You're right, their behaviour is certainly inexcusable, regardless of who they are. I think that there's a good reason I don't watch question time. The behaviour of all of the politicians is deplorable at times.
The problem comes in that slanderous comments have been made by more than just abbott, and gillard has made her fair share over time. It doesn't make it right, but creates a problem that as soon as mud is started being flung, it remains to be seen, who has the more mud to sling.
Politics on both sides is a man's club and that's no secret. Many a time, I've wondered what's the secret to making it a more equal club. I don't like the idea of quotas, as that means that not necessarily the best person for the job has been hired.
Results 31 to 40 of 133
11-10-2012 14:47 #31
The Following User Says Thank You to Mod-pegasus For This Useful Post:
11-10-2012 14:51 #32
Pegasus, argh this is so frustrating not being able to a) quote and b) reply as I'd like to- I'm trying to keep my posts as short as possible as its really hard on the skin.
I was addressing your point about the change to single parent payments in my second part. That is one piece of legisislation, that effects one group of women. Lots of feminists will be against this move, I support it (dont want to go into it here and derail). I don't think that's the bigger picture. I do see what you're saying about parliament being a place for discussing policy and not rhetoric and blistering speeches. MOST of the time. But i think this time, something had to be said, and tge PM said it well. If Tony Abbott continued along with no-one pulling him up on the things he has said, what would happen if he became our PM? Every woman and non-bigoted man in the country would feel the effects.
Also, ifyou really don't think that Gillard has been subject to horribly sexist criticism, please read Anne Summer's article 'Her Rights at Work'. Read the R rated version, then look at the appendix. Truly sickening.
11-10-2012 14:56 #33
And FWIW I think Bishop would do a much much better job than TA. My mind boggles as to why he is leading the opposition, MT cra!s on him anyday!?
11-10-2012 15:01 #34
At the end of the day, it's so sad that women are still discriminated on the basis of their gender. It really isn't fair, never has any previous male PM had to deal with nasty behaviour and remarks targeted at him because he is a MALE.
11-10-2012 15:09 #35
Agreed cmd's mum - each day I cringe at TA's words. There's always a new statement he makes and seems to have no filter between his brain and his mouth. I would love to see more of Julie, and I've heard a lot of people say about MT, I always liked the idea of JH after watching him against Rudd in those segments on Sunrise.
The issue about equal pay is one I'm fully behind if it's equal pay for an equal position. The issue is that a lot of people come out and say women don't get equal pay, but for many of us, it's because we work part time. I know I've never been paid a lower hourly rate than any male colleagues doing the same job. If ever I see an example of where this has happened, I'd be the first in line to get the SD laws used to their full extent.
I do believe SD happens in the work place (particularly a lot of male saturated ones such as defence and mining). Politics is certainly a male saturated work place, and while I don't think there's pay issues, I do think there's a lot of behaviour which needs to be changed
FL - I think it was you who posted the link to the Anne Summers blog and found a lot of distasteful stuff on there. The "comics" if you can call them that from Larry Pickering were particularly so.
I am interested in looking back on the previous leaders and seeing if we insert all of the bullying directed at them and compare it to the stuff directed at JG. I know there was a lot of name calling (now I can't write the words), and on an equal footing. ******* is probably the male equivalent of ***** (these will be starred out, but you get my drift). The starred out words are words I know I've seen used to preempt the name of Howard.
Saying TA has referred to JG as she or her many times, is not sexist, I'm sure if we look for it, when Rudd, or Howard, or Hawke (etc) were leader, there would have been plenty of people who referred to them as he or him. But no uproar saying it's sexist. It's disrespectful of the office regardless of the gender of the person not to refer to them as the prime minister or Ms Gillard, or Mr X.
When Julia started with saying "he's checking his watch as this woman's talked too long" (paraphrasing but you get my drift), it was JG who brought in the sexist card. If she'd said "he's checking his watch as this person's talked too long" the statement takes on a totally different slant.
Last edited by Mod-pegasus; 11-10-2012 at 15:13.
11-10-2012 15:18 #36
11-10-2012 15:24 #37
Just logged in on my phone to see where the skin's at. The bottom right corner of posts has the reply with quote button
Back to topic, I was interested about the legislation on the pps and how the voting would go with the change of slipper to burke, but felt the media overshadowed these topics with the jg speech. This more a comment on the media bias, and how the balance has been lost
11-10-2012 15:26 #38
Apologies for the spiel on quoting, I was typing while you were quoting. Lol
11-10-2012 15:29 #39
Why is it ok to refer to JG as "Julia" yet we would never have called John Howard "John" in conversation or the media, he would always be "Howard" or "The Prime Minister". I'm guilty of it as are others in this thread. The media have on many occasions referred to her as "Julia".
If she was in a regular workplace and a colleague had told her she should get married so she would be an "honest woman" or was referred to as a witch (and that's only 2 minor incidents of direct discrimination from the mouth of TA) she would be well within her rights to cry sexism and discrimination but because she's the PM she should just put up with it?
There are so many instances where TA has been allowed to get away with uttering shameful and discriminatory comments. He constantly refers to asylym seekers as "illegals" when they are not illegal and he has a law degree and therefore obligated to not misrepresent the law yet when has THAT been reported in the media?
11-10-2012 15:32 #40
But John Howard was referred to as John or even "little johnny" Kevin Rudd was referred to as Kevin. I also saw reference to John Howard as "the *******"
None of it is okay, what I'm saying is that I think we forget that previous leaders have been vilified (doesn't make any of it okay), but a lot of the vilification is not sexist, just bullying which is never okay regardless of whether a man or woman.
By BH-editor in forum Find out what's happening!Replies: 5Last Post: 29-04-2013, 07:18
Sarah Tooke Childbirth & Parenting EducationProviding private, personalised antenatal childbirth & parenting education to expectant parents in the comfort of their ...
LATESTToilet training: when is the best time to start?Why it is OK for your child to be differentWhat is a blessing way? How is it different to a baby shower?
POPULARWhen can I start giving chores to my children?New baby nursery checklist – a guide to newborn essentialsWhat to pack for labour and hospital – a checklist
FORUMS - chatting now ...
Can some reply to my question? I came here for support but not getting any :(Conception & Fertility General Chat
Cashless society - all for it, or disagree?General Chat
Same sex parents or parents to be chat!Same Sex Parents
Mixed slumber partyGeneral Chat
Chickenpox after being immunised?Pro-Vaccination
IVF babies due Sep/Oct/Nov 2017pregnancy and babies through IVF