Thank you John Pilger for speaking out against "bourgeois feminists" and the paucity of political/theoretical credentials evident in their puerile protestations. As I've been at pains to point out myself on OLO, as public intellectuals feminists have by and large lost all credibility as they incongruously represent conservative and libertarian values that are antithetical both to the interests of women and socialist ideals. Like the gay movement and identity politics generally, feminists have lost their way and seem to have recoiled from their troubled theoretical endeavours into a reactionary, even traditional, and mercenary mindset; and all while what's been called the "leaden-age of neoliberalism" gathers pace, continuing its game of mute, indifferent appeasement-politics with its menial and mendicant "radicals".
As for Julia Gillard, she's not only an affront to feminists--or should be--she's an affront to the Labor Party she leads, or at least to what Labor should be.

The reason we have this servile feminist cohort is that as with the Left in general, the imagination has failed, disillusionment has set in, and the possibility that the world could be other than it is has been lost sight of--it's even treated as risible! "Radicals" instead cling credulously, disingenuously, to hopes of reform and gradualism, refusing to acknowledge what's patently obvious--that they're being patronised and that appeasement will one day, when it's timely, revert to force and violence; the faux-utopia of consumerism will fall and paternalism, authoritarianism, will ruthlessly reassert itself.

I find it interesting that it's the women who cop the blame for systems set up by men. If Gillard were to say anything pro-feminist, she be kicked out of the top job. Look at what happened to Carmen Lawrence.

I do not like all of Gillard's policies, many of them I am thoroughly against. However, I applaud her ability to work the machine.

I would not call this feminism. I would call it liberalism or more accurately, libertarianism. But again, why is Gillard to blame for the system that requires women to be even 'tougher' than any man who gets the job?

Perhaps a critique of masculine power structures would be more useful.

Now why did they invade Afghanistan? $ trillions of worth of lithium. Largest poppy production on the planet? Oil piplines from Turkmenistan
through Pakistan to the Ocean? Set up more bases to surround China? To find the Terrorists of 911?

Gillard is not a feminist and has never claimed to be one, as far as I know. The fact that leftist loonies like Greer claim her as one of their own is, I imagine, something of an embarrassment to her. It certainly would be to me. And as for military policy, if Australian men are being paid to shoot at perfect strangers in Afghanistan for no reason, surely Australian women should have that right also?

Gillard's failings are not due to a lack of feminism, but an overdose of ideology and a curious lack of interest in the real issues of Australia's economic survival and growth. It was the presence of a strong, independent and fiscally responsible Treasurer that helped the Fraser, Hawke and Howard governments earn the respect of their electors and other nations; without one the Gillard government is unlikely to win another election.

Susan Hawthorne,
Julia has impressed me too with her toughness and I certainly don't think her gender should be a factor in assessing her performance. I do think it's indicative of the impasse feminism's arrived at that feminists like Greer are applauding her economically conservative--though concession must be made that clearly she and Swann would like to follow a more democratic regime--and even imperialist policies, at home and abroad. It's the feminists I condemn for not taking a harder, more consistent and yes, more idealistic line.

Jon J,
it's not the leftists, male or female, who are loony, but conservatives who imagine we live in a solid-state world in which economics is a constant. Do you really think whatever success the Fraser, Hawke and Howard governments enjoyed is down to fiscal responsibility? It follows I suppose that the Whitlam government's failure was due to fiscal irresponsibility--the fact that the world entered a recession at the time (from which, arguably, it's never emerged) has nought to do with it?
Political economy does not operate in a regular and predictable system, but amid constantly changing variables that are social and material as well as economic--indeed economic least of all! A completely different world, in every sense, obtains now to the ones former governments imagined they had any control over. That's part of the problem; people imagine it's just a matter of tinkering to keep the whole thing running like clockwork. Actually, clockwork is far more efficient than political economy, approaching the impossibility of perpetual motion, whereas the human predicament has evolved to the point where it is, right now, nothing less than chaotic, apt to skid off the table any moment. You'll forgive me if I chuckle then at your talk of "fiscal responsibility" and "earning the respect of voters". No offence, but this is child-like naivity. Even supposing fiscal responsibility (whatever that means) had any effect as a rudder, there's no economic-helm in a fathomless and frothing ocean of public and private debt.
It's a race to the bottom and the loony conservatives still think it's steady as she goes!

Susan Hawthorne,

'I find it interesting that it's the women who cop the blame for systems set up by men'

But no doubt each new man who encounters this very same system set up by men at some stage thoughout history...

a) Must already agree with it, as he is male after all.
b) Has a responsibility or assumed ability to change it due solely to the fact he is male, whereas Gillard, being female, has no such responsibility to change it, or is deemed incapable due to her gender.
c) Regardless of agreeing with the system or not, or any ability or effort to change it, is just responsible for it anyway because of his gender.

Which is it?

'Perhaps a critique of masculine power structures would be more useful.'

IN what way are feminine power structures superior?

Of course we will never know what kind of fantastically wonderful world full of peace and civility we would have had women set everything up, seeing as how the virtuous caring loving gender haven't had the chance. All we will ever have will be the excusing of any women's actions as a victim to the male system, for all eternity, with any favourable outcomes being an example of a ray of virtuous female light shining through the evil 'male' power structures.