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

I get it. It is okay to call Mr Howard a lying rodent or to critize him personally for his age or being short but its not okay to attack Ms Gillard because she is female. Only the feminist get to decide what is morally acceptable and what is not. Sexism will always exist because men and women are different if you have not noticed. When its a woman making personal cracks about men it is politics but when men make remarks about women it is sexism. This article is funny at best.

One of the correspondents in the Advertiser made an interesting remark this morning (Tuesday), saying that Ms Rein's decision to sell her business for her husband "and for the country" was presumptuous and an insult to all women. I could not agree more. Ms Scutt's views are not much better and either show a remarkable lack of understanding of how the ALP works or too much bias to be worthy of consideration.
Coming from someone with Ms Scutt's experience and intelligence I can only presume the latter.
We have made it hard enough for women in the past and Julia Gillard's insistence on a back to the future union regime can only make it harder not easier. Ms Rein could not have done what she did under the proposals the ALP are putting forward.

If this article was anything more than an apology piece for the ALP the author might have mentioned Rudd and the ALP leaking the story about Kelly Hoare's sex drive to destroy her reputation and kill off any sympathy for her.
Feminists were very quiet on this one. And lets not forget Labors abuse of Sandra Nori recently

Runner, you don’t get it really.

The issue turns on the question: when is a personal attribute relevant to public life? Discrimination is wrong, and usually unlawful, in certain areas if it is based on irrelevant attributes like race, religion or sex. Unless there are inherent sexually-based requirements in a job (e.g. supervising the changeroom in a women’s underwear department) the best person should get the job, not the best man or best woman. Otherwise discrimination occurs.

It’s OK to call Howard a lying rodent because he is a liar and his lies clearly impact on Australian life. That’s a relevant attribute that can be demonstrated with evidence. (Dunno about the ‘rodent’ bit – seems unfair to rats, somehow.)

But it’s not OK to criticize Mr Howard because he is short or of a certain age (or race, sex, religion etc) unless it can be demonstrated that these characteristics are relevant to his role as a politician. (Opinion: maybe his age is beginning to tell on him with his recent increasingly poor performance – but maybe he’s just rattled.)

By the same standard, it is not okay to attack Ms Gillard because she is female (or Mr Howard because he is not). When Mr Hockey answered media questions about why Gillard’s IR policy was getting more support than his, he was wrong to attribute that to Gillard’s sex or physical appearance. That was irrelevant. So was Bill Heffernan’s gratuitous remarks about her having no children. Totally irrelevant to her duties as a politician.

Your somewhat pathetic special pleading – “Only the feminists get to decide what is morally acceptable and what is not” – cuts no ice. In fact, most of the moral guardians in Australia (e.g. priests, imams, politicians, media editors and philosophy teachers) are men.

Likewise, your deterministic claim that “Sexism will always exist because men and women are different…” is foolish and wrong-headed. Sexism exists because men and women are treated badly on the basis of their sex when that is irrelevant to the matter in hand. Value judgments should be made on merit, not gender.

You start off with a good point runner. Targeting someone for their sex is no different to targeting someone because they are short. Politics is a dirty game, and most have mud on their hands as well as on their face - male/female, short/tall, old/young. Actually I'm surprised that the government is making more use of comparing Rudd to Latham and arguing that both are/were too young to be PM. When your Howards age you could easily make that argument, and we all saw the spectacle last time when the ALP tried for a young and dynamic leader.

Rudd and Rein face a problem that confronts many couples. Often two careers will come into conflict with each. One might soak up extraordinary amounts of time, another might be faced with a career that will only progress with an interstate or international move. Someone needs to sacrifice for the marriage to work. I am certainly not proposing that this should always be the woman. But in this case it appears that this is the agreement that this couple has come to. They tried to continue with both, and worked out the hard way that the two are on a collision course. And they chose that Rein sell the Australian arm of the business (and guess what, she will continue to own the international part of the business - she's only divesting the direct conflict of interest).

runners comment reminded me of the longstanding attacks on Ammanda Vanstone regarding her looks. I don't recall if pollies were in on that in public but attacking how she looks has been a common item for years.

Do we as a nation consider those kind of attacks Ok when the target is someone we don't like anyway?

I suspect that personal attacks will stay with us while we keep voting for politicians who use those techniques.

R0bert

Feminism is sexism, by it's very definition. Women have long since reached their goal of equality. Now there is little left for feminists to do but assail masculinity to validate their careers and selves. I can think of one or two areas where women are not equal, but it does not favour the feminist cause to be on equal ground to men, so you will never hear about it and certainly no feminists cry for equality there, that I have seen.

As for the coverage in the media and so on, that's symptomatic of having a media that acts as entertainer. What motive is there for the media when people buy into this? If Australians are more interested in stuff like Big Brother, then they will have an absolute allergy to the "boring" politicians. I long since stopped paying money to newspapers, but seeing as most Australians don't care, it won't change. You can't put trust into editorial leadership because they may have their own agenda (for example, aid the distraction of Heffernan), and/or have a motive to sell newspapers at the expense of actual news. Regardless, I doubt whether the distraction was positive for the government. Comments like that are unprofessional and offend people, so extra coverage may have hurt them more.

Something nothing. When i saw the author on a tv quiz show she confirmed that she is a real twit.When i first started reading history i thought that Lenin and Stalin were aberrations but i see tendencies and show trials amongst particularly lefties, particularly lesbian feminists that indicate the two go together. At least you can trust greed, predict greed, but who wants to vote for Howard?

Frankgol writes 'But it’s not OK to criticize Mr Howard because he is short or of a certain age'

I take it you disapprove of the 7.30 report and certain cartoonist who depict Mr Howard's appearance in a negative light. Or is it only when your own favourite pollies are attacked that it matters. You are living dreamland if you can't see that men are often stereo typed by woman politicians. It is all part of the game. No amount of legislation will stop this thing happening. I was wondering if you agree with the Victorian Governments decision to allow male homosexuals rights to exclude all others including lesbians from a bar in Melbourne? I would see this as sexism at its worse by your own standards.

Runner
I’m not aware that the 7.30 Report criticised Mr Howard’s appearance. If they did, that’s unacceptable. They should be focusing on his politics. You’ll have to tell me more.

As for cartoonists, the medium constrains the artist to pick a physical feature that is immediately recognisable to readers – short stature, long nose, obesity, etc - otherwise they’d need to use photos. I agree that cartoons often appear cruel, but I focus on the caption and the underlying concept more than the drawing. In my experience, the majority of cartoons have a shot at the government in power. Keating, Hawke, Whitlam and Fraser were mercilessly lampooned just as Howard is now.

You say that “that men are often stereo typed by woman politicians”. I’m racking my brain to remember some examples. Perhaps you can provide some?

I’m comfortable with VCAT’s (not the Government’s) decision granting an exemption to a hotel in Collingwood because I understand the rationale and know that due process was followed.

All States and the Commonwealth have equal opportunity laws that allow ‘special measures’ rulings. Special measures are based on the principle that equality and non-discrimination don’t require identical treatment or the rejection of difference. To treat all people, regardless of differences, in exactly the same way can simply serve to continue the systemic discrimination faced by some groups e.g. female students in engineering courses.

Exceptions sometimes relate to public health and risk to others. In the Collinwood case, the ruling gives the hotel the right to refuse entry to people considered a threat to the safety and comfort of its homosexual patrons. VCAT took into account the object of the legislation - to improve equal opportunity which includes homosexual men’s right to relax without threat and actual violence.

At the Federal level HREOC allowed a 'special measure' to the Curtain Springs Roadhouse (NT) to restrict sales of alcohol to some Aboriginal people. This was after the Pitjantjajara Council approached HREOC to seek assistance in dealing with the escalating problem of alcohol abuse within its community. Discrimination was allowed in the interests of a greater good.

Gender feminism was always a joke and it comes as no surprise that hacks are well represented among women journalists too.

But wait, was it all a plot by patriarchical editors to let feminist journos have their heads and embarrass themselves, thereby sealing the eventual doom of feminism?

The political 'isms' like feminism have become jaded by time and by the excesses and silliness of some of the adherents.

Cornflower

Do you include anti-feminism on your list of 'isms' that, as you say, 'have become jaded by time and by the excesses and silliness of some of the adherents'?

And conservatism? Would that be another on your list? And male chauvinism?

FG

Above your reply there is a clever advertisement about photocopiers and streaking. Is some self-righteous feminist indignation about the 'sexism' of the advertisement warranted or will you keep your powder dry as suggested by the author?

Have a good day.

To be in politics for any length of time then one would have to have a very thick skin, and I think that Gillard has probably heard much worse than what was said by Heffeman. She seems to have ignored his remarks and carried on with the job the taxpayer is paying her to do, which is a plus for Gillard.

But for many years one of the most popular magazines in Australia has been running a collum titled “Mere Male” , but no complaint has ever been made by feminists regards classifying males as “Mere”. I guess this is because feminists believe in equality.

Remarks made in recent times by the press and others about the prime minister and his age represent age discrimination, and remarks made about a number of politicians and their religion represent religious discrimination. Again no feminist has complained about this, and I guess this is because feminists believe so much in equality.

Cornflower

I take it that that's a "Yes"?

A uncompromising, relentless and possibly personally painfully objective piece by one of Australia's longest serving explicators of genuine feminist thinking.
Thought the attacks by Westernred and others were curmudgeonly in their wilful missing of the very clearly enunciated points about Therese Rein and her choices, that Scutt made and this writer applauds Dr. Scutt for her ability, honesty and character.

This has just got a rerun at "public opinion", the Gary Sauer Thompson blogsite. To re read it is like rewatching the De Vanna goal scored for the Matildas against Norway, it's just way out on a class of its own and getting better with every viewing.