In maybe another five or ten years it will be;

Belinda, who?

Beth, who?

As quickly as they blazed across the headlines, they will fade from the public consciousness.

The author seems to forget that it is the media who control and manipulate the public consciousness. The media just love sensational headlines and stories.

Of course the people of the media are fully aware that there is a willing public that can be led and guided like a herd of sheep, with tittilating bits of scandal.

So Beth and Belinda got caught behaving badly, more than a few males have had their political careers ended, because they also got caught out behaving badly. Like the scandals that have been plaguing the WA state parliment recently.

Witch-hunting knows no gender boundaries.

We recently has a GG forced to resign due to a with hunt. The same people who called for his resignation championed Henson and his child abuse. Now we have a woman gg who seems to have trouble keeping her mouth shut on political issues but is a darling of the socialist press.

Oh boo hoo, a couple of women get caught out behaving like arseholes and the predictable claims of victimhood surface. Belonda Neal is a nasty second-rater possessed of a huge sense of entitlement who only owns her seat because of who she married and and the other one was busy keeping her sexual partners happy. Neither of them is a victim of anything except their own bad behaviour.

Instead of trying to justify such things, the author would better spend her time praising the vast majority of men and women who don't let their sense of their own power run away with them.

It's notable that the author of the piece is yet another of the group of feminists in powerful academic positions who are careful to mention their feminist credentials as part of their CV. It seems that some have little confidence that their actual accomplishments will stand as evidence of their ability, preferring to rely on "the sisterhood" for preferment. It doesn't give much confidence that her output will be anything other than predictably turgid polemic and so it has turned out.

Hey Antiseptic,
You seem to have missed the point. Though that seems to be going around... The article wasn't excusing the behaviour of these women - it was lamenting the way that whenever women in politics behave like 'a-holes', as you put it, they're attacked in the press not so much for their bad behaviour, but for their status as women.
Kind of the way you've gone after the author of the article, not for her argument, but for her status as -horror!- a feminist.
Which pretty much proves her point…

The best measure of this article's quality is its source.

"Zoo Weekly’s 2008 50 most hated people list"

It is difficult to imagine which is the sadder.

A "top fifty" list from a magazine that targets boofhead 14-25 year-old males.

Or someone who manufactures faux outrage at its "findings".

Verrry interesting …

Ms Neal’s bad behaviour was that of a politician allegedly behaving like a thug at a nightspot and Ms Morgan’s bad behaviour was that of a town planner’s alleged cronyism with a bunch of developers she allegedly hoped to set up a business with in the future.

Yet all Antiseptic can say is …

‘Belonda Neal is a nasty second-rater possessed of a huge sense of entitlement who only owns her seat because of who she married and and the other one was busy keeping her sexual partners happy.’

By reducing the behaviour of the former to that of an opportunist wife and the latter to that of a (nameless) slut, you have proved Sheleyah Courtney’s case so emphatically, Antiseptic, that you could almost qualify as her sock puppet.

SJF:"By reducing the behaviour of the former to that of an opportunist wife and the latter to that of a (nameless) slut"

I didn't do that. SJF, the women concerned did that to themselves.

As you plainly disagree with me, perhaps you can tell us all what steriling qualities prompted Neal's advancement, other than her marriage to Della-Bosca (also a pretty third-rate character, but one with his nose firmly in the ALP trough)? As for the other one, she was a petty bureaucrat who tried to buy sex with "favours". How would you characterise that behaviour? Exemplary?

As I said, the vast majority of women and men do not choose to misuse their own sense of power. These two did, got caught and now the usual non-entities are trying to claim victimhood for them. Truly pathetic.

AguneB:"they're attacked in the press not so much for their bad behaviour, but for their status as women"

Rubbish, they're attacked in the press because they misbehaved and got caught. Their gender is a sideshow that the author is trying to use to excuse their misbehaviour. As for the author, I am not attacking her views, merely the fact that she feels the need to trumpet her "feminist" credentials on her academic CV. If this article is an example of the quality of her output, I can understand that she feels the need for some other reason for preferment, but I don't have to respect her for it.

If Zoo Weekly is the litmus test for those deserving of attention it’s little wonder the author’s confused. It’s hardly the arbiter of taste.

“Was it because she apparently extracted sexual favours and gifts from three rich and powerful men over whom she ostensibly had more power, or that such conduct is properly the province of men which she, as a woman, had no business employing?” Well, neither. Try salaciousness. It works every time, particularly in advertising.

Political positions “which until quite lately in western history had been reserved for the excesses of men” ?? Any info regarding dates, which positions, what type of excesses? Or does this just sound sorta kinda right to describe a pollie and get sage nods of agreement from those around you?

This article draws upon one anecdote after another but doesn’t quite get around to making a killer blow. It makes all kinds of assumptions I’d expect to overhear from a girl’s day out at the pub. Perhaps if the author removed that humungous chip on her shoulder the article would be more balanced.

Antiseptic

In both your posts, you avoid discussing Ms Neal’s thuggish behaviour at the nightclub or Ms Morgan’s unprofessional cronyism – which is the bad behaviour that actually got them into trouble.

I assume that to do so would be to define their behaviour – good, bad or indifferent – on its own terms, and as the equals of men. Instead, your posts only seek to define Ms Neal’s bad behaviour in terms of her husband, and Ms Morgan’s bad behaviour in terms of what men she allegedly slept with – which are also what the media mainly focused on.

You (and the media) are basically doing what any male-centric culture does – and that is to define women only as relative to men, not as equal and independent beings in their own right.

Ever noticed how people dont say much about the good stuff others do and cannot stop yapping about the bad stuff. Eventhough the good usually far weighs the bad. People like to whinge.

Plus pollies always have a special kind of stink on them.

Arr human nature. Its still a fact that woman will use their sexy parts to gain a foot hold for their own advantages. But this only make them less in my eyes. Discrediting one another in the political arena is part and parcel to the struggle, and understandable in the male dominated world that females have to endure as equality strives for the balance.
Playing the sex card is as old as mankind its self, so the facts will remain pretty much the same.

This thread shows that we are not as advanced as will like to think.

EVO

What does your title have to do with the text you wrote? I see no connection.

You use Ms Neal. A woman who acts like a bully, waddles like a bully and is a bully. She is recorded on the Parliament's own system as being such. What's not to know? She is what she is. How was she desexed or sexed up please? I didn't notice it, did anyone else.

As to Beth X. I've never heard of her so wouldn't have a clue what she has done etc. Why don't you pick someone obscure next time?

Your subtitle too is wrong.

"Women are still anomalous in politics - they tend to get de-sexed or sexed up so everyone can feel less threatened".

Wrong. It's only the male politicians who feel threatened by them, not the public. I wrote to Julie Bishop asking her why she acted like the stupid boys do and she did not respond. I told her she was embarrassing herself to descend to their level and she is.

She is the most senior woman in Oz politics and she does that stuff voluntarily. Attack her, not the public. She sets the example. She does not have to play schoolyard teasing as the little boys there do. But she chooses to do so.

Enough of your generalisation. Ask Bishop to behave like an adult and set the example for the naughty little boys, as she calls them.

While you are at it, tell Neal to get a real job and get out of the taxpayer's pocket. And take her husband out of there too. What a disgraceful, self opiniated pair they are.

Try opening your eyes before you plunge into the pool of sewage you found this article in.

Ain't it amazing how so called academics will quote Zoo weekly.

This author ain't the first one to refer to the Zoo. I think it be time to start buying and reading the Zoo, seeing that it is such a high quality publication. Well it must be if academics
read it and refer to it.

<
You (and the media) are basically doing what any male-centric culture does – and that is to define women only as relative to men, not as equal and independent beings in their own right.
Posted by SJF, Monday, 27 October 2008 5:28:11 PM>

Considering that there are a very large number of female news editors, and female journos, I doubt very strongly that it is male cnetric, more likely female centric.

Mostly men are really concerned about who is sleeping with who, I do know however more women seem to show an enormous amount of interest in who is sleeping with whom.

Besides the friends of a mans wife/girlfriend will know more about his sex life, than he does.

Shhh that is suppose to be a secret.

RobbyH

‘Ask [Julie] Bishop to behave like an adult and set the example for the naughty little boys, as she calls them.’

Like Antiseptic and much of the population, you too seem to think that women do not exist in their own right, but only in relation to men.

For your information, Ms Bishop is not in parliament to set an example for ‘naughty little boys’. She is there in her role as Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It’s up to the naughty little boys to do their own rehabilitating.

JamesH

‘Considering that there are a very large number of female news editors, and female journos, I doubt very strongly that it is male cnetric, more likely female centric.’

I’m not sure what you define as ‘very large’. A cursory look at the mainstream news sources around the country indicates that female representation in the journalism profession is still very much a minority (despite female journalism students outnumbering males by 2 to 1).

If you don’t believe me, have a look at the gender editorial staff ratios of the nation’s mainstream newspapers. Here are two to start with:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/ourstaff/
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/contactus

And this gender summary from the Journal of Australian Studies states that ‘… rural newspapers typically use few women sources and present women as peripheral … in the story to tell us something about men’ and that ‘men define what constitutes "newsworthy'".
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7006302/Women-and-male-hegemony-in.html

Internationally, it’s the same story. Here is one excellent summary from the Inter Press Service that states how women are often ‘the face’ of the news, but rarely ever in charge of it: [http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42688]

The only female-dominant areas of the media are those of traditional ‘women’s interest’ – e.g. fashion and celebrity gossip. Even these entrench the culture’s ‘male gaze’ concept that a woman’s primary interest is to be attractive and sexually appealing. I suspect this is mainly because it’s women who run these publications, but it’s men who own them.

Beth Morgan is an idiot. And something of a sexual dissolute.
Belinda Neil is also an idiot... or perhaps a dumb thug.
I don't have to treat them with a special respect because they are women.
They are installed in roles in public life, and are expected to fulfill those capacities to the same level as anyone else, man or woman.
I would have problems with a man exhibiting behaviour similar to each of those women.
In fact, I can't help wondering if - perhaps apart from the media circus - the women actually got off a little more lightly than a man would do, in the eyes of the law.

SJF:"In both your posts, you avoid discussing Ms Neal’s thuggish behaviour at the nightclub or Ms Morgan’s unprofessional cronyism"

Me (in my first post on the subject):"a couple of women get caught out behaving like arseholes "

I think that addresses your point, SJF. As I have said, their behaviour was the reason they got the attention, not their gender.

I stand by my comments with respect to the reason for Neal being in the Parliament. If you can give me any reason for her preselection other than her marriage to a powerful NSW ALP figure then I'm prepared to reconsider my views, but I don't think I'll be doing that soon.

As for Morgan, her "bad behaviour" was directly related to the men she slept with. She bought sexual favours with approvals of developments. How would you like me to characterise that? If a male council clerk did the same thing for some female developers, would the sexual component of the "cronyism" be irrelevant?

My main point, however, was the fact that the author of the article tries to excuse the behaviour and condemn the media coverage of these two losers solely because they're women. Do you think that the bandwagon-riding Sheleyah would have made similar comments on behalf of males in similar positions? Take your time...

I do agree that there is far too much prurience in media coverage of all sorts of events, but these cases were clearly examples of women being treated as "the equals of men".

The author is trying to define their behaviour as somehow worthy of lesser opprobrium because they aren't men. That's sexist in the extreme, but then, the author owes her position to not being a man, I suspect. So much for egalitarianism.

Antiseptic

‘If you can give me any reason for her preselection other than her marriage to a powerful NSW ALP figure then I'm prepared to reconsider my views ...’

I’ve got a better idea. Why don’t YOU come up with a reason for her preselection other than her marriage. The exercise of considering a woman in terms unrelated to a man might actually do you some good.

‘My main point, however, was the fact that the author of the article tries to excuse the behaviour and condemn the media coverage of these two losers solely because they're women.’

Well, I for one would be very interested in knowing where in the article the author ‘excuses’ the behaviour of either Ms Neal or Ms Morgan. And as for condemning the media’s coverage of both women, the author is far from a lone voice in this.

SJF:"Why don’t YOU come up with a reason for her preselection other than her marriage"

With the best will in the world I can't, that's why I made the point. Surely you can come up with some other reason that she was the best available candidate for preselection in her seat? Here's your perfect chance to show us how to "[consider] a woman in terms unrelated to a man". Take on the responsibility for making your own case, rather than relying on a man to do it for you.

SJF:"I for one would be very interested in knowing where in the article the author ‘excuses’ the behaviour of either Ms Neal or Ms Morgan"

Are you serious? Have you read the article? The author not only minimises the conduct of both women, she goes on to blame other people for the things they did. She also seems to think that their treatment by the media was somehow worse than their behaviour.

If this silly disingenuity is the best defence of her tripe you can come up with, I think my point is well made.

I've been following the discussion between SJF and Antiseptic.

I've tried to answer their questions for myself. Most commentators claim that the pre-selection was done by NSW party power brokers, a couple saying that it would have been very unlikely without her husbands involvement given Belinda Neil's reputation for a temper.

One piece which I found interesting was at http://www.p-p.com.au/blog/blog.asp?bID=1&month=6&year=2008 (I don't know anything about the authors bias's)

"Not a stranger to controversy, Neal went through a bitter pre-selection battle for the 2001 election and lost to local teacher Trish Moran. She went on to be pre-selected to contest the seat at the last election with little drama, most likely because ALP heavyweights in NSW didn’t think she stood a chance of clawing back the 6.9 per cent margin enjoyed by the then sitting member Jim Lloyd. A true beneficiary of the swing being on, Neal now holds the ALP’s most marginal seat in the country.

Born in Brisbane, Neal is a lawyer by training working for the right-wing Federated Ironworkers' Association from 1987-94 after she left Sydney University, later serving as a company director. She first entered the Parliament as a Senator in 1994, serving as shadow minister variously for consumer affairs, local government, housing and childcare from 1996-98. "

I gained the impression that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Neil has a long history in ALP circles and experience but her temper has made her enough enemies that pre-selection by a branch would have been unlikely and that her husband may be the factor that tipped the balance for her pre-selection. Not there just because of who she is married to but his involvement may have made the difference.

I also found an interesting piece at New Matilda on pollies behaving badly http://newmatilda.com/2008/06/18/pollies-behaving-badly

R0bert

R0bert's first link in the preceding post contains, in its first sentence, what was, at the time, the right question: "Twelve days after Iguana-gate, why is the incident still making front page news?"

The author distinguishes between the 'most hated' status acquired by Belinda Neal, and the clear failure to attain to that status of Beth Morgan, in the eyes of Zoo Weekly. She makes the point as to the similarity of the treatment meted out by the media to each of these women in positions in public administration, but fails to explain the difference in public perception between the two that resulted.

That Belinda Neal behaved badly at Iguana Joe's came as no surprise to followers of the political scene on the Central Coast of NSW. Everybody was soon asking the same question as in R0bert's link: THAT was what was remarkable, not the believability of the behaviour itself.

I suggest the answer may lie in the timing of these 'revelations' of an already well known predisposition to bad behaviour by a bully who has got away with it for most of her public life. The publicity was given and pursued during the period when the then Iemma government was trying to push through the sale, against the wishes of the ALP State Conference and the public at large, of the NSW electricity business and assets.

John Della Bosca, to whom Belinda Neal is married, was seen as a potential centre of resistance to that sell-out policy.

The publicising of her reprehensible behaviour I suggest was as sustained as it was because it was seen as discrediting John Della Bosca as a person of influence within the NSW ALP and the NSW government with respect to the power sell-off.

Fortunately, it either did not work, or was unnecessary.

All of which in no way exonerates John Della Bosca from the farce surrounding the dictated 'apology' and other power-broker style interventions over recent years on behalf of his wife in resuming her political career.

The article misses the mark.

Forrest Gumpp

'The author distinguishes between the 'most hated' status acquired by Belinda Neal, and the clear failure to attain to that status of Beth Morgan, in the eyes of Zoo Weekly. She makes the point as to the similarity of the treatment meted out by the media to each of these women in positions in public administration, but fails to explain the difference in public perception between the two that resulted.'

I believe the author explains the difference very well. And she has done so by using the Zoo Weekly most-hated list as the link between the two.

Zoo Weekly is a magazine that promotes a very traditional style of gender relations - that of women being essentially the sexual playthings of men. The publicity angle used to define Ms Morgan's bad behaviour by the mainstream media fulfills the typical Zoo Weekly fantasy woman - attractive blond who uses her sexuality to get what she wants. No Zoo journalist would place her within coo-ee of a 'most hated' list.

The publicity angle used to define Ms Neal's bad behaviour - that of unfeminine bully (albeit blond) - does not fulfill that fantasy and thus makes her infinitely eligible for Zoo's most-hated list.

However, in terms of the mainstream media, Ms Neal (or rather, her marriage) fulfills the subliminal fantasy of what is still essentially male-centric political commentary - a commentary that still seeks to define female politicians as having achieved their positions simply because men have allowed them access.

The question of whether or not Ms Neal's husband put her there cannot be answered and it is not meant to be answered. The real issue is that the question itself diminishes her as a woman and inflates her husband as a man.

SJF:"However, in terms of the mainstream media, Ms Neal (or rather, her marriage) fulfills the subliminal fantasy of what is still essentially male-centric political commentary - a commentary that still seeks to define female politicians as having achieved their positions simply because men have allowed them access."

What a lot of tosh. If she only achieved pre-selection because of her husband's influence within the party, she is precisely in that position you describe. The media portrayal, IOW, is dead accurate, whether male-centric or not. Ms Neal is not a good example for you to be using to try to paint this as some kind of stereotyped response to a powerful woman. in fact, she's not a good example of much except a woman with a sense of entitlement.

SJF:"The question of whether or not Ms Neal's husband put her there cannot be answered and it is not meant to be answered"

Of course it can be answered and the answer is that he was at the very least a significant factor and very probably decisive. It was very definitely meant to be answered and has been, even though you don't like what the answer is.

Forrest Gumpp,

your explantion seems to be much more reasonable and realistic than the authors.

Similar thoughts crossed my mind that Belinda Neal was not the target, but her husband was. So an indirect way to get him would be to expose his wife's behaviour and by default him.

<Zoo Weekly is a magazine that promotes a very traditional style of gender relations - that of women being essentially the sexual playthings of men. >

I take it SJF that you do not approve of heterosexuality, because as far as I know traditional style of gender relationships never promoted women as the sexual playthings of men.

Traditional style of gender relationships tended to encourge things like respect, responsibility etc.

A traditional style included things like if a man's girlfriend got pregnant, he would do the right thing and marry her to support her and his child.

Antiseptic

Every post you write here just reiterates the author's point, which can be largely summed up in her quote:

'It seems as though women still are not supposed to actually be achieving in their own right, or on their own terms and God forgive (or burn at the stake) if those terms should be successful and/or look at all masculine in style.'

I refuse to keep responding to a broken record.

JamesH

'A traditional style included things like if a man's girlfriend got pregnant, he would do the right thing and marry her to support her and his child.'

And if he didn't choose 'to do the right thing', the woman's life was ruined. Whether he was a knight in shining armour or Cassanova cad, it was the man who called the shots.

SJF says:

"The question of whether or not Ms Neal's husband put her there cannot be answered.....".

I beg to differ.

It was widely accepted after the 2002 NSW State elections that Belinda Neal intended seeking ALP pre-selection for a seat in the Central Coast region. The need was for a safe ALP seat, rather than a marginal ALP or winnable Liberal seat, for even back then Belinda's sense of entitlement and perception as being a divine gift to Australian politics was far from being hidden from the politically aware hoi poloi, and was recognised as an electoral liability.

The problem was that the only safe ALP seat was the seat of Peats, held by a well known and respected ALP Member Marie Andrews. It has long been accepted wisdom on both sides of politics that performing sitting members are not challenged for endorsement. Marie had performed.

During the interval between 2002 and 2006 there was scheduled to be a routine redistribution of NSW electoral boundaries.

John Della Bosca, in his then role of Minister for the Central Coast, was regarded as having a lot of input to the redistribution recommendations of the ALP to the Redistribution Commissioners. Those recommendations sought to remove a rural, more Liberal voting, sub-division from Peats into a proposed new seat centred on Lake Macquarie. They also proposed the attachment of some localities around Gosford to the otherwise essentially unaltered electorate that had been Peats to make up the numbers.

The key recommendation was proposal of the abolition of the NAME of Peats, and its effective re-naming as the seat of Gosford. That way, when it came to pre-selection, Marie Andrews would in narrow technicality not any longer be a 'sitting' member in the *new* seat.

Belinda would have been free of the convention whereby sitting members were not challenged.

Word is someone proposed, presumably on John Della Bosca's behalf, that the new Lake Macquarie-centred electorate be named 'Della Bosca'. That was just too much for the Commissioners. The wheels subsequently came off that dirty little plan.

SJF also says, in the rest of that unfinished sentence already quoted:

"....... and it is not meant to be answered.".

SJF, I think you're right on the money there!

I see the article as being an attempt at diverting public attention from the true cause for Belinda's opprobrium, her own bad behaviour and ludicrous claims as to having done nothing wrong throughout this ridiculous affair, to some claimed victimhood to stereotypical male portrayals of women.

Could the article be seeking to rehabilitate the public image of Belinda? I think likely so.

In that circumstance, establishing on the balance of probabilities that Belinda obtained her endorsement because of the position held by her husband would be very damaging to such attempted rehabilitation of her's, and, to the extent her reflection falls upon it, her Party's, public image.

For, you see, whilst her husband is a recognised power-broker and accomplished king-maker within her Party, deep down he is such a nice bloke. He wasn't really trying to inflict Belinda upon the electorate, just humouring her. He knew her chances, or anybody else's, against Jim Lloyd were Buckleys.

John was not to know Belinda would be just one of the many beneficiaries of an electoral event that saw in her own electorate vote claims made against 98.89% of all the names on the roll, and in some others, claims in excess of 100% of all names. An all-time historically high (and over-high) turnout!

It was Belinda who was trying to inflict herself upon the electorate! Belinda made John do what he did, and in doing so had perpetrated a form of domestic violence upon the poor bloke. Therein lies the problem.

You see, in allowing Belinda to remain in the Parliament, in the absence of her rehabilitation, Kevin Rudd's government would be seen as effectively saying:

"To overbearing bullying and domestic violence by God's gift to Australian politics, Australia says YES!".

What's the betting Belinda made John claim spousal privilege during the police investigation into the events at Iguana's?

SJF:"I refuse to keep responding to a broken record. "

I'd be happy if you'd simply stop responding LIKE a broken record. The fact is that Belinda Neal is a very unworthy recipient of the public's trust as a MP. Your efforts to paint her as a victim are, frankly, ludicrous.

Do try to get over the "female as victim" mindset you are so keen on. Give women the respect owed to people making their own decisions, good or bad. As it stands, you'd have us believe that a powerful woman in the ALP is a hapless victim of the machinations of the nasty people in the media, instead of a nasty manipulator who did her best to coerce others into talling lies on her behalf when she got caught behaving badly. What a joke.

Forrest Gumpp

Although you are nowhere near as bombastic as the unfortunate Antiseptic, you have fallen into the same prejudicial trap of assuming that the author is playing the woman-as-victim card.

Your knowledge of the insider workings of the ALP is impressive. However, the public was not conversant with all the ALP’s pre-selection and insider machinations either before or after the Iguana incident. Its response to Ms Neal was almost entirely based on the media’s limited but extremely vehement portrayal of her behaviour.

Antiseptic

‘Your efforts to paint [Ms Neal] as a victim are, frankly, ludicrous.’

As is your ignorance of what the author actually wrote. Ms Neal may be a lot of things, but a victim is not one of them.

How anyone can continue to believe that the truly hysterical public reaction to both her and Ms Morgan was directly proportionate to the degree of their bad behaviour is beyond belief, but I’m not wasting any more time arguing the point on this thread.

"Zoo Weekly is a magazine that promotes a very traditional style of gender relationships"

I just had to buy a copy of this mag to see what all the fuss was about.

I couldn't find any recipes or anything about housekeeping. It did have advice on sex.

There were some articles on nature.

There were heaps of pictures of airbrushed, computer enhanced girls. Most had boobs that looked like they were inflated with an air pump.

It was pretty hard to find the articles amongst the pictures.LOL

I must be getting old, because I couldn'f find a decent picture to use as a pinup.

The author says:

"Since this scandal Belinda Neil has also been dogged by hell-hounds determined to thug-witchify her beyond all contextual belief in the limits and extent of women’s wickedness.".

SJF says:

"How anyone can continue to believe that the truly hysterical public reaction to both her and Ms Morgan was directly proportionate to the degree of their bad behaviour is beyond belief, ...".

Substantially co-located with respect to the more informed Central Coast public, as already mentioned, is another female Parliamentarian in the much more currently unpopular NSW government, Marie Andrews. Across the political spectrum I don't think anyone local to the area feels threatened by her gender in her representational role.

As to the media exposure seeming excessive, such is only due to the absence of genuinely inquiring journalism being the norm. This just shows that the mainstream media can do its job if it wants to, but is in general being editorially dumbed down.

Its most telling exposure was that of the claimed threat Belinda Neal made to a rank-and-file member of her Party in alleging 'sexual assault' after that member attempted to retrieve a document she had snatched from him, in public, in a bullying manner. A lawyer by training, Belinda's first resort was seemingly to the big guns of threatened criminal process.

I particularly remember this piece of reporting, because it happened around the same time as the tragic murder, in an ongoing domestic violence scenario, of Karin Bell's three children. It was claimed that one of the factors in there having been insufficient credit given to the need for the issue and enforcement of AVOs in that case having been the prevalence of the extent to which such orders are sought by persons abusing the process for personal vindication.

Belinda's reported behaviour constitutes one of the worst examples leading to degrading of response as comes to be experienced in other genuinely serious situations.

That's the real context.

When is the Commonwealth Parliament going to wash its hands of this blood, and expel Belinda Neal?