[Bounce]

[youtube]wfo3SGIiSE0[/youtube]

Most people have probably seen this.

It went 'viral' pretty quickly with many people lauding it as a great moment in parliament. Now, most analysis of it - in The Age and the Australian - in the past few days have denigrated the speech often using the word hypocrisy and noting it as another person / position to blame for her unpopularity (mining sector ect...).

Personally, I didn't find it very enlightening or inspired as others have. I don't like Gillard so even if it was amazing its unlikely I could recognise it as such.

I suspect foreign viewers will enjoy it much more than national viewers.

Anyway, thoughts?

i hope no one has already made a thread. I couldn't find it if they did.

[GandalfTheGrey]

I haven't heard the whole speech, only what the bits they've been repeating in the news. What can be said is that Gillard has been remarkably stoic and dignified in the face of the bombardment of abuse (and yes, sexism) against her until this point. I don't recall her ever making a single statement or reference to the Jones comments. My sense is that this outburst was in direct response to Abbott's choice of words - "this government should die of shame" - which is fair enough, because that was just despicable in light of what Jones had said about her father. Basically, if she went over the top, then thast probably fair enough, given the shit she's had to put up with - especially all the sexism over the last couple of years, of which she's never dignified any of it with a response. Its obviously been building up inside her though, and its only human for it all to spill out eventually - especially just after her father died.

[colliric]

"my father didn't die of shame"

Direct reference to Jones' words. But then again I would expect you to have a bad memory Gandalf, you even forgot what the word "lie" ment.

The Age, ABC(Lateline that evening, once again let me say the best interview I've ever seen on it), The Australian and Herald Sun(Bolta in particular, but a few others too) finally found something they could all agree on... Hipocracy given that she's been calling and attacking Abbott the whole time on sexism, yet her party voted to keep Mr "She's a Botch" as speaker of the house.

[GandalfTheGrey]

"my father didn't die of shame"

Direct reference to Jones' words. But then again I would expect you to have a bad memory Gandalf, you even forgot what the word "lie" ment [sic].

I did say "until this point"

My sense is that this outburst was in direct response to Abbott's choice of words - "this government should die of shame" - which is fair enough, because that was just despicable in light of what Jones had said about her father.

apparently needs to be repeated since you clearly missed the entire point of my post.

[Swagman]

My sense is that this outburst was in direct response to Abbott's choice of words - "this government should die of shame" - which is fair enough, because that was just despicable in light of what Jones had said about her father.

These words by Abbott were below the belt IMO but since when are below the belt comments off limits in the Parliament.

In actuality it would be "sexist" to refrain from such comment just because the PM is a female.

[GandalfTheGrey]

since when are below the belt comments off limits in the Parliament.

they're not, and no one is saying they are. It does however make Gillard's response more understandable.

In actuality it would be "sexist" to refrain from such comment just because the PM is a female.

sexisms got nothing to do with that particular comment. It would have been common human decency to refrain from such a comment though.

[ThereBeDragons]

It would have been common human decency to refrain from such a comment though.

Since when do politicians meet the standards of basic human decency?

[Bounce]

I haven't heard the whole speech, only what the bits they've been repeating in the news. What can be said is that Gillard has been remarkably stoic and dignified in the face of the bombardment of abuse (and yes, sexism) against her until this point. I don't recall her ever making a single statement or reference to the Jones comments. My sense is that this outburst was in direct response to Abbott's choice of words - "this government should die of shame" - which is fair enough, because that was just despicable in light of what Jones had said about her father. Basically, if she went over the top, then thast probably fair enough, given the shit she's had to put up with - especially all the sexism over the last couple of years, of which she's never dignified any of it with a response. Its obviously been building up inside her though, and its only human for it all to spill out eventually - especially just after her father died.

I think it's worth listening too.

I'm not sure how much of it is a reaction to Abbott's comments. It seem pre-meditated and went with their common attacks on Abbott - someone had said she was reading a speech.

I think she's justified in her reaction. Though I don't think she's 'manly' (strong) enough to be a leader.

[GandalfTheGrey]

"[the leader of the opposition] is now looking at his watch because apparently a woman has spoken for too long"



I just listened to the whole speech. Glad I did.

I think her point about judging the text messages is important. The court case is currently in progress, wait until the verdict has been reached before taking action on the texts.

[pugsville]

IT definitely struck a chord with many people I know, (mostly non Liberal types, but some are actually card carrying liberal members but those were all women). The difference between local and international coverage is quite stark. The Libs always go full tilt at any prominent women in parliament. They simply dont extend the limited respect they do to male pollies on the other side. The language used *IS* different , more personal. That side Abbot is the most policy vacuous opposition leader I ever seen. (but that is a trend and he is the last in the curve) I constant surprised that he is never taken to task about it by the media.

[Bounce]

IT definitely struck a chord with many people I know, (mostly non Liberal types, but some are actually card carrying liberal members but those were all women). The difference between local and international coverage is quite stark. The Libs always go full tilt at any prominent women in parliament. They simply dont extend the limited respect they do to male pollies on the other side. The language used *IS* different , more personal. That side Abbot is the most policy vacuous opposition leader I ever seen. (but that is a trend and he is the last in the curve) I constant surprised that he is never taken to task about it by the media.

His positions are popular positions. The biases that Abbott plays upon are still prevalent in every day society and potentially more so in the mainstream journalistic ventures. It would be hard to sustain criticism for a very popular view.

A lecturer played it for the students who hadn't seen it and it certainly resounded with most of the class - which was mainly female and non-liberal.

[colliric]

International coverage isn't factoring in the Slipper effect. All 70 of them voted to keep him, not one solitary vote against, and if Rob Oakshott, of all people, hadn't of had a temporary moment of sanity, Slipper probably would have still been speaker at the end of the day.

[Bounce]

That's why I said the international discourse was more in favour of the speech. Without context, the speech was rather exciting.

[foxdemon]

In truth both groups are sexist. Feminist sexism in Australia is a dangerous subject to bring up, yet many women today are as sexist as the worst mysonginist. This does not justify the sexism of many men. What it is show is that the effort to free Australian culture from sexism has been an abject failure.

Consider a comparision with Sweden. In order to achieve a gender equal outcome in employment in Sweden, a policy of 50% men and women exists, with a certain percentage either side working toward to 50% outcome. The equivilent in Australia, where such a policy exists (often universities) dictates at least 50% women, but upto 100%. It is clear there is a very different philiosphy toward gender politics between Australia and Sweden. In Sweden we see a well thought out attempt to achieve gender equality and in Australia we see a struggle to determine who gets to be sexist.

Too many of the women behind Australian feminism are unscruppulous, greedy, unethical and mean spirited. Given that many of the men (many of these these women have sons, you know) are just the same, there seems to be very little hope for a genuine gender equality in this country.


It is hypocritical for either Abbot or Gillard to accuse another of sexism.

[colliric]

http://m.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/syd ... 6496642164

Yes I agree.. Except on the 50% issue. I think it should be always the best person for the Job and there should be no discrimination. However looking at how Christine Nixon ruined Victoria Police by institution of that policy(or a similar policy), I just can't support it for all fields of employment. 50% female police officers is a ruinous policy. It should be "who is best suited for the Job, regardless of sex".

50% employment might be useful for the overall economy, but no industry should be forced to employ 50% of either sex.

On a side note, I think Nicola Roxon has pretty much proven your point right there!

[Swagman]

I think it should be always the best person for the Job and there should be no discrimination.

Tell that to the Family Court.

[foxdemon]

The point I'm trying to make is that a fair outcome for gender politics is imposible in Australia. This is due to a singular lack of good will, a side effect of boganism.

Sweden has a large pool of good will to draw on the achieve national objects, like gender equity. The Sweds have been able to sit down and think through effective methods to achieve the desired outcomes. In contrast, Australians have only been able to conduct themselves as part of self interested social groups, aiming to grab as much for themselves (ie: to the benifit of the demogues leading the pressure groups) regardless of the consequences for others. Australia lacks the atmosphere of cooperation the Sweds enjoy, and I argue that this is due to the bogan mentality.

Bogans are petty, confrontational and selfish....in fact truculent might be the best term to describe them. They lack an enlightened, cooperative outlook that would foster good will. Now, imagine a culture prevaded by such bogans (both men and women) and then try to imagine how an attempt to introduce gender equity reforms would play out. Lots of squabbles, fights, abusive exchanges, nasty pressure groups....does this sound familar?

Sorry, but Australian culture is challenged in regard to progressive agendas due to to high level of boganism amongst the mainstream population. This shows up in gender debates like this one in parliament. Looks to me like two mobs of nasty sexist bogans accusing eachother of being nasty and sexist.

[colliric]

And as I said, I agree with you.

[Swagman]

Bogans are petty, confrontational and selfish....in fact truculent might be the best term to describe them. They lack an enlightened, cooperative outlook that would foster good will. Now, imagine a culture prevaded by such bogans (both men and women) and then try to imagine how an attempt to introduce gender equity reforms would play out. Lots of squabbles, fights, abusive exchanges, nasty pressure groups....does this sound familar?

Individualistic would be a much better description.

Everyone is different, race colour or creed and your socalled 'Boguns' don't appreciate pouncy progressives shoving stupid collectivist ideals down their necks.

[Demolitionman]

In truth both groups are sexist. Feminist sexism in Australia is a dangerous subject to bring up, yet many women today are as sexist as the worst mysonginist. This does not justify the sexism of many men. What it is show is that the effort to free Australian culture from sexism has been an abject failure.

How is this a uniquely Australian thing? It's basically gender relations 101 on every corner of the earth.

Consider a comparision with Sweden. In order to achieve a gender equal outcome in employment in Sweden, a policy of 50% men and women exists, with a certain percentage either side working toward to 50% outcome. The equivilent in Australia, where such a policy exists (often universities) dictates at least 50% women, but upto 100%. It is clear there is a very different philiosphy toward gender politics between Australia and Sweden. In Sweden we see a well thought out attempt to achieve gender equality and in Australia we see a struggle to determine who gets to be sexist.

Yes I see your point and I would subscribe it to feminists wanting their cake and to eat it too. Women are weak and helpless one moment when it is advantageous while just as capable or superior another moment.

There is also no real benefit to legislating a balance in the workplace when neither gender is necessarily interested in working in a field dominated by the other and would only encourage inadequate people being put into positions the are unsuited to. For example I would not leave my children in the care of a man or a butch lesbian.

Too many of the women behind Australian feminism are unscruppulous, greedy, unethical and mean spirited. Given that many of the men (many of these these women have sons, you know) are just the same, there seems to be very little hope for a genuine gender equality in this country.

Nor should there be equality. This assumes the genders are equal which is just an extension of Christian nonsense of all humans being equal when they aren't.

Australia lacks the atmosphere of cooperation the Sweds enjoy, and I argue that this is due to the bogan mentality.

The problems Australia faces are that it is far too diverse in culture, ethnicity and wealth to ever be able to function like Sweden, which is very homogeneous in most areas. We also have an extremely polarised and typically Anglo political process where people are forced into one of two camps. Given that people readily adopt views to fit in better with their peers, it is unsurprising that progressives and "bogans" hate eachother and cannot agree on anything.

Sorry, but Australian culture is challenged in regard to progressive agendas due to to high level of boganism amongst the mainstream population. This shows up in gender debates like this one in parliament. Looks to me like two mobs of nasty sexist bogans accusing eachother of being nasty and sexist.

This assumes the moral superiority of progressive views and immorality of those who do not subscribe to them. Really I tend to find progressives just as bad as bogans although in a more passive aggressive and bitchy manner. How do you expect to debate people who you actively despise when you don't actually want dialogue, just monologue. Progressive moral superiority and arrogance is the first barrier preventing more widespread adoption of their views in addition to it's spokes persons all being unacceptable to bogans.

Funny thing is progressives love communism and socialism but actually hate the people these ideologies are designed for.