Ludwig: Sure, I take your point. We shouldn't damn the guy on one incident.

Having said that, you inspired me to research Mr Buswell, and now I REALLY dislike him. He comes across as a small town dealmaker of no discernible talent but enough chutzpah to secure party leadership. If anyone knows of one benefit he's produced for his constituents, I'd love to hear it.

In the same way that I object to the term "side effects" when it comes to medication (they're all effects — one effect might be to reduce the side of your pulsating brain tumour, another to make you chuck your guts up every morning, but they're still both effects of that little tablet), I also don't read Mr Buswell's actions as an aberration. There have been several incidents, and it seems to me that they were pretty much in character.

To me, this incident also threads in to the Aussie insistence on choosing pollies who are "good blokes" we can "relate to". God forbid we'd want to elect somebody intellectually and practically impressive. Nah, you just want the kind of bloke you feel like you could have a beer wiv, dunchya?

AND ANOTHER THING that bothers me is the whole sense of humour thing. People who dig this kind of stuff seem to think that not finding a latent fear of women's power (which this most certainly is) quite the gag, then this means one *does not even have* a sense of humour. Why is this so? Why can't we just have different senses of humour? Do I go around to their houses while their sides are splitting watching Funniest Home Videos and say, "Quick! They playing Extras repeats on ABC2 and it's the episode where Sir Ian McKellan acts all retarded! Or don't you have a sense of humour??"

P.S. Ludwig, I hope it didn't seem like this whole diatribe was directed at you. I meant to say, yes, good point Ludwig, then launch into the diatribe. Which was more directed at the universe.

I think you’re wrong Vanilla: we’d no more like to “‘ave a beer whiff Troy”, than you would go clubbing with Paris. After the publicity, we’re no more inclined to vote for him, then you would audition to be her new best friend.

We disown him, but equally recognise that democracy can have some negative “side effects”.

Romany

"Anyone else who feels indignant at having to prove what a good sport she is and how she has a great sense of humour when actually she feels quite shirty and really, really, does not think it is even slightly funny?"

Yes, Romany, as one of the women critical of Troy Buswell on the Chair-sniffer Bra-snapper thread and patronisingly told to “lighten up”, I can very much relate to your question. I don’t think it was intentional, but I was definitely made to feel I’d made a big deal out of something others thought was trivial and joke worthy rather than something to condemn.

I consider myself to have a good sense of humour in most situations but find this whole Troy Buswell thing quite unfunny. You mentioned embarrassment. I think I’m annoyed more than embarrassed. Annoyed that a puerile tasteless act like this can be laughed off as nothing more than a jokey blokey harmless bit of fun.

Vanilla

“The guy obviously thought he was pretty funny and he can do what he likes. But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to ignore it, or pretend we find these kind of hijinks hilarious so as to be sure that we're not seen as bad sports. We should (as has been done) out him, write about him, lobby for others not to vote for him. We should let it be known that we want our politicians to be intelligent, enlightened, resourceful and erudite.”

As you so often do, Vanilla, you've nabbed it perfectly!

“I also don't read Mr Buswell's actions as an aberration.”

I agree. These latest incidents continue a pattern of behaviour. As does his blatant denying of the truth.

“Just to verify I'm not one of those ‘feminazis’ who doesn't have a ‘sense’ of ‘humour’, “

I find this an odd statement, Vanilla, especially on this thread. To me, it just gives oxygen to those out there quick to lampoon any female standing her ground on issues like this one.

Two things have surfaced for me so far in this thread. The first is that most of you are really nice people who have had limited exposure to the seamier side of life. Someone even regarded this as a "fetish" that they had been unaware existed.

The second is that people still seem to think my reason for posting is connected primarily with this Buswell character and that its all just a storm in a tea-cup e.g. "I'd hate to see people who get in a silly tizzy about this deal with something really bad happening to them."

The reason I entitled this thread "What do other WOMEN think?" is that I really wanted to know. Buswell was pertinent but not the main focus of what I wanted to deal with. But while I am not tarring all male posters with the same brush it seems that any threads that deal with women or womens concerns (see the bulldust currently settling all over the maternity leave thread!) get pushed into the same worn tracks over and over again - and usually by the same people. Instead of being free to exchange ideas we women spend most of our time on any female-centred discussion arguing against the same old things. Sadly it seems this thread is slowly being pushed out of shape too.

We really do have more to contribute than that. And if we weren't being held accountable for all the other women who have caused such posters grief, annoyance, tragedy or irritation we could talk about so much more.

Sometimes I just feel like shouting "Get off my back. You don't even know me. I am not HER!" whoever she was. The day I, or Vanilla or Bronwyn or Foxy et. al. start accusing men en masse of being vicious, spiteful, greedy, stupid, nazi, spoilt or all the other things each of us has been called then go ahead. Have a field day. Get stuck in. But until then give it a break.

Dear Romany,

I'm glad that you brought up the 'paid maternity leave' thread currently being filled with all sorts of male comments.

It's interesting though, how many women have actually contributed to this topic?

Romany, Foxy,

Can you please explain what 'male' comments you are finding so upsetting in the maternity leave thread? Maternity leave affects men too, why do you think they should not have their say?

'And if we weren't being held accountable for all the other women who have caused such posters grief, annoyance, tragedy or irritation we could talk about so much more.
'
The only thread that dealt with DV by women against men got PLEANTY of women guilty of exactly what you are complaining about here!

I can see your frustration though. But Perhaps then you can understand the many men brought up in the time of feminism that feel they have been held accountable daily for every sin of the patriachy. It's very hard to be brought up being told you're the violent, potential rapist, non caring parent, female oppressor, responsible for all wars and human misery. At the same time hearing the messages given to the 'special' sex, who can 'do anything' and deserves everything.

'Instead of being free to exchange ideas we women spend most of our time on any female-centred discussion arguing against the same old things'

'filled with all sorts of male comments'

Ok. I get it. You only really want to hear from women, and you see men's input as boring and predictable. Perhaps you should start a woman's blog where you only had to talk with women?

You say you are 'arguing against the same old things', but why cant you see that to many men, your themes and topics are 'the same old critisisms' of men. Why is it so offensive for men to attempt to explain from a man's perspective? Perhaps it's a habit of women being brought up with everything they say being 'validated'? Maybe it's a habit of men being brought up having to justify and apologise for being men?

I have observed the women posters do this validating business before putting forward their arguments. Maybe that's where I am going wrong.