Men who hate women are everybody’s problem.

13 Jun

It’s no surprise that there dwell among us packs of males, whose feelings about women are so conflicted that while outwardly conducting apparently reasonable relationships with females close to them, they display the most base hostility to women they perceive as different, and in some way dangerous.

It also comes as no surprise that this hostility is expressed in sexual terms. Our breasts and our genitals serve as a focus for the fear and hatred felt towards us by some men, all of whom have mothers, some of whom have wives and female lovers, many of whom have daughters and sisters. Our body shapes and our faces are also the focus for this hatred, and our physical characteristics are almost always the first object of complaint when such a man feels himself provoked by something we have or have not done.

What ought to really terrify us, apart from the frequently repressed fear of going about our daily lives amongst these marauding packs, fear we must repress or we’ll never get out of our front doors, is that some of them will likely soon form the government of this country.

The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has served as a lightening rod for woman hatred , but anyone who thinks it’s only about her needs to think again. Any one of us who crosses any one of those men will be treated in exactly the same way, because that is what they do. They have no idea how to do anything else, and they don’t care to find out.

These men, and the women who support them, will have control over an array of legislation that directly affects women in terms of our reproductive health, and child care, for example. If the ALP defeat is as catastrophic as is forecast, there will be little in place to curb their enthusiasm for controlling our lives. We must not have men who hate us and the women who support them, wielding such power over us. Read this piece, by Lenore Taylor, on the possibilities.

This is Tony Abbott’s statement on abortion

If the last few days of ugliness have shown us anything, it’s that there are men who hate women and women who will make excuses for them, fast heading into a situation where they will have an alarming degree of control over our bodies and our lives.

I know there are men who are disgusted and repulsed by the attitudes and actions of some of their fellows. You have to speak up. This is not just a problem for women. Anything you can do and say. Whenever you can do and say it.

It is a bizarre and isolating feeling, to live in a body that can be so vilified simply because it is female. The slurs may be directed against Ms Gillard in these latest instances, but they threaten every woman. Everyone needs to take a stand against those men who need to belittle women, in order to feel good about themselves. It isn’t fun. It isn’t just a joke. It’s a sick and perverted masculinity.

Advertisements

121 Responses to “Men who hate women are everybody’s problem.”

  1. Catherine Manning June 13, 2013 at 2:56 pm #

    Spot on, Jennifer. Thank you.

    Like

    • Jennifer Wilson June 13, 2013 at 2:59 pm #

      Hi Catherine. It never ends.

      Like

      • Catherine Manning June 14, 2013 at 11:18 am #

        You’re right Jennifer – it seems like almost daily there’s another incident from either our policial, celebrity or sporting ‘leaders’, but I am encouraged that incidences like these are being called out a lot more these days. Some may think that we’ve lost our sense of humour, but the impacts of sexism are far-reaching. On the plus side (if you can call it that), these public examples provide a perfect opportunity for discussion with young people about how sexism contributes to their feeling of place and value in society. It never ceases to amaze me how many girls tell me through my work (seedworkshops.com.au) that to ‘shut them up’ and belittle them, their male friends say ‘go make me a sandwich, bitch’/ ‘get back in the kitchen’, etc. When they hear sexism being condemned through the media, it is empowering for girls. If we keep the spotlight on it , eventually sexism (even in the playground) will be decried as much as racism, and seen for what it is – bullying.

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey June 14, 2013 at 12:21 pm #

          Ok so I’ll own this and take my lashings for it if I’m wrong. I think you’re correct to say that sexism and racism are enablers for bullying almost on a level where bullying as a way of asserting some kind of superiority was the desired outcome and the ‘isms are just excuses. But we never consciously had anything like this exposure to those ideas, yet in my lived experience neither myself nor most men of my generation consider themselves either sexists or bullies.

          We’re also quite capable of identifying both such that we’d have to agree that there are a few too many unreconstructed examples of the patriarchal male gender lurking behind a thin veneer of political correctness. It’s just that I think things have changed for the better to the point where it really does become necessary to point out that these are stereotyped exceptions to a rule that no longer applies, and we’re getting a bit sick of being lumped in with them.

          If you want to tell me that subconsciously my inner neanderthal is inalienable then please know that this makes my heart sink because my fervent hope has always been that the process of change would have placed us beyond that sorry state of affairs by now.

          Like

          • Catherine Manning June 14, 2013 at 9:40 pm #

            I’m certainly not lumping anyone in any particular basket, hudsongodfrey. I think the idea that these are ‘stereotyped exceptions to a rule that no longer applies’ depends on where you live and who you associate with. I agree that as a whole, society is certainly less tolerant of sexism (and all the ‘isms), but there are still (too many) large pockets where all the ‘isms are rife.

            My point is that, like you, I am often shocked that we’re not beyond that sorry state of affairs, and that sexist slurs are directed at young women/girls from too many young men/boys, repeated from…(their fathers? enabling mothers?) and by some people in positions of power, as reported. The work of feminists past and present can’t be underestimated, but the advantage today is that social media has informed traditional mainstream media that sexism/gender equality are important issues for many of us, therefore there’s more reporting of it than ever before. Therefore, I am confident that we will see major change over the coming years.

            I don’t see this as a ‘battle of the sexes’, it’s a ‘battle against the sexists’. Big difference.

            Like

            • paul walter June 14, 2013 at 11:44 pm #

              Interesting, Catherine and hudsongodfrey’s side conversation.
              Like it or not, people will play little games of bluff and deception when they feel their position within a group is threatened. Intimidation, transgression and so on, attempts by oner side or the other to silence the opposition
              It;s not necessarily misogyny or man hating, other factors may be at play involving work promotions and prestige, but to call him a “bastard”or her a “bitch” may be just represent the fencing that goes on in interpersonal situations rather than a confirmed hate of the better half.
              If you keep you head,you can land a heavy blow, as Gillard did last year in catching Abbott out on sexism in parliament.
              Gilard did it perfectly and bought herself time, but the ALP itself failed to seize the moment in the lull after the knock down and the Coalition has gradually retrieved that ground instead.
              The ALP had to move quickly to resolve leadership and asylum seeker issues but couldn’t get there, by the look, for some reason they haven’t been able to silence opposition cat-calling because the public cant see through media spin as to what the obscured real issues are.
              I thought Catherine Manning’s concluding comment about fighting sexism and sexists quite right and it the ALP has needed to show similar imagination in its framing of issues for public consumption.

              Like

              • Catherine Manning June 15, 2013 at 12:43 am #

                I agree, Paul, that calling someone a bastard or a bitch doesn’t automatically mean there’s a sexist connotation, but combined with ‘make me a sandwich’, it certainly does. You don’t hear girls say to boys ‘get back to the kitchen, bastard’. That wouldn’t pack a punch as it was never their ‘place’. I’m also sure the boys who say it don’t hate the girls they’re saying it to, but it is part of the ‘macho’ culture that instills an attitude of superiority.

                When pointed out to boys, they’re often horrified to think they’ve been sexist toward their female friends. They just think they’re making a joke – being funny in front of their mates. But of course, the joke isn’t on them and isn’t harmless, as most girls feel uncomfortable and silenced.

                This is what is so baffling and troubling about the current sexism (and all the childish name calling, etc.). You’d expect that at that level of public office, they’d behave better than school kids. How do they get so far without being pulled up on it?

                Like

                • paul walter June 15, 2013 at 1:10 am #

                  Glad you wrote that, Catherine.
                  As for the adult level, an observant adult can correct a kid, but what do you do with the ilk of Sattler and Jones?
                  There is no acting out here but instead a twofold game involving the acting out of the obsolete, ingrained prejudices of the older person and their reactionary weltanschuang and a conscious attempt to use rudeness and pain to obscure real political issues.
                  Yet the public seems ready to vote for this?

                  Like

                  • paul walter June 15, 2013 at 1:20 am #

                    Then there is that Jedi Council thing involving the army.
                    How redneck can you get?
                    This too is an institution seemingly resistant to change or new ideas.
                    I can understand people in the armed forces wanting to bed each other, but what is this constant urge to subsequently humiliate also, from the males?
                    If a person has been generous enough to invite you as a partner in bed,,isn’t that an honour?
                    What a stab in the back to then make a fool of her.instead.

                    Like

                    • paul walter June 15, 2013 at 3:12 am #

                      Back for footnote,
                      Just caught up on the Gillard”menu” story. You have to wonder at the grudge the Sattler types are into.
                      The lack of respect is deliberate and sexist politics of the worst sort, the same sort of bigoted garbage you’d get out of the Klan on race politics.
                      All to divert attention away from things we are not to be told about.
                      All
                      I can say is,perhaps there is some thing wrong with the Australian public- it’s been going for a while and sado poltics seems to appeal to the right and the public,as we see also with asylum seekers,.enviro and social policy.
                      As I’ve said before,you’d see the traits in the seventeenth century around the parish pump,stocks,or a witch dunking and a roar from those at those at the foot of the gallows.
                      And as the sound of jackboots marching from the nineteen thirties into our era forewarns, maybe the last of barbarity has not been seen off yet.

                      Like

                    • Catherine Manning June 15, 2013 at 11:34 am #

                      You may be right, Paul – maybe it is a deliberate attempt to shift the focus away from other important issues as the election looms, but do you really think they’re so clever as to have orchestrated all of this? If so, I think you’re giving them too much credit! If you are right, wouldn’t it be folly to risk alienating at least half of your constituents? It’s no trivial issue, and as I said earlier, social media has shown that there’s huge and growing support for gender issues to be addressed. I think that when the pressure’s on, people show their true colours. These men have been caught out giving us a glimpse of their true colours because they’re either scared of losing any control/power – especially to a woman/women, or so confident and lost in their own ego, that they’re totally out of touch.

                      All of these incidences – from politicians, media commentators, armed forces and sporting leaders (through to extreme misogynists like Adrian Bayley), prove that negative attitudes toward women are still persistent in our culture. If they did deliberately choose sexism as a distraction, they’re more incompetent than I thought.

                      Like

                    • hudsongodfrey June 15, 2013 at 12:44 pm #

                      On a cynical view its just the unreconstructed bullies in the world circling the drain like vultures on the scent of Gillard’s political fortunes slipping away from her.

                      Radio shock jocks are only the visible tip of a predilection to visceral off the cuff responses that betray ingrained callousness among solipsists who think an opinion is worthy of airing because its theirs, not because it is in any way thoughtful, well informed or otherwise imbued with the slightest modicum of merit.

                      And they don’t call it the yellow press for nothing, a glance at a transcript or listen to audio of the interview in question will show Sattler repeatedly hiding behind lame justification for his prurience, because undefined “others” have said things….

                      Like

                • Marilyn June 15, 2013 at 4:25 pm #

                  But we do that and more. These days girls are allowed to even tell boys to fuck off.

                  And you insult school kids by claiming our pollies are behaving like them.

                  Like

                  • paul walter June 15, 2013 at 10:45 pm #

                    It is true that girls can tell boys to fuck off, but that’s not very decorous behaviour from a nice young Australian girl.
                    Consider:
                    Young Australian gentleman: ” Thou art a rose, how I yearn we should frolic in the moonlight”
                    Young lady ( vivaciously):
                    “Thou may goest where thou will”.

                    Like

                  • Catherine Manning June 16, 2013 at 11:39 am #

                    Haha – true, Marilyn. Of course I don’t mean that all school kids behave as poorly as our politicians, but our pollies behaviour is too often reminiscent of what we’re accustomed to seeing in the playground. Usually, by adulthood, we’ve been hauled to the Principal’s office and naughty corner enough to learn some manners, at least!

                    Like

            • hudsongodfrey June 15, 2013 at 12:30 pm #

              Thanks for that reply, and no I didn’t mean to infer that you were the one lumping us all into one basket. But sometimes, especially when there are high profile cases of rape or violence against women such as the Castro thing in the US and Jill Meagher of course, people who are well intended in the search for palliatives fall back to using stereotypes and the presumptuous language that Jennifer has been calling them out on in a couple of recent posts.

              In fact I almost wanted to point out some of the articles that did rankle, but I think that might be unfair because I’m sure you don’t want to be put in a position where you have to take sides. Suffice to say one commentator ticked me off by preemptively characterising anyone who might disagree with her as “trolls who turn up in social media pages”. I think our PM does that sometimes too, and neither are without some justification. But then if I want to use social media to say the opposite then maybe it shouldn’t be devalued.

              ~

              On the subject of your work with kids I hope the attached will both amuse and that I can use it to bring out part of what I think is the point….

              http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/toddler-expecting-iron-man-cries-after-robert-downey-jnr-shows-up-instead/story-e6frfmqi-1226663720689

              I like kids, I used to be one, apart from that my expertise is pretty limited, but what I see it the article is the charming naivety of a kid who doesn’t know better than to be a bit selfish in a social situation. Some of the stuff you’re referencing about even older kids being quite cruelly sexist may also some out of crude and unfiltered expectations that in the balance of nature versus nurture debate we’re generally more likely than not to to put down to the latter. Or at least what I mean is that if they’re not doing it by nature then my lived experience is one of being somewhat nurtured into sexism and equally nurtured back out of it. And not to labor it too much I think we’re nurtured or perhaps just persuaded to continually refine and revise our views as part of an ongoing process throughout adulthood. It’s so important that we keep listening to that aptly described conversation in “the battle against sexism”.

              ~

              If you want to tackle a thornier question sometime then what do you think of sex segregated schools? I went to one and I think they were the biggest purveyors of what I only later recognised were patriarchal attitudes that we probably have in our society. Like many people who find those teenage school years to be a trial I didn’t fit in and later threw off both the sexism and the religion they tried in instill in me. But it makes me wonder whether the difference between how different people come through those experiences could be down to something as simple as whether they’re popular or not. Again its something that could tie in with nature/nurture, positive and negative associations etc….

              Like

      • doug quixote June 14, 2013 at 7:35 pm #

        The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. The women’s movement, like the trade unions, have tended to sit on their laurels. The achievements of the seventies and eighties are still with us, but the conservatives and reactionaries would like to drive back into the fifties, if not the nineteenth century.

        Keep fighting the fight, Jennifer.

        Like

    • helvityni June 13, 2013 at 5:08 pm #

      I cried yesterday when all this ugliness was exposed. I was even more revolted realising it came from men who aspire to be our leaders, and to add to the insult seeing women defending this kind of behaviour. Janet Albrechtsen doing it on ABC, what kind of a role model is to her daughters.
      And before anyone jumps on me for saying this only because I’m a Labor supporter, I can say that I would defend Julie Bishop if such ugly words were used to abuse her just because she is a woman.

      I feel all Australian women were publicly dirtied…yet some of you thought it was funny, you were laughing with your abusers…

      Like

      • Marilyn June 13, 2013 at 5:13 pm #

        http://thestringer.com.au/prime-minister-laps-up-welcome-but-breaks-funding-promise/#.UblguU0iMcQ

        But do you feel dirty about this Helvi? Do you feel dirty about not sending out rescue parties for 46 hours because they are only reffos? Do you feel dirty about Gillard ordering 200-400 refugees to be deported without due process to win the racist vote.

        Why is reducing all men who are liberals to the status of “‘blue ties”” not a hatred?

        The liberal member for my district is a man who took in hundreds of Hazara refugees in his towns, helped them got jobs, appealed for many of them to have permanent residence – the women in parliament today with only 2 exceptions are happy to trade and traffic them, jail them, torture them and let them drown.

        Fair dinkum, a lot of frigging hooey about not much.

        Men do not have to like or love women, if they don’t that is not abusive, it is human nature.

        Women do not have to love men, that is also not abusive.,

        But for Gillard to play the sexism card again BEFORE THE FRIGGING MENU WAS SHOWN, is just pathetic.

        Like

    • hudsongodfrey June 13, 2013 at 7:26 pm #

      Except for a couple of tiny quibbles I’d like to tease out….

      Women on the anti-abortion religious right (no names or initials needed I’m sure), are possibly just as troubling as the men can be.

      and

      If Gillard is found to be playing the gender card as a political ploy, (tell me it isn’t true), then doesn’t it betray the authentic concerns of feminists?

      Like

      • Marilyn June 13, 2013 at 10:13 pm #

        She is not a feminist, she is kept in her job by the hard right homophobic, anti-abortion, refugee bashing racists and lunatic Christian lobby and they are ALL FRIGGING MEN.

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey June 13, 2013 at 11:45 pm #

          Do the Names Hanson and Reist mean anything to you?

          Like

          • Marilyn June 14, 2013 at 6:01 pm #

            Yes, and Ursula Stephens in the ALP, Ms Polley in the ALP and all the other far right women in the ALP who refuse to accept the right to choose.

            Like

            • hudsongodfrey June 14, 2013 at 7:30 pm #

              The only difference is that I’ve never heard of them or from them on any issue.

              Like

              • Marilyn June 15, 2013 at 4:27 pm #

                They both rabidly oppose gay marriage and opposed the abortion drug, they are hard right catholics.

                Helen Polleys husband has been an MP in Tassie for decades and just resigned because they have become too left wing.

                Like

                • hudsongodfrey June 15, 2013 at 4:32 pm #

                  Thanks Marilyn, not to insult your efforts to clarify I had already googled, but what I meant was that before I googled I hadn’t heard of them because they’re simply not making the kind of impact on public discourse around these issues that the others I mentioned are.

                  Like

      • Jennifer Wilson June 14, 2013 at 10:00 am #

        I don’t know how we’d ever establish the PM’s motives. She is a politician so I assume her primary motives are political.

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey June 14, 2013 at 10:46 am #

          Yes I know, so do I.

          It just seems too cynical to say that if Gillard’s failing credibility becomes inextricably linked with the stance she took against misogyny it means that her seemingly inevitable political demise also looms as a victory for patriarchal values and those of the religious right over her atheism.

          Every politician has to go at some time, and I hope that when she does her contributions as a woman and as our first atheist Prime Minister as well are taken as signs of what’s possible for those to follow.

          Like

          • doug quixote June 14, 2013 at 7:38 pm #

            Personally I’d like her to remain Prime Minister for another six years or so, to hand over to the next generation; who knows, the other side might even have an electable leader by then. 🙂

            Like

            • hudsongodfrey June 14, 2013 at 8:15 pm #

              I really like your optimism but it’d want to be the greatest comeback since Lazarus.

              Like

  2. Anonymous June 13, 2013 at 3:31 pm #

    This needs to be addressed on both sides of the gender fence

    Like

  3. samjandwich June 13, 2013 at 4:59 pm #

    My colleagues and I were talking about this yesterday when we first heard about Mal Brough and his menu. It’s entirely possible to drift blithely along thinking that gender equality is a given, and it’s only when confronted with material like that, and the subsequent reaction from the various players, that you get to understand just how dire the situation still is.

    I think the term “these people” is quite apt here, and what strikes me is that when you hear these people talk about gender issues, or their views about women, it becomes obvious just how completely off the planet they are. They just don’t even get it that they’re being offensive.

    Which makes me wonder whether attitudes can ever be changed. Perhaps this contingent of the boys’ club will always exist. perhaps these people are imbued with some sort of gender autism. And perhaps that suggests that it is in fact an endless political struggle, rather than a process of social change. Yikes!

    Like

    • Marilyn June 13, 2013 at 5:14 pm #

      Of course they are, it’s nothing new. But there is a whole cadre of women who hate me too.

      So what?

      Like

      • samjandwich June 13, 2013 at 8:04 pm #

        Do they hate you just because you’re female though?

        Marylin I will of course accept the possibility that the combination of the things you say *and* the fact that you’re a woman might cause a not-insignificant number of people to see you in a different light than if a man were saying the same things.

        But in answer to your question, that’s entirely their problem, not yours. If you say things that force people to find fault in themselves then you’re bound to receive some vitriol in return, because a lot of people can’t take that sort of treatment.

        I must say though I think you’re being pretty unfair on Helvi. Just because someone expresses an opinion about one thing and not another, doesn’t mean they don’t care equally if not more about the thing they don’t talk about. Some people might be better than others at reading others’ thoughts, but if anyone assumes they can do so completely then there would hardly be any point in ever talking to anybody else.

        Which kind of suits me I have to say. I remember visiting the solitary confinement cells in Port Arthur and thinking it sounded just like my idea of a good time… but I’m sure there’s a downside I haven’t anticipated.

        Like

        • Marilyn June 13, 2013 at 10:14 pm #

          I meant to say there are women who hate MEN, not me. Of course there are women who hate me because I tell the vicious truth about their racist, heartless so called leader and it is a mirror to their own worlds and thoughts that they simply do not like and cannot accept.

          Like

          • samjandwich June 14, 2013 at 12:46 pm #

            Hah! Oh well, certainly goes to show how hung-up I am about self-deprecation, from others as much as from myself.

            Like

          • hudsongodfrey June 14, 2013 at 1:14 pm #

            Fine but how do we get past hating one another if it leads us to this point where we say people “simply do not like and cannot accept” our opinions, which is good as an admission that we just refuse to listen to one another.

            Like

      • doug quixote June 13, 2013 at 8:08 pm #

        LOL!

        Like

      • paul walter June 14, 2013 at 1:24 am #

        No one hates you, it’s the aggressiveness and talking down to other people.
        You could learn a lot about the skills of communication from Helvi, Marilyn.

        Like

        • Marilyn June 14, 2013 at 6:03 pm #

          Me aggressive, get a life Paul. I am about as fucking aggressive as a wet lettuce.

          I just have very strong believes, that is not aggressive.

          And Helvi is supporting a racist, facist, bigoted coward.

          Like

  4. Garpal Gumnut June 13, 2013 at 6:17 pm #

    Much in that post with which I agree, and much with which I don’t. My first response Jennifer is, ” It depends”, and secondly to Marilyn, it is good to see and to understand that your fierce opinions are heartfelt and not cognitively biased. Thirdly, Testosterone is a difficult compound to manage effectively and fairly in mammals, and lastly misogynist muppets know no Political Party bounds, Mao and the Kennedy Clan being good examples.

    Like

    • hudsongodfrey June 13, 2013 at 7:18 pm #

      Not to mention the ADF eh Gumnut!

      Like

      • Garpal Gumnut June 13, 2013 at 9:00 pm #

        Not enough info so far, I tend to wait in situations like this. One spends much time sitting about in an Army.

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey June 13, 2013 at 11:42 pm #

          Polishing one’s social skills no doubt 😉

          Like

    • Marilyn June 13, 2013 at 7:23 pm #

      I have never been cognatively biased about anything. I am a human rights defender and those demonised as men in blue ties by a woman have the same rights as women.

      Like

      • doug quixote June 13, 2013 at 8:07 pm #

        Cognitively challenged, definitely.

        Like

        • Marilyn June 13, 2013 at 10:15 pm #

          You are a fucking moron Doug.

          Like

          • doug quixote June 14, 2013 at 7:30 pm #

            Change the record once in a while. Show us that you are not cognitively challenged.

            Like

        • paul walter June 14, 2013 at 1:26 am #

          No, Marilyn got it right there.

          Like

      • Garpal Gumnut June 13, 2013 at 9:01 pm #

        At last we agree.

        Like

        • Garpal Gumnut June 13, 2013 at 9:04 pm #

          Sorry , agree with you Marilyn not Doug. Jeez this blog buggers up replies.

          Like

          • hudsongodfrey June 13, 2013 at 11:50 pm #

            Nah I think you’ll find there’s room to agree with both of ’em if it’s based on this series of posts alone!

            Like

        • doug quixote June 15, 2013 at 8:26 am #

          What are you agreeing with? Marilyn’s statement of the fucking obvious? And I was almost persuaded you had reformed.

          Like

    • gerard oosterman June 13, 2013 at 7:25 pm #

      Well, I certainly would not like to be at the mercy of Albrechtsen’s testosterone. She showed her clear support for the Broughs of this world on 7.30 last night. I suspect she will support anything against her own sex, especially Gillard.

      Like

      • Garpal Gumnut June 13, 2013 at 9:02 pm #

        Politics Gerard, politics, try and rise above it. I doubt you would survive JA’s testosterone.

        Like

    • Jennifer Wilson June 14, 2013 at 10:02 am #

      Your last point is so true, unfortunately Garpal. At the moment though, it seems to be most publicly expressed by conservatives. Except of course for the army, which became public after I wrote this post.

      Like

      • Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumpp) June 14, 2013 at 1:40 pm #

        Jennifer Commander Dr Wilson HMF (to accord her her ‘Sheep Lite’ [Twitter] title) says:

        “… Except of course for the army, which
        became public after I wrote this post.”

        On the evening of Sunday last (a long weekend in NSW), I fielded a telephone survey call on my landline. Being in a good mood, I decided to go along with the opinion surveyor, and happily told him what I really thought on many questions. It was clearly a survey designed to determine what was gaining traction, politically, with respect to issues and some personalities, and what was not.

        One name put up in search of comment that at the time seemed to be completely out of context was that of …… Steven Smith!

        One name never mentioned by the researcher at any time, was that of Tony Abbott, whereas that of Joe Hockey was.

        This week we were treated to ‘menugate’, the hard copy for which, we are informed, has been around since Easter: I have called it ‘A Menu Unbecoming’, for reasons I would hope to be obvious, quite deliberately. Thus:

        How serendipitous it has been, should there have been any orchestration of first ‘Apegate’, and now ‘Menugate’, that one of the Dramatis Personae of the latter is Mal Brough, who in a former existence held a commission in the army!

        Things, politically speaking, have lately looked to be getting a bit out of hand here (in Oz) and there (somewhere else). The Manning trial is a snowballing farce, and it looks more and more as though Assange will be elected to the Senate. And all the time Julia being off-side with the voters and, increasingly, her bemused Parliamentary party members. Something needed/needs to be done.

        Watching out for roaring mice, and herds of lemmings!

        Like

  5. Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumpp) June 13, 2013 at 6:32 pm #

    Already trying to do a bit.

    Perhaps Margo does not view me as a reliable source with regard to this matter. I don’t suppose there is any reason why she should, but I am pretty sure I correctly understood my various Commanding Officers’ attitudes over the years. Malcolm Farr’s credibility wouldn’t be a problem, I shouldn’t think. Nor Ian Causley’s. See: https://noplaceforsheep.com/2012/12/13/the-hospital-and-the-radio-station-when-management-fails-who-pays-the-price/#comment-59866

    It appears Brough sought to have Wyatt Roy’s pre-selection for Longman set aside in the run-up to the 2010 Federal elections, once he, Brough, had re-joined the LNP. The hide!

    Like

    • paul walter June 14, 2013 at 1:31 am #

      Meanwhile, back at the ranch.. The public don’t understand the realities without spin.
      To a truly wise being we’d be as useful as the flea-ridden, scabies infected peasants of the sixteenth century- how risible we’d be.

      Like

  6. hudsongodfrey June 13, 2013 at 7:15 pm #

    If Gillard was looking to respond to the Madigan Bill when she delivered the Blue Tie speech then I suppose there’s a context that may have been overlooked.

    Is this just yellow press at work?

    If it isn’t then it would made sense to hear Ms Gillard say that she’s actually going to oppose the Madigan bill rather than roll over on it as she appears to have done on the Same Sex Marriage Issue.

    As for the idea of gender selection, I don’t like it. As a matter of fact I suspect that I’m not entirely happy with any number of reasons for having abortions. Yet at some point in our lives we’ve all had to decide who we really trust with making these decisions and I can’t see any way of dissociating reproductive choice from the woman whose rights and responsibility it pertains to. I hope I really don’t need to restate all the arguments for supporting choice here of all places. The alternative is, as Jennifer says, to rather arbitrarily place that control in the hands of third parties. She says “men’, but I don’t think that gender really matters that much when several women who take up the religious rights’ cause in this vein are probably even worse.

    Taken separately however the lived experience of rarely seeing men disadvantaged by their gender in the way that women clearly are understandably translates quite readily to fear of blokes in blue ties. So it really matters even more what Gillard is responding to, because to manipulate authentic feminist sentiment for political purposes would be a great pity.

    After all this really is another “them and us” kind of issue if we’re willing to let it be. Though I think that if we do the we could be naively playing into the hands of politicians who simply love any such issue where they can corral the support of any minority into a convenient voting bloc, often through the use of dog whistle politics. We need look no further than Abbott in opposition for a prizewinning example of how it’s done.

    So much as I do sympathise with women’s fears and frustrations in the face of a probable Abbott government, and far from making excuses for those whose views repulse us, I think both men and women of sound judgement ought first and foremost to be calling them out in the context of our demands for a more mature conversation that less resembles the same kind of rhetoric that’s been used to drag us all down to this miserable level in the first place.

    Like

    • Marilyn June 13, 2013 at 7:24 pm #

      The sick joke Husdon is that Gillard is more than happy to persecute some women in the community and suck up to old right wing men to keep her job.

      I find her frankly an embarrassment.

      Like

      • hudsongodfrey June 13, 2013 at 7:34 pm #

        You may be right, but unless you’re able to back those assertions with a persuasive raft of evidence then I think it misses the point.

        Sure there are cases where she’s let us all down but I think the gender bias angle has already been overplayed for all it’s worth. I’m arguing instead that any conversation that depends heavily on “them and us” is inherently tainted with the suspicion of manipulative intent in the runup to an election. Is it not?

        Like

        • Marilyn June 13, 2013 at 10:17 pm #

          It is Joe De Bruyn, Don Farrell, David Feeney, Bill Shorten and the Christian lobby keeping Gillard in the job and they are the same men she relies on to keep the job she stole thanks to them.

          For god’s sake the proof is there to see.

          Like

          • hudsongodfrey June 13, 2013 at 11:47 pm #

            There’s no god Marilyn, and what you’re seeing in the supposed links between Gillard and some of these characters is also the product of an overactive imagination.

            Like

          • paul walter June 14, 2013 at 1:34 am #

            Then why don’t you spend a tenth as much time showing themor Abbott up as you do Gillard

            Like

            • Marilyn June 14, 2013 at 6:05 pm #

              Because Paul I have told you a million times that Abbott is not the fucking PM and he has no fucking power other than a big mouth.

              I also happen to believe he is a non person and I don’t talk about non people.

              Like

              • doug quixote June 14, 2013 at 7:28 pm #

                Keep it up, and that non person may well be Prime Minister.

                And speaking of fucking big mouths . . .

                Like

                • Marilyn June 15, 2013 at 6:14 am #

                  http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2013/06/14/321959_ntnews.html

                  WEll I rest my case you moron.

                  Like

                  • doug quixote June 15, 2013 at 8:22 am #

                    What case are you resting? It is about time you gave it a rest.

                    The link is interesting in that DIAC and the Navy had obviously been tracking the boat for some time.

                    The first contact should be with trained personnel to assess whether those on board were healthy, ie not carrying disease and to ascertain their intentions. The Navy and DIAC do not want amateurs getting involved unless there is a clear emergency.

                    The fishermen’s attitudes are to be praised; it makes a change from the usual.

                    Like

                    • Marilyn June 15, 2013 at 4:29 pm #

                      There was a fucking clear emergency and BPC did nothing at all about it.

                      Too bad for the cowards that Mark took photos.

                      Like

                    • doug quixote June 15, 2013 at 6:00 pm #

                      Which photo shows that there was an emergency? Do you have a link? The photos and video in your link above showed men waving in friendly fashion, not seeking help in any emergency.

                      Like

    • Jennifer Wilson June 14, 2013 at 10:05 am #

      I doubt Gillard was responding to Madigan bill. The ALP haven’t taken any position on it, see Lenore Taylor’s piece. It’s a problem for Gillard as some of those who supported her for leadership are anti abortion, & there is the Labor for Life faction, including Tony Burke, who are anti choice. Or “birth forcers” as I read the other day!

      Like

      • paul walter June 14, 2013 at 10:50 am #

        People like the Polleys of Tasmania. One is a Senator, the other an MHR; both are Harradine ALP right types apparently cheer squadding for Gunns.
        The right faction has showed it is prepared to run the ALP into the ground rather than allow democratisation of Labor. Apart from the Coalition,the ALP loaded is loaded with Lyons Forum material. They often seems crass and materialistic people and yet a powerful stream of Irish Christianity of a vaguely humanist type runs through the Movement. They are working class social conservative and may well at times be more comfortable with Abbott or Howard, Hockey or Bishop than us.

        Like

        • Marilyn June 15, 2013 at 4:30 pm #

          Yeah, I often wonder why most of them don’t just join the liberal party because they have nothing to do with the labor party I used to admire back in the dark ages when woolly mammoths roamed the courtyards.

          Like

      • hudsongodfrey June 14, 2013 at 10:56 am #

        Yes I was only referring to the Madigan bill by way of reference to Lenore Taylor’s article which you linked….

        I see also that Leslie Cannold has this piece out today on Farifax….

        http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/so-what-are-your-plans-for-abortion-mr-abbott-20130613-2o6u6.html

        That’s always been my sticking point against the anti-choice lobby. How could I ever force someone to carry to term against their will. I’m persuaded by the science as a rational person, but I’m emotionally confronted by what kind of person it makes me if I deign to forcibly divest women of moral agency over their reproductive rights.

        I don’t know how the Prime Minister thinks either but with the buzzards gathering and nothing much to lose by it maybe I’d be standing up for principles like these and going down swinging against the likes of Madigan.

        There’s that thing so called lame duck Presidents try to do during their last months in office of bringing in more progressive measures designed to cement their legacy as reformers. I guess what I’m saying is that I think under the circumstances we could draw up a wish list for Ms Gillard.

        Like

      • paul walter June 14, 2013 at 1:53 pm #

        Yes, Cannold gives it short service. It;s a sane article exposing yet another conservative fertility issue reduced to silliness. All the ingredients are present.
        There is the envy factor evoking medical costs. There is a sense of Cannold’s appreciation of US politics in the background and also possibly a sense of perplexity that Australian would want to vote against class interest for a wingnut like the Abbott ( and his two Bishops ).
        So it bespeaks the sado element hudsongoodfrey alluded to; The strapping down of women and the hint of restraint as application of processes relating to their bodies are applied regardless of permission has its parallels offshore.

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey June 14, 2013 at 3:22 pm #

          To be fair I gather that at least one of those Bishops isn’t religious despite keeping company with the mad monk. Fairness at the outset is at the very least a way for any of us to avoid embarrassment if challenged. It’s a pity because I thought it was a cool line to use, but maybe it is a touch misdirected.

          Like

  7. doug quixote June 13, 2013 at 8:06 pm #

    I am disgusted and repulsed. One does not have to be a woman to see sexism and misogyny.

    It seems to reside especially in the hearts and minds of the conservatives, and no-one should be surprised that it has a home in the rag-tag dregs of Howard’s last ministry.

    The very same rag-tag dregs pretending to be an alternative government.

    Not just their throwback leader, but them as a body. If any of them are not, they should speak up. Now. And remove the throwback before he can do real damage.

    Like

    • gerard oosterman June 13, 2013 at 8:59 pm #

      I agree Doug quixote;
      There seems to be a correlation between the sexism of the conservatives going hand in hand with also being climate change denialists or skeptics. Just compare the responses on The Drum and sort responses by supporting the NLP in conjunction being strongly against climate change and anti ALP
      It ought to be good subject for someone keen to obtain a PhD.

      Like

      • gerard oosterman June 13, 2013 at 9:03 pm #

        LNP Gerard. Get your facts right.

        Like

      • Garpal Gumnut June 13, 2013 at 9:07 pm #

        Just rise above your prejudices about ALP vs LNP Gerard, and think, and give us of your best, rather than poor comment available on a thousand tweets on auspol. And if a dollar more would never be spent on bludging PhD’s confirming past irrelevancies it would not cost me one tear.

        Like

      • Marilyn June 14, 2013 at 6:07 pm #

        But why isn’t it sexist for a stupid woman to claim we all have to be terrified of men in blue ties as if all men in blue ties want to inspect our wombs and silence our voices.

        Like

    • helvityni June 13, 2013 at 9:06 pm #

      Misogyny happens in many places,in churches,in schools, at home, father passing it to son, in communist China, in India, in Oz politics…
      Where ever, it’s bad, and it should not be condoned, not taken as a harmless joke….

      This time it seems to be rampant among Coalition politicians…yes? I don’t see Swan or Combet , Rudd or Albanese putting women down, making fun of them in a degrading sexual way .Can you?

      Liberal women like JA and others ought to condemn it, for women’s sake…never mind where these women stand politically, if they are black or white, Aussies or foreign…

      Like

      • Marilyn June 13, 2013 at 10:18 pm #

        You didn’t hear the way those cowards in the ALP and LNP talked to and about democrats women and now Greens women did you?

        The menu was not real.

        Get over it.

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey June 14, 2013 at 12:09 am #

          Shock horror the menu wasn’t real…. Gosh! We all thought that KFC really served that dish!

          Of course the menu was fake!

          The sentiments were not.That’s the problem.

          You might argue that it was the same problem in the Slipper instance. But only if you were offended by what was said. I wasn’t particularly. His real crime was being unfunny. This was never funny for a whole range of reasons, but mainly because on paper it just came out tasteless.

          I could tell you a joke that Comedian Jimmy Carr uses right at the opening of one of his shows. It’s a rape joke. And it is funny to most audiences because it’s well written if, and only if, the delivery is perfectly pitched and perfectly timed.

          We often forgive humour that doesn’t work, because comedy is really hard, but only if we sense that the intent was to entertain and amuse without being vindictive or demeaning in the process.

          That’s the difference. Political spin doesn’t come into it. Comedy is too visceral for that.

          Like

          • Marilyn June 15, 2013 at 5:35 pm #

            I think in the scheme of things this is a bit like the statement today about Syria. The US claims they have to intervene because 130 people might have been killed by sarin gas, but they ignore the other 93,000 blasted to bits on both sides with conventional weapons.

            And Australia pretends that we have to punish 40,000 refugees who didn’t drown because some did after we let them.

            Proportion is all. Whinging about a frigging plagiarised menu that was directed at Hilary Clinton a decade or so ago while jailing thousands of women and kids without charge or trial is fucking ludicrous.

            While plunging tens of thousands of single parents and their kids into dire poverty for no reason we whinge about blue ties, get over it.

            Like

            • hudsongodfrey June 15, 2013 at 7:15 pm #

              So lets agree that the menu is a distraction and move onto the real nub of the matter which is that bad in parts as Labor is the Liberals on this and the other main issue that concerns you, the refugee situation, are appreciably worse.

              It’s not an argument where the one can be used to justify excessive claims about the other, but it is nevertheless true that Abbotts ideas about reproductive rights and women’s role in society are on a par with the ramblings of some of the most unreconstructed members of the religious right. Surely you’re not able to simply ignore those facts?

              Like

      • paul walter June 14, 2013 at 1:37 am #

        J A, an example of stereotype- much brawn and ego, little brains or comprehension- Abbott clone.

        Like

  8. Garpal Gumnut June 13, 2013 at 8:58 pm #

    The Sattler radio 6PR interview with JG tonight was disgraceful. Is it typical of all men? I would wager that if he had interviewed JG publicly in any venue with a majority male audience he would have been thrashed physically. Nutjobs exist, the media magnify them. Should we take our opinion of men and women, misogyny and misandry, from politicians and the media, would be a better question? Or from each other, trying to understand how it is to live in another person’s skin?

    Like

    • Jennifer Wilson June 14, 2013 at 10:07 am #

      No it isn’t typical of all men. I don’t know any man in my circle who would be anything but disgusted & repulsed by all of this stuff.

      Like

      • hudsongodfrey June 14, 2013 at 11:08 am #

        Not only isn’t it typical of all men but if we’re honest then we’re getting a bit tired of having to defend against the negative stereotype. I find it depressing that some women actually feel so little has been achieved in the name of feminism that they’re still playing upon that particular “them and us” paradigm.

        I’m not saying that patriarchy doesn’t exist in some reduced capacity. I’m just saying that as it becomes the exception rather than the rule then at some point a different set of assumptions about what men are predominantly about has to apply. Doesn’t it?

        Like

    • Marilyn June 15, 2013 at 6:42 pm #

      But Fairfax kept the rancid clown on after he was outed for racism over and over again.

      Like

  9. paul walter June 14, 2013 at 1:58 am #

    I almost ignored it after the first para. It seemed to smack of everything I loath in female writing.
    The arbitrarily excluding “us/ we”, with “them” out there, skulking in “packs” obscured by the twilight. For me the paydirt came with the second half.
    It hung sweetly on the insight concerning ‘patriarchy’ identified as a form of authoritarian reactive behaviour also identifiable in women- more a mode for a hopelessly incomplete society and culture that can’t see itself as others would see it.to be able to move on.
    Yes.
    We are challenged by something ugly with a life of its own long encouraged by miserable creatures like Murdoch and the Koch bros, people who cant derive satisfaction through ordinary human relations and instead seek the unsatisfying allure and charms of power.
    Its like what I’ve told a dear friend so many time as to asylum-seekers. Asylum seekers can indeed can be regarded as a case history exemplar for modern fascism, but it is also only one symptom of many for that disease and only treating the symptoms is sometimes not sufficient.

    Like

    • Jennifer Wilson June 14, 2013 at 10:11 am #

      I know what you mean, PW. However, from my woman’s POV men such as those who’ve perpetrated these latest offences are “them.” They do operate in packs. They do represent a perverted masculinity that is dangerous for me.

      Like

      • paul walter June 14, 2013 at 10:39 am #

        No argument from me. A harsh outlook Dickens could write a novel.

        Like

  10. Colin Mackay June 14, 2013 at 5:54 am #

    Reblogged this on Colin's Folly.

    Like

  11. Darrell June 14, 2013 at 10:24 am #

    Thanks Jennifer.. Isn’t all this rather interesting coming on the heels of the recent Adam Goode’s incidents.. And, so here is my response from my daily astro life journal, with some interesting notes on the meaning of all this from Dane Rudhyar’s book ‘An Astrological Mandala: The Cycle of Transformation & It’s 360 Symbolic Phases’..

    Meanwhile it’s now 9.24am.. & here I am also having just finished reading the latest blog by Jennifer at her blog No Place For Sheep, on the recent revelation of a menu at a Liberal-National Party Fundraiser in Queensland denigrating the female body of Prime Minister Julia Gillard, & also of course denigrating all women in general.. And, this too hot on the heels of the racial slurs against aboriginal AFL star Adam Goodes. And, of course they were all only doing it as a joke, or as in the case of the young girl “she didn’t know” calling someone an ape was offensive etc…. And, all this I find also deeply interesting with my also just a few minutes ago also reading on the anti-slavery novel ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ that was mentioned earlier on Radio 1RPH, mentioning the that today was the birthday Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of this book. And, meanwhile all this while also listening to anther reading from Radio 1RPH from the ACT Older Driver’s Handbook.. While I also once again turn to note the symbol for the Ascendant at this time, beginning at *22degCan.. A YOUNG WOMAN AWAITING A SAILBOAT.. The longing for transcendent happiness in the Soul opened to great dreams..

    From the unconscious beyond, the concretisation of a Spiritual image – Spiritual because it is impelled by the “Wind,” pneuma or Spirit – is hoped for & expected. The Beloved may come – not in a glittering opera house, but in the silence of the inner sea of Consciousness.. At this second stage of the five-fold sequence the contrast with the first is strongly marked. Will the great dream become concrete? Will the emotion ready to well up in response to the Advent have its chance? Will the EXPECTENCY of the Eternal Feminine be rewarded with reality…

    While also moving towards the next degree, at *23degCan.. THE MEETING A LITERARY SOCIETY.. An objective & critical approach to the common factors in our Culture & to its psychological problems..

    The poets novelists & critics of a Society represent the endeavour by specially sensitive & intellectually gifted individuals to give form & meaning to the most characteristic situations & interpersonal relationships of their Society & Culture. They mirror Society & at the same time guide its development. It is their function to discuss the significance of what is, & to image what might be. They are both barometers & thermostats, reflectors & projectors of as yet mostly unconscious images..

    With this third stage we reach the level of INTELLECTUALISATION. Here the individual operates both as an objective mind & an emotional participant in the events & hopes of his or her day. He or she makes concrete what to most people may be only a subconscious aspiration or urge…

    While I also turn back to note the previous symbol, in this sequence of three, that shows where all this is coming from.. at *21degCan.. A FAMOUS SINGER IS PROVING HER VIRTUOSITY DURING AN OPERATIC PERFORMANCE.. The emotional reward accompanying Cultural excellence..

    If anything represents the type of response that a well-developed Society gives to the individual who successfully pours his or her energy into skilful externalisation of the great images of its Culture, it is the opera. The operatic prima donna is not merely a lonely performer, like the piano virtuoso, he or she is the Star in a Collective effort. The opera is not only music, but a story, a mythos, which embodies some of the most basic images & emotions characterising the Culture that gave it birth. Euro-American Culture is indeed extolled – or condemned – by its operas & their lurid & tragic passions. It is interesting to compare opera with the equivalent type of Social performances & their topics in India, Java, or Tibet..

    At this first stage of the twenty-third five-fold sequence of cyclic phases we find the drive towards individualisation by means of concrete forms of Cultural activity glorified in Social & financial success. In its deepest sense the symbol refers to THE PRICE OF SUCCESS – for the individual, as well for the Collectivity acclaiming him or her. What is success really worth? A question few people ask…

    Like

  12. dariancase June 14, 2013 at 10:24 am #

    Reblogged this on dariancase.

    Like

  13. doug quixote June 15, 2013 at 8:38 am #

    Without wanting to defend Sattler it seems an overreaction to sack him, unless there are other issues behind the scenes : for example, he may have objected Marilyn-like to his suspension. 🙂

    Like

    • paul walter June 15, 2013 at 8:48 am #

      No overreaction. This garbage is deliberate,,not just old drunks spluttering out their spleen.

      Like

    • hudsongodfrey June 15, 2013 at 2:04 pm #

      It probably has more to do with the manner and tone of advertisers’ sensibilities and listeners’ reactions to the interview.

      Like

    • Marilyn June 15, 2013 at 6:44 pm #

      Why bring me into it. He is a racist, sexist thug who Fairfax fostered for 30 years.

      He should have been sacked 30 years ago but I don’t actually listen to commercial radio and avoid most commercial TV like the plague.

      We have the lovely Bob Francis in South Australia and I don’t listen to him either.

      Like

  14. Marilyn June 15, 2013 at 6:46 pm #

    I want to know why all the commercial radio stations keep hiring shock jocks, what fucking purpose do they serve except to stir up racist hate, bigotry, homophobia and other crap.

    Like

    • paul walter June 15, 2013 at 10:47 pm #

      Well, you just answered your own question.

      Like

  15. Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumpp) June 16, 2013 at 12:34 pm #

    Catherine Manning, in her comment of Saturday, June 15, 2013 at 11:34 am, says:

    “maybe it is a deliberate attempt to shift the
    focus away from other important issues as the
    election looms, but do you really think they’re
    so clever as to have orchestrated all of this?”

    If I have read Catherine’s comment correctly, and the comment of paul walter to which she is responding, the “they’re” of the quoted excerpt applies to those credited with setting and enforcing the ‘groupthink’ for the Opposition campaign. Catherine’s “… wouldn’t it be folly to risk alienating at least half of your constituents?”, meaning, presumably, women in general, reinforces the impression that it is those behind Opposition campaigning that are in view.

    I am of the opinion that there is orchestration behind the elevation of sexism into the campaign, its just that I think that those doing the orchestrating have been misidentified. I believe the government to have been desperately seeking an issue upon which they can rally favourable opinion across the nation to their banner, and that in the elevation of sexism they may well have found one!

    Catherine’s “these men … so confident and lost in their own ego, that they’re totally out of touch”, are probably largely correctly identified as being dominant setters or enablers of groupthink on the Opposition side, and stand out in stark contrast to a much larger majority of men in the Australian community who in truth do not hold sexist views. I think what we are all seeing is not so much a desperate defensive action in support of Julia Gillard, as the commencement of a very carefully planned counter-attack designed to force Tony Abbott’s dumping from the Opposition leadership in the very near future.

    This is what my comment of Friday, 14 June, at 1:40 pm, was all about. (See: https://noplaceforsheep.com/2013/06/13/men-who-hate-women-are-everybodys-problem/#comment-74731 ) All of the cards being played are cards that could have been in hand for quite some time. Even Sattler’s offensive interview may in truth have been less serendipitous in this overall scenario than we think. I thought Julia Gillard stood up to it in the moment of its, for me, breathtakingly offensive audacity, with incredible poise.

    I cannot forget the manner of the elevation to the role JG now holds. Not a whisper of it leaked to the public before the deed was done. We have since learned, courtesy of Cablegate, that an accredited co-ordinator of that palace coup, then Senator Arbib, was a ‘protected US source’ and others on that record are referred to (chillingly) in the context of a reporting BACK in those cables with respect to the finding of an alternative to Rudd long before the coup.

    Accordingly, I believe that for an issue gaining traction of the nature of an identifiable number of men able to be associated with the present Opposition also able to be presented as being out-of-touch sexists, there will become available, as required, the necessary documentary corobberations as the campaign proceeds. All, as seen by me, through the prism of my own observations.

    PS. And very good it is to see you posting again on ‘Sheep’, Catherine Manning. I gather things have been pretty hectic for you of recent months. Are electoral congratulations due?

    PPS. paul walter, well said:

    “If a person has been generous enough
    to invite you as a partner in bed, isn’t
    that an honour?

    What a stab in the back to then make
    a fool of her instead.”

    Like

    • doug quixote June 16, 2013 at 2:01 pm #

      Must everything be a conspiracy? Is it not far more likely that a bunch of unreconstructed sexists and misogynists have at last been called on their sexism and misogyny?

      As their fearless leader would have it, “Shit Happens”. 🙂

      Like

      • hudsongodfrey June 16, 2013 at 2:14 pm #

        I reckon that its a bit of both, which is simply saying no more than that the Prime Minister, being a politician, will inevitably take advantage of it as she would any issue that plays to her strengths.

        She will also equally inevitably be judged as overstepping the mark if she labours the point too much. And frankly it seems a pity that the Blue Ties speech jumped the gun in a week which otherwise seemed to justify those sentiments.

        Like

        • doug quixote June 16, 2013 at 5:23 pm #

          Torn, I am. I never knew my collection of blue ties was such a potential arrangement of instruments of oppression.

          Sales of the blue ties will plummet, but on the plus side many including me will be rushing off to DJs to get red ties . . . (hmm, are they more acceptable?) I seek information, dear reader!

          Like

      • paul walter June 16, 2013 at 2:22 pm #

        Well, both doug and Forrest Gump get it right to a fair extent. Dq is correct to point out that the visible tip of the conservative iceberg, the witless and crass megaphone shock jocks and tabloid hacks, of themselves, couldn’t organise a chook raffle.
        Fitful caricatures of the old half-educated ocker bloke on the street they may be, but the underlying lack of pity that gives them away as representatives of the public. It may be that many Aussies are a bit unconsciously conservative, but rarely do they overtly assail others with their politics in the way the shock jocks and ACA yobs do.
        But the media and press draw on conservatism for their rants and the organisers in the background know full well of it, both for financial and political reasons.
        I think humans have probably always been a bit grumpy with each other, kids and others on their patch, but what has happened is that natural tendencies for space, etc, have been nurtured by propagandists to create non-extant problems in the minds of the punters.
        Forty years ago there was a big move away from bashing minorities; “others”, but lately the old fires have been rekindled by unscrupulous operators behind closed doors, starting with the likes of Murdoch and the Koch bros in the USA, then right throughout the system.

        Like

    • Forrest Gumpp (@ForrestGumpp) June 17, 2013 at 4:19 am #

      An early piece in the jigsaw puzzle to fall?

      The problem of the ephemerality of Twitter. I wasn’t asking for a comment upon the speech. I was suggesting that Professor Sarah Joseph was right to suspect that the PM wanted that speech out there, rather than being a victim of any leak or out-of-context quotation.

      Like

  16. paul walter June 16, 2013 at 9:34 pm #

    Just watching the thing with ABC Insiders again. Farr and Ackerman are misogynistic and misanthropic in ways only preppies can be.
    I felt sorry for Barry Cassidy and Lenore Taylor trying to discuss politics in an adult way while the Murdoch hacks carried on like children. Cassidy finally moving swiftly on Ackerman after Taylor had done a couple of sharp rounds with him over Sattler and the rest of the rumour mill, et al, pointedly calling Ackerman, Sattler etc
    “pathetic”.
    Talk about the Ruling Class, circa 1879.
    Thinking people still can’t believe this country is going to be handed over to these tax-dodging, debauched, thuggish and creepy upper class Humpty Dumpties.

    Like

    • hudsongodfrey June 16, 2013 at 11:34 pm #

      Barry Cassidy’s remark “good luck defending that position” too Ackerman left us in little doubt what everyone pretty much thought of his behaviour.

      Like

  17. lmrh5 June 18, 2013 at 6:45 am #

    Reblogged this on lmrh5.

    Like

  18. 靴 オンライン September 5, 2013 at 5:44 pm #

    楽天 ミネトンカ モカシン 靴 オンライン http://www.shoessrack.info/

    Like

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Men who hate women are everybody’s problem. | No Place For Sheep | Colin's Folly - June 14, 2013

    […] Men who hate women are everybody’s problem. | No Place For Sheep. […]

    Like

  2. 10 Myths Women Have About Men | Mission Sharing Knowledge - June 14, 2013

    […] Men who hate women are everybody’s problem. (noplaceforsheep.com) […]

    Like

  3. Men who hate women are everybody’s problem. | lmrh5 - June 18, 2013

    […] Men who hate women are everybody’s problem.. […]

    Like

  4. The 62nd Down Under Feminists Carnival - July 11, 2013

    […] No Place For Sheep: Men who hate women are everybody’s problem […]

    Like

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: