In the Fairfax press today was a story by Shaun Carney, one of the more perceptive writers in the Fairfax stable.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/men-say-no-to-pm-in-droves-20111017-1ltev.html

He says:"AUSTRALIA'S first woman prime minister has serious man trouble. Male voters have turned on Julia Gillard with a vengeance since the start of the year, driving her dive in the polls.

An analysis of monthly Age/Nielsen polls for 2011 shows a powerful and seemingly intractable resistance to the Prime Minister among most men."

and

"In February, men were still viewing Ms Gillard favourably, with 48 per cent approving of her performance and 47 per cent disapproving. Women approved of the Prime Minister 55-39. Then the big male switch-off began."

and

"In the latest poll, 65 per cent of men disapprove of her performance and 31 per cent approve. It was the fifth consecutive poll in which Ms Gillard has attracted these sorts of numbers."

Does this sound right to the OLO audience? What's driving this massively gender-correlated shift in opinion? Is it just the woeful performance that the ALP has put in, or is it deeper? Have men simply switched off the idea of having a woman in charge and if so, why?

Speaking for myself, I think we've seen what happens when someone allows themself to be convinced by spruikers and urgers to take on something they're ill-equipped to do. It's an example of promoting someone above their ability and it's the problem facing businesses all across this country with the push for more women on boards (just because they're women, not because they're good).

Gillard was put in the job as a sop to the powerful feminist lobby within the ALP in a cynical attempt to buy the female vote. It seems to ahve worked to some extent, but women aren't stupid and they've seen the result.

Somehow, I don't like the chances of another ALP female PM for some time.

It may be the sole positive outcome from Gillard's tenure.

I am a man, who sees no value in Gillard, and never did, particularly when she was the DEEWR minister, where she did a shocking job with education and proved to be as anti worker as Rudd and Brereton and Keating were.

Let us not forget that the ALP also turned on Rudd, and so did the voting population, so this is not just a 'female' or 'Gillard' thingy.

"It's an example of promoting someone above their ability" pretty well sums it up here, and Gillard is not alone is she, given Rudd's spectacular demise still fresh in everyone's memory?

And, while we are at it, let's not forget the incompetence of Abbott and his crew. They may be 'more popular' than Gillard but that is only because she is soooo badly thought of.

Were Abbott to get in, as he probably will, I rather doubt we will be returning to some 'lost Nirvanah' from the Howard era but plunging into a Great Gatsby style self-satisfied era of total nonsense, and ever more 'God' involved too.

Margaret Thatcher was a leader. Ms Gillard is simply deperate to hang on to power after knifing the PM to get it. It is only the rusted on sisterhood that try and defend the indefensible.

The unavoidable truth is more men will never vote for her than will, many more.
And that More women will never Vote for Abbott than ever will.
Also more will never vote green more than 5 to 1 than ever will.
We are not well lead
However the first two are not far from leadership change.
The third? even that will change nothing.

Margaret Thatcher is also a borderline genius with a ferocious intellect, Ms Gillard isn't even in her league in that regard.

Bi partisanship is the reason I don't vote,gender doesn't concern me, give me an alternative platform which espouses a progressive, Civic Nationalist agenda and I'll look it over.

Many of us were suckered by the idea of being part of history with the first female PM. What a freakin disaster that has turned out to be. It's like we suddenly woke up communists hoping the next election is not suspended - in the national interest.

Our economic future has been mortgaged for the next fifty years, shared parenting is outlawed, “Hate Men” laws are about to be enacted that promote divorce, tear apart families, pauperize and criminalize fathers, and take our children away reducing us to worker drones for the state. Family & property rights destroyed our children will be exploited and inculcated for the next generation of welfare addicted voters by the powerful feminist ideologues and socialist engineers of all sorts for whom children serve as so much grist for the mill of extra-familial schemes and ambitions.

No-one realised the extent of radical feminist anti-male ideology waiting to be unleashed. Although the warning signs were there - three existent ministers/shadow ministers/spokesperson for the "Status of Woman" in the Government, a Minister for "social inclusion", lesbians seemingly by the truckload including one who coincidentally became a “father” while the Green Prime Minister forced his “gay marriage” agenda down our throats, which the childless Gillard pretends to resist. And has full confidence in the Minister for Escort Services

How can a lesbian Senator married to a trans man, get elected let alone preside with a former ALP Feminist leader over family law amendments which take “He said” out of “He said/she said” and remove all penalties for lying. Men's rights, property, children and future income are not being represented by this government and are at risk of forfeit for generations.

If we continue to allow our attention to be monopolized by carbon tax and government financial management and leave family policy to the socialists from the Australian Lesbian Party with Bob Brown commanding from on top of Mt Sodom will discover only once it is too late the power of “the hand that rocks the cradle.” Call your senator now to stop the family violence amendments.

Which Party Will Win the Parents’ Vote?
With the devastating social effects of fatherless children now apparent there are some 4 million “non-custodial” parents (to adopt an oxymoron) having lost their children to divorce and separation ready to vote for the party that fights this destructive injustice.

This massive voting bloc (about 10% are mothers) roughly doubles if one adds second wives, whose families are devastated by the shake-down of their husbands, and grandparents, who are cut off from their grandchildren and often forced to take in penurious sons.

Yet Conservative politicians pander to feminist votes they can never win with demagoguery against “deadbeat dads,” “domestic violence,” and other questionable evils on which the public has never demanded any government intervention or expenditure. The beneficiaries are left loyalists: lawyers, judges, social workers, psychotherapists, single mothers who will never vote conservative

Wake up LNP – opportunity is riot in your face. Every recent election has seen the specter of a new and supposedly decisive voting bloc (soccer moms, NASCAR dads). This is more than an emerging demographic, however; it is a political pressure cooker that has been building over decades by an extremist ideology that has used fear, hysteria, and emotional blackmail to build a bureaucratic machinery of Soviet proportions to oppress millions and intimidate opposition. The courage to challenge this machine will bring a windfall for Conservatives that could influence elections for years to come.

Howard’s weak shared parenting reform reduced litigated divorced by 22%. The Left needs more divorce for unmarried/divorced female votes (70% vote for welfare protection of the Big Brother party) and re-election funding from a multi-billion dollar divorce/family violence industry. Decimating the traditional conservative voting powerbase of working family & redistributing that wealth to it's welfare dependent mothers is good socialist politics

However, throwing out the baby's father with the alleged “family violence” bathwater is neither prevention nor protection. 80% of child abuse occurs in single parent homes which will unavoidable increase with this bill. More than 50% of first time family violence “assault” occurs after separation which this bill encourages.

Hysterical unsubstantiated propaganda about family violence is destroying families, endangering children, and making criminals of innocent parents. It’s time to listening to those self-interest groups paid to cry “family violence ” wolf and stop spending any more taxpayers’ money to promote family dissolution and fatherless children that causes a self-perpetuating cycle of family violence.

The London riots demand the role and rights of fathers must be respected equally with those of mothers, and for equal shared parenting laws to discourage the use of children as weapons.

Seldom does public policy stand in such direct defiance of undisputed truths, to the point where the cause of the problem — separating children from their fathers — is presented as the solution, and the solution — allowing children to grow up with their fathers — is depicted as the problem. If you want to encourage child abuse, remove the fathers.

Anti:>> What's driving this massively gender-correlated shift in opinion? Is it just the woeful performance that the ALP has put in, or is it deeper?<<

Men are smarter than women.

sonofgloin,

Absolutely..... there's a rumour going round to that effect.

All the women who inhabit OLO have been patiently waiting for years in the hope that we'll see the first evidence here on the forum (no such luck up till now, but we live in hope : )

Howard Beale

Unfortunately many on the conservative side are willing to be emasculated in order to get to power also. Even though the Howard Government was 500% more competent than the current Government he did little to stop the erosion of the family unit. THankfully he enshrined a clear unpeverted defintion of marriage.

What we learn from Politics is that personal belief greatly affects public performance. Ms Gillard's dismal performance confirms this. Bob's Browm and the Greens obsession with destroying the natural family is another example of this. They see schools as the place to indoctrinate kids with their total lack of morals. Unfortunately good men and women in Politics need to stand against the tide of evil. Men like Abbott and Barnaby Joyce do give a glimmer of hope. They need to distant themselves from the godless, corrupt UN which has managed to stuff Europe and now wants to stuff the rest of the world.

Good onya Poirot, well said and most posts prove you right.
Now if we looked at the uniformed bigotry, men hands down in this one.
SOG mate is it not clear Gillard has no talent, acts like a bad mother in law, and its nothing to do with sex.
Your mate Abbott acts just as silly and like some wives can only say no!

Oh dear Belly, you've just given Poirot yet more ammo!

Darling Poirot.

Belly china, I am at present a fan of Abbott over Gillard, as I am the Coalition over Labor, but that can change based on performance and outcomes.

If the Labour party decided to promote women on the basis of ability rather than quotas they would not end up nearly as embarassed. There record of female appointees is atrocious. That's right this mob have such thick hides its impossible for them to be embarassed. There are plenty of capable women out their but unfortunatley the sisterhood seem to despise those who are family oriented and are not afraid to be female.

Go Howard.

So what policy changes would you bring in if you could?

I don't believe it is her gender that has turned voters against Gillard at all.
Most intelligent Australians see beyond gender when they pass judgement on politicians.

I think Gillard and her party are making such a mess of so many issues that her gender is the least of her problems...

Suseonline only the very red necked or uninformed are against her for other than her actions not her sex.
We all should under stand some comments come from a deep dark pit of inability to understand.
Her rise in the party,and I dislike her, came via a true talent and very intelligent mind.
Sadly she over reached, went beyond her ability's.

Suze, nobody suggested it was Gillard's gender that people object to, merely that men have decided they don't like her.I'd suggest that there are lots of reasons for that, although probably not her gender per se. If anything, it's her gender that's allowing her to retain even the tiny level of support she has among women.

I do wish you'd try to respond to the posts as written, instead of going off half-cocked. It doesn't add to the thread and it makes you look dopey.

Runner:"If the Labour party decided to promote women on the basis of ability rather than quotas they would not end up nearly as embarassed."

That was my point. In the desperation to try to milk "the women's vote" they promoted someone who was simply not up to the job and then saddled her with the fairies at the bottom of the garden to boot.

It would be comical if ti wasn't so serious.

Wonder what the difference is between "Suseonline" and "suzeonline"?

The Carbon Tax issue and previous failings with pink batts and BER has far more to do with it than the PM's gender and general discontent with the ALP. Afterall being a man did not help Rudd. Bottom line it has nothing to do with gender except perhaps in the minds of a few old fashioned types.

The only exception I would make is the deposing of Mr Rudd by a woman I think has affected the psyche of many Australians than if it had been a man, but that is my own personal observation in speaking with colleagues, men and women alike.

Why judge any future female PM or politician on the basis of another woman's performance. We don't do it to men so why the double standard?

People seem more concerned with lack of policy rigour than with the gender of the players. Most of the players are men so do we judge the sad state of the political landscape and say it must be the men's fault. The Australian people are better than that I hope.

Gillard on the nose with men?

I don't doubt that for a moment.

She's also on the nose with many women.
The reasons why this is
so is not because she's a female (although
it may true for a small minority). However
the reasons for her unpopularity could be
linked to the way she came to power. As well as
the fact that she has not come across as a
leader in terms of her ability
to shape the nation's agenda.

Unfortunately, she seems to have
rather poor communication skills and appears
to lack conviction, and the ability to carry the
policy debate. All in all it's the
Peter Principle all over again where
the complexities and challenges of being
Prime Minister are far above the level
she's both comfortable with - and for which her
abilities are best suited.

Perhaps with time she may learn "on the job,"
and overcome the difficulties she's currently
facing if she can deliver positive outcomes
and improve her abilities to carry the policy
debate. Of course having an Opposition Leader
who's driven by his own ruthless ambition and
is determined to use every weapon available
to get her out of office - doesn't help her
situation.

cont'd ...

There's a couple of other factors that I forgot
to add. The PM's dependence on the support of
the Greens and Independents may also give some
the perception that these people are controlling
the agenda. Add the fact that her difficulties
have been overshadowed by her government's accomplishments
and you've got a PM whose perforamce is being perceived
as lacklustre to say the least. She's also criticised
for her use of cliches and "management speak," and this
further fuels the impression that she's controlled by
"focus groups." Would things have been that much different
had Tony Abbott won the support of the Greens and the
Independents and was Prime Minister in a minority government
instead of Julia Gillard? The problems would certainly
not have gone away no matter who was PM. I doubt though whether Abbott would have had an Opposition leader who would seek to destroy
his government at all costs.

Charming response from you as usual Antiseptic.

Any comments you write are always gender based, so my comments about Gillard were right on the mark actually.

Many people are still shocked a woman actually attained the PM job over all those men.
The fact remains that she did so, and is Australia's first female PM, so I respect her for that.

I will say what I like about any subject Antiseptic, whether you think it is 'dopey' or not...

Lexi:>> Perhaps with time she may learn "on the job,"
and overcome the difficulties she's currently facing<<

Lexi, Belly mentioned what a gem Gillard was in opposition, but in power she is a clump of dirt. I have no idea where the Gillard that talked some sense, was always abreast of the issues and had a ear for the battler went. She is now so tainted that Slater and Gordon have taken her picture from the wall, so I hear.

Lets take another tack guys, what defines a woman, what defines a man, what are the community expectations from each gender, if any?

No no need for another tact the threads is on subject.
I have More chance of winning the lottery without a ticket the Gillard of being PM after an election.

Lexi

you are to be congratulated for quite a balanced summary. Not often I agree with you but I think your piece is close to the mark.

Dear SOG,

Perhaps the "real Julia," has had to make certain
concessions being part of a minority government
and therefore is unable to govern in her own right?
Just a guess.

Dear runner,

Thank You.

Gillard was elevated mainly due to her media-friendly profile as an effective Parliamentary performer.

It was the media who promoted her as the most viable alternative and then feigned horror when she replace Rudd (who they apparently tired of).

As for Abbott, he's not a leader. He's a follower who goes around telling people what he thinks they want to hear but never seems to have an alternative proposal to put forward - nothing but a list of "what I'm NOT going to do".

Thatcher was eventually knifed by her own Party. I don't know about her being "a borderline genius" if she didn't see the Poll Tax would be one negative too many - like Howard's Workchoices.
Some unkindly say her current dementia went unnoticed for decades.

Gillard has all the appeal of a petulant,nagging infant's mistress.She's a bare faced liar with the personality and imagination of a church mouse.These are her good points.

"""
Of course having an Opposition Leader
who's driven by his own ruthless ambition and
is determined to use every weapon available
to get her out of office - doesn't help her
situation.
"""

LOL! Heaven forbid that an opposition leader would appose and have an ambition to become leader.

Perhaps he should warm her seat for her every morning before parliament, file her nails and apply her lipstick for her?

I like Juliar.

She is teaching two genderations of new voters never, ever, ever to vote for the ALP or the Greens.

She's turning whole swathes of the traditional non-thinking ALP voters into thinking voters. And they then become conservative voters.

Her coalition government with Bob the Bungholer, the watermelons of his stalinist totalitarian movement and their useful idiot mung-bean munching bong-huffers has squandered $150 billion. Everything the Green/ALP imbecilitariat has touched has turned (taxpayer) gold into purest shite.

So I really, really want Juliar to stay on as PM.

I greatly enjoy the serial humiliations of the totally-out-of-her-depth bogan princess. Each one converts yet more Australians into conservatives who use their brains to vote rather than their emotions.

The delicious, delicious ALP backstabbing and endless leaks of Cabinet squealfights, the debauched corruption of the union thugocracy stealing their members funds as they hump their way through acres of whores, the naked lies to the Australian voters, the haughty contempt for all Australians, the squalid venality…

…it’s great!

@Peter Hume - I'll post proposed amendments to duckbum's "Hate Men" laws - tomorrow.

Howard, I wish you would say what you really mean.

I kind of get the impression that our Julia is not one of your favourite people, but would you be a bit more precise, so I cam be sure of that?

I too enjoyed Howard's post, and yours hasbeen.
A good healthy laugh starts my motor.
Julia, propped up by some who want her job, after she has lost it.
And by the wish/need to pass legislation , is doomed.
But she will take, thrown out with her, the discontent.
Leaving Doctor No!
Abbott a man promising undeliverable things make our lying leader look saint like.
Australia will be better with out both, soon.

Howard
Tell it like it is!

Not just the amendments to a particular Act. I mean, what are the wholesale changes you would make to redress the wrongs and injustices caused by the feminist regime in general?

Yes Belly, hear hear. Unfortunately the democratic process guarantees more of the same. Only *the* most unprincipled people can ever rise to the top, those driven solely by consideration of power at any price, those who couldn't lie straight in bed, the veritable sociopaths.

Ms Gillard has done far better than Mr Abbott would ever within the strictures of the minority government he wanted to form.

Broadening the tax base by pricing/taxing carbon makes sense, regardless of whether or not it has an effect on climate change. The tax will be offset for families by reducing income tax levels and raising incomes of those not earning income. Exporters will be financially aided in maintaining their competitive positions. The Coalition and its allies’ “Big New Tax” mantra ignores these compensatory measures to maintain community anxiety about change which media barons fan, for their own interests, by ensuring continuous bad press.

On immigration, the Nauru solution did nothing to stop the boats. What did was the lack of concern for safety and human rights displayed when the Australian Navy began turning them back under the last Coalition government. Mr Abbott has stated its intention to again turn back boats should it The Coalition win government. The veil of supposed concern for safety and human rights used by the Coalition as justification for marooning the Government on border protection puts political gain ahead of the national good.

Should Australia’s mineral wealth be sold off at bargain prices? A market-linked interest under the proposed mining tax provides a fair deal for Australians and mining companies, but the Coalition opposes it with no better suggestion.

cont'd

We need a tax system that encourages low carbon emissions and broadens the tax base away from incomes to incentivise work. We need a humane immigration policy and border protection. We need a better deal on mineral wealth for Australians.

There is a very high level of negativity and disrespect displayed by the majority OLO posters towards Ms Gillard over her difficulties in delivering on these needs within the strictures minority government. This is in comparison to the high level of support for the wrecking and stymying tactics of Mr Abbott.

It is worth pointing out that both leaders are "on the nose" if opinion polls, such as the SMH's, are anything to go by. On preferred PM, Mr A 48%, Ms G 44%. On approval Mr A 41%, Ms G 31%, on disapproval, Mr A 54%, Ms A 62%. By the way, incumbents generally go poorly in these measures, with exceptions like Hawke in the 80's

Why the generally one-sided invective on OLO? Are posters here out of touch with the more balanced view of the general community and slaves to the interests of media barons? Perhaps the half a dozen people that post here is not a fair sample from which to draw a conclusion.

Sorry mate,welcome how ever.
I think you need an out of body experience.
Look again at the threads title.
Then at our comments.
Then yours from the evidence you gained in doing the first two.
See, with me, you stand on an ant hill,while they run up your trouser leg.
And tell every one you are right we are wrong.
Gillards relationship with men, no popularity is the subject.
I am FOREVER ALP
And unionist.
And opposed this lost sole.
On the nose?
Dare not even try to tell you what men think of her.

Thanks for that welcome Belly,

From the SMH article "65 per cent of men disapprove of her performance and 31 per cent approve".

This is barely different from the overall the stats incorporating both genders. The only aspect of note is that the genders have come to this point via different timelines. Whoopeedoo! The main aim is obviously to keep the bad press rolling, no matter how insustantial the point. Just look at the space and prominence given to the article

This thread has the barest basis of interest yet, like any thread involving the PM, is used to attack her personally, and by some who a fine turn of phrase in doing so, it must be said.

Sorry if I added a little humourless balance.

I love the way some posters state, hand on heart, that they have no love for TA either before proceeding with vilifying JG personally and/or politically. Maybe they should start a thread on TA and his deep sense of concern for the safety and human rights of the boat people he intends the Navy to turn back to sea, the ones he'd hate to end up in Malaysia. Perhaps they could get really angry about "core" and "non-core" promises of the past and whether we might expect some from him in the future. Perhaps they could get upset about the highly unprincipled way he attempted to knit together a minority government himself.

Until then, I'll observe the slagging from atop my ant-hill.

When discussing broken election promises let's not mention Abbotts's "absolutely rock solid, ironclad committment" about the Medicare Safety Net rebate levels he made before the 2004 election when he knew about the cost blowouts.

That promise was quickly broken amid calls on him to resign. The excuse made was due to "changed circumstances". Mean and tricky.

Lete's also not mention Howard's "mandate" to introduce the GST when the ALP actually won more primary votes that the coalition. More people were against the GST than for it, but it came down to seats.

The "M" word has all sorts of implications when in suits.

History repeats but spin can change how it's seen.

Reactionary fascists, however - never change their spots.

Luci, you know the old one that goes, you can fool all of the people some of the time, & some of the people all of the time?

Obviously you are one of the latter.

Hasbeen, you're on fire again! As always, you leave me no comeback. I yield.

"""
And opposed this lost sole.
On the nose?
Dare not even try to tell you what men think of her.
"""

You'd better stop now belly this is getting embarrassing. That's two things with agree with :P~

Dear Hasbeen,

I like this one:

"You can fool some of the people all the time and
those are the ones you want to concentrate on."
(George W. Bush).

Lexi I love it.

I laughed so loud I scared the cat

Well, that went way off the rails, but thanks to everyone who participated, even susebecq.

I'm not sure what could be taken from all of that. It's clear that Gillard is unpopular with men, much more so than with women, although women are coming to a similar view with time.

I still don't understand the difference in the response though. If it's not her gender that makes men dislike her, is it her gender that has helped to hold up her support among women?

Now why would men not like 20 years of USA feminist extremism, VAWA and Bradley amendments, being dumped here in Act - the family violence amendments that make it impossible to share in the parenting of one's own children

Do we want to be criminalised for calling your partner a naughty word, raising your voice, causing "annoyance" or "emotional distress," claiming to be "fearful," or just not doing what your partner wants?

Do we want a national "family violence" register whereby we are denied job opportunities, the right to study law or be elected to Parliament, denied overseas travel, have our children taken away by false allegations without penalties, to be thrown out of our homes so the wife's boyfriend can move in while we have to pay for the mortgage and "child support" maintenance?

Do we want "Other Measures" that force us to pay this child support whether we become unemployed, hospitalized, in prison, sent to war, dead, proved to not be the father, never allowed to see our children, suffer a pay cut?

Laws that the amount can only be changed by a Federal judge (which takes months & we can't afford it anyway) and arrears cannot be discharged by bankruptcy or set aside ever.

Do want our driver's licenses taken away as penalty. That it be a contempt of court to be too poor to pay warranting us being sent to prison - debtors jail.

This Bill will be voted for in the Senate next week. Call your Senator to say NO to Gillard's "Hate Men" law http://www.f4e.com.au/blog&#8203;/2011/10/22/family-violenc&#8203;e-bill-family-law-amendmen&#8203;t-update-time-to-speak-up/