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.