Feminism. Feminists.

15 Mar


The recent public stoush between Helen Razer and Jenna Price is of a kind that quite regularly erupts in feminist circles. Such eruptions are not peculiar to feminism: they occur in any ideological movement, but for some reason seem to be treated as more of a spectacle when women are involved. I’m reminded of the Seinfeld episode in which Kramer, George and Jerry reach a state of ironic hysterical excitability at the prospect of a “Cat fight! Cat fight!”

Briefly, Razer accuses Price’s Destroy the Joint movement of overly concerning itself with “everyday sexism” and likens this concern to a “cultural studies tute from 1991.” Price responds by pointing out that Destroy the Joint is involved in practically assisting women, as well as calling out media sexism. One immediate practical achievement that seems to me amazing, is that of persuading Telstra to agree to provide silent phone numbers at no cost to women who are in hiding from abusers.

Price also objects to Razer’s  instruction on what feminism is, or should be. The overall impression I gained from reading both women is that they are coming from different perspectives that can, to my mind, be complementary.

Thinking about difference and complementarity put me in mind of my doctoral thesis. I wrote what’s known as a composite thesis, that is, it’s comprised of a creative work, and an exegesis. A short extract from the introduction by way of explanation:

The Practice of Goodness is a work of creative non-fiction, a memoir of some of the significant events in the protagonist’s life, written in reaction to a diagnosis of terminal illness. In the theoretical perspective offered here I discuss the central themes of the memoir. These are those of violence, both domestic and political; the role of language in cultural constructions of death and dying; and the possibility of a secular ethics centred round responsibility, forgiveness and respect for our common vulnerability.

The overarching argument of the thesis is for the embodiment of theory in practice, an argument that is symbolised both by its composite form, and the decision to theoretically interrogate the themes of the creative piece. In the creative piece, these themes are explored experientially. The actual effects of violence, of cultural representations of death and dying through the use of figurative language, and of acts of forgiveness on human life, are noted in their practice. In the exegesis, I engage with various theoretical perspectives on these practices with the goal of demonstrating that extraordinary events may be more fully understood, and finally come to terms with, if the experiential is supported and informed by a theory that lends itself to practical application in life.

To suggest that either Razer or Price confines herself to such a sharply defined position, one theoretical, one practical, would be to insultingly reduce both women. It is never that clear. Reading Price’s account of her life’s activities, I’m left with the impression of a very hands-on feminist practice, of the kind from which I have benefited enormously at times in my life, when women have offered me assistance and support without which I think I might have died.

Reading Razer, I’m delighted and nourished by her wit, and her intellectual passion, a passion expressed by many feminist thinkers and writers over decades, without which I would also have died, in this instance an intellectual death. Razer’s hilarious account of Anne Summer’s ill-informed  “misogyny” call in the matter of the mouth-shaped urinals is a cautionary tale: it’s easy when seeking out sexism in media to think, based on a cursory inspection, that you’ve found it, so always check the context and the facts.

I share Razer’s passion for theory. I’m invigorated by the challenge of doing a close reading of really difficult stuff, and have been ridiculed many times for selecting something of Foucault’s as my bedtime book.  At one point my passion for Michel was so great that my students trawled the Internet trying to find me a Foucault doll.

But I don’t care what anyone thinks. I’ve learned much from Butler, Kristeva, Derrida, Levinas and so many more from whom I’ve borrowed a framework, or a lens, through which to consider my life and the culture in which I find myself. Not everybody shares this passion, and why should they?

I share Price’s passion for educating women to recognise sexism wherever it appears. I know there are many women who have not undertaken cultural studies, women’s studies, or gender studies, or who do not have the tools of high feminist theory with which to decode the world around us. There are women who do not have the time to equip themselves thus, and there are women who do not have the interest. The immediate success of a movement such as Destroy the Joint indicates to me that there are women hungry for an accessible feminism that has application to the lives they lead, and offers the possibility of naming and articulating the sexism and misogyny that surrounds us.  Are they middle class women? Quite likely, but so what? Middle class women are also subjected to domestic violence, rape and childhood abuse, though it is often extremely difficult for them to reveal this. The imperative to conceal such things is strong in the middle class. Who can say that beginning with “everyday sexism” won’t pave the way for the harder discussions?

I also share Price’s passion for the hands-on feminism to which I owe so much, the practical expression of the ideology Razer defines thus: “Feminism is the struggle against masculinised violence and feminised poverty.”

Although my definition inclines more towards that espoused by bell hooks:

Visionary feminism is a wise and loving politics. It is rooted in the love of male and female being, refusing to privilege one over the other. The soul of feminist politics is the commitment to ending patriarchal domination of women and men, girls and boys. Love cannot exist in any relationship that is based on domination and coercion. Males cannot love themselves in patriarchal culture if their very self-definition relies on submission to patriarchal rules. When men embrace feminist thinking and practice, which emphasizes the value of mutual growth and self-actualization in all relationships, their emotional well-being will be enhanced. A genuine feminist politics always brings us from bondage to freedom, from lovelessness to loving.

I have very little interest in the number of female CEOs in Australia. I find the outrage at so-called “sexualisation” dangerously silly. But I do think it’s important that women continue to learn to read the signals sent to us about us, by the society in which we live. I know it all so well by now that I don’t even have to think about it. However, I wasn’t born knowing. I didn’t know how to read the signs until feminists taught me. They didn’t teach me initially through high feminist theory. That came later for me. I needed something far more accessible to get me started.

Destroy the Joint can fulfill this educative role for women, and much more.

At the same time, I frequently feel a frustration of the kind that emerges in Razer’s critique. Why are we concerning ourselves with this banal twaddle when women are still subjected to appalling violence, and unforgivable poverty? Who cares if there’s a sexist ad somewhere while at the same time a woman is being brutalised or murdered, or thrown out onto the streets? What is feminism for, if not primarily to address these most grave matters?

I don’t know the answers. I do know that not every woman can undertake the hard yards in refuges and rape crisis centres, or is in any way less for not doing so. I couldn’t do it, because it’s far too close to my bones and I would be useless in those environments. I worked for years with women who wanted to address the aftermath of their abused and lost childhoods. I think I was useful, and I know I learned much from the encounters we shared. I’ve taught feminist theory, I think usefully, but I do know that not every woman can or wants to undertake those hard intellectual yards, and I can see no reason to expect that every woman should, or is in any way less for not doing so.

I’m pleased when young women I know remark on the everyday sexism they’ve learned to identify. I consider it part of my feminist task to remember the days when I too knew nothing, was avid to learn, and sought and found women who would teach me, taking me patiently through what they already knew so well.

It doesn’t surprise me when there are eruptions among feminists. As Razer points out, we are no nicer than any other human group and there’s no reason why we should be. It annoys me that all too often a dispute among women is taken as evidence that we are back biting bitches who can’t agree on anything, and that’s good enough reason to patronize and dismiss us. Last time I checked, it wasn’t women who were starting the majority of the world’s wars, for purposes far more deadly and self-interested than ideological spats.

I want women of Price and Razer’s calibre to continue to give voice to their interests and concerns. I don’t want a world in which either of them is silenced or disparaged.  Neither do I want a world in which feminist theory and practice are falsely framed as adversarial, and pitted against one another in a struggle for dominance and acclaim. When that happens, the patriarchy wins.



108 Responses to “Feminism. Feminists.”

  1. Delilah March 15, 2013 at 11:22 am #

    I think many women feel overwhelmed by the sheer size of the problems facing feminism. Destroy the Joint does manage to change things. They may not be the biggest or the worst problems in society but changes are being made and voices are being heard. It is a force for feminism that did not exist 18 months ago. That is a huge thing.


  2. Elisabeth March 15, 2013 at 11:23 am #

    A wonderful post as ever, Jennifer. I’m with you on the dangers of setting one form, the theoretical, up against another, the practical. After all theory is just people’s ideas about things. But then there’s theory with a capital T, not so readily accessible as you say, but still valuable and yet in no way superior to theory with a lower case ‘t’, theory that might be more practically driven. All too often we get lost in such false dichotomies.

    I too have benefited from feminism that has its practical edge in the day to day domesticity of my life and I too am concerned about getting bogged down with the light weight stuff when women are being brutally murdered nearby and their voices are silenced.

    In my own thesis I argue for the theoretical value of storytelling. As Carolyn Ellis, the ethnographer argues, ‘there’s nothing more theoretical or analytical than a good story.’ The issue then becomes one of how the stories are used, and especially when different perspectives are involved. Can multiple and sometimes opposing perspectives be given airplay in order to take a better look at what might be going on? I hope so.


    • Jennifer Wilson March 15, 2013 at 11:58 am #

      Thanks Elisabeth. I hope so too. And that we keep our humour and capacity for irony, even at one another.


    • hudsongodfrey March 15, 2013 at 8:20 pm #

      Good point, but if I may slightly conflate your last paragraph with your first, then if by storytelling we can infer perspectives that some times differ then it may help to explain the false dichotomy that you rightly identify. It could at least be hoped that awareness and refinement of competing theories may go some way to identifying what best fits the situation at hand. Otherwise my whole reading of this is that we seem to reach our conclusions on a fairly arbitrary basis.


  3. Cielo March 15, 2013 at 11:41 am #

    Thanks for a great piece. I have always considered myself a feminist, I’ve done my time in theory and I consider myself pretty good at recognising everyday sexism. Maybe it’s just optimism but what feels different to me now is the greater willingness of women (and men too) to call out sexism on a daily basis. Yes, feminists have always done so, but in my view it seems more “mainstream” now. Perhaps it won’t address those two great aims directly but perhaps it strikes at a culture that allows and supports masculinised violence and feminised poverty. I believe that equality (in the sense of true respect for the value of people regardless of their attributes) has to occur for real structural change to occur. To me, it seems that #everydaysexism and #destroythejoint are symptoms of a society less willing to tolerate inequality even if the targets appear superficial. We attack the superficial as we chip our way towards the substantial. It *feels* like real progress to me, and that’s a very nice feeling to have.


    • Jennifer Wilson March 15, 2013 at 12:00 pm #

      Yes, it chips away at a monolith. Sometimes we chip, and sometimes we can launch a nuclear attack.


  4. Jessamy (@jessamy_sesame) March 15, 2013 at 11:47 am #

    Thanks for this post, Jennifer. I wasn’t even aware of this debate until I stumbled across this post, but you have managed to articulate some of my feelings and opinions surrounding it – whilst also reflecting a position similar to my own (middle class, currently undertaking a PhD).

    I was interested to see Razer’s comments regarding sexism in advertising – it was something that I found somewhat concerning. My research is related to the negative effects of gender stereotypes (and sexism!) in the media, and how media policy can be changed in order to alter these repetitive stereotypes. I’m unsure if Razer would dismiss my research as somewhat pithy, or worthless, simply because I have chosen to focus on the problems within mass media over, say, violence against women.

    You’re spot in calling for these debates to continue – and thanks again for bringing the original discussion to my attention 🙂


  5. Mindy March 15, 2013 at 1:31 pm #

    Destroy the Joint packages Feminism in a way that many more people can access. While Razer is ultimately right, how many want to be feminists would just give up feeling that it is all too hard. I think of DtJ as a kind of gate way drug into Razers style of feminism. Softly softly catches monkey and before you know it they are out there brandishing their bell hooks etc.


  6. Mindy March 15, 2013 at 1:35 pm #

    Also, I had no idea that the lips the urinals were based on were men’s lips. I would bet that most of the blokes weeing into them didn’t either. It doesn’t matter what they were originally it matters what people think they are now.


  7. Anonymous March 15, 2013 at 1:51 pm #

    You’re certainly applying bell hooks very well here Jennifer. Arguments founded on forgiveness and love always seem to make incontrovertible sense. For what it’s worth, this is something that I realise i’ve tried to perpetuate as well during my somewhat sketchy intellectual life – though as a man I have to say that I grapple with the dilemma that, in cases far too close to home, self-actualisation often looks in practice more like self destructiveness than anything else.

    On the divide between theory and practice, one thing I’ve always been interested in is the motivations that people like Foucault and Derrida have for developing the theories they do, and for me, that impetus is more or less the same as that which leads other people living in different circumstances to rail against the more everyday sources of offensiveness, gendered or otherwise. I like Elisabeth’s summation – all theory is just people’s ideas about things. The action you take to what is essentially a gut reaction, emanating from somewhere deep in your psyche, is merely an expression of that. This is one reason why I’ve always thought it should be obligatory for theorists to declare what their personally-felt interest is in their topic – ie because it fills out the picture so vividly. Theory on its own is interesting, but it isn’t very good at communicating the *meaning* of something. Creative non-fiction and discourse analysis are good ways of addressing this deficit, but even patriarchy, with its fascination for biography and political machinations, tries pretty hard to fill it in its own way as well, though perhaps less self-consciously. I’ve a terrible memory for quotes, but one I like is from Thomas Mann I think: every discipline is haunted by anything which it seeks methodologically to exclude.

    I would say it’s all helpful. If we want a world where rape and DV and child abuse don’t occur, then we have to target those things directly, but we also need to target the more banal occurrences, because if we don’t then we’ll just keep perpetuating an environment that encourages the really bad stuff to just get worse.


  8. samjandwich March 15, 2013 at 1:53 pm #

    Anonymous indeed!


  9. Marilyn March 15, 2013 at 3:48 pm #

    But I have never felt the least bit inferior to any man, I have never striven particularly to be more like them or to please them by changing my mind or opinion or vying for jobs or anything else.

    Perhaps that comes from having a bullying thug as a father and learning to fight back pdq.

    I would suggest none of the girls bickering now have ever been sacked for being pregnant or getting married and don’t understand that we are equal therefore we take the crap as well as the good without whinging sexism.


  10. hudsongodfrey March 15, 2013 at 8:04 pm #

    I’d by lying if I didn’t say Helen Razor’s wit and use of language so endears me to her that I frequently find myself wanting to take her side even when I’m not sure I’ve fully understood her.

    I wonder if these two women would agree on what sexism actually is, because they don’t seem to. That is what I think Helen’s trying to point out.

    Jenna Price doesn’t endear me to her approach when her piece opens with a caveat saying that she wants to have her say, but after this the debate is pretty much closed. Apart from that the issues she’s trying to tackle seem laudable enough even of they aren’t likely to be game changing for society. So if Razor thinks “the struggle” should be something else then perhaps I’m not a regular enough reader of her’s to know what that something is.

    I’m really not entirely sure that some of this isn’t about post-feminism looking for a mission statement that earlier waves of feminism didn’t have to similarly struggle to identify.

    We notice gender even more than we notice skin colour (I don’t want to say we notice race, because as far as science it concerned it doesn’t exist, and yes gender’s are more than two so….). So I think that’s how we notice sexism and the existence of those patriarchal social structures, which still do tend to exclude or marginalise women. But I also think most of us by now know and agree that this is wrong.

    We can lament that DTJ even have to ask for assistance for anyone who is protected under an AVO. But if it could be argued as easily from a basically humanitarian standpoint then it probably should. That would after all be more likely to work than stigmatising the organisations whose behaviour you want to influence. One has to be careful with words like sexist that are clearly accusatory epithets in our post-feminist vernacular.

    Notice that I’m not saying the campaign around protecting AVO holders wouldn’t mostly (just not exclusively) protect women, or shouldn’t come from a feminist group. Only that language like “sexism” can be counter productive.

    Some people might ultimately say that when the aim is to protect rather than empower then the sexism is reversed, but I doubt that changes the need for help once an AVO has been granted. Nor is it impossible to counter argue that the best offence is a good defence.

    Worse still at a stage when we’ve already acknowledged the problems and dealt with many aspects of them, sometimes highlighting transgressions seems to invite reflexively returning like a dog to its own vomit when we find ourselves arguing along the same narrow and self interested lines we did in the past. Maybe on that interpretation the times when we should or shouldn’t identify and call-out sexism are roughly delimited by whether the debate is unintelligible without it.

    We’ve repeatedly discussed whether sexual conservatives ought to be allowed to call themselves feminists when they believe the things that they do, and sometimes perhaps a little like Helen Razor I’m left wondering whether either everyone is feminist or nobody is? We can’t really as she hints appoint her “Door Bitch” and only let in people we arbitrarily like!


  11. atomou March 18, 2013 at 1:09 pm #

    There was a time when I thought I was a feminist, being a supporter of the efforts by the then feminists to achieve equality with us uncouth, vulgar and often oppressively chauvinist males. Germaine Greer woke me up to that plight and I followed with total agreement and devotion. Then, as the years rolled the one after the other, as they tend to do since time and years began, I began to get lost in the debates, finding them confusing and sounding more like doctoral theses then constructive in any practical sense. Debates became arguments until they finally ended up as internecine wars. Wars that still leave me bemused, incredulous and intellectually defied by their syllogisms.

    But I still support the rights of equal and fair treatment of anyone, in any circumstance and I don’t care if that makes me a feminist or simply a nobhead.
    The lady of the house and our daughters love me anyway and there’s no better confirmation that I’m an acceptable male after all!


    • samjandwich March 18, 2013 at 3:25 pm #

      You can wage wars of that sort until the cows come home to be milked and the chickens come home to roost (both genderedly sequiturious expressions), but if something’s really ingrained in someone’s world-view as a result of their youthful experiences it’s very hard to change it.

      I think there’s a big generational element. From what I’ve observed (and I use the word in the empirical sense) most people under the age of about 40 – or at least, those who didn’t go to the wrong type of private, gender segregated high schools – don’t really have a problem with gender equality. They’ve lived it since birth, whereas previous generations, though arguably responsible for it, have had somewhat more trouble adopting it later in life.

      But it’s not hard and fast. Which side do you fall?

      Consider this sentence for example,(from a very interesting discussion this morning on RN. http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/sharing-the-housework/4576388. Natasha Mitchell is one of my favourite women at the moment…):

      “Women still do the lion’s share of the housework”

      If you can read that, and other genderedly non-sequiturious expressions without them seeming totally bizarre, then you’re a post-feminist.


      • helvityni March 18, 2013 at 4:23 pm #

        sam, when I came to Australia, I laughed about the fuss people made about Germaine as I came from a society of gender equality…
        Now I understand Australians better and I realise that Germaine was very important as Australia has been very much of a man’s world…and still is.
        Gerard and I share work around the house according to what we like and what we naturally do better; he does most of the cooking but I massively compensate for that for loving and doing the things he has no interest in….
        I find it amusing that most of the males who are usually very busy here have not had much to say on this thread, also, where have all the females gone….


        • samjandwich March 18, 2013 at 5:29 pm #

          It’s funny, the only time I’m conscious of Australia being a man’s world is when I get gesticulated at in traffic by other men (usually bald ones with wrap-around sunglasses in Toyota Klugers and Golf GTIs. Ugh! are there any other cars that scream “man-child” so loudly?!) for having trespassed into territory that they apparently considered to be theirs.

          And it’s true Helvi those boys have been uncharacteristically quiet. I wonder whether it’s because they’re worried we might actually be interested in their thoughts on this occasion.

          Sorry that was a cheap-shot – and I took it 🙂


          • paul walter March 18, 2013 at 6:40 pm #

            We learned a while back that people like you were not the slightest interested in our thoughts- how dishonest of you to say otherwise.
            Why on earth would you want our thoughts- you already know it all yourselves and nothing we could say would be anything but superfluous.
            You have proven yourselves, so many times, unworthy of our efforts at communication, worthy or otherwise.
            More profitable to go talk to the birds, at least they do not lie about us and misrepresent what we say, to the diametric opposite of what we clearly actually mean, presumably out of spite.


          • Hypocritophobe March 18, 2013 at 10:29 pm #

            The quiet,I presume, is called R-E-S-P-E-C-T for the blog owner.

            But I guess JW didn’t ask that people should resist pushing buttons, for the sake of it.
            Perhaps she should have.


            • paul walter March 19, 2013 at 12:42 am #

              Hydrophobe, who are you a sock puppet for tonight?
              Calico or wool?
              You are more hypocrite than phobe when you of all people talk about other people pushing buttons.
              The “quiet” is actually the sound of people no longer at the site.
              My “respect” for you is down to naught; maybe even a little below.


              • Hypocritophobe March 19, 2013 at 10:01 am #


                Try harder Paul


                • paul walter March 19, 2013 at 8:38 pm #

                  No Hypo-
                  YOU try harder.
                  But since I’m no; longer commenting here, I won’t question what in Christ Jam-burger’s nebulous nonsenses below are supposed to mean.
                  And I won’t ask you whether you are prepared to admit you are a knucklehead for advocating an Abbott government, after the release of the macabre Abbott austerity voodoo economics package that was the subject of discussion at the Drum yesterday.
                  But of course (remembers) we don’t have threads here on mere trivialities like that, or the people’s bank accounts raided in Cyprus.
                  We only have threads up operating on prejudice as group moans and blokehate sessions for hard done by (hard up?) middle class or more accurately, wanna-be Pampered Aussie Princesses- such victimhood; such entitlement. Pfftt.


                  • Hypocritophobe March 19, 2013 at 11:14 pm #

                    Oh you poor boy.

                    I am so glad that you post under your real name and that people can clearly see you are a person of zero integrity and you keep using lies to push elevate your personal standing.The record here ‘clearly’ shows that although I cannot wait to see an end to Gillard,I have never advocated the ‘start’ of Abbott.
                    That you would insinuate it says it all about you.
                    Perhaps Sam read you better/sooner/more accurately than I did.

                    Apologies to JW.


                    • paul walter March 20, 2013 at 3:14 am #

                      Why haven’t you the guts to put your real name to your posts when you slander other people?
                      YOU talk about MY integrity!! roflmao.


                  • atomou March 20, 2013 at 8:55 am #

                    Pauly, your reference to the Cyprus robbery by the robber barons caught my eye. Tell me, please, what you see that Ms Gillard will do or can do, to prevent this happening here.

                    Though, I am sure that there is no need to remind you that our Gillard doesn’t have to deal with the same robber barons who have stitched up a memorandum that has locked 17 countries (including Cyprus) into a single currency, shat upon and played with, by Ms Merkel and her colonisers.

                    Tell us, please, what plans Gillard has to make sure that some profits earned from the terrestrial perforations perpetrated by the miners in West remain here; and what she intends doing once they’ve had their fill and moved to the new terrestrial El Dorados, like Mongolia.

                    No point in comparing her to Abbott. The two are identical when it comes to daylight robbery.


            • samjandwich March 19, 2013 at 7:17 am #

              Ok yes Hypo I see what you mean. I’d no idea the atmosphere had degenerated so badly.


              • paul walter March 19, 2013 at 8:32 am #

                You’d be a right subject for study.


                • samjandwich March 19, 2013 at 8:02 pm #

                  I’d really like that Paul. Lord above knows I’ve spent god knows how much trying to get professionals to do just that, whilst leaving my chickens unprotected, my partner unfertilised, and my collection of antique Italian supercars so badly neglected that their seals dry up through lack of use.

                  If you’d be willing to come up with the money Paul then I’d be all for it.

                  But until such time as you do you’ll forgive me for refraining from addressing you further (at least, not directly*-). As far as I can tell, this blog is about interesting ideas that affect us all, not infantile and petty squabbles between metaphysical earthquakes and crumbling egos.


      • Hypocritophobe March 18, 2013 at 10:26 pm #

        You mean that men still do the lionesses share of the hunting and gathering?


    • helvityni March 18, 2013 at 4:27 pm #

      “The lady of the house and our daughters love me anyway and there’s no better confirmation that I’m an acceptable male after all!”

      We all love our families and hopefully they all love us, but that does not mean that we are for gender equality.


      • helvityni March 18, 2013 at 4:28 pm #

        The above was meant as a response to atomou’s post above Sam’s.


    • georgetheodoridis March 18, 2013 at 7:30 pm #

      …and I forgot to add, my darlings are not stupid, nor blind, nor obsequious slaves to anyone. They are highly intelligent, confident, assertive, articulate and formidable opponents of injustice and chauvinism of any sort. The word “darlings” include young and old ladies in a vast extended family, here, in Oz as well as in Greece and wherever else they happen to be.
      They can sniff out gender thugs from miles away and they will come out fearsomely! And that’s why I love them and that’s why I believe it is a confirmation that I am en acceptable male… after all!


    • hudsongodfrey March 18, 2013 at 9:49 pm #

      There’s an old story, a joke really, about a woman who runs her gloved finger through the dust on the mantle and exclaims “look at all that dust”, where upon the man protests, “Look what you’ve gone and done! How are we ever going to fill that back in?”

      Not too sexist I hope, and sometimes perhaps still a little true in that it isn’t always just about who does the housework as it is about who cares whether it gets done or not.

      True story: As kid I visited a schoolmate’s house regularly to meet and play cricket at the park opposite his home. One Saturday I guess the parents had been fighting unbeknownst to me, because his father answered the door in the nude, howls of protest from the rear of the dwelling notwithstanding. Turns out she’d refused to wash his clothes so he’d refused to wear any!… Phone calls had to be made and embarrassing explanations given and received with laughter all round. I don’t know how it was eventually resolved but I’m guessing by Monday morning that the boot was on the other foot.


      • atomou March 19, 2013 at 9:39 am #

        Sorry Hudso. Din’t get it. On whose foot was the boot when he came out in the mud? There was an argument: she said no and he said no. It seems to me that either, neither was wearing a boot or both were wearing them… I am quite dull headed some times.


        • Hypocritophobe March 19, 2013 at 10:35 am #

          You missed the point.You were supposed to hone on the part of the story where cricket is mentioned,pick a side and barrack hard, or day dream about Don Bradman.
          When an Aussie anecdote/story/headline has the word ‘cricket’ in it, nothing else matters.



          • atomou March 19, 2013 at 11:19 am #

            Ah, cricket! I must admit to a flaw in my character there. I am allergic to any words that are related to any sport! I don’t know how or when I caught that spore, because, in my younger, school years, I was a fanatic with every part of it. Coach of the school’s soccer and footy teams, in every tennis team, baseball, volley ball (unbeatable, my team was!) and yes, even cricket. Then, suddenly, I was hit by a mountain of irritates every time I heard words related to it. Buggered if I know why. I am forced -and I mean forced- to show some interest in footy and the twists of fate for the Hawkers, because my brother-in-law (an otherwise, wise and gentle man) has threatened me on many occasions, even when he was sober, that if I don’t follow the said Hawkers with the requisite intensive interest to pass his weekly exams, he’d divorce my sister! So, I force myself to watch the team and to read reports about it.

            On all other sporting terms, my eyes will slide over them and my mind will refuse to connect.

            I know, I miss a lot of jokes -and points- that way but I’m afraid the allergy is quite potent.


            • Hypocritophobe March 19, 2013 at 12:46 pm #

              Time you took a Dreadlock Holiday,Ato.


              • atomou March 19, 2013 at 1:39 pm #



                • Hypocritophobe March 19, 2013 at 3:12 pm #

                  This should ring a bell.
                  Especially the chorus


                  • atomou March 19, 2013 at 3:39 pm #

                    No bells, no whistles and no capish!
                    What’s a dreadlock holiday, other than the name of that song?
                    You’re getting as delphic as Hudso, Hypo!


                    • Hypocritophobe March 19, 2013 at 3:43 pm #

                      “I don’t like cricket!”


                    • atomou March 19, 2013 at 3:52 pm #

                      Ah! Why didntyasayso? Gorrrrrdelpme!


                    • doug quixote March 19, 2013 at 5:29 pm #

                      it’s a bit like explaining a rainbow to a person blind from birth.

                      The song goes, “I don’t like cricket – I love it!”

                      West Indies and all that, calypso cricket . . .


                    • atomou March 19, 2013 at 5:32 pm #

                      I hate crickets! Cri cri cri all bloody night! How on earth can a man go to sleep with that infernal noise? Kill all crickets and cricketers! Especially those in India…


        • hudsongodfrey March 19, 2013 at 2:04 pm #

          It’s simple what is true of one’s willingness to go nude on the weekend may be less true on Monday morning when he presumably needed to leave the house to go to work.


          • atomou March 19, 2013 at 3:40 pm #

            So… you’re saying, Hudso, that the next day he went to work naked and wearing his wife’s boots?
            This is getting to be quite a labyrinthine yoke, this one!


            • hudsongodfrey March 19, 2013 at 5:08 pm #

              You’ve never heard the expression “the boot’s on the other foot”?

              The inference is clearly that he should slip on a banana peel in order that we maintain the capacity to amuse you 🙂


              • atomou March 19, 2013 at 5:17 pm #

                Yes, that would be funny!
                Boots, nakedness, cricket, dust, fingers, gloves, arguments… it’s all to distressing for a placid soul -and sole- like me, Hudso! You should certainly have included a banana peel somewhere among all that, or at least, some ice cream dribbling down the front of his nakedness.


                • hudsongodfrey March 19, 2013 at 5:23 pm #

                  Some of those images are too toxic even for me.

                  I remember Peter Cook had a bit about whether Brussels would adjudicate the official EU joke in a contents between 43 men and 42 women slipping on banana peel or 42 men and 43 women….


  12. paul walter March 18, 2013 at 4:57 pm #

    Jennifer, thought to find out a little more of where you “come from”, so I sought out your doctoral thesis for a read, but it is inaccessible.
    Your supervisors, some of the brightest people in our land, considered what you had to say to be of worth, self evidently, or you what would not have been awarded the thing.
    Yet as a light is hidden beneath a bushel, so the contribution your labours created, deemed something worthy of consideration by qualified others, is denied, which seems an unhelpful injustice.


    • paul walter March 20, 2013 at 3:10 am #

      You know the funny thing is, I was interested in Jennifer Wilson’s dissertation because it would shed light on the nature of the discussion involving Razer and Price; a similar situation exists here on some issues and it involves the slowly developing split in Continental Philosophy and how this spins off into politics (eg, Wilson mentions Levinas, in the tiny fragment I got to read, who is going to be closer to Frankfurt School thinking of the sort I would be inclined to associate with Price.
      Razer is of a newer post industrial/ post modern sensibility, derived of French post structuralist thinking that gives up on what the Frankfurt thinkers like Habermas regard as the Enlightenment Project, they think that some underlying unknowns as to life’s meaning value and destination are likely to be opposite to what that the German-Jewish intellectuals propose and cutting a long story short, arrive at a more sceptical position as to change and the point of change and thus what might constitute value and meaning in a lived life.
      I think Wilson comes from (speculatively) a secularist Neitzschean existentialist position that is working out which in probability is the likelier proposition as to two strands of fundamental thinking as to existentialism in a fundamentally absurd situation where little seems provable, much is relative and life seems contingent on unknowns: people have to dig deep within to construct their own value and meaning as to life.
      This why terms like “religious”or “conservative” or “radical” or “sceptical” come into their own because many positions seems exclusive of others and then it comes down to “belief” and maybe pushing a few boundaries.


      • paul walter March 20, 2013 at 4:17 am #

        After thought: Anne Summers gets a mention.
        An elder of the cause, she is in the invidious position of reconciling philosophy with political action and its limits, as a go to person as to a reliable analysis of that’s happening;an insider. There are many feminisms, as there are many positions in general in politics, so she uses broad brush and metaphor to put together enough of a representative coalition to represent often conflicting viewpoints within and without feminism to the non-right of politics
        She obviously plumps for the ALP and Gillard as the safest options, both for feminism and for progressive politics, but maybe as these represent the lesser of a number of competing evils.
        In her most recent article she does a bit of air brush on the Qantas boss, Alan Joyce, who is an individual unpalatable to me.
        Yet Summers suggests that a “new” Qantas is of the TINA type in the post industrial environment, instead suggesting that the (likely) left feminist position, eg defence of a fair rather than efficient system has become too difficult to maintain in our new Globalised world.
        Trying to salvage something from this unwelcome state of affairs she suggest that some compensatory things could flow also, citing better employment prospects for women, gays and ethnic others, thus defusing resentment from many who some times, quite rightly, find much change unwelcome, in various situations as well as things as a whole.
        Also, she is likely trying to draw more separatist feminist intent on a woman-only special interest approach back to the social context in which feminism must operate.
        That is, that some feminists need to reconnect with a general social movement and context, rather than retreat into isolationism and special interest that antagonises others who might agree on broad social reform but are unable to agree immediately to less politically feasible issues like immediate equal pay, comprehensive gay rights or abortion on request.
        Equally, other progressives, or at least centrists, also need to understand that some items on a feminist agenda are less negotiable, also, so it is little like the Qantas thing with Qantas workers; times are not good for some types of reform or social justice, yet the game cannot be surrendered completely.
        This is probably also done for good reason, the left always scraps amongst itself and division always costs dearly. compromise is a dirty word for anyone, but some times there has to be give and take.
        With Summers,in a calmer climate attention is focussed away from Labo(u)rs weaknesses and back to the even worse proposition that is Abbott, that the entire reform project is not wrecked, this time beyond recall, by Howard on steroids; Abbott.
        Some things must be postponed or proposals moderated, by all on the non completely fascist side of politics, lest the whole life-boat is


        • atomou March 20, 2013 at 9:01 am #

          Shuuuuugar, Paul!
          I’m sure you’re trying to say something; and it’s probably worthy of an ear or two but, cripes, moity, you’ve taken us on an excruciating journey here, one that not even Theseus had to go through to get to the minotaur, back in the Greek dreamtime!
          Darkness and columns and walls at every turn! Can’t seem to see even a single ray of light, going through the fragments of your syllogism.
          Can you try again, please with fewer references to referrers of more references? Promise, I’ll pay close attention!


          • paul walter March 20, 2013 at 2:27 pm #

            Thanks mate, that was real helpful.


            • atomou March 20, 2013 at 2:42 pm #

              You’re most welcome.
              So, Pauly, you did then, look up Theseus, the minotaur, the Labyrinth, Daidalus, Icarus, Bruegel, Pasiphae, Glaucus, Aigean Sea, Ariadne…


    • Jennifer Wilson March 20, 2013 at 3:25 pm #

      It’s inaccessible? It’s supposed to be online. I’ll check with the Uni. Thanks Paul.


  13. Hypocritophobe March 18, 2013 at 10:21 pm #

    If there are any ‘males’ holding back or steering clear it’s because a few topics ago (breasts) they were told to hold off so the women could have their input.The rest is history.
    My how things have a tendency to do a 180 degree swing, and yet conveniently the original premise is forgotten.

    “Short memory must have a….”

    It’s a pity the ‘history rewriting epidemic’ has become a plague.
    And here of all places.
    Free speech with a gender quota.Love it.


    • Jennifer Wilson March 20, 2013 at 3:26 pm #

      I didn’t tell men to hold off so women could have input.


      • Hypocritophobe March 20, 2013 at 3:35 pm #

        The comment was directed to a poster,not you.


  14. samjandwich March 18, 2013 at 10:45 pm #

    *sigh* Here’s a nice lullaby for everyone out there still awake in internet land:



    • Hypocritophobe March 18, 2013 at 10:54 pm #

      We are all insignificant space dross.


      • atomou March 19, 2013 at 9:41 am #

        Speak for yourself, Hypo! I am a very significant space dross!


        • Hypocritophobe March 19, 2013 at 10:05 am #

          Anyone who knows anything about metallurgy, will know that sometimes a precious jewel, or nugget of gold can be found amongst the dross.

          Whether we sparkle or not is up to us.


          • hudsongodfrey March 19, 2013 at 11:34 pm #

            You have to admit though that the majority of dross is just dross…..
            And the value you set by shiny fragments of baubles probably speaks more of desperation than intellect….

            Not I hasten to add in the context of anything said here or about anyone personally, but just in general by way of allusion to people who say there’s a law of false analogies.

            A little less dross never hurt anyone, not even in the vastness of Space where no one can hear you scream!


            • Hypocritophobe March 20, 2013 at 12:22 am #

              “You have to admit though that the majority of dross is just dross…..”

              Dross Lightfoot comes to mind.
              Is he still Julie Bishops other half?

              I never said there were lots of ‘gems’ so I will agree and say that Canberra exemplifies the point you make about quantity and quality.Besides as pointed out you can’t polish a turd, although there are plenty(in that place) buffing away.

              To bring us back on topic, I’d say the dross quota applies across the board, including to feminism, and in those who observe and comment on it.
              I like the fact that now and then a 24 carat comment shows up here.


  15. doug quixote March 19, 2013 at 11:19 am #

    I worked out a long time ago that for a man to interrupt an internecine fight between feminists was akin to trying to part bull terrriers who’d taken a dislike to each other.


    • atomou March 19, 2013 at 11:21 am #

      …and between whom, there is a bone, DQ!
      I’m staying right out of it these days.


      • hudsongodfrey March 19, 2013 at 11:50 pm #

        This suggests (to torture the analogy, again) that you have the luxury of staying out of it, because you don’t have a dog in this fight.

        I’m not so sure though. I think feminism needs the occasional male voice just to remind the combatants that the struggle was supposed to be about equality of the sexes not who’s got the shiniest wit, intellect and feminist credentials. It seems to me that if you want to argue that being born with different genitals shouldn’t disqualify you from anything then you have to realise that in so doing you surrender the right to say it qualifies you for anything either.

        The frustrations I think Doug is expressing are about those aspects of counter-productive bickering among feminists that shift the focus away from equality to occasionally make the most outrageous claims to simply reversing the inequality because often nobody bothers to question them.


        • Hypocritophobe March 19, 2013 at 11:57 pm #

          That is my comment to Elisabeth,in less words.


          • hudsongodfrey March 20, 2013 at 12:13 am #

            Me? using less words! It must be a first.


            • Hypocritophobe March 20, 2013 at 12:28 am #

              HG-Let me rephrase it.
              ‘My thoughts are similar, only in my comment to Elisabeth, I used less (fewer) words.’

              Your reputation is safe.

              I preferred him in Futurama.


          • hudsongodfrey March 20, 2013 at 12:16 am #

            Mind you, to be grammatically top-shelf we say “fewer” words rather than “less” words.

            Ato would be onto that one like a flash I’m sure…. I got it from Fry watching QI 🙂


            • atomou March 20, 2013 at 8:35 am #

              Quite so, Hudso, “fewer” for things (and people) that can be counted and “less” for things that cannot, or for numbers and quantities.
              So: There were fewer people carrying fewer tomatoes at the demonstration against Ms Gillard’s outrageous policies on refugees, than there were at Abbott’s budgie smugglers show. Abbott’s show had less appeal and provoked less anger than the monstrous disdain that Gillard has shown against our Labor Party and our Democracy.
              There’s less to see during Abbott’s budgie smuggler’s show because there are fewer budgies in his smugglers than there are in a normal man’s jock strap.

              But, alas, Hudso, we are daily forced to abjure the logic of grammar and syntax and to succumb to, and accept, the ways of what is called “common usage,” which now has become so common that it is used with greater frequency than the rules of the language dictate. It is how the language has lost the distinction between 2nd person singular pronoun and the same in plural: the “you” is now used for both singular and plural, with “thou” and “thee” and “thine” tossed on the same mountain of corpses, killed by the famous european plague… to give a morbid end to my rant.


              • hudsongodfrey March 20, 2013 at 9:48 am #

                Yes you’s seems so uncouth and confuses the yokels with sheep! (ewes)


              • doug quixote March 22, 2013 at 8:23 am #

                My pet hate is the use of “fraught” which means “full” , as if it meant danger or peril in itself.

                It is a victim of nearly always being used in the phrase “fraught with danger.”



                • atomou March 22, 2013 at 11:17 am #

                  The OXFORD: Fraught: 1. -with. involving, attended with, full of (meaning etc) threatening or promising, destined to produce, (sorrow, danger, etc) 2: causing or suffering anxiety or distress. 3. (poet.) stored or equipped with…

                  DQ, stop sighing and check out a dictionary or two. Obviously you’re getting your lexical info from the same sources you’re getting your political one: whirling wind mills!

                  So, ner, ner, ner, you’re wrong, mate!


    • paul walter March 20, 2013 at 2:48 am #

      There develops a siege or laager mentality amongst them. You are one of them or not. Any one else is “othered” as outsider, or intruder, or “enemy” regardless of the truth of this, unworthy of consideration sort of like a despised Jew in MittelEuropa… all are blamed for the outrages of the minority, or cowardly politicians who wont change the social settings, after the Tea Party leaders for example, whilst those within are under surveillance to expose “traitors”.


  16. Elisabeth March 19, 2013 at 1:10 pm #

    Next month’s, ‘Griffith Review’ is on the topic of Women and Power. I’ve a short memoir piece in it and I’m looking forward to reading about what other people have to say on the topic. It seems to me to be connected to Jennifer’s thoughts here about feminism, and about the ways in which a struggle for equality can sometimes be subverted by other agendas, especially when theory and practice collide.


    • Hypocritophobe March 19, 2013 at 1:24 pm #

      I see you’re grinding that gender quota axe again,albeit that you like the indirect approach to avoid getting a bite.You demonstrate quite clearly that the gap between equality is not just a place for sexism and chauvinism.

      If people were as quick to shout out misandry when it reared its grotesque head, the progress you seek would accelerate.
      As Q&A would say,you can take this as a comment.


    • hudsongodfrey March 19, 2013 at 11:24 pm #

      Post a link by all means. I gather we’re talking future tense so it won’t be available yet. But I have reached that point where I’ve leaned to delegate remembering things to others so….


    • Jennifer Wilson March 20, 2013 at 3:28 pm #

      Excellent, Thanks Elisabeth, will watch out for that


  17. atomou March 20, 2013 at 1:15 pm #

    I reckon, Jennifer should open up a page for the hop polloi. Called it The Forum or The Agora, or, I know, I know, The People’s Pulpit! What d’you say, Jennifer? Then we could be left to our own devices talking about grammar and footy statistics, or bad films and bad lyrics.


    • Hypocritophobe March 20, 2013 at 2:09 pm #

      It would probably need an over 18 clause,or an adult to accompany some posters.


      • paul walter March 20, 2013 at 2:25 pm #

        You should stop looking in the mirror.


        • Hypocritophobe March 20, 2013 at 2:38 pm #

          paul walter March 19, 2013 at 8:38 pm #

          “But since I’m no; longer commenting here”


          • atomou March 20, 2013 at 2:45 pm #

            The semi column reversed the meaning. It’s a common linguistic trick, known only by a secret society… like a special handshake is to the Freemasons…


            • Hypocritophobe March 20, 2013 at 2:59 pm #

              Oh yes,I see.



              • atomou March 20, 2013 at 3:17 pm #

                Yea, it’s a well known secret signal, called the “semi colon reversal.” I prefer the full colon one meself, like “I love: Julia” which is not as well known a secret but it’s getting there. It’s been seen in missives all around Cyprus at the moment, though I did catch it once or twice in various exchanges on the floor of our parliament and in the pages of our depressing press.
                Shit I’ve got so much work to do and here I am… Bastards! The lot of youz!


                • atomou March 20, 2013 at 3:20 pm #

                  Getting interviewed by an Egyptian Community radio this evening – on Christianity as seen in the filum Agora a couple of nights ago. I’ll let yuz all know how it went. Love the presenter! No, Hypo! It’s a man. Lovely bloke, married with kids etc. Great chap. Met him many years ago. He was handing out ALP how to vote cards while I was doing the same for the Greens.


                  • atomou March 20, 2013 at 3:22 pm #

                    Gotta get my shit together, now that Mrs Ato’s gone to work.
                    Don’t let me come back here again today!


    • Jennifer Wilson March 20, 2013 at 3:29 pm #

      I did think about that can’t remember why decided not to. I think nobody wanted it but are things changing?


      • atomou March 20, 2013 at 7:23 pm #

        Things are definitely changing, Jennifer! Definitely… I think!


      • doug quixote March 22, 2013 at 8:27 am #

        Perhaps a forum, with a topic you nominate – that is, without needing a major article from yourself. (We go off the rails even after a major article!)

        By all means do a major article when it pleases you, but at other times, just a single sentence might set the ball rolling. Just a thought. 🙂


        • Hypocritophobe March 22, 2013 at 10:28 am #

          A single sentence like;

          “Policy ideas for the prying eyes of passing political advisers?”

          NOTE:Rudd and Gillard have both acted on content here.


          • atomou March 22, 2013 at 11:25 am #

            Too many poos, Hypo!


        • atomou March 22, 2013 at 11:24 am #

          No, man! Let the topic be organic. Ever maturing, ever changing, ever renewed, ever showing the angst of the popularis!

          Otherwise, JW will need to keep checking it and changing the damned thing in regular intervals. That page, I suggest most stridently, should just be an unguided, anarchic, self evolving one. JW can intervene any time she likes but she ought not be given the onus of its direction.


  18. paul walter March 22, 2013 at 2:37 pm #

    I gather a number of robust discussions are occurring within feminism as to conceptual frameworks for the understanding a violent (natural?) culture, within which further exploration of the problem can happen with a view to both individual healing for victims and the possible parallel transformation away from old pathology-breeding forms within society and culture, Can we move to some thing more beneficial for the majority of individuals and to what extent is the idea of a healthy community is related or dislocated relatively to the healing of individuals.
    Is society irretrievably configured that the best of outcomes is band aid jobs for victims, due to the mix of culture and human nature in this era? Do women indeed become separatists out of despair, can victims be healed, or can society and culture change, because of or in spite of “human
    nature” as revealed in what (various) feminists conceive to be patriarchy/authoritarianism?
    I suppose we are all damaged goods to some extent- yes males are damaged also. What nostrums do we employ and do these treat the underlying condition or just the symptoms? Does what occurs at the individual level have a parallel within society and within culture?
    Why can I only think of train wrecks at the moment,or should I focus on human durability?


    • Hypocritophobe March 22, 2013 at 7:52 pm #

      “we are all damaged goods to some extent”
      is a thought which often crosses my mind, as does the innate ability of the people who may be viewed as ‘damaged goods’ to rebuild from the most low of places, and after the most horrific of events.
      I guess it is the ‘human spirit’.
      The ‘repair’ process ‘often’ seems to bring with it a forgiveness and empathy factor, which can often belie the horror of the initial event to outsiders.
      JW and others here have spoken of the effect of harm and damage, and the non-desire for revenge.

      We are all different, and vary anywhere from from rubber necking the train wreck, to admiring the durability of the survivors.Maybe even getting involved in the triage or medical aid.(And everywhere in between.)
      And there are plenty of onlookers and passengers, on whichever train-wreck, who are oblivious to it, or worse who slept right through it.



      • paul walter March 22, 2013 at 8:28 pm #

        Wasn’t it John Lennon who said, “Life’s what happens while you’re planning other things”.
        Yes, I suppose I have slept through a fair bit of my own life and I wonder if its not the case with heaps of people, many Australians at least.


        • Hypocritophobe March 22, 2013 at 8:58 pm #

          What is also interesting is the actual observation you/I/others make when we say /observe
          ““we are all damaged goods to some extent”.
          It is a statement of acceptance.
          So unless it is followed with a DILLIGAF position,
          I am presuming this is the precursor to empathy.
          and the opposite of ‘up you Jack, I’m alright’.
          Which is the antithesis of the ‘fair go’.
          Now I know a lot about those last two concepts.
          You’ll probably have to take that on trust(for now)

          So here’s the quandary.(For others, not me)
          I hold as sacrosanct the universal perception of a ‘fair go’.
          Real (and recent) Labor used to,too.
          I still do.They don’t.
          Abbott never will.

          In time I danced on Howards political grave.
          Gillard is next.Guaranteed,
          And it will be a very crowded gig.


          • Hypocritophobe March 22, 2013 at 10:08 pm #

            At the usual risk of being accused of fixating on one issue, I should add that I removed a big heap of content between the second last and last paragraphs,on the premise that most here can connect dots, and to avoid the merry go round discussion.
            And I would also assume that people, HERE, can join those important dots and acknowledge that the whole issue of fair go,politics and feminism are inextricably connected.
            And if you’re feeling brave, feel free to accuse me of not giving this brand of Labor a fair go.


            • paul walter March 23, 2013 at 2:48 am #

              They’ve had everything to gain and nothing to lose.
              . All the conceited little people alibiing, justifying or big-noting themselves and we get a Bonfire of the Vanities.
              Deep solidarity and a great compassion for people depending on them in their millions, the sacred trust of the People’s Crusader..
              And they forsake this for infantile Sarah Bernhardt grandstanding and sooking.
              Anne Summers’ metaphor the other day, a parent returns to the nest to find the children rioting, finds a home in the prima donna antics of Fitzgibbon, Mar’n and others and ultimately, Kevin Rudd,
              Marilyn is lurking and won’t me like putting the blame on
              Rudd as well as Gillard, 50/50, but there you go, until twelve hours ago I had admiration for him.
              To walk off, like Cartman, taking bat and ball just to wipe the smugness off Julia Gillard’s probably culpable face, regardless of the harm likely later done to many working class people, was unforgivable.
              They could have been in power for a decade, however none had the maturity to “give” a little as to others on the team, nor did anyone else have the wit to have them reconcile meaningfully, a small accommodation you would have thought for the chance to accomplish great things they all claimed to aspire to, as the children of ordinary families and values.
              The power, fame, and glory could have been theirs.
              Instead they will be seen as diminished, mundane and not easily forgiven, once people discover and groan under the real agendas of the Opposition.


              • Hypocritophobe March 23, 2013 at 1:25 pm #

                And what of Albo?
                Coward traitor or would be PM?
                On principle he should go.I would.The rebuild will not include Gillard anyway.Anyone who considers themselves Minister material should snatch it now or refuse the gig.
                The stench will stay with Julias gang for a decade.
                I don’t share your take on Rudd.He owed those in the caucus zilch.
                he owes his electorate the independence from them.I hope he gets re-elected and jumps ship.And that practise is something that irritates the shit out of me, so there you go.On this occasion it is justified.And it sounds like Crean has been caught out bullshitting about tactic,timing and texts..If so I retract the teaspoon of kudos I allocated him 2 days ago.


                • Hypocritophobe March 23, 2013 at 2:11 pm #

                  NOTE Jump ship = stand as an Indie


                • atomou March 23, 2013 at 3:02 pm #

                  Rudd will never stand for anything more than a minister -maybe, number two. Renee would feed his testicles to vultures; and standing as an Indie, I think will see him, I believe, without a job. The Griffithians will not vote for an Indie. Some bizarre party, like the DLP or Family First, maybe but not an Indie.

                  Albo will never be anything more than what he is now: a very competent counter-barker on the front bench, with some minor ministry.

                  The next PM will be a boy because Gillard has driven the sisterhood cause back to the dark ages; and it will probably be Rudd’s boy, Chriss Bowen.

                  I find myself wanting to blow my brains out of their box when I catch myself agreeing with the likes of Barnaby but I did go through such a moment last night, watching the bastard on Lateline, making mince meat out of Tony Burke. Shameful stuff. In what must have been less than 30 seconds, he delineated all of ALP’s legislative abortions when Alberici first asked Burke when did the rot begin and then turned to Barnaby. The list of abortions was fucking long and accurate.

                  It is a tough decision to make for them Hypo, to resign. I know it is the honourable decision to make, to turn their bum to her but it means also turning your bum to all the hard work you’ve done for that ministry, to the emotional investment you’ve made all that time, even to the extra dough and cudos that you’ve earned in it. So I wouldn’t hold that against them too much.
                  In any case, honour amongst pollies? Pull the other one!

                  I’d rather they’d stay in that ministry, speak their minds and force Gillard to pull her dagger out -once again. Eventually, the colleagues of the daggered ones would jack up and pull their own daggers out and then it wouldn’t be as timidly and as idiotically as Crean it was done by ALP’s Clown No 1 two days ago.



  1. You know it never ceases to amaze me how often I am called a ‘feminist’ when I talk about human rights and gender equality | Changing Women - March 22, 2013

    […] Feminism. Feminists. (noplaceforsheep.com) […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: