The Forum > Article Comments > All sexism is offensive but not all that is offensive is sexism > Comments
All sexism is offensive but not all that is offensive is sexism : Comments
By Sonia Bowditch, published 18/6/2013Gillard shouldn't turn every jibe into a gender war.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
-
- All
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 19 June 2013 12:51:11 AM
| |
killarney,
What women lack is an ability to lead. The only female leader of any worth since Joan of Arc has been Thatcher. And notice which side of politics she came from? You can carry on with your school yard gender studies stuff, but at the end of the day Gillard has been absolutely, horrendously hopeless. If she is the best women can do after 113 years of federation then let's hope it's aother 113 before we have to endure another. Posted by dane, Wednesday, 19 June 2013 2:46:28 AM
| |
Gillard's main problem is that she has allowed her emotions to interfere with her duties, the primary one being to carry out the wishes of the electorate in a rational and effective way. There's nothing wrong with emotion in politics or anywhere else -- Hawke was a very emotional man and still an effective PM, but when one's emotions prevent rational decision-making then the results are going to be predictably disastrous. I don't want to attack Gillard on the basis of her gender, but I do wonder whether any male politician could have risen to such heights without learning the appropriate boundaries for emotional expression.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 19 June 2013 7:34:43 AM
| |
I'm not quite sure why some women here regard Gillard as a champion of women's rights.
Her government has made it infinitely harder for single parents, the vast majority who are women, to manage. I met a woman in that position a while back who, along with her daughter, had been living in her parent's backyard. They've now moved into the two front rooms of a friends house whose husband works fly-in-fly-out. It's one thing to use the "misogyny' clause to create a bit of theatre in parliament - and entirely another to actually render mothers destitute and often on the streets or begging at charities because they can no longer afford to pay the rent or bills. How is that lifting up women in our society? Expect to see more of this as mothers and their children exhaust their list of family and friends willing to support their eroded circumstances. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-30/housing-fails-to-meet-changing-face-of-homelessness/4659026 Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 19 June 2013 8:41:44 AM
| |
Poirot
It is a pity our parliamentarians on both sides of politics cannot highlight those issues you have raised like homelessness instead of re-defining feminism to suit a political agenda. I have also yet to see privileged middle class feminist lobbies champion the cause of lowly paid childcare workers. They won't because this would impact on the 'affordable childcare' model. Similarly those agencies like OSW have given little, if any, time for women who might choose to stay at home to raise children in terms of policy. Where feminism started it's journey about equality and choices, it has sinced morphed to some extent into a packaged product marketed in line with the prevailing dogma where failure to show allegiance on all matters is marked down in the test of feminist loyalty. It is not altogether surprising; this phenomenon is characteristic of many causes. What is most offensive is the dogma that Sonia writes about in her article. The 'you don't agree, so off with your head' mentality. This focus on feminism as a political foil does more harm than good. Suse Criticism of aspects of feminism is not about 'endearing oneself to men'. That is a well-worn tactic to dismiss conversations that need to be had about feminism that may seem at odds with the dogma. It is the same as saying 'off with your head, dissent is not allowed'. The article is not arguing there is no misogyny in society and that women don't experience sexism from time to time. It is not saying that feminism is bad. Read the article again and really 'listen' to the author's argument. Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 19 June 2013 12:05:28 PM
| |
You've got to love Killarney's sloganeering of "male privilege." Spoken like a true feminist automaton. Never mind the fact that this "privilege" is earned by waking up at 6 am 5 or 6 days a week then slogging it out at work for 8-10 hours a day, week after week, month after month, year after year. It's such a "privilege" to work until your health fails.
In reality, it's an insult call people who work for what they have a "privilege." But insulting people is what feminists do. Posted by Aristocrat, Wednesday, 19 June 2013 1:33:02 PM
|
I felt the same way after I read this silly article.
(And If Runner was happy with it, then that's it for me.)
The author is trying to endear herself to men, while still trying to say 'I'm one of you' to modern feminists.
We can't drop the ball now and allow men to take over politics again.
God knows they have had a long enough shot at it...