systems that place representatives and leaders in office in different places by different means.

Our legislative assembly and our executive (public service) are two different beasties.

The institution of Parliament is a lot older than the Hapsburgs Paul.
There is a risk here that words will obstruct understanding.
In the UK system:

Politicians think up the laws
Civil servants write them
Parliament adopts them
The courts interpret them


The process is not really complete untill the courts have established case law.

Terms like "Executive" may mean different things in different systems.

Farfalla
10-10-2012, 07:47 AM
In the US the "Executive" ( the leadership) is the presidency and the Legislative Branch is the Congress and Senate. Which as Ian points out is different to the Parliamentary system which includes the "legislative" and the "executive" in the one.

Farfalla
10-10-2012, 07:57 AM
Out of interest I just went to the ABC , the Australian news service to look at this stuff and there was this article. apparently the guy Julia Gillard is attacking, this Abbot guy, who is attacking her for not sacking some old mate of his that got caught being bad. surprise he's a politician!!
But abbot says he's happy to have his old mate back voting for his party in Parliament if he loses his speaker's job!!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-10/abbott-happy-to-accept-slipper27s-vote/4305428

Typical hypocritical politician.
One minute the guy is his best mate, then he's an evil guy and anyone who defends him is and then he's happy to have his vote!

I thought BLiar and Cameron were cheap opportunists but this guy seems to be up there too!!:d
No wonder the Aussies are all in a twist.

Larks
10-10-2012, 08:01 AM
this is also from the ABC, from a female journalist just to balance some perspective:


There is no doubt that our first female PM has been tried extensively by references, attacks and criticism that would never have been made of her male predecessors. Much of it has gained public ventilation thanks to a communications revolution that now allows front-bar remarks to achieve a national audience.In a coruscating speech (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-09/gillard-vs-abbott-on-the-slipper-affair/4303618) that went around the world, Ms Gillard finally let rip with her frustration about all this, and left no doubt about whom she considers to be responsible."The Leader of the Opposition says that people who hold sexist views and who are misogynists are not appropriate for high office," said the Prime Minister, with the cold fluency she reserves for moments of genuine anger."Well, I hope the Leader of the Opposition has got a piece of paper and he is writing out his resignation."Principle! Well, yes, sort of. Until you consider that the PM's distaste for sexist remarks stopped at the door of her own Speaker. Yesterday afternoon, she decided to speak with the voice of principle but vote with clay feet. Subsequent events show she needn't have; the Government now finds itself defending the ghost of the Speaker with the shreds of its principle.Annabel Crabb is the ABC's chief online political writer.

Farfalla
10-10-2012, 08:06 AM
Larks, I have no doubt she's a politician playing a political game. The other guy seems just as slaezy and without the redeeming features that your quoted jpurnalist seems to be referring to. That she actually had a case to make against this Abbot fellow as the source of a lot of sexist attacks against her.


There is no doubt that our first female PM has been tried extensively by references, attacks and criticism that would never have been made of her male predecessors. Much of it has gained public ventilation thanks to a communications revolution that now allows front-bar remarks to achieve a national audience.In a coruscating speech (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-09/gillard-vs-abbott-on-the-slipper-affair/4303618) that went around the world, Ms Gillard finally let rip with her frustration about all this, and left no doubt about whom she considers to be responsible."The Leader of the Opposition says that people who hold sexist views and who are misogynists are not appropriate for high office," said the Prime Minister, with the cold fluency she reserves for moments of genuine anger."Well, I hope the Leader of the Opposition has got a piece of paper and he is writing out his resignation."

She's a politician, he's a sexist politician. Both not exactly the most moral of people!

TomF
10-10-2012, 08:24 AM
Whew - one helluva rant! Unaware of all the stuff prior which launched her speech, one can only stand in awe. While I support the bulk of her views about sexism and misogyny of course, your PM's speech stands in particular as a great example of effective political theater. :D

That said ...

... my own good spouse has had her own various battles with feminism. Which she's personally experienced not as primarily something bringing liberation to her own life, but as judgment. Herself is keenly of the opinion that feminism, as practiced in much of the developed world, has been primarily about women trying to get access to what has historically been a masculine public sphere. And while things like pay equity, equal legal rights etc. are of crucial importance, one of the additional effects of modern feminism is paradoxically, the denigration of the feminine. Women have been encouraged to adopt a quite male orientation to public life, not to transform its presuppositions into something which reflects and values both the masculine and feminine.

Not only that, Herself is strongly of the opinion that conventional Feminist critiques of patriarchy focus, not surprisingly, on the sacrifices demanded of women in traditional gender relations ... but are unaware of the sacrifices demanded of men in traditional gender relations. Sacrifices like taking responsibility for providing for someone besides themselves ... which are no longer demanded in anything like the same way. She's been recently reading and agreeing with Danielle Crittenden's book "What our Mothers Didn't Tell Us," which goes into some rather compelling narratives of the unintended negative consequences for women, of feminism. And what is in Crittenden's view, the unfair portrayal of men's lives in pre-feminist-revolution times.

For instance, a conventional feminist meme has been that women pre-feminist-revolution were been prevented from full actualization of themselves in the workplace, in things like working in the professions. True, but most men were also so prevented - in that most men worked not in jobs they adored and felt to be emotionally fulfilling ... but driving trucks, working in factories, in mines, etc. Crittenden (and my wife) point out that these men weren't in jobs women now clamour to access, because they're thus able to "follow their bliss." Most men were in those jobs to feed their families - and many found the jobs themselves quite soul-destroying, but a necessary piece of what being a man entailed. That is, the "old dispensation" usually didn't only involve womens' sacrifice, but mens' sacrifice. Both in order to support family and community institutions, which were understood to be "good" and "necessary."

What's "good" and "necessary" now is individual autonomy - and the "success" of feminism's empowering of women to become (economically speaking) "men" has meant that a shocking number of men apparently feel free to drop their responsibility to think beyond themselves. With impacts on child rearing, on seniors' care, on the stability of modern spousal relationships too. In fact, the way modern feminism has been implemented has produced serious unintended consequences, alongside the positives we're aware of.

And let's also talk about the rather grave disparity between what is acceptable speech about women, and acceptable speech about men. My daughter talks about satirical anti-male T-shirts a few of her classmates wore in high school .. one typical example had a cartoon captioned "Boys are smelly - throw rocks at them." Can you imagine the furor if a boy wore such a shirt about girls? Wore a series of such T-shirts through the year? My wife talks to me about the way some of her feminist friends have talked about their husbands over the years - in terms which were drawn from Feminist texts, but which would be deeply offensive and insulting were their husbands to ever speak of them similarly.

Three male friends of mine have been or are stay-at-home dads. In their family circumstances it made sense - of the two in their 30s, one's married to a surgeon, another to another health worker. Both men are highly educated, have solid pre-Dad work histories, but have been unable to get "real" jobs in their fields, as most new hires in their fields are women. While they're "sensitive guys," they feel emasculated - they're actively prevented from providing real economic support to their families. And yeah, it's causing friction in their spousal relationships, as their wives rather unavoidably have lost respect for them... after all, they were able to get jobs through application and hard work ...

The third is a gifted, award winning English scholar ... but his traditional approach to texts has been superceded by "social theory" approaches grounded in feminism, queer studies, post-colonialism, and semiotics ... and in the 25 years since earning his PhD he's not been able to get a "real" academic job. Partly that's his irascible temper's fault, but lesser scholars with similar tempers and the "correct" sub-specialties have been hired instead, because a gender- or class- or queer-based analysis of Hamlet or John Donne's sonnets is so much more meaningful, eh?

There is still sexism out there - some of it "old form" like the Australian PM correctly denigrates. But some of it "new form," as Crittenden describes, and as my male friends have experienced. And as my wife, a self-described "accidentally traditional" woman (with a PhD and 20+ years of P/T university teaching behind her), experiences from feminist friends and acquaintances as dismissal of her opinions and choices.

Larks
10-10-2012, 08:31 AM
Larks, I have no doubt she's a politician playing a political game. The other guy seems just as slaezy and without the redeeming features that your quoted jpurnalist seems to be referring to. That she actually had a case to make against this Abbot fellow as the source of a lot of sexist attacks against her.



She's a politician, he's a sexist politician. Both not exactly the most moral of people!

She's a politician whom quite a few other female politicians and respected female journalists are now accusing of playing the sexism card purely to avoid any criticism of her leadership. You don't know Tony Abbott so you are calling him a sexist politician purely based on whet she accuses him of and what you read in the media, it is a questionable accusation and one that has been a basis of the Labour parties policy to undermine his credibility for a long time. This from the same journalist as above:


Then there's Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, for whom it seems neither flocks of daughters nor countless flight-hours watching period dramas can dispel the Government's steely conviction that he is an inveterate and sexist pig.
Yesterday, he took it upon himself to seek vengeance, on behalf of the ladies of Australia, against Mr Slipper, who had described their intimate parts in terms so salty they would make Lady Grantham faint clean away. Mr Slipper, thundered the Leader of the Opposition, was not fit to be Speaker.(Mr Abbott was also avenging his colleague Sophie Mirabella, who was described in another Slipper text message as an "ignorant botch", thus becoming the first woman in Parliament to be formally insulted by Spellcheck.)

Farfalla
10-10-2012, 08:38 AM
Tom F you came in time to actually get this back on track where I was hoping it would go. Pity i can't reply properly to your interesting comments, I will soon.
After 3 days trapped inside in the dark being ill, I'm off to enjoy a couple of hours of sun in the park with a book.
I'll get back to your post later, some interesting points.

Larks, they are all politicians. If you think that you can convince me that a conservative male Australian politician is not in any way sexist then you must think I'm more than just a bit blonde!! To be sexist about it:d

Larks
10-10-2012, 08:48 AM
Tom F you came in time to actually get this back on track where I was hoping it would go. Pity i can't reply properly to your interesting comments, I will soon.
After 3 days trapped inside in the dark being ill, I'm off to enjoy a couple of hours of sun in the park with a book.
I'll get back to your post later, some interesting points.

Larks, they are all politicians. If you think that you can convince me that a conservative male Australian politician is not in any way sexist then you must think I'm more than just a bit blonde!! To be sexist about it:d

What man would be fool enough to try and convince a woman of anything? I'm just trying to offer someone on the other side of the world, who has established her opinion of our political leaders based on what she has read in the popular press or on line, a broader scope of information that may not be otherwise apparent.

The Bigfella
10-10-2012, 10:15 AM
Ah the ever reliable and sadly predictable BF!
What other sort of comment would one expect from him but this on a thread about sexism:arg

My comment was based on personal, direct observation of her performance in Parliament. I'll quote from the original post in Oz Politics


On the subject of Julia - I've heard 15 year old schoolkids do better political speeches. I don't rate her as Deputy PM material. Heaven forbid.


My comments about her then weren't sexist, nor have my comments now been sexist, so why don't you just get off your attack hobbyhorse and inform yourself on a subject first. Gillard is a dud. She's under a cloud over her former career as a partner in a law firm too... maybe you'd like to comment about that?

Larks
10-10-2012, 06:39 PM
Some media on the other side of the political fence that you may not see in the UK, possibly because it's not sensationalist enough to sell papers over there:

PRIME Minister Julia Gillard has avoided saying whether she believes Tony Abbott hates women despite accusing him of misogyny.

"I believe Mr Abbott should be held to account for the things he said in public life," Ms Gillard told reporters in Canberra on Thursday.The prime minister was asked whether she really believed the opposition leader hated women, because that was the meaning of misogyny.Ms Gillard accused Mr Abbott of having misogynist views during a vitriolic debate in parliament on Tuesday over a move to remove Peter Slipper as Speaker."The motivation for my speech ... was to call out sexism and misogyny where I see it," she said.Deputy opposition leader Julie Bishop led the charge in support of Mr Abbott.She said the prime minister had made a "vile charge" by repeatedly calling him a misogynist.It was not a figure of speech but "a deliberate and calculated" statement that he hated women, she said."This is an utter and absolute lie and the prime minister knows it," Ms Bishop told reporters on Thursday.Mr Abbott was a "loving son, loving brother, loving husband and loving father, of many women"."As one of his female colleagues, I trust and respect Tony Abbott," Ms Bishop said."Tony Abbott loves and cares for many women (and) it is deeply offensive for Julia Gillard to claim that he hates women."She urged the prime minister to apologise "to the women that Tony Abbott loves and cares for and withdraw his offensive charge".Liberal senator Michaelia Cash said Mr Abbott had a proven record in providing policy outcomes for women, citing his work as health minister in the Howard government.Mr Abbott had "personally intervened" to ensure cervical cancer drugs were listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.Senator Cash urged Labor to be "very, very careful" about playing the gender card."I will stand by my leader's record when it comes to delivering real policy outcomes for women any day of the week," she told reporters.Liberal frontbencher Sophie Mirabella said claims Mr Abbott was a sexist were a "beat-up"."It is a very desperate tactic to try and claim victimhood to avoid proper and decent scrutiny of government policy and government behaviour," she said.Liberal MP Kelly O'Dwyer accused the government of trying to divide the country by waging a "gender war"."Leadership should be all about uniting Australians, not dividing Australians," she told reporters

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/pm-wont-say-whether-abbott-hates-women/story-e6frfku9-1226493386559#ixzz28wUVAHNF

Chip-skiff
10-10-2012, 06:57 PM
What man would be fool enough to try and convince a woman of anything?

Only a fool, and a determined one at that, would say that women can't be engaged or see reason or be persuaded by someone with a genuine argument.

I've convinced some extremely intelligent and attractive women that I was worth knowing, and we have all been happier as a result. But I take them seriously as human beings, not as a separate, impossible species.

What stands out beyond the immediate political dust-up is that Australia has a woman PM. New Zealand has had them as well. We in the 'States have a long way to go, I think.

Farfalla
10-11-2012, 03:57 AM
What man would be fool enough to try and convince a woman of anything?

:d:d
The humour is appreciated.
I'm glad we both know you meant it as a joke otherwise I'd have to think it was a sexist comment:d

Farfalla
10-11-2012, 07:43 AM
My comment was based on personal, direct observation of her performance in Parliament. I'll quote from the original post in Oz Politics




On the subject of Julia - I've heard 15 year old schoolkids do better political speeches. I don't rate her as Deputy PM material. Heaven forbid.


My comments about her then weren't sexist, nor have my comments now been sexist, so why don't you just get off your attack hobbyhorse and inform yourself on a subject first. Gillard is a dud. She's under a cloud over her former career as a partner in a law firm too... maybe you'd like to comment about that?

Seriously BF this post is a little strange even by your standards, well maybe not entirely.
You do throw in the usual unsubstantiated claim and of course it's of the "poor you being attacked by some evil woman" kind so lets deal with that bit of foolishness first.


My comments about her then weren't sexist, nor have my comments now been sexist

Care to find a place in this thread where I called your comment


She's a shallow idiot

sexist anywhere at all.

Let alone on this quote from your pet playground Oz Politics.



On the subject of Julia - I've heard 15 year old schoolkids do better political speeches. I don't rate her as Deputy PM material. Heaven forbid.

I've never seen this one and you only just posted it here long after I made any comment about you. I know I have a lot of great qualities but being able to read minds and know what someone else is going to post a day or so in advance and so to comment on it before it was posted on this thread, well that would be stretching it to be honest.
Though thanks for the vote of confidence in my abilities!!
So once again we have a totally false claim of you being unfairly attacked being used to justify a personal attack on someone else. Boring and sad and predictable just as I said your original comment about Ms. Gillard was.:d

So I challenged your original comment

She's a shallow idiot
on a number of grounds and I'm happy to defend that challenge.
Using the OED definition of the term "idiot" we find there are several possible meanings that have changed with time.

The original meaning, Ancient Greek, specifically Athens, was of a person who was selfcentred and wasn't involved in the political life of the community, they were not a full citizen, a participant in Democracy.
Well it's a bit hard to call the Prime Minister, the leader of the democratically elected governing party of a democracy, a person who is not involved in the political life of her community.

So lets count that one as a fail.:d

Later the term "idiot" became associated with people of very low intellect, what we would now refer to as intellectually handicapped/disadvantaged/challenged, take your pick!
Again I fail to see how Ms. Gillard could be a " a shallow idiot" or an intellectually challenged person if she is a lawyer, unless they have very low entry requirements for law school in Australia!
Maybe they do, I understand that both Abbot and his predecessor Howard were lawyers. So are you implying that she's an idiot, an intellectually challenged person, by virtue of the fact that she's a lawyer?
Probably not unless they are too!

So let's count that one as a fail and move on.:d

The modern usage of the term idiot is for someone who is too stupid to do smart things and lacks the intelligence to really succeed at something or understand subtle things. Well lets see how your claim that Ms. Gillard is "a shallow idiot" on those terms. Well she is the Prime Minister of your country and a lawyer and has managed to get to the leadership of the party by means of all the levels of intrigue and subterfuge that politicians usually employ to get ahead.
So on those grounds it is hard to see how anyone could make an informed judgement that she was "a shallow idiot".

So I guess we have to count that as a fail too.:d

Well where does that leave us?
As I said your comment on Ms. Gillard was "sadly predictable" in that it was a personal attack and not one based in fact. You even posted the information yourself to prove that.

My comment was based on personal, direct observation


I don't rate her as Deputy PM material


So as you admit you are basing your comments on personal observation and assessment which as it turns out were totally rubbish.
Not only did she turn out to be Deputy Prime Minister material she went on to be the Prime Minister.
Also she fails to be "a shallow idiot"
by all the definitions of the word idiot!!
So just how wrong can you get?:d

Your doing well BF, not only did you make an unsubstantiated and personal attack on Ms. Gillard you made one on me and both have been proven to be false. why is that not a surprise?
BF I'd like to leave you with a bit of advice from a fellow forumite who has on many occasions styled himself as the champion of those unfairly attacked, someone who is always ready to defend the innocent from the unscrupulous ans abusive. You would do well to heed his advice or he may just turn his wrath upon you for your evil ways ..:d


so why don't you just get off your attack hobbyhorse and inform yourself on a subject first

Paul Pless
10-11-2012, 07:46 AM
Seriously BF. . .rofl

Farfalla
10-11-2012, 08:03 AM
rofl

Paul Please!!
Don't you know that I'm always serious with my fellow forumite BF, I always trust to his sincerity and integrity on his posts and try to follow a phrase he posted about me the other day "treat him with the respect he deserves". Please note Paul that I substituted "him", and "he" for the original "her" and "she" because I didn't want BF to think I was challenging his manhood by calling him a big girl.

So I fail to see how you could possibly see any hint of sarcasm or anything else untoward in that line that would cause you to suffer such a problem:d
Plus, Ive seen a picture of you, so you rolling on the floor laughing, now that would be funny!:d

Have fun, I am,
SophieBY:D

Paul Pless
10-11-2012, 08:06 AM
Have fun, I am,
SophieBY:D

Maybe you two should get a room. :D

Farfalla
10-11-2012, 08:11 AM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Farfalla http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=3559443#post3559443)Have fun, I am,

SophieBY:D


Maybe you two should get a room. :D

Who ? Sophie and Farfalla? We are already as close as we care to be. I swear sometimes that damn Farfalla knows every thought that goes through my head!!:d

TomF
10-11-2012, 08:20 AM
Farfalla,

I don't want to get in between you and the BF in your tussle ... but commenting that someone is a "shallow idiot" or that various 15 year olds could make better speeches ... well, I've said (or thought!) such things about lots of men. That's a descriptive judgement, not necessarily a gendered one. I think both could be said, for instance, of many on our Canadian federal government's front bench ... regardless of their gender.

A similar issue recently came up in a consultation session I helped run with First Nations people about their health care. To illustrate continuing racism in the system, a couple of people gave examples of what most of us would consider slipshod, poor care. And the poor care actually occurred - was suitable to take through complaints processes etc. to get some resolution.

But from my perspective, I know why we've got complaints processes, and that people of many ethnic backgrounds use them. While racism could be a factor in some, poor care is evidence of ... well, of poor care. And sometimes it is only that. The particular hospital they'd had troubles with ... is one where many folks have had troubles; in a tiny town with a tiny catchment area, it hasn't got the volume to maintain quality, sustainable clinical services ... and the quality slips. That's why we've wanted to close it, and consolidate care in a regional facility instead - 'cause care would be safer.

It is entirely possible that BF simply considers your PM to be an incompetent. Just like it is entirely possible that my First Nations person got poor care because the hospital's not up to snuff. While it's certainly true that gender or race can lead to negative judgments, it's equally possible that the PM would be as incompetent if male, and the mis-diagnosed broken hip would have been as summarily mis-diagnosed if the senior's ethnicity was British instead of Maliseet.

That's something my Maliseet friends didn't at first accept ... but were I at liberty, I could show them the data...

pefjr
10-11-2012, 08:47 AM
hmmm.... I have learned some about this Aussie PM in this thread. I had heard in the past she was an Atheist, but she is not, she is simply not religious. Somehow I thought she was gay, and she is not. Now.... this sexism charge..... just asking now.... Is not the PM herself a bit sexist by her feeling about tradition marriage, and her stated opposition to same sex marriage?

Farfalla
10-11-2012, 08:50 AM
Hi Tom,
how are you doing?
i don't care what BF thinks but when he claims that i've attacked him and labelled his comments as sexist then that's wrong and I corrected that. As for his personal observations about her political speeches, again his opinion, I don't care. But he also made a couple of other assertions, eg she wasn't deputy PM material well obviously a lot more people who mattered, her own party, thought differently so his personal observation was just that, and not borne out by the results.
I would much rather spend my time actually talking about sexism on this thread. Why do you always show up just when i'm heading out|;)
I'm going to yoga. Maybe I'll be back and you'll still be online.
have fun,
Sophie|;)

The Bigfella
10-11-2012, 09:33 AM
Hmmm... I must remember to come back here some time and try and make sense of Soph's rant. Maybe. I gave up bothering to read it after about 3 sentences. Waste of space there Soph...

TomF
10-11-2012, 10:07 AM
Hi Tom,
how are you doing?
....I would much rather spend my time actually talking about sexism on this thread. Why do you always show up just when i'm heading out|;)
I'm going to yoga. Maybe I'll be back and you'll still be online.
have fun,
Sophie|;)Tag - you're it. :D

I'll be in and out - a bunch to do, on short deadlines. But every now and then, a guy's got to come up for coffee.

t

Farfalla
10-11-2012, 03:00 PM
Hmmm... I must remember to come back here some time and try and make sense of Soph's rant. Maybe. I gave up bothering to read it after about 3 sentences. Waste of space there Soph...

So let me plug in my BF Decoder Pad here. At a glance it would seem to be a pretty standard BF response.
yes here we go.
BF Rule 1 "When defeated on a point by logic or evidence then demean the opponent"
Hence..

Soph's rant

BF Rule 2 "When faced by a superior argument be dismissive without actually responding to any of the points"


I gave up bothering to read it after about 3 sentences

BF Rule 3 "when left looking foolish for being caught making such basic mistakes then be derogatory"


Waste of space there Soph

BF Rule 4 "Always imply superior understanding but don't actually engage the argument"


Hmmm... I must remember to come back here some time and try and make sense of

Ah "Brave Sir Robin", they sing songs of you:d

skuthorp
10-11-2012, 03:10 PM
With the best will in the world it's difficult for BF's comments to be taken seriously on this matter because of his past record on other threads. But the same applies to his usual opponents on such matters, an automatic bias. I regard him as a friend with a different political agenda to mine, and fair enough, but we share a common disgust at the state of parliamentary affairs in Aus at present.
On the subject of sexism and discrimination in Aus. society? Alive and well. But we have a female PM, Governor General, leader of the Greens and the richest person in Aus. is a woman.

Peerie Maa
10-11-2012, 03:19 PM
I see it turned out as I expected. My hopes in #6 were futile.

Farfalla
10-11-2012, 03:20 PM
Whew - one helluva rant! Unaware of all the stuff prior which launched her speech, one can only stand in awe. While I support the bulk of her views about sexism and misogyny of course, your PM's speech stands in particular as a great example of effective political theater. :D

That said ...

... my own good spouse has had her own various battles with feminism. Which she's personally experienced not as primarily something bringing liberation to her own life, but as judgment. Herself is keenly of the opinion that feminism, as practiced in much of the developed world, has been primarily about women trying to get access to what has historically been a masculine public sphere. And while things like pay equity, equal legal rights etc. are of crucial importance, one of the additional effects of modern feminism is paradoxically, the denigration of the feminine. Women have been encouraged to adopt a quite male orientation to public life, not to transform its presuppositions into something which reflects and values both the masculine and feminine.

Not only that, Herself is strongly of the opinion that conventional Feminist critiques of patriarchy focus, not surprisingly, on the sacrifices demanded of women in traditional gender relations ... but are unaware of the sacrifices demanded of men in traditional gender relations. Sacrifices like taking responsibility for providing for someone besides themselves ... which are no longer demanded in anything like the same way. She's been recently reading and agreeing with Danielle Crittenden's book "What our Mothers Didn't Tell Us," which goes into some rather compelling narratives of the unintended negative consequences for women, of feminism. And what is in Crittenden's view, the unfair portrayal of men's lives in pre-feminist-revolution times.

For instance, a conventional feminist meme has been that women pre-feminist-revolution were been prevented from full actualization of themselves in the workplace, in things like working in the professions. True, but most men were also so prevented - in that most men worked not in jobs they adored and felt to be emotionally fulfilling ... but driving trucks, working in factories, in mines, etc. Crittenden (and my wife) point out that these men weren't in jobs women now clamour to access, because they're thus able to "follow their bliss." Most men were in those jobs to feed their families - and many found the jobs themselves quite soul-destroying, but a necessary piece of what being a man entailed. That is, the "old dispensation" usually didn't only involve womens' sacrifice, but mens' sacrifice. Both in order to support family and community institutions, which were understood to be "good" and "necessary."

What's "good" and "necessary" now is individual autonomy - and the "success" of feminism's empowering of women to become (economically speaking) "men" has meant that a shocking number of men apparently feel free to drop their responsibility to think beyond themselves. With impacts on child rearing, on seniors' care, on the stability of modern spousal relationships too. In fact, the way modern feminism has been implemented has produced serious unintended consequences, alongside the positives we're aware of.



Your post has a lot of interesting points Tom and I would like to respond in detail to some of them. I'm tired tonight after days of being ill. I can't believe that I can be tired when all I did for 4 days was lie still in bed and try to hide by sleeping but it seems I am.

So..

Well I sat and started a long reply but my mind is just not up to it tonight so I'm not going to post what I wrote other than to say there are a lot of things I agree on to a certain point but we have some significant differences.
So I'll give it a proper response in the morning. The most interesting stuff to actually get posted on this thread Tom|;)

Paul Pless
10-11-2012, 03:38 PM
I'm tired tonight after days of being ill. I can't believe that I can be tired when all I did for 4 days was lie still in bed and try to hide by sleeping but it seems I am.

Eat some meat woman, or at least an egg or something healthy. . .;)

TomF
10-11-2012, 04:32 PM
Sorry you're still not feeling up to snuff, Sophie. Get better first ... the pixels will still be there waiting when you're up to them.

t

The Bigfella
10-11-2012, 06:21 PM
So let me plug in my BF Decoder Pad here. At a glance it would seem to be a pretty standard BF response.
yes here we go.
BF Rule 1 "When defeated on a point by logic or evidence then demean the opponent"
Hence..


BF Rule 2 "When faced by a superior argument be dismissive without actually responding to any of the points"



BF Rule 3 "when left looking foolish for being caught making such basic mistakes then be derogatory"



BF Rule 4 "Always imply superior understanding but don't actually engage the argument"



Ah "Brave Sir Robin", they sing songs of you


Wrong, as usual, Soph's. I'd just enjoyed a nice bottle of French red with some friends and decided that the following was just a babbling rant that I'd look at later.... refer post 46....


.... so... here goes, consider it a get well present....


Seriously BF this post is a little strange even by your standards, well maybe not entirely.
You do throw in the usual unsubstantiated claim and of course it's of the "poor you being attacked by some evil woman" kind so lets deal with that bit of foolishness first.


My comments about her then weren't sexist, nor have my comments now been sexist

Care to find a place in this thread where I called your comment



sexist anywhere at all. .... and where did I say you did?

Let alone on this quote from your pet playground Oz Politics.



I've never seen this one and you only just posted it here long after I made any comment about you. I know I have a lot of great qualities but being able to read minds and know what someone else is going to post a day or so in advance and so to comment on it before it was posted on this thread, well that would be stretching it to be honest.
Though thanks for the vote of confidence in my abilities!!
So once again we have a totally false claim of you being unfairly attacked being used to justify a personal attack on someone else. Boring and sad and predictable just as I said your original comment about Ms. Gillard was.:d

So I challenged your original comment

She's a shallow idiot
on a number of grounds and I'm happy to defend that challenge.
Using the OED definition of the term "idiot" we find there are several possible meanings that have changed with time.

The original meaning, Ancient Greek, specifically Athens, was of a person who was selfcentred and wasn't involved in the political life of the community, they were not a full citizen, a participant in Democracy.
Well it's a bit hard to call the Prime Minister, the leader of the democratically elected governing party of a democracy, a person who is not involved in the political life of her community.

So lets count that one as a fail.:d Yep... you've failed to find any way of knocking the comment without going back to a word definition from thousands of years ago. Good grief woman.... next thing you know we'll be talking about cavemen and clubs.

Later the term "idiot" became associated with people of very low intellect, what we would now refer to as intellectually handicapped/disadvantaged/challenged, take your pick! OK... intellectually challenged will do... based on personal observation of her performance in the House
Again I fail to see how Ms. Gillard could be a " a shallow idiot" or an intellectually challenged person if she is a lawyer, unless they have very low entry requirements for law school in Australia! She was born in Wales
Maybe they do, I understand that both Abbot and his predecessor Howard were lawyers. So are you implying that she's an idiot, an intellectually challenged person, by virtue of the fact that she's a lawyer?
Probably not unless they are too! So, do you consider profession to be the best determinant of ability?

So let's count that one as a fail and move on.:d

The modern usage of the term idiot is for someone who is too stupid to do smart things and lacks the intelligence to really succeed at something or understand subtle things. Well lets see how your claim that Ms. Gillard is "a shallow idiot" on those terms. Well she is the Prime Minister of your country and a lawyer and has managed to get to the leadership of the party by means of all the levels of intrigue and subterfuge that politicians usually employ to get ahead.
So on those grounds it is hard to see how anyone could make an informed judgement that she was "a shallow idiot". The electorate will speak sometime in the next 6-8 months IIRC.... and we'll see how informed my judgement was then eh?

So I guess we have to count that as a fail too.:d

Well where does that leave us?
As I said your comment on Ms. Gillard was "sadly predictable" in that it was a personal attack and not one based in fact. You even posted the information yourself to prove that.

My comment was based on personal, direct observation


I don't rate her as Deputy PM material


So as you admit you are basing your comments on personal observation and assessment which as it turns out were totally rubbish.
Not only did she turn out to be Deputy Prime Minister material she went on to be the Prime Minister.
Also she fails to be "a shallow idiot"
by all the definitions of the word idiot!!
So just how wrong can you get?:d Fortunately, I never plumb the depths that you reach.

Your doing well BF, not only did you make an unsubstantiated and personal attack on Ms. Gillard you made one on me and both have been proven to be false. why is that not a surprise?
BF I'd like to leave you with a bit of advice from a fellow forumite who has on many occasions styled himself as the champion of those unfairly attacked, someone who is always ready to defend the innocent from the unscrupulous ans abusive. You would do well to heed his advice or he may just turn his wrath upon you for your evil ways ..:d


so why don't you just get off your attack hobbyhorse and inform yourself on a subject first

Donn
10-11-2012, 06:28 PM
This thread should be re-titled..."On Sexlessism."

B_B
10-11-2012, 07:35 PM
This thread should be re-titled..."On Sexlessism."
Ha! Thanks for that laugh.

Meli
10-11-2012, 11:06 PM
Heh, Tony Abbott's deputy defends

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-11/bishop-defends-abbotts-attitude-towards-women/4308684

Larks
10-11-2012, 11:09 PM
Fair enough I'd say, why the "Heh"?

Meli
10-11-2012, 11:22 PM
Fair enough I'd say, why the "Heh"?

Well I've seen some angry peeved polly's before, but Bishop's expression at the end of that would curdle milk.
I hope that poor girl has a job next year.:rolleyes:

The Bigfella
10-11-2012, 11:24 PM
Well I've seen some angry peeved polly's before, but Bishop's expression at the end of that would curdle milk.
I hope that poor girl has a job next year.:rolleyes:

"Poor girl"? Your condescension is showing a tad.

Meli
10-11-2012, 11:27 PM
I wasn't talking about Bishop :D

Larks
10-11-2012, 11:31 PM
Well I've seen some angry peeved polly's before, but Bishop's expression at the end of that would curdle milk.
I hope that poor girl has a job next year.:rolleyes:

Interesting that you make that sort of comment for Bishop but not for Gillard......

Meli
10-11-2012, 11:34 PM
Did you watch the video?
Out of context ???? really???.
Pity the interviewer didn't have time to ask about the "Ironing" comment:rolleyes:

Larks
10-11-2012, 11:58 PM
I watched the start, it looked like the same one that I saw on the news...??? . She always looks like she's swallowed a lemon. I just don't really understand why you'd make something of that with her but not with Gillard.
Or were you not referring to my post Meli? What did you mean by out of context?
Ian can't usually watch the videos at the moment where he is.

Meli
10-12-2012, 12:12 AM
The interviewer asked about 3 of the comments that Gillard quoted in her speach
The one about "..but if men have superior .. (whatever it was)
the one about women's lack of represention maybe not being a bad thing
and the one about abortion being the easy way out.
Bishop tried to duck, when pressed she said it was quoted out of context.

Give up Larks, Abbott has had this rep for most of his career. Call a spade a spade.
The man is sexist and has shown that he has no compunction about attempting to use his ministerial powers to force his bigoted religious idiocy on Australian women. The one time I applauded Bronwyn Bishop.

The Bigfella
10-12-2012, 12:35 AM
The interviewer asked about 3 of the comments that Gillard quoted in her speach
The one about "..but if men have superior .. (whatever it was)
the one about women's lack of represention maybe not being a bad thing
and the one about abortion being the easy way out.
Bishop tried to duck, when pressed she said it was quoted out of context.

Give up Larks, Abbott has had this rep for most of his career. Call a spade a spade.
The man is sexist and has shown that he has no compunction about attempting to use his ministerial powers to force his bigoted religious idiocy on Australian women. The one time I applauded Bronwyn Bishop.

Rubbish. As Bishop said... and her name isn't Bronwyn, its Julie (do you ever get anything right?)... Abbott has a different view to her's when it comes to abortion, but he never tried to alter the Australian abortion laws when he was Minister for Health.

You are dribbling about at the sub 1% level when it comes to the matters that count.

Meli
10-12-2012, 12:45 AM
That's a bit disingenuous. RU 386 ring any bells?

Anyway, he's an interesting short Video from Jon Fayne.
Seems 80% of women callers across party lines found something in Gillards speech that resonated positively with them.

sorry you cant see it Ian.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/victoria/2012/10/talkback-siding-with-julia-gillard-over-tony-abbott-attack-jon-faine.html

The Bigfella
10-12-2012, 12:53 AM
That's a bit disingenuous. RU 386 ring any bells?

Anyway, he's an interesting short Video from Jon Fayne.
Seems 80% of women callers across party lines found something in Gillards speech that resonated positively with them.

sorry you cant see it Ian.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/victoria/2012/10/talkback-siding-with-julia-gillard-over-tony-abbott-attack-jon-faine.html

That's not in the slightest bit "disingenuous". His view on abortion is that it should be "safe, legal and rare". I'd agree with that. He personally opposed the introduction of RU-486.... but it WAS introduced, wasn't it Meli... if you really want to talk about being "disingenuous"

Meli
10-12-2012, 12:57 AM
That's not in the slightest bit "disingenuous". His view on abortion is that it should be "safe, legal and rare". I'd agree with that. He personally opposed the introduction of RU-486.... but it WAS introduced, wasn't it Meli... if you really want to talk about being "disingenuous"

It was only introduced because 4 (i think) Liberal(conservative) women crossed the floor and voted with the Labor opposition.
Left up to Abbott it's importation would still be banned and still may be if he ever becomes PM.

Larks
10-12-2012, 01:20 AM
It was only introduced because 4 (i think) Liberal(conservative) women crossed the floor and voted with the Labor opposition.
Left up to Abbott it's importation would still be banned and still may be if he ever becomes PM.

Three female Liberal ministers also opposed it, I assume for their own good reasons, but at least they were all allowed a conscience vote. Where do you think we'd be if there was no opposition to the proposals that get put up? No debate? No real consideration of the consequences or the moral obligations that our political leaders have to make the right decisions by the people of this country.

People deserve far more respect for sticking to their more entrenched morals than those who sell them out for a popularist vote.

Meli
10-12-2012, 02:43 AM
A health minister has no right to use his powers to push his own personal sexist or religious agenda. Australia is not yet quite tainted in this way.

Meli
10-12-2012, 02:49 AM
Three female Liberal ministers also opposed it, I assume for their own good reasons, but at least they were all allowed a conscience vote. Where do you think we'd be if there was no opposition to the proposals that get put up? No debate? No real consideration of the consequences or the moral obligations that our political leaders have to make the right decisions by the people of this country.

People deserve far more respect for sticking to their more entrenched morals than those who sell them out for a popularist vote.

Shame that Tony Abbott won't permit a conscience vote on gay marriage :rolleyes:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-05/abbott-dampens-calls-for-conscience-vote/3712084

purri
10-12-2012, 04:26 AM
Re #71:
Now let's see Macklin as the Minister for grab bag acronyms, her Ministerial Health equivalent and Noalition opponent match it on their respective agendas on the subject of Health and "ministering to the natives". (FWIW they agree)

The Bigfella
10-12-2012, 04:55 AM
A health minister has no right to use his powers to push his own personal sexist or religious agenda. Australia is not yet quite tainted in this way.

What are you on about?

RU-486 was introduced to Australia when Tony Abbott was Health Minister.

He personally opposed its introduction and use.... BUT IT WAS INTRODUCED WHILE HE WAS HEALTH MINISTER.

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

Farfalla
10-12-2012, 04:57 AM
Eat some meat woman, or at least an egg or something healthy. . .;)

Thank you for your concern Paul, I recover quickly.|;)

As for the dietary recommendations, again thankyou but I think I'll stick to what several decades of pretty intensive training have taught me about nutrition. It seems to have worked just fine

The Bigfella
10-12-2012, 05:04 AM
Thank you for your concern Paul, I recover quickly.|;)

As for the dietary recommendations, again thankyou but I think I'll stick to what several decades of pretty intensive training have taught me about nutrition. It seems to have worked just fine

There is some evidence that suggests otherwise....

Meli
10-12-2012, 05:08 AM
What are you on about?

RU-486 was introduced to Australia when Tony Abbott was Health Minister.

He personally opposed its introduction and use.... BUT IT WAS INTRODUCED WHILE HE WAS HEALTH MINISTER.



Are you deliberately being obtuse?

It was only introduced because 4 strong women from his own party stood up to him and crossed the floor (making history I believe)

He effectively Vettoed it's introduction for ages
stop being disingenuous

Meli
10-12-2012, 05:13 AM
Here is an interesting little snippet from Wiki.

It seems that for women, Democracy may not be all it's made out.
It would seem that women in Russia or worse off since 1995 elections.
It makes interesting reading on gender equality, rape stats and government support.

Dunno how accurate it is but with the Pussy Riot thing, it makes me wonder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Russia

WX
10-12-2012, 05:17 AM
this is also from the ABC, from a female journalist just to balance some perspective:


There is no doubt that our first female PM has been tried extensively by references, attacks and criticism that would never have been made of her male predecessors. Much of it has gained public ventilation thanks to a communications revolution that now allows front-bar remarks to achieve a national audience.In a coruscating speech (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-09/gillard-vs-abbott-on-the-slipper-affair/4303618) that went around the world, Ms Gillard finally let rip with her frustration about all this, and left no doubt about whom she considers to be responsible."The Leader of the Opposition says that people who hold sexist views and who are misogynists are not appropriate for high office," said the Prime Minister, with the cold fluency she reserves for moments of genuine anger."Well, I hope the Leader of the Opposition has got a piece of paper and he is writing out his resignation."Principle! Well, yes, sort of. Until you consider that the PM's distaste for sexist remarks stopped at the door of her own Speaker. Yesterday afternoon, she decided to speak with the voice of principle but vote with clay feet. Subsequent events show she needn't have; the Government now finds itself defending the ghost of the Speaker with the shreds of its principle.Annabel Crabb is the ABC's chief online political writer.

Annabel is good.

Meli
10-12-2012, 05:19 AM
+1 :)

Personally I think that both sides are playing a desperate tug of war with Slipper's vote the prize.
Both sides are desperate. Both sides will court his vote. That's political reality.
However I think Julia's tirade was separate, a genuine angry speech that was a long time coming.
Apparently I'm not the only woman in Australia that stands up and applauds.

Farfalla
10-12-2012, 05:25 AM
Wrong, as usual, Soph's. I'd just enjoyed a nice bottle of French red with some friends and decided that the following was just a babbling rant that I'd look at later.... refer post 46....


.... so... here goes, consider it a get well present....






Ah Sir Robin, I won't be ungrateful for your offer of a get well present, such a nice gesture!
But as a regular correspondent of yours what can I say about your rebuttal other than sad.
The idea is to actually refute the points I made not just string a few inane comments together.
Let me give you just one example. Probably your best of the lot.


Farffalla posted
Again I fail to see how Ms. Gillard could be a " a shallow idiot" or an intellectually challenged person if she is a lawyer, unless they have very low entry requirements for law school in Australia!

I made a point that it would be very hard to justify Ms. Gillard being defined as "intellectually retarded/handicapped" and yet still having managed to enter law school in Australia.
Your response, presumably an attempt at rebuttal mentions the fact that she was born in Wales was a little strange.


She was born in Wales

Now there are several ways that this could be taken.

1. As simply a botched attempt to rebut because the fact that she was born in Wales but left as a young child has absolutely no significance on her entry to Law school in Australia 20 years later or on the entry standards of that course!

2. That you reverted to form and rather than admit you were totally wrong you made some sort of silly attempt to imply that being born Welsh was a justification for her being intellectually retarded. Now that's pretty unpleasant place for you to be wandering if I might offer you some friendly advice!

3. You thought you could look like you were scoring a point showing I had made an error by blowing a little bit of a smokescreen to cover your ineptitude and hoped that other people, casual observers who knew nothing of the issue would be fooled.

Well however you intended it the response was a fail and that was probably the best you did out of all of your attempts.
Rancour, distortion and demeaning comments are no substitute for facts and logical debate.
You are as usual sadly short of the latter but strong on the former.
So as I said thanks for the gift.:D

Farfalla
10-12-2012, 05:31 AM
That's a bit disingenuous. RU 386 ring any bells?

Anyway, he's an interesting short Video from Jon Fayne.
Seems 80% of women callers across party lines found something in Gillards speech that resonated positively with them.

sorry you cant see it Ian.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/victoria/2012/10/talkback-siding-with-julia-gillard-over-tony-abbott-attack-jon-faine.html


Hi Meli!|;)

Thanks for the links.
As I would expect, women, regardless of party lines are more than likely to support an attack on sexist behaviour.

Meli
10-12-2012, 05:36 AM
Thank's sophie. I think.
Just a word.
Engaging Ian in this way is likely to see the thread poofed:rolleyes:

Farfalla
10-12-2012, 05:37 AM
There is some evidence that suggests otherwise....

??

Having seen your picture and knowing that you have basically no knowledge at all about my personal position, I'm more than a little surprised that you think you are in any position to make an even remotely informed comment upon my statement.

Meli
10-12-2012, 05:38 AM
Give it a rest.

The Bigfella
10-12-2012, 05:39 AM
It was only introduced because 4 strong women from his own party stood up to him and crossed the floor (making history I believe)

He effectively Vettoed it's introduction for ages
stop being disingenuous

Poppycock.

By my count the vote was 95 AYEs and 50 NOs.... give or take one or two... an overwhelming support of the private members bill to introduce it.

The AYEs included Costello, Turnbull, Hunt, Baird, Brough, Georgiou and Hockey. Most of them Ministers, none of them female. W

hy don't you check the details occasionally and include facts in your arguments?

Your belief in history ain't so flash.

Farfalla
10-12-2012, 05:41 AM
Thank's sophie. I think.
Just a word.
Engaging Ian in this way is likely to see the thread poofed:rolleyes:

Just tidying up some loose ends before I get back to TomF's interesting post, I've had to delay my response to that several times but I will have time soon.
it would be a pity if the thread got zapped because sexism is an important issue despite the attempts to ignore it.
Your Ms. Gillard does seem to be quite the character, she generates some very strong reactions from a few of the usual suspects.:D
Maybe it's the red hair:D

The Bigfella
10-12-2012, 05:50 AM
Next election will be telling. This from Newspoll

Paul Keating (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Paul_Keating) (20-22 August 1993) and Julia Gillard (http://forum.woodenboat.com/wiki/Julia_Gillard) (6-8 July 2012) tie the lowest approval record with 27%

Highest dissatisfied rating: Paul Keating holds the record with 75% (3-5 September 1993). Julia Gillard is second highest, with 68% (2-4 September 2011).

doorstop
10-12-2012, 05:58 AM
It seems that we have little choose as quality leaderschidt with either party.
I just wish the buggers would get on with managing our country instead of carrying on with the schoolyard carp.....

The Bigfella
10-12-2012, 07:02 AM
This piece is by Graham Richardson... a former senior Labor Minister and numbers man



MEA culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! When Peter Slipper took the Speaker's chair, I thought it was a masterstroke. Andrew Wilkie had just left the fold and this brilliant tactical move made Wilkie irrelevant and minority government passably workable.


I praised this on the assumption that the government would have checked every docket of his travel claims and given Slipper a clean bill of health. It became clear some months later that this simple, obvious check had not been done, even though Slipper had form. He had already been forced to repay money falsely claimed, so he should have been automatically suspect.

I do not blame anyone for not knowing the sleazy side of Slipper's behaviour. It is doubtful anyone knew that he could be capable of sending the sort of texts that have come to light in the past week. That having been said, Slipper's handling of travel expenses is still under scrutiny and even if he is not guilty of any criminality, the questions raised were serious enough to mean that it was extremely unlikely he would ever resume the Speaker's role.

Just what was going through the minds of Julia Gillard and her cabinet colleagues on Tuesday morning? Anyone who sifted through the words of the texts would have known by 1am that day that Slipper needed to resign straight after prayers on Tuesday morning. There is a certain gravitas attached to the position of Speaker. It may not be powerful but its symbolism is profound. The Speaker is above the fray and must adhere to a standard of personal propriety way beyond that required of lesser mortals.

The lurid nature of the words in those texts was well beyond the pale. Did the Prime Minister and her senior colleagues fail to read them? They had been first referred to on the previous Friday. By Tuesday morning it is hard to believe anyone with an IQ over 100 would have believed Slipper had any option other than to resign. Yet seven hours later, the PM was on her feet defending him and, by inference, those texts.

What was she thinking? She made a really good speech attacking Tony Abbott on his attitude towards women and there are questions for him to answer. But who will remember that speech in the days and weeks to come? The answer is very few indeed.

What will be remembered from Tuesday's debate is that Abbott sought to remove Slipper from office while Gillard sought to keep him in a post of which he is totally unworthy.

By Tuesday morning the Labor government was flat out corralling Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott and persuading them to stick with Slipper. They must have worked hard and well in this endeavour, because Windsor had mused publicly about his disgust at Slipper's behaviour. That time should have been spent telling Slipper he had to resign immediately, before the independents deserted him and he was sacked.

To spend hours defending this slime Slipper and to win the vote 70-69 and then have him resign is about as dumb as it gets.

You have to wonder, was it all worth the effort?

Minority rule is destroying the Labor government. In an attempt to hang on to the gossamer-thin thread of the ALP's majority in the lower house, apparently anything goes. I once wrote a book called Whatever it Takes, and that embodied my political style. Never, however, did I believe that the "whatever" would include defending a slime like Slipper.

What I am really wondering is how much of the PM's or the party's reputation will be sacrificed in this pursuit. No one has argued the case for Labor being in government more than I across many, many years, but right now, right at this moment, you really have to wonder if this has all gone too far.

The hypocrisy of defending Slipper while attacking Abbott for not respecting women is breathtaking. Abbott should be criticised for standing in front of signs calling the PM "Brown's bitch", but that in no way alters the words of Slipper's texts.

The PM's judgment this week, and sadly in too many other weeks, was appalling. In defending Slipper, she ditched all ethics and principles in an effort to hang on until tomorrow. Through all the crises she has faced, it appears that the PM's goal is to get through the day. To survive another drama. She has always believed that somehow tomorrow will be better.

Unfortunately, for Gillard that tomorrow never comes.

Apparently the cabinet and the caucus just go along with this. It no longer is about what can the government do for the country - it's about hanging on, like grim death, to a prize that is looking more and more like a poisoned chalice.

And just remember that every time Labor scrapes across the line in the House of Representatives, it will do so on the back of the votes of Slipper and Craig Thomson, two of the most hated individuals in the country.

As someone who has always voted Labor and always will, I am beginning to believe that without dramatic change Labor will suffer a catastrophic defeat reminiscent of the massacres in NSW and Queensland. After a few good weeks, another scandal has swamped all good news.

The PM seems to believe that the best way to protect herself from sunburn is to cover herself in excrement. It may stop the burn, but the smell is permeating every corner of our land. There can be no excuse for the long list of serious errors of judgment. When the crunch comes, she is just not good enough for the office she holds.

Footnote: If Tuesday was the worst day in the life of this government, worse is to come. Soon, the Treasurer will introduce a mini-budget of sorts. You don't need to be an economist to know that the cost of refugees has blown out by billions, the mining tax will raise next to nothing, company tax receipts are way down and GST revenue is tanking.

This mini-budget will be a new low that may make leadership speculation superfluous. Who cares who leads a government that is going down?

Larks
10-12-2012, 07:24 AM
What you lot seem to conveniently ignore is that some of the most blatantly sexist comments on this forum have been made by women.

Farfalla
10-12-2012, 08:45 AM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by TomF http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=3558390#post3558390)Whew - one helluva rant! Unaware of all the stuff prior which launched her speech, one can only stand in awe. While I support the bulk of her views about sexism and misogyny of course, your PM's speech stands in particular as a great example of effective political theater. :D

That said ...

... my own good spouse has had her own various battles with feminism. Which she's personally experienced not as primarily something bringing liberation to her own life, but as judgment. Herself is keenly of the opinion that feminism, as practiced in much of the developed world, has been primarily about women trying to get access to what has historically been a masculine public sphere. And while things like pay equity, equal legal rights etc. are of crucial importance, one of the additional effects of modern feminism is paradoxically, the denigration of the feminine. Women have been encouraged to adopt a quite male orientation to public life, not to transform its presuppositions into something which reflects and values both the masculine and feminine.

Not only that, Herself is strongly of the opinion that conventional Feminist critiques of patriarchy focus, not surprisingly, on the sacrifices demanded of women in traditional gender relations ... but are unaware of the sacrifices demanded of men in traditional gender relations. Sacrifices like taking responsibility for providing for someone besides themselves ... which are no longer demanded in anything like the same way. She's been recently reading and agreeing with Danielle Crittenden's book "What our Mothers Didn't Tell Us," which goes into some rather compelling narratives of the unintended negative consequences for women, of feminism. And what is in Crittenden's view, the unfair portrayal of men's lives in pre-feminist-revolution times.

For instance, a conventional feminist meme has been that women pre-feminist-revolution were been prevented from full actualization of themselves in the workplace, in things like working in the professions. True, but most men were also so prevented - in that most men worked not in jobs they adored and felt to be emotionally fulfilling ... but driving trucks, working in factories, in mines, etc. Crittenden (and my wife) point out that these men weren't in jobs women now clamour to access, because they're thus able to "follow their bliss." Most men were in those jobs to feed their families - and many found the jobs themselves quite soul-destroying, but a necessary piece of what being a man entailed. That is, the "old dispensation" usually didn't only involve womens' sacrifice, but mens' sacrifice. Both in order to support family and community institutions, which were understood to be "good" and "necessary."


What's "good" and "necessary" now is individual autonomy - and the "success" of feminism's empowering of women to become (economically speaking) "men" has meant that a shocking number of men apparently feel free to drop their responsibility to think beyond themselves. With impacts on child rearing, on seniors' care, on the stability of modern spousal relationships too. In fact, the way modern feminism has been implemented has produced serious unintended consequences, alongside the positives we're aware of.

Hi Tom,
Finally I get the time to actually reply to your post, well at least part of it this time.


feminism, as practiced in much of the developed world, has been primarily about women trying to get access to what has historically been a masculine public sphere.

I don't know that I would agree with this totally, the basic core of feminism has been the removal of the limitations that were historically placed upon women socially and economically by the perception that they were not to be seen as equals in society, that men were somehow inherently superior and worthy of rights, freedoms and benefits that were denied women.
It is this push for equality not just economically but also politically and socially that has been the foundation of the struggle for so long in the west and in more recent times in the rest of the world. true equality in all of these spheres has not happened even in the most socially advanced and liberal societies let alone the medieval horrors that are inflicted upon women in societies at the other end of the spectrum. Equality is about the removal of those things that cause unnecessary suffering to other members of the society purely on the basis of a mistaken idea propagated by some aspects of a patriarchal system


one of the additional effects of modern feminism is paradoxically, the denigration of the feminine

Equality is sort not to eliminate the distinctions between male and female but to remove the inequalities that are used as a means of keeping the feminine aspects of society subservient.
There are many different strands of feminism and it's a gross over simplification to just limit feminism to the narrow agendas that some people wish to pigeonhole it with. By painting it as purely an attempt to seize male oriented aspects of society, "a drive for women to become men" is just a way of caricaturising it in a way that denigrates it. Some of the activists have emphasised the changes in the working world to such an extent that people, including them, have lost sight of what the actual goals of feminism should be and for many women still are.
But it is this strident and I would say narrow minded group that have played into the hands of the opponents of Feminism. They have provided the ammunition that detractors need to claim that feminism is wrong and heading down a crazy and totally unjustifiable path.
This is a vast topic and I think it's very hard to condense the various arguments presented by the major proponents of the various strands of feminism in this sort of forum. Especially as very few people here would actually be familiar and more to the point very few would actually be interested.
But before you can comment upon this stuff you would need to really define feminine and masculine aspects of culture and psyche. I'm not sure I totally agree with her on all points but it seems to me that Camille Paglia has some good ideas upon this aspect. Her concepts of the Apollonian and Dionyisian seem to ring true at many levels. Of course some of her conclusions are open to question but that is always going to be the case with any social commentary. She has been attacked by some of the holders of more diametrically opposed views on this issue but the core is valuable.

Having said that I think we could go off on a long journey in that direction so i will come back to the economic and social questions that you mentioned. The forum has a post word limit so I'll have to split it here.

pefjr
10-12-2012, 09:34 AM
What you lot seem to conveniently ignore is that some of the most blatantly sexist comments on this forum have been made by women.Conveniently ignore....hmmmm... isn't that a talent of the fair sex?:D

Farfalla
10-12-2012, 10:31 AM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by TomF http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=3558390#post3558390)

Not only that, Herself is strongly of the opinion that conventional Feminist critiques of patriarchy focus, not surprisingly, on the sacrifices demanded of women in traditional gender relations ... but are unaware of the sacrifices demanded of men in traditional gender relations. Sacrifices like taking responsibility for providing for someone besides themselves ... which are no longer demanded in anything like the same way. She's been recently reading and agreeing with Danielle Crittenden's book "What our Mothers Didn't Tell Us," which goes into some rather compelling narratives of the unintended negative consequences for women, of feminism. And what is in Crittenden's view, the unfair portrayal of men's lives in pre-feminist-revolution times.

For instance, a conventional feminist meme has been that women pre-feminist-revolution were been prevented from full actualization of themselves in the workplace, in things like working in the professions. True, but most men were also so prevented - in that most men worked not in jobs they adored and felt to be emotionally fulfilling ... but driving trucks, working in factories, in mines, etc. Crittenden (and my wife) point out that these men weren't in jobs women now clamour to access, because they're thus able to "follow their bliss." Most men were in those jobs to feed their families - and many found the jobs themselves quite soul-destroying, but a necessary piece of what being a man entailed. That is, the "old dispensation" usually didn't only involve womens' sacrifice, but mens' sacrifice. Both in order to support family and community institutions, which were understood to be "good" and "necessary."


What's "good" and "necessary" now is individual autonomy - and the "success" of feminism's empowering of women to become (economically speaking) "men" has meant that a shocking number of men apparently feel free to drop their responsibility to think beyond themselves. With impacts on child rearing, on seniors' care, on the stability of modern spousal relationships too. In fact, the way modern feminism has been implemented has produced serious unintended consequences, alongside the positives we're aware of.


Try some more.


conventional Feminist critiques of patriarchy focus, not surprisingly, on the sacrifices demanded of women in traditional gender relations ... but are unaware of the sacrifices demanded of men in traditional gender relations. Sacrifices like taking responsibility for providing for someone besides themselves ...

Well I'm not sure that i agree with this in it's entirety Tom. I think it's only to be expected that tracts on Women's role in society would tend to focus on their conditions and to blame them for not focusing on men's conditions is a little disingenuous! I will agree that some of the more strident proponents may have ignored these aspects but I don't think you can claim it as a universal phenomena within the thought of women. I think it's a little funny actually to say that men have been overlooked in the particular aspect of sacrificing themselves by "taking responsibility for providing for someone besides themselves".
Just what do you think women's role has always been and continues to be in the main? There's a lot more chance of a man walking away from his "responsibilities to others in a family unit" than there is of a woman ever doing that, even now with the much changed circumstances, let alone when the Feminist Movement was at it's most active. I think most women have always understood that and valued it in a partner.
One aspect of that which you haven't touched upon is that up until recently in the West and still in many other societies, all the economic assets developed under this "shared responsibility unit" we call a family were automatically the property of the male, women had very limited property rights.


the unfair portrayal of men's lives in pre-feminist-revolution times.

Well I think there's a bit of that going on here actually.

most men worked not in jobs they adored and felt to be emotionally fulfilling ... but driving trucks, working in factories, in mines, etc. Crittenden (and my wife) point out that these men weren't in jobs women now clamour to access, because they're thus able to "follow their bliss." Most men were in those jobs to feed their families

Well as most barriers to employment mobility were in fact class related in that class was the biggest single factor dictating access to education and the improved employment opportunities that meant, this is more likely to be the reason the bulk of males were doing menial work. it also had to do with the structure of the workforce and the nature of employment back then. There were a lot higher percentage of "blue collar" jobs then compared to white collar/ professional careers, advances in technology and shift in economic focus has seen that change quite markedly in recent times.
Most young men, not destined to go on in school, the largest percentage being in the working classes, started work in those sort of jobs long before there was any pressure to be supporting a woman and children. apprenticeships and labouring work all started in the early teens. There was also a very large group of young women who entered the world of factory work at these young ages without the opportunity of training in many of the fields that allowed some improvement in employment outcomes. My father left school at 12 and my mother started a dressmaking apprenticeship at the same age. Neither was forced into that position because of the need to support a family. The limits placed on men's advancement was mostly related to class and education even if they didn't have a family.
I'm not trying to say that men weren't restricted in their choices because of the responsibility of a family but the idea that the average male was denied the chance to be a doctor because of his family is just not supportable.


is individual autonomy - and the "success" of feminism's empowering of women to become (economically speaking) "men" has meant that a shocking number of men apparently feel free to drop their responsibility to think beyond themselves.

I think this is a confusion that is used to justify some men abandoning their responsibility to family. It's not a direct result of it, it's the justification, the excuse, that some men are now using to try and shift the blame away from their failure onto women. It's purely a cop-out and there is no way that it should be used as a means to find fault with the push for equality for all members of a society. Women's equality is not the cause of this problem you are referring to, it's the laziness and the self-interest of a particular group of men. Their is a confusion of "cause and effect" in that claim.

In fact, the way modern feminism has been implemented has produced serious unintended consequences, alongside the positives we're aware of.

It is not the equality of women or the process of gaining that equality that has generated these consequences, it is an issue that men have to take responsibility for in the first case, the abandonment of their responsibilities.


impacts on child rearing, on seniors' care, on the stability of modern spousal relationships too

Why should women's right to equality be blamed for the impacts upon these fields. The fact that there are impacts in these areas shows that they were unequally shared out before and the crisis in these areas is the failure of men to not take up their share if women are participating equally in the workplace. Women who work are still expected to, and do actually, provide the bulk of input in these fields regardless of their changed employment involvement. This is wrong!

A very brief response to only part of what you wrote Tom. Maybe some more later.BY:D

Farfalla
10-12-2012, 10:35 AM
Conveniently ignore....hmmmm... isn't that a necessity for the fair sex in this place when you consider the blatant sexist comments made on this forum by a few guys?:D

FTFY Pefjr.
I know you were just confused as to how you should express yourself:D

pefjr
10-12-2012, 11:04 AM
FTFY Pefjr.
I know you were just confused as to how you should express yourself:DConfused? The fair sex has on many pleasant occasions dazed and confused me....temporarily though...I have always recovered and in better spirits.

Bob Cleek
10-12-2012, 11:37 AM
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS26Ph4aVRz2TWyLMtNDvceo9Zt6lB9g lojnQSd3obudwj7duXm

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTvNHctFOruwoHAH6KUUbCCltUScql_l 2ys_vQU3U8Iaabld3XL

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRh33_XTqe9ZTUQumKpdPmSznH432le6 qdLIS5pV2iUUKgdnLie

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTjcWTo7aFjTwq7S91H1XERbSheFFOuN g6nuw-_IqEgi5Xwgn6huw

Separated at birth?

TomF
10-12-2012, 02:40 PM
Sophie, I certainly won't argue that patriarchy didn't exist, or that womens' social roles excluded them from full economic and social participation. Or, for instance, that women were for centuries and centuries denied economic rights, political rights, etc. etc. I'm a father of a daughter, and celebrate many of the changes Feminism's brought.

For what it's worth I've worked far more often for women Ministers and Deputy Ministers, as well as women as direct superiors, than for men - like, twice as often. That experience is becoming far more common, as women outnumber men in Canadian Law schools, Med schools, in our local university's Engineering program. In fact, female enrolments outnumber males' in all University bachelor's programs in Canada that I know of. So in some sectors gender barriers really are gone - that's a good thing. It's especially a "good thing" if it means actual meritocracy occurs ... which in my workplaces it has (at least in gender terms).

But extending your earlier comments, pls. recognize that many of those fallen barriers weren't mostly patriarchal, but class barriers. I'm glad you distinguished between the two - a sizeable body of feminist literature doesn't. Danielle Crittenden's point (and my wife's) is that popular feminist literature and theory mythologized mens' ability to "become whatever they wanted to be" under patriarchy. And reinforced that mythology by teaching young women that thanks to feminism, now they too can become "whatever they want to be." Appropriating the same birthright which men had (and kept from women) under patriarchy.

But your class analysis (correctly, IMO) observes that is more bogus than we've been led to believe. Gender wasn't what mostly limited people's horizons. As you said, men didn't "follow their bliss" to become factory workers or miners ... they simply couldn't break free of their class. And in contrast, many women found (as my mother did as a late 1950s grad student) that gender barriers had cracked before 1960s feminism got underway. Most of her female classmates worked as professionals for decades after graduation - Hell, her mother taught University English in the 1930s and 40s. Gender didn't halt her professionally - because she'd been born into the "right" class. They'd shucked their traditional gender roles prior to the 60s' "emancipation," in large measure.

But one thing which the "old dispensation" of traditional gender roles did (and which my grandmother didn't do) was actually value a variety of contributions to the family unit and community. It was assumed that men would provide money, but it was also assumed that caregiving, that volunteer community work, that what we'd call network support functions were crucial. Were viable things to which a grown-up could devote their first quality energy energy - at least as viable as what men did in making widgets or writing advertising slogans to sell soap.

So one effect of women adopting the "male model of work" ... is that traditional women's work has become less valued ... by both men and women. Because it's seen as an "extra" which a fully-functioning adult can do in addition to holding a demanding full-time job. Or which, if it's contracted-out, can be done to an acceptable standard by people with the lowest qualifications, for frightfully little money, with no ill effects.

I don't, frankly, see how this is a step forwards ... for the kids, the seniors, the volunteer agencies etc. which benefitted from traditional women's "first energy." It is a benefit to women to the degree that they also now have more options for financial and social autonomy, but IMO the unintended negative effects occurred for women an others because the aim of the feminist movement was far too low, in only wanting real effects for women rather than for society.

Chip-skiff
10-12-2012, 05:47 PM
I'm enjoying the argument and this is absolutely parenthetical: I'm trying to recall who commented on the WBF that they disliked Gillard because of her "big bum."

But I'm too lazy to do a search.

Meli
10-12-2012, 06:17 PM
Um, Bernie I think Y:o

Farfalla
10-12-2012, 07:03 PM
Bernie has already expressed a less than deep affection for Ms. Gillard based on her political views though it does seem to spill over into some very personal comments as well!
But Bern to her credit, deleted that comment and acknowledged that it was inappropriate. It was others who ran with it for a bit.

Farfalla
10-12-2012, 07:15 PM
But one thing which the "old dispensation" of traditional gender roles did (and which my grandmother didn't do) was actually value a variety of contributions to the family unit and community. It was assumed that men would provide money, but it was also assumed that caregiving, that volunteer community work, that what we'd call network support functions were crucial. Were viable things to which a grown-up could devote their first quality energy energy - at least as viable as what men did in making widgets or writing advertising slogans to sell soap.

So one effect of women adopting the "male model of work" ... is that traditional women's work has become less valued ... by both men and women. Because it's seen as an "extra" which a fully-functioning adult can do in addition to holding a demanding full-time job. Or which, if it's contracted-out, can be done to an acceptable standard by people with the lowest qualifications, for frightfully little money, with no ill effects.

I don't, frankly, see how this is a step forwards ... for the kids, the seniors, the volunteer agencies etc. which benefitted from traditional women's "first energy." It is a benefit to women to the degree that they also now have more options for financial and social autonomy, but IMO the unintended negative effects occurred for women an others because the aim of the feminist movement was far too low, in only wanting real effects for women rather than for society.

Tom we're hitting that time thing again|;)

I agree that there has been a massive devaluing of importance of those caring roles that women traditionally assumed and you can aly the blame for that at the feet of the "male model" of work which has always regarded those roles as of far less value and so not recognised their contribution to society or valued it, or rewarded it in any real way.
The fact that a few more strident feminists also ignored and devalued it doesn't mean the whole movement did.
The push for equality is not to blame for the devaluation of those roles. it is the "male dominated model of societal worth and contribution" that was propagated for so long that created that situation. As a defense of their position they had to claim that "women's work" was of a lesser value or otherwise how do you justify creating the inequalities that existed for so long and still do.
The women who drank the Koolaid and grasped the male model were only following what society has told them for so long is the real "work", the valuable work in society.
Both men and women equally, and that is just another aspect of Equality of the sexes, must recognise the value of the "caring role" and reward and participate in it.
Men trying to blame womens Equality for the collapse of the caring roles in society are just trying to cover their own ar**s for not doing their share!

TomF
10-12-2012, 08:11 PM
Tom we're hitting that time thing again|;)

I agree that there has been a massive devaluing of importance of those caring roles that women traditionally assumed and you can lay the blame for that at the feet of the "male model" of work which has always regarded those roles as of far less value and so not recognised their contribution to society or valued it, or rewarded it in any real way.
The fact that a few more strident feminists also ignored and devalued it doesn't mean the whole movement did.
The push for equality is not to blame for the devaluation of those roles. it is the "male dominated model of societal worth and contribution" that was propagated for so long that created that situation. As a defense of their position they had to claim that "women's work" was of a lesser value or otherwise how do you justify creating the inequalities that existed for so long and still do.
The women who drank the Koolaid and grasped the male model were only following what society has told them for so long is the real "work", the valuable work in society.
Both men and women equally, and that is just another aspect of Equality of the sexes, must recognise the value of the "caring role" and reward and participate in it.
Men trying to blame womens Equality for the collapse of the caring roles in society are just trying to cover their own ar**s for not doing their share!Soph, What I can conclude through reverse engineering is that feminists didn't so much set out to tranform existing social relations, but just to get access to what they felt were the good parts of them. The whole movement may not have ignored the devaluation of traditional women's work ... but the cadre which didn't devalue traditional women's work are not been the ones who've defined how women actually work now.

Objectively, the very, very capable women I've worked with for decades now have adopted the male model of work lock stock and barrel. Pretty much completely. And they, and their experience, defines how modern feminism is actually playing out in the workplace. They are the models, the professional goals and icons who our daughters want to emulate. I'm not blaming these women (or our daughters) for wanting to not be the sole people caring for their kids or wiping their aging grannies' bottoms, but I am observing that the highly accomplished lawyers, analysts, program experts, strategists etc. I've worked alongside have sought to become their fathers and grandfathers. And have hired out the work done by their grandmothers. The same is true of the female university professors I know, the female entrepreneurs, the female politicians, etc.

In this, they're no worse than their fathers and grandfathers, who didn't want to wipe noses or bottoms either. But they're no better - and there's little hard evidence that they value the feminine, defined as the nurturing of traditional women's work enough to try and see that both men and women do it, as a matter of social equity. Women have, in the past few decades, flooded into the paid workforce in proportions never seen before - it's part of why developed economies were able to grow so swiftly since the 60s, and why our growth rates are slowing now that there's very little "untapped labour" to add. That has brought enormous opportunity and power to transform social dynamics - workplace dynamics.

But what I conclude by looking around is that women didn't much want to change the economic model to make it more equitable and inclusive of women's traditional work. Not that they couldn't impell such social changes - because I'm well aware of the formidably bright minds and strong wills of the people I've worked with and for during my whole career. But that they didn't want to. They liked becoming economic men more than trying to shift the workplace so that men could somewhat resemble economic women.

I'm not laying all the blame on women - because sure as hell men didn't want to start wiping noses and bottoms for parts of the week. Men resisted - they sure didn't stand up and offer ... or at least not very many did. But men didn't have to resist all that much, 'cause there's been virtually no meaningful calls (or meaningful pressure) for them to change. Women haven't asked for it.

Women have instead asked for subsidized childcare, rather than economic models which impelled both parents to share in their kids' care without foregoing career advancement. And childcare workers are among the lowest paid sector in the workforce ... And men have gone along with this, cheerfully agreeing that these are "women's issues." We get to feel sensitive and progressive, get stroked for being Feminists ourselves, to the degree that we support the (humane and stimulating) institutionalization of children and elders so our spouses can join us writing advertising copy to sell soap.

Victorian idealism, so my Victorian lit scholar wife tells me, held that women were morally superior to men. That mens' economic role coarsened us, made us less compassionate and frankly, lesser people - and that men were in some sense redeemed because our spouses helped to keep that coarsening from becoming all pervasive. That is idealistic, and idealized the routine, dull monotony that can be childcare and seniors' care (I know - I've done it, working p/t when our kids were tiny to share the childcare load). But the idealism also has more than a nugget of truth in it - in that it recognized that nurturance is necessary for our species to not go entirely off the rails. And that someone has to do it, in a serious and focused way, if compassion is to have any lasting toehold. Traditional women had that role, and contemporary feminism doesn't expressly work HARD to find a new and more equitable way to express it. Because it's about women's emancipation, not social emancipation.

IMO, that's a terrible loss. One which men have certainly contributed to through countless patriarchal relations, but which women have also contributed to through unblinkingly adopting many of those same relations. Even - perhaps especially - the most "successful" women. Because they've not prompted us to re-define success, only to allow broader access to the old definitions.

Yeah, you and I are at the same sticking place. I don't accept that women should be absolved for the failures of feminism any more than I think men should be absolved for patriarchy. I see each gender acting in peculiarly, and sadly, human (i.e. selfish) ways.

Chip-skiff
10-12-2012, 09:30 PM
Um, Bernie I think Y:o

Yeah, right. Y:o:p|;)

purri
10-12-2012, 09:36 PM
Correct but there may have been a dogwhistle or two from others.

Bernadette
10-13-2012, 08:28 AM
i still dont like her big bum.
i deleted the big bum thread because i couldnt be bothered with all the carry on.
i just say my bit then move onto the next thing thats bright and shiny!!!!
and i still dont like gillard.

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 09:32 AM
Soph, What I can conclude through reverse engineering is that feminists didn't so much set out to tranform existing social relations, but just to get access to what they felt were the good parts of them. The whole movement may not have ignored the devaluation of traditional women's work ... but the cadre which didn't devalue traditional women's work are not been the ones who've defined how women actually work now.

I think there is a fundamental problem of terminology here that underlies part of this confusion that so many people seem to hold.

The idea of "traditional women's work" and male work actually are vast oversimplifications.

I think it is much better approached by understanding it from a slightly different perspective, one that some writers in the feminist world have adopted.
The caring and compassionate work that is at the heart of families and a definite prerequisite of any real human society is better described as incorporating those aspects of compassion that are often described as being "feminine", they are "nurturing and emotional, supportive and inclusive". But these are not exclusively traits of behaviour that only women display, you have children and an extended family and friends so i'm sure you possess these traits.
The fact that it fell to women to do much of this work traditionally is for a number of reasons, the obvious biological connection and a division of labour in very traditional societies. Men were involved in other aspects of the society.

As society became more complex this division became hardened along gender lines, various societal structures were put in place that emphasised the value of the work that men were doing and these structures eventually created the long term inequalities that existed up until recently. With the rise in status of the work designated as superior by a male society there was the steady devaluation of the nurturing work that required "feminine traits" but became labelled as "Female work". society, a male dominated one, was the agent that devalued that role and gave superior status and rewards to the various roles that were designated as men's work. the devaluation occurred long ago with the first growth of the inequality based on gender.

When this artificially imposed equality was challenged and women began to be involved in the roles that had been reserved for men and assumed the rewards and status that society had applied to those roles then that left less people to be involved in the low status, less rewarding roles. It wasn't feminism that devalued those roles it was society and long before feminism ever appeared on the radar. As you say


it's about women's emancipation, not social emancipation.

It will require social emancipation for the caring roles to be revalued and a more equitable distribution of status and rewards to take place.


They liked becoming economic men more than trying to shift the workplace

Of course they did that's where society said the real work, the work worth praising and rewarding was done. This in itself is a false idea that was propagated by men with various institutions of culture to justify the gender inequality that they had set up. Just as the Hindu caste system justifies the social structure that benefits those who propagated the belief in the first place at the expense of all those below or the Catholic church taught obedience to the church and state because that benefited them.

Victorian idealism, so my Victorian lit scholar wife tells me, held that women were morally superior to men. That mens' economic role coarsened us, made us less compassionate and frankly, lesser people - and that men were in some sense redeemed because our spouses helped to keep that coarsening from becoming all pervasive.

This was a cop out, "poor me, a man's world is a rough place but someone's got to do this horrible job". yeah really!! A justification for not being involved in the nurturing/caring work and also a justification for keeping the entrenched inequalities that rewarded the male "sacrifice"!!


nurturance is necessary for our species to not go entirely off the rails. And that someone has to do it, in a serious and focused way, if compassion is to have any lasting toehold. Traditional women had that role, and contemporary feminism doesn't expressly work HARD to find a new and more equitable way to express it.

As I said, traditionally women had that role but it is wrong to blame them or feminism for the failure to deal with that need now that some women are able to access the "male work" world.
The push for paid childcare, paid home work etc. are all part of that but it is society's responsibility to provide that and people as a whole to work to get it. So long as it is presented in the light of women abandoning "their" role to take on "men's" role then women are being blamed unfairly.


Yeah, you and I are at the same sticking place. I don't accept that women should be absolved for the failures of feminism any more than I think men should be absolved for patriarchy. I see each gender acting in peculiarly, and sadly, human (i.e. selfish) ways.

No we are not at the same point at all Tom. It is not a failure of Feminism that has occurred, it was and is about the emancipation of women, the removal of gender based inequalities. there is no need for women to seek absolution from society for fighting against entrenched inequality.
It is society that needs to get it's act together as a whole and re-evaluate the nurturing/caring work that has to be done.

I'm enjoying this, thank you Tom,
Sophie|;)

The Bigfella
10-13-2012, 09:53 AM
The push for paid childcare, paid home work etc. are all part of that but it is society's responsibility to provide that and people as a whole to work to get it. So long as it is presented in the light of women abandoning "their" role to take on "men's" role then women are being blamed unfairly.


Some families choose to have one parent or the other take time off work to raise children. That is a personal decision and it comes at significant financial penalty. For those who choose to continue working, to ask the taxpayer as a whole to support their childcare costs is an unfair penalty on those who self-care.

TomF
10-13-2012, 10:19 AM
I'm having fun too. This is a typically thorny issue, and I'm pleased that we're managing it without getting riled up - a welcome and unexpected change from other times/places I've expressed such views. :D

Sure, there've been all manner of patriarchal cop-outs which relegated the "caring" work to women - letting men off the hook. As you've said, the "feminine" traits should be reflected in each of us, and not simply ghettoized by making them into things only women are responsible to express.

I guess my point is that while certainly gender barriers raised all manner of havoc in the past for women's equity and economic/social participation, that those barriers (and some class barriers) have fallen in many sectors. Not entirely, but to a very great degree. To the degree that in my workplaces for instance the gender balance among senior officials has favoured women across my full working life.

That means that women have, for at least a couple of decades, been in a position to not simply react to previous social relations, but to modify them to be more equitable. More human. More in keeping with "the feminine" traits which rightly or wrongly, have been more identified with women than men. And it hasn't happened, that I can see.

We are now well into the 2nd generation (and entering the 3rd) of women who've had such full access to economic and social life. It is, by now, a cop-out to say that Society de-values "the feminine" and not acknowledge that women are participating in that devaluation. It looks perilously, as I said in my last post, like feminism really didn't care too much about the feminine, only about enabling women to get access to the parts of patriarchal structures which appealled to them.

As a result, many self-described "traditional" women (like my wife) find that feminism doesn't speak much to or for them. That the strongest proponents of feminism are, well, quite masculine in their approach, their expectations, their definitions of success ... and their scant level of respect for "the feminine." That what feminism socially/economically for women was important, but terribly limited. Its unintended negative consequences include denigration of less "masculine" women and their life choices, alongside reductions in the resources available to members of society who need compassion and nurture.

This is, as you say, a social problem. But emancipated women are full members of society - it is now inaccurate to lay this simply at the door of historical patriarchy. It's worth considering that the "masculinized" feminism which celebrates female CEOs and denigrates female caregivers .. is really a form of neo-patriarchy. The more impactful because many of its proponents are women who've adopted wholeheartedly the option of becoming economic men.

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 10:29 AM
That means that women have, for at least a couple of decades, been in a position to not simply react to previous social relations, but to modify them to be more equitable. More human. More in keeping with "the feminine" traits which rightly or wrongly, have been more identified with women than men. And it hasn't happened, that I can see.

Why is it women's job to do this? everybody has this responsibility not just women. it is not their job to fix a problem that was caused by the institutions of society that have devalued the nurturing role. all of society is responsible.


As a result, many self-described "traditional" women (like my wife) find that feminism doesn't speak much to or for them. That the strongest proponents of feminism are, well, quite masculine in their approach, their expectations, their definitions of success ... and their scant level of respect for "the feminine."

That's where I see the problem. It never was feminism's role to sort out the Nurturing requirements of society, it's role was to get gender equality.
When you talk about

]strongest proponents of feminism are, well, quite masculine in their approach, their expectations, their definitions of success ... and their scant level of respect for "the feminine."[/I]
this creates confusion because the nurturing roles may require traits that we have traditionally labelled as"feminine" but they are in fact not gender specific so doing so causes confusion when you then talk about the proponents of feminism being "masculine" because they have the ideas about "success" etc. that society has granted to the roles that it traditionally reserved inequitably for men, their is nothing especially "masculine" about the roles or the behaviours in most cases, it is just societal traditions that have ascribed those labels, they are not gender specific or otherwise how would women acquire them..


it is now inaccurate to lay this simply at the door of historical patriarchy.
As it is inaccurate to claim that i lay it at the door of the patriarchy. As I have said from the start, it's society's job because all of society benefits and there are no gender specific requirements to do the work other than childbirth and nursing.

TomF
10-13-2012, 10:45 AM
Why is it women's job to do this? everybody has this responsibility not just women. it is not their job to fix a problem that was caused by the institutions of society that have devalued the nurturing role. all of society is responsible.
Sure, it's not women's responsibility alone to change this. No argument there.

But my point is that feminism as it is commonly expressed has exacerbated this particular problem, rather than actually generating results which value "the feminine." Which is ironic, as the words share the same root. ;)

Feminism has ensured that women have, in some areas at least, greater than proportionate representation in areas reserved for men under patriarchy. In the department of Government which spends 40% of the entire provincial budget, I work with 3 lawyers ... all women. The Executive team includes only 2 men. While a week back we had a male Minister appointed, his predecessor ... and the longest serving Health minister in the country at the time ... is a woman. The Federal deputy is female too, as is the Federal Minister.

With this much "feminine" power in play, when social relations do not start to reflect "the feminine" one can be excused for thinking that nobody really wants them to. That instead, those in power prefer to enjoy "neo-patriarchy." It's time to lay the blame for such things a bit further than simply "historical patriarchy," 3 generations into these changed gender-economic conditions.

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 10:53 AM
You knowTom your argument would look very different if you substituted "nurturing or caring ' roles for "feminine" because it still has all the connotations of it somehow being linked to women when it is clearly not gender specific work.

But my point is that feminism as it is commonly expressed has exacerbated this particular problem, rather than actually generating results which value "the feminine." Which is ironic, as the words share the same root.


But my point is that feminism as it is commonly expressed has exacerbated this particular problem, rather than actually generating results which value "nurturing/caring" roles Which is ironic, as the words share the same root

the irony is gone, the idea that it is somehow specifically linked to women is gone and it is recognised for what it is, society's problem!
The use of "feminine" in that context is wrong.

TomF
10-13-2012, 11:04 AM
Perhaps. But we each know that feminism itself is far from monolithic in how it uses that term. That it claims ownership of "the feminine" where it advances the position to do so.

I've read far too many social theory books about womens' (or wimmin's, or womyns, or etc.) power, women's work, women's ways of knowing, and even "women's approaches to management" to be willing to say that feminism isn't allegedly as much about valuing the feminine principle as economic and social gender equity. There were huge deals made about this in feminist approaches to International Relations Theory and the differences womens' perspectives would bring, which I read back in the 1980s and 1990s.

One can't have it both ways. Says I, feminism's actual goals were far short of the rhetoric - and that's a shame, because the rhetoric had much to say for it.

Farfalla
10-13-2012, 11:11 AM
I don't have a problem with all those uses of the word "feminine" in those contexts. But when you keep referring to the "nurturing /caring" work in society as "feminine" then it makes it very easy to present it as somehow women's responsibility.

A lot of the "women's knowledge" stuff is BS that's written to further careers, make money or for all the other reasons that people of either gender write books to promote their pet theories. i don't buy into it very much and in fact avoid most of it like the plague!1