Australia's terrible, horrible, no good, very sexist week - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Australia.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please.
#14254605
Bounce wrote:Tim was demeaned because he hasn't married her and hasn't got her pregnant. Are you really going to argue that it isn't sexist - that a man should dominate and control 'his' woman? And that any man that doesn't is gay?

You act as if people aren't supposed to get married and have children and apparently equate marriage and reproduction with domination and control. These weird, unsustainable values are why white people aren't having children.
#14254613
Rainbow Crow wrote:You act as if people aren't supposed to get married and have children and apparently equate marriage and reproduction with domination and control. These weird, unsustainable values are why white people aren't having children.


I'm going at act like she has a choice, and clearly by her (previous, university) politics, she didn't want to have her career stopped because of children.

The point of the question was why Tim hadn't got her pregnant or had exerted enough control to marry her. Tim is 'gay' because he lacks the 'masculine' trait of domination. I don't view marriage or reproduction like that (it should be a choice), but the question wasn't implying an equal choice between partners - just a 'timid queer' and a Prime Minister.
#14254616
I understand the choice part of it, but I think the mockery is there for good reason. There's nothing masculine about not having children. If we all accept the sterile man as an ideal then the culture which birthed this weirdness will go extinct. There needs to be a balance between open discourse and more traditional values. If the population can't stay level even with subsidies then this should be taken prima facie that we are too liberal. As such, it's acceptable to mock him as far as I'm concerned.
#14254622
A new poll showed that Gillard's approval ratings are improving by 4% at the opposition leader's expense and there are signs that the ALP is narrowing the poll gap with the Coalition. Some pollsters predict Labour's outright defeat but there is no guarantee that Kevin Rudd could do better than Gillard and another palace coup could further damage the party's image. The ALP has a better chance of winning more seats on 14 September by maintaining the status quo and Gillard deserves an honourable exit from politics even if she cannot get her party to an election winning position.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has received a boost in the latest newspaper polls as she continues her push to get states and territories to sign up to the Federal Government's education reforms. Fairfax's latest Nielsen poll says support for Ms Gillard as preferred prime minister has increased four points to 46 per cent, leaving her level with Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, whose support dipped four points. Ms Gillard also closed the preferred prime minister gap in News Limited's Newspoll, gaining two points to 39 per cent while Mr Abbott's support dipped two points to 40 per cent. Labor's primary vote jumped three points to 32 per cent in the Nielsen poll, compared with the Coalition's vote, which dipped five points to 44 per cent. However the Coalition still retained an election-winning two-party preferred lead of 54 per cent to 46 per cent.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/17246340/poll-boost-for-julia-gillard-amid-push-to-get-states-to-sign-on-to-gonski-education-reforms/


[youtube]flAJmIs1d1I[/youtube]
A radio presenter has been sacked in Australia for asking Prime Minister Julia Gillard in a live interview if her partner is gay: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22900880
#14254702
Rainbow Crow wrote:I understand the choice part of it, but I think the mockery is there for good reason. There's nothing masculine about not having children. If we all accept the sterile man as an ideal then the culture which birthed this weirdness will go extinct. There needs to be a balance between open discourse and more traditional values. If the population can't stay level even with subsidies then this should be taken prima facie that we are too liberal. As such, it's acceptable to mock him as far as I'm concerned.


You're taking one example and extrapolating it to the whole of society. Julia Gillard wanted a career and that's what she chose to do. Just because you'd rather enslave women through pregnancy and have an army of children and she didn't doesn't make anything 'too liberal'.
#14254905
Small Breasts, Huge Thighs ...


Actually - this is not at all true of Gillard. As someone who used to live in Canberra and quite often sit in the House of Representatives public gallery (with that downward view into the chamber) I can attest that Julia Gillard does not have small breasts, at all.

Image

Shock jocks are generally just shit people and Saddler, that cunt Alan Jones (who's gay himself), Kyle Sanderlands, etc. should all be exiled to Kangaroo Island permanently and not given access into media. Or just shoot them. I agree they (and others) have treated Gillard with less respect because of her gender.

Julia Gillard is a smart woman, and overall a decent person. Trouble is her political party is awful. This is from someone who comes from Port Adelaide and has voted ALP (at least preferenced them) for all my previous votes, state and fed. However, in recent times, as almost everyobdy else in Australia man or women understands, her party has turned into a totally self-serving entity whose agenda is primarily based upon its own internal factional powerplays, and will do what ever it takes in terms of pandering to precisely identified demographics (certain voter types in what were once marginal seats) to stay in power. And it isn't even the up front politicians it is concerned about keeping in place, it's behind the scenes powerbrokers who are pretty much unelected operatives with powerbases in the unions, etc. And perhaps those outside of Australia can google a name such as Graham Richardson to see where this all originated from with the NSW right dominating the ethos and agenda of what was/is in theory a centre-left party ... then google a name such as Eddie Obeid to see where it all ended up. These types (what Australian's know as the Faceless Men) put Gillard in power at the expense of Rudd, who is a dick, but is a Queenslander. So Gillard alienated Queenland for a start, NSW has had enough of Eddie Obeid types and their (literal) corruption and in NSW Federal ALP under Gillard is guilty by association. Without NSW and Qld Gillard is fucked (figuratively). So be it. Fuck the ALP IMO (figuratively). Even if it rebuilds under Shorten it may be much the same, but the more from it who are sent packing in September, maybe the better, because they need to really start again from scratch. The ALP also sucks because local members in reality have little say in the preselection of the candidates the ALP coughs up, these are all pre-chosen by behind the scenes factional power brokers. The party has pretty much lost the plot. That's not just my opinion that's the general consensus nationwide.

Gillard has been from the start in bed with these entrenched powerbrokers, and has played the same cynical manipulative game of often doing what is generated by focus groups to be electorally advantageous in certain seats that are needed for power (western Sydney), rather than what is ethically right or at least best for the population as a whole.

And to add insult to injury she/they are most likely going to cause us to have Tony Abbott as PM for at least 3 and a half years.
#14255234
Bounce wrote:
Are you drunk?

I don't understand why you think politicians should have to sit through insults as they are in the 'public spotlight'. It doesn't improve anything, show who they are, or mean they perform their job better. There is zero reason for it, it's just an immature belief that all politicians should be impervious to criticism.


If your in the 'public spotlight', then expect some harsh insults to yourself (and every single thing you do) and your family and friends, its not right but its reality. Sadly we have devaloped a culture where our political leaders have to be this perfect person with a perfect family. As soon as the media finds out about a small fault.

Bounce wrote:It's David, isn't it?


Yes it is :P
Last edited by Ahovking on 16 Jun 2013 05:05, edited 1 time in total.
#14255237
Ahovking wrote:If your in the 'public spotlight', then expect some harsh insults to yourself (and every single thing you do) and your family and friends, its not right but its reality. Sadly we have devaloped a culture where our political leaders have to be this perfect person with a perfect family. As soon as the media finds out about a small fault.


It's David, isn't it?


Why can't you just denounce abuse as abuse?
Last edited by Bounce on 16 Jun 2013 07:05, edited 1 time in total.
#14255325
unbalanced zealot wrote:...


Summed up the whole situation beautifully. The only thing I would add to that is that not only will it inflict Abbott and that shit Pyne on us, but it will also give greater power to the Greens. None of these things are going to be in the nations interests.
#14255389
Rojik of the Arctic wrote:The only thing I would add to that is that not only will it inflict Abbott and that shit Pyne on us



Hmm ... it's going to be the 'Dream Team' on the front bench ... Christopher 'the mincing poodle' Pyne, Joe '2+2=5' Hockey, possibly Kevin 'looks like he likes to spank piglets' Anderson, Barnaby perhaps, etc., etc.

I think the Senate will be the more interesting race this election ... anyone have any thoughts on how it might play out?
#14255689
Bounce wrote:I'm going at act like she has a choice, and clearly by her (previous, university) politics, she didn't want to have her career stopped because of children.


You can have children and a successful career (i should know, my mother raised 2 ADD children 3 others while creating 2 business from the start).
#14255850
Rei Murasame wrote:Social conservatives are basically crazy like that, it's as though they don't know the meaning of the word 'sustainable'.


Just as Social Liberals are basically crazy like that, because they don't know the meaning of the word 'responsible'....

Sustainable and responsible can be MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. What's "sustainable" is not always the responsible thing to do.

You won't solve the world hunger crisis, or the financial crisis, OR THE CLIMATE CRISIS, by trying to 'sustain' everything exactly as it is.... That's like trying to stop a tree from falling down, when it's already been cut off from it's roots. You'll take away the inalienable right of a human being to stay alive if you tell them they must only "eat sustainably" and not have the choice of consuming any meat.

What right do you have to tell a woman, any woman, she can't have any kids? NONE. It's irresponsible to do so. Especially if you are arguing for Abortion rights at the exact same time....

Mod note: Please try not to swear at people in future. This breach of rule 2 gets a slap on the wrist this time ... hopefully there won't be a next time.
#14255870
Image
Why do I have to write a whole post just to respond to ridiculous strawman arguments?
colliric wrote:Just as Social Liberals are basically crazy like that, because they don't know the meaning of the word 'responsible'....

Yes. Together, social conservatives and social liberals would basically destroy the entire world.

colliric wrote:Sustainable and responsible can be MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. What's "sustainable" is not always the responsible thing to do.

The present situation is already unsustainable.

colliric wrote:You won't solve the world hunger crisis, or the financial crisis, OR THE CLIMATE CRISIS, by trying to 'sustain' everything exactly as it is...

Which is precisely why no one is trying to call everything to be sustained as it is. The call is to find the level that is sustainable.

But you know that, it's just that you want to create a strawman argument.

colliric wrote:You'll take away the inalienable right of a human being to stay alive

I don't think that will happen, but I should add that inalienable rights don't really exist anyway.

colliric wrote:What right do you have to tell a woman, any woman, she can't have any kids?

I wonder how we went from "Julia Gillard doesn't have to have any children if she doesn't want to", to "you are trying to ban people from having children"? The hysteria is amazing.

Also, what is this now, the strawman army?

Rainbow Crow wrote:I would also prefer an environment where people can somehow compete to earn their right to live and reproduce instead of weird central planning

No one said anything about centrally planning child births. This is chiefly because it actually cannot be done, and it would not have very eugenic results even if it were done.

colliric wrote:Especially if you are arguing for Abortion rights at the exact same time...

Cry me a river.

:lol: ‘Caracalla’ and ‘Punic’, @FiveofSwords .[…]

Background in English of Claudia Sheinbaum: @Pot[…]

The fact that you're a genocide denier is pretty […]

@Rancid When the Republicans say the justice […]