Those delicate flowers who make up the distaff side of politics are a paradox. When one of their colleagues is caught abusing T/A, their muteness is palpable when condemnation gives way to the more popular ‘honest mistake’. When one of the trained attack dogs – masquerading as an MP – savages a female MP for some reason or other the sisterhood finds its voice. Which cause demands serious comment: theft as a servant of the people or remaining childless?

Dr Scutt argues for substance over shallowness; a worthy goal indeed. I think Dr Scutt has set herself a Sisyphean task

Gee, one could be forgiven for thinking that only men are sexist.

Its getting to the point that tagging (only) men as sexist is becoming a classic marker of female cheavenism. Goward has made a career of being sexist in the fight against sexism.

A bit like curtailing alleged freedoms in the defence of freedom (war on terror).

It was funny listening to Rudds wife say that if hubby pressured her HE would be sleeping on the couch. Newsflash, we aint living in the '50s anymore and a mans place is no longer on the couch when she spits the dummy.

Equality is a tuff road to travel and not many are capable nor willing to do it. Especially politicians.

Yes Sage, now that you've got that phlegm of your chest, what do you make of the many ideas in the article? I thought they were reasonable, cogent and well put.

I particularly liked Scutt's concusion: "Let’s concentrate on substance, ignore red herrings, and reserve arguments about sex-gender and politics for instances where they’re really relevant - and count." What about you?

trade, lighten up and enjoy the fact that the author has challenged the cry of "sexism" where the issues are probably about something else. You should appreciate that.

I too found some irony in Goward complaining about sexism after her own clasics such about the infamous autocue one "You can't expect a person to step into that role when the child's 10, having never seen them before, needing an autocue to remember their name." http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/26/1067103270697.html

While we continue to reward pollies for slinging mud then we can expect them to keep playing the game that way.

R0bert

Scutt's article is a technical dissertation on who gets to set the paramaters and dictums of various political 'tools' such as 'Sexism'.

Ignoring the stuffing of the article, it is plain to see that Scutt is both a Labor aopologist (as a majority of young to middle age females are), and a Femmist affirmer.

These two combined in the mind of any body legal, makes for a socio-politicallly lethal personality.

Clearly, the Feminists beleive that they have the divine right to determine what is sexist, the language parameters of said dictums, and the manner and timing in which they will be used.

Being sexperts as they are, all females do now, and will in the future dominate such political tools.

Unless of course we ignore the silly blighters.

On the Rein Rudd issue. The author argues that ".. if the ALP wants to be accepted as a party for the people and a party for principle, it cannot promote leaders who contest Howard Government policies on the one hand, while adopting them in private."

Does this mean in the author's view that Ms Rein should only do things that her husband has approved of and that meet his (political) principles ?

Should she wait at home for Kevin to deliver his decision - "No Therese, you cannot take that Government contract for I am Kevin, Lord of Labor