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.