I have been rather surprised that there is yet to be a thread commenced on the topic of Julia Gillard's misogynist speech. It seems to have received disproportionally more attention overseas than in Australia. For a political speech to have garnered over 400,000 views on Youtube is outstanding in itself particularly as it is a over 15 minutes long, and contains a fair amount of content that would have been foreign to the obviously high numbers of international viewers.
http://youtu.be/ihd7ofrwQX0

It certainly has grabbed the attention of many overseas newspapers and that of probably my favourite Youtube news channel The Young Turks.
http://youtu.be/FJfy2VI23Cw
Besides getting the odd fact wrong , and an interesting pronunciation of Gillard, they did a pretty good job of covering the story.

A writer from the New Yorker Magazine penned “After his performance last week, supporters of president Obama, watching Gillard cut through the disingenuousness and feigned moral outrage of her opponent to call him out for his own personal prejudice, hypocrisy, and aversion to facts, might be wishing their man would take a lesson from Australia.”

Britain's The Telegraph said “Watching a female Prime Minister tear apart the male leader of the Opposition with such aplomb, composure – but most importantly armed with a brilliantly impressive set of insults – backed up with dates and times of when each shocking comment was said – was the best card Gillard, ever the political animal, could have played in such a situation.”

To have 'sexism' and 'misogyny' trending in the top five twitter tags in Australia and yet as Anne Summers from the DRUM reflects;

“The reportage and commentary this morning out of Canberra was so startlingly at odds with the reactions of such vast numbers of people both here and abroad that you have to ask: why and how could this be the case?”
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4305728.html

However to have notoriously attention span deficient female teenagers in my family independently decide to watch the entire clip tells me more about its impact that any other source.

Well I guess that means most Ozzies know what Gillard is, where your teenager, & the yank lefty press are still learning.

Once they catch up on her, they will probably be as disgusted as most of us are, all though, the left leaning yankee press person is unlikely to ever admit it, in print. Lets face it, the poor yanks have a president about as useless as our PM, so deserve our sympathy, unless they are stupid enough to re-elect him.

I do find it interesting to watch said lefty US press try to come up with an excuse for Obama's debate effort. Even after seeing the cogs in his head, that pass for a brain, grind almost to a total halt, they try to find excuses, rather than admit he's a dud.

Guess the similarities in the lefty press, there & here, show how far from reality they have now ventured

Does a lot of aggressive yelling about mysognyst Tony make a good speech? She even used her dead father as a sympathy ploy.
Will her standing in the polls go up, consequently?

You are so right guys. How DARE Gillard defend herself strongly, vigorously and truthfully against a man. She has no right to do that, especially to poor, sweet Tony ... she must be a misogynist. Dear Tony has NEVER made any personal comments whatsoever against Gillard. Damn women, what gives them the right to defend themselves?

Keep up the good work guys. Good, decent women of this country know their place and are thankful they have men to protect them. Long live the 1950s.

'Keep up the good work guys. Good, decent women of this country know their place and are thankful they have men to protect them. Long live the 1950s. '

yea I dare say those woman of the 50's were so mistreated that they did not have to lie, sleep around and abort their children to further their self interest. What a picture of morality. And don't forget they then go in to bat for a man of the 50's slipper whose modern day thinking sees woman as purely ugly sex vessels. Great work Julia and the mob! I think I will point my daughter to the 50's for some sort of guidance.

Oh runner, you are so right.

The 50s were a time of GREAT morality and decency towards women. Yes, the 50s ... a time when women in the workplace were NEVER forced to resign their jobs when they married, a time when those immoral and wicked women who had a child out of wedlock had their children forcibly taken away without consent and adopted, a time when the God given right of a man to rape his wife was enshrined in legislation (no man could be charged with raping his wife), a time when all women were paid equally for the same work as men, a time when the workplace and positions of authority were filled with righteous and religious women in the same numbers as men, a time when all men respected women and NEVER committed crimes against them, a time when pedophile priest and preachers didn't exist to set a bad example for our women, a time when ...... well you get my drift.

Let's go back to the 50s .... it was a GREAT time for women's freedom.

Dear runner,

Ah yes the good old '50's, when a bloke could have a skin full and drive home, give the missus a fat lip or worse if she complained, and the cops couldn't do a bleedin' thing about it.

That's when a woman knew her place, and if she didn't she copped a hiding. And if she wasn't up for a bit of kiss and cuddle you made sure she got it anyway, I mean what are marital rights for.

From the ABC's Law Report where Damien Carrick is talking to Austin Ashe, a retired Family Court judge, about family law in the 50's;

Damien Carrick: In terms of the violence in the relationship, presumably there was no rape within marriage, too, so that must have been a huge issue, and in terms of women saying, 'Look, I demand my physical autonomy, and my physical choices'.

Austin Ashe: That was something which grew in strength from the '50s onwards. The feminist movement is to be given full marks for this because there were lots and lots of cases where the fact that the wife was bashed about really didn't affect much, it was almost a feeling that-what was the old Yorkshire proverb, or an old proverb in England anyway, 'A woman, a dog, and a walnut tree, the more you beat 'em the better they be'. There really was a feeling around that it was man's duty to keep his wife in order, and if he slapped her once or twice, provided it didn't do any great harm, that was part of the marriage set-up.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/1956-and-no-fault-divorce/3347626

And you want to point your daughter to that?

I think I will stick with Prime Minister Gillard's speech.

It is being covered in two active threads.
All sides have been pegged out and the verbal tennis well under way.
No fan of Gillard her speech was nothing short of brilliant.
She gave both AJ And his speech writer Abbott a verbal flogging.
Our middle aged men dominated media put on display why it is failing to sell news papers.
Of far more importance?
Social media now will never again be replaced as the most honest form of tapping public opinion.

I duno csteele,

That to me seems a pretty black arm band view of history. I have talked to a lot of old ducks in my time and none of them have these kind of attitudes. In fact I would describe the relationships and families as fairly matriarchal.

Not saying it didn't happen or that the new protections in place aren't a great thing, but people (mostly feminists) do go on with this singular hyperbolic narrative that every marriage was one of abuse and alcoholism, and the truth is things are rarely so black and white, and men have loved and cherished and supported women, and vice versa throughout the ages.

It's such a well worn cliche this abusive raping husband Shtick that people trot out, and it's just as unrealistic as everything being great in the good ol' days as runner bangs on about.

Whether you like to admit it or not, rape withing marriage in the 50s was 100% LEGAL.

No denial from you can alter this FACT.

End of story.

Dear Houellebecq,

You probably have a point. I'm more than likely a touch jaundiced as my grandfather was a policeman in a small Victorian town and I have undoubtedly heard some stories that would not have made the rounds back then since it just wasn't talked about in polite company. That 'age of innocence' was undoubtedly just as much an 'age of blissful ignorance'.

Social media has certainly played its part in exposing the dirty linen in a frighteningly efficient, speedy and pervasive manner. But it has its up sides. The propagation of Julia Gillard's speech is one of those. I am reliably informed that the link to the video is making the Facebook rounds of otherwise politically disengaged and disinterested teenagers.

As someone who counts himself as being reasonably apprised of the political currents in this country I'm wondering if that has had an impact on how many of us, including those on this site, have missed the impact of the speech. It seems to have really struck a chord with those who are not encumbered as we are such as our youth and those viewing from overseas. Of course gender would play its role as well.

I will be interested to see how many hits it ultimately receives.

i watched the same thing as you
only i saw a prepared dirt file..in lue of a cogent reply

to think that she defends slipper
by attacking tony..boy was i ever surprised slip[per even got the two mentions in her prepared ...red flag dirt unit..but i note she didnt cut back to the PREPARED DIRT FILE*..to name drop.

the poor precious thing..

ok lets saay for the sake of boosting woman..esteem
its yet built on a lie and a dirt file..then qwuickly marketed..in news grabs

ommitting the fine detail of her defense of that fine upstanding speaker who isnt musso\ginist

lol

it defies belief
prooves we onkly hear what we want to hear

all the while
al was being sleazy..was doing his bit..behind the scenes
helping out a sleeze..defended by a tart..who poor her.. cant handle the oppisition leader without the dirt file prepared via public servants

plus the civil 'in house'..missoginists ]
guiding her every utterance...step as she
and her party fall from grace..into discrace.

so sad..then that one that nomin ated him for speaker

sad sad sad
yes its chalked up by youtube..as a response to missognoy..yet defends a missoginist via villifying a man..

yep bring on the handbag brigade..now the dirt unit has shopveled yet more mud

but juliar..watch the poles my dead
you just lost a big wack of femails VOTERS..not impressed by the sin/spin...that will soon set missoginy in stone ..equally to both sexes..plus the others.

daddy will be so pleased
shame same same shame

but heck ya knew that..
ya missoginist dirtfilers .*knew it was despirit
but it was allways doomed to fail ...hugely..

see ya in monday's polls

when does caw-cuss meat?

csteele,

I'm not that impressed by hits really. I feel I'm at the younger end of the OLO demographic too.

We live in a short attention span world of Kony, Wah wah, insert latest topic of the hungry beast. Misogyny (as a topic) is the current flavor of the month.

Hypocrisy is painting the town red. Both sides of politics, commentators for the left and the right are all trying to out do each other in the double standards stakes.

I read an amazing quote from a feminist magazine about Julia tearing Abbott a new asshole. You cant get more misogynist/homophobic language than that, from a feminist. Oh they irony.

I think it was a fantastic speech and it will be remembered and have an effect. But that doesn't make the argument she was making accurate or negate it was a shrewd and cynical political exercise in distraction and agenda setting. In fact that it was so effective altering the attention from Slipper is why I think it was a great speech, but your average schoolgirl will not comprehend such things.

The negatives are it has perpetuated this particularly bitter and personal discourse in the politics of personality rather than policy, it has created this divisive men vs women climate full of disingenuous offense and the farcical witch hunt for misogynists and counter and counter and counter claims (mostly accurate) of hypocrisy.

She would do well to be careful not to overplay that gender card too.

The positives are that it has raised the issue of misogyny (terribly misused and overused word it is) and sexism, given every woman who was ever scorned by sexism a chance to yell 'You Go Girl', brought out the Real Julia and showcased her real talent in parliament, and shown a positive strong woman on the attack.

It was a great serve! It was wonderful theater, and it reinforces my opinion that politics is a soap opera for men.

Houell, you're guilty of the same thing in your post that you're complaining about. Oh the irony!

'Let's go back to the 50s .... it was a GREAT time for women's freedom.'

Certainly a lot better than having to look and often act as sluts to move ahead in life, certainly a lot better than the many topping themselves because they can't live up to the images of porn stars, certainly better that kids are not abandoned to social engineering clinics from birth. Great work femininst and the emasculated males who have supported such poison.

Dear Houellebecq,

I suspect there are several reasons why the speech was so resonant with those 'less engaged'.

It was damn good, there were a couple of times I had the hair standing up on the back of my neck, but there was also a palpable rawness about the emotion. I feel many see the 'disengaged' as a little clueless, perhaps like 'average schoolgirls'. But many of them rightly view modern politics very cynically yet are certainly able to recognise when something rises above the muck, even if they understand Ms Gillard remained knee deep while delivering it.

To see my teenager breakout in spontaneous applause on more than one occasion, even on the second viewing, really drove home to me its power. This is despite me having to explain the who Peter Slipper was. I don't bemoan the fact I had to do it as I considered her and many of her age group as 'wilfully disengaged', just as I was back then.

But I agree it was great theatre and the looks of discomfort from the other side added to the spectacle enormously.

I do think hits matter and they have just ticked over 500,000 while I have been writing this. I acknowledge there are exceptions but takes a brave teenager to be posting political speeches on Facebook, especially ones over 15 minutes long. The fact it is making such waves in this demographic speaks to its power.

Yes, we all yearn for those enlightened fifties - white picket fences, cheap petrol and a time when women (and blacks) knew their place.

And what could be better than driving home drunk on a Saturday night unmolested by police after a bit of manly poofter bashing.

Divorce? Don't even think about it! Women were kept chattel and trapped in lives they could not escape or control.

Nostalgia is always remembered better than the reality ever was. The truth is that despite all the selective memories most people would not really want to relive those days.

In the same way people will only see what they want to see in Gillard's speech.

To me it was both a political fix and a personal statement to a political problem and nothing that Abbott would not have done in the same circumstances - but with more style than he could muster.

Dear rache,

You said;

“To me it was both a political fix and a personal statement to a political problem.”

I don't think you will get too much argument that both of those were elements of her speech. What I will disagree with is the notion that that is all there was. Her last comment about Abbot looking at his watch may have been a little contrived as revealed by the small smile, but the sense of her complete frustration and anger was palpable. This was an opportunity to vent and it was understandably grabbed with both hands.

While all politicians have the knack I don't think Julia Gillard is talented enough in the art of high dudgeon to have pulled this off with that alone. That these emotions were real is bourne out by the popularity of the speech. People generally have a pretty good nose for political BS and saw this for what it was, a reaction to some pretty unsavoury attacks on both her and her recently departed father.

I get feeling that the Australian sense of a fair go has been prodded and there is a growing sentiment that the constant attack dog style of the opposition and other sectors of the media has gone too far. This may not transmit into fulsome support for the PM but it does allow them to cheer her on when she finally bites back.

csteele do you really believe there would be more than a few hundred people would listen to a Gillard speech? Even more, do you think anyone other than committed lefties could stand to listen to her.

She has improved my reaction time dramatically. I can get the remote, & turn her off so quickly, the moment that voice is heard, I rarely have to bear the sight of her.

I really doubt even many of the faithful can stand the sight or sound of her, & I find it is women who dislike her the most. I wonder what that says.

This is something I noticed just before the Queensland election. Quite a few ladies I had previously thought mild mannered, expressed very strong dislike, & even hate for Bleigh. Most of the blokes thought she was just an incompetent twit, with no strong feeling beyond that. Not so many of the ladies.

I think you will be unpleasantly surprised at the size of the bricks many ladies will be hurling at a certain bottle red head, come election time.

That's where you're wrong, Hasbeen.

I think we can agree that you would refer to me as a leftie - that is, someone with a respect for the ethics of a robust social democracy.

I've had a bit a hiatus from politics in the main since the last election, and I can honestly say I've avoided long political speeches on telly and particularly avoided those by the Prime Minister, who I've heard speak only here and there.

I took the opportunity of clicking csteele's youtube link this morning, and had a rattling good time watching her carpet Mr Abbott. I think csteele is on the money that her "well-controlled" speech was the result of much pent-up emotion, but mainly a volley served against hypocrisy. It seems that the hapless Mr Abbott pushed one button too many and she let him have it. I'm not particularly enamoured of her politics, however, I can glean a superior parliamentary performer when I see one. Some pollies have it to a high degree and some don't. Some are perfectly well suited to politics, but not well suited to leadership. Tony Abbott seems to have attained his relatively high-office by default - he doesn't possess the lightning wit and smarts required, simple as that.

Btw, my eleven year-old noticed Gillard as he wandered past the computer this morning. He pulled up a chair of his own volition and watched it with me. It seems there was something electric about her performance.

(I got an extra kick myself watching Julie Bishop feign outrage and indignation. I reckon she should go for a part in the next series of Downton Abbey)

runner is far from alone, while his crime may be worse, hiding behind a form of Christianity that was never told by its God.
Throwing words like slut at , who do you think the gent was targeting?
I despise Gillard, not because she is a woman, not because any evidence has ever been put she is getting more sex than her share.
I note Tony Abbott a man therefore able, thought he, a near Catholic monk had a son out of wedlock.
Back to our sorry poster runner, he shows us even we, can let a personal view turn to bigotry.
So much has been said about Gillard, BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN.
Her conduct in both speech and actions have been great.
In time she will gain credit for removing Abbott, his recent actions are as low as runners bigotry hiding behind religion.
And in time this country,s male dominated unhappy form in talking about all women and Gillard will change.

What annoys me to tears is all of them in Canberra now trying to score points using sexism as the spring board. Wish they'd just grow up.

well you get my drift.
DiamondPete,
I think you don't have a drift to offer apart from drifting with the flow of two wrongs make a right towards the waterfall of moral collapse.
Yes the 50's as was any other period were not all that great for woman but that has changed & has now gone off the rails again the other way. Remember two wrongs don't make a right.

Poirot>> Tony Abbott seems to have attained his relatively high-office by default - he doesn't possess the lightning wit and smarts required, simple as that.<<

P, perhaps we need a plodder in power, one who can implement policy without CONTINUOUS failure on application. The "lightning quick smarts" you qualify as some sort of positive attribute obviously does not transfer to policy competency.

I was going to list Labors failed policies, but it would take too long. So I will list their only triumph as the snow falls along the Great Dividing Range this 12th day of October…..

Carbon tax….because of global warming. Yes they have achieved the taking of our wealth for no valid reason and shipped it overseas. The rate of Carbon tax is what they deem, or what the Europeans deem, or perhaps what the Martians deem…,who knows?

I will tell you who does not know….the rabble of imbeciles and liars that rule the decaying carcass of a once affluent Australian domestic economy.

sonofgloin,

If Tony's escapade with Hetty Verolme's electricity bill recently is an example of political competency, then good luck to him (and us). When I see that kind of foolish stunt, it makes me wonder if he should be in politics at all.

Regarding your snow.

An increase in the frequency of unusual and extreme weather events is an indicator of global warming...yes, I know you believe that an unusual event that happens to consist of "cold extremes" must preclude warming, but it doesn't.

its sad and funny seeing ol john boy coward/howard..*back on tv
i cant help but compare him to juliar..lol

anyhow im going to be listening to the speaches
comparing the person/words

[lol in ya dreams..

they all''been to bali too'
how many paid their own way
how much this STAGED* media production costing us..all up?

yep ya jusyt cant help yourselves
nose in the trough

yeah..lol
i been to bali too
but paid my own way

This talk about how dreadful it was in the 50s for women is just a lot of nonsense.

Have you forgotten that they did not HAVE to go to work ?
Why was that ? Well it was because the dopey feminists were not
pushing for loans to be made available on both incomes !
They had the freedom of choice removed.

They were too stupid to see what the result would be.
They simply could not be told that if you borrow on two incomes you
MUST HAVE two incomes to repay.
The result is women frantically trying to manage work, getting
children to child care, paying for child care, trying to manage
picking up after child care.
Some are not even coming out ahead after child care costs.

You don't need me to tell you about all the hassles and expense.

I don't remember if it was a labour or liberal government that forced
the lending authorities to lend on both incomes.

However for the developers, my my, what a bonanza !
Now we can run costs up as there are now two incomes to pay for our
higher costs (err charges) so happy days are here again.

The basic rule is costs will rise to meet the amount of money available.

Okay this is getting a little surreal.

I log on this morning and the hit count is over 787,000 and the speech has taken first place in the 'Most Popular – All Categories' on Youtube which lists the strongest trending recently uploaded videos.

Quite extraordinary.

The ABC's Youtube channel has loaded nearly 50,000 individual clips and I would wager none have had a twentieth of the response the Gillard video has garnered. Peter Slipper's resignation received less than a thousand.

Belly commented earlier that; “Social media now will never again be replaced as the most honest form of tapping public opinion.” and I think to a degree he is right yet the popularity of the clip has me struggling to find an explanation. The best I can come up with is the high hit rates on the site for videos showing bullies getting their comeuppance.

It is fairly obvious that many Australian commentators who have been mired in the cut and thrust of federal politics have little appreciation of how well this speech stands on its own merits.

It is too early to tell if it is going to be in any way pivotal but those dismissing it have their heads in the sand I'm afraid.

Stands on it's own merits is the key csteele.

It is great taken out of it's context. It stands on it's own, and it doesn't even need to be about politics per se.

It is a fantastic serve! It's what every woman would like to say to Tony Abbot, or their most hated boss or ex lover.

That's the level it's resonating at. I seriously don't see it as a political hit, politics is just not cool for that demographic, feminism less so.

One thing missed in the commentary is that imagine if any male politician had given any female politician such a serve, it would be considered a bullying act, and beyond the pale. So while we're all talking about sexism, lets not forget she was able to make such an attack because of her gender.

The dynamic of the theater was Tony cowering under the strong woman and people cheered at the naughty little boy getting a telling off. Turn that around if Tony gave a serve to Julia and you'd have a wife beating bully misogynist attacking a poor defenseless woman.

Imagine if Tony had found in his office similar things as in Plibersek's office, it would have been included in Julia's speech like the standing next to signs. The speech would have been even better had she cut out a lot of that circumstantial evidence, and dropped the misogyny and kept the sexist. Well, it would have been more accurate, but the crowd she was playing to wouldn't have enjoyed it so much.

You are all watching political World Championship Wrestling.With the aid of the media this is the distraction from the truth ie The financial elites have stolen $ billions from us with money printing and scams like selling sub-prime mortages to our super funds.The only people being gaoled are Occupy Protestors.

They continue to do it and not a single person has been charged or gaoled.Not only are the big banksters too big to fail,it seems that they are also too big to gaol.

While Labor are totally useless,corrupt and incompetent ,the Coalition will not bring about the necessary financial reform to free this country from needless debt.

'Social media now will never again be replaced as the most honest form of tapping public opinion.'

Yes and No. This 'viral' (hate the term) effect really facilitates jumping on the bandwagon. Mob mentality can be an indicator of support for the speech in political terms, but it can also be as you say in bully-victim terms, in simply raw emotion terms, in gender relation terms, in all sorts of other areas.

So you can see something take off and gain momentum, but the motivation is missing, and I think importantly, you don't know whether people watch the whole thing, whether they react positively (People 'like' out of politeness, pear pressure, habit, they may be more likely to like than not like, they may not even have the facility to not like either), and even then it's just a lazy pressing of a button. It's a very instant reaction kind of thing, where I reckon when people vote it's a deeper core belief thing.

Also I think with the scale of these things (and there are forces deliberately working towards pushing them along, lets not forget that political staffers hit the blogs every day to attempt to influence things), the demographic it comes from in terms of age and political leanings is lost. I guarantee in a months time people have moved on, and an election is in a year.

I fear for Gillard that women who already hate Tony may cheer along, but to a neutral sitting on the fence she may be inclined to empathize. Especially with the standing near signs rubbish and some of the far-fetched evidence.

Well, yes, Houellie,

I have to agree that it was great theatre, and it resonates with a powerful theme, that of the sniping and undermining party getting their comeuppance.

I think the misogyny tag is way overused too. It's all too easy to whip it out as a rhetorical rolling pin these days.

Then again, Tony did have the assistance of the animated indignation, tut-tutting and tisk-tisking of Julie Bishop playing out behind him in the chamber to offset the tirade from the other side of the table.

Houellebecq well said. I was left wondering after listening to the speech how often we will see Julia naming the sexsm which benefits women? Will we see her taking to the family law and child support acts to ensure that the practical outcomes are closer to gender neutral or will she continue to support their role in applying paternalistic family models?

Will we see issues such male suicide and lower life expectancy for men treated as serious issues? Willwe see higher incarceration rates for men treated as a something needs addressing?

Julia may be happy to name anything which looks like sexism impacting women but I really doubt that we will see much of the other side from her.

R0bert

We, all of us, do our selves no favors by ignoring a post such as runners, he used with intent, the word slut.
I am a modern man, not just gay enough, but a progressive modern Alpha Male.
But we must confront, even in this thread, a bigotry against Gillard seemingly based on her sex.
I growl with anger at PC attempts to place every woman on the Princess platform, look first for beauty INSIDE a woman.
But the dogged determination to not see, not understand, Abbott, his front bench, and his maybe speech writers AJ, FOR WHAT THEY ARE IS STUNNING.
Print media has sometimes given its pen, to such as runners post here, would any of us have our women folk spoken about like that.
Gillard and Abbott stumble like two drunks from mistake to bigger mistake,leaning on one another.
But for decency sake JG won hands down Abbott lost, he let the mask slip, I know the real Tony Abbott is behind it.
In time my country,s men and women will too, and see him as a far bigger lier than Gillard ever was.

Anybody notice that Julia has just taken $60 away from single mothers?
Shows her concern.

She certainly put a lot of raw emotiion into the speech...fed up with being attacked in emails etc...but I was annoyed particularly by the reference to her dead father because she made it sound as though it was Tony not Alan, who had uttered the words.
Guess she had just read the latest poll in which labour had slipped again, and was frustrated because they (and she) had gone up a little last time. No party can dish the dirst like labour, backed into a corner. Wonder what that union leader said about Tony that even she felt she had to apologise for. Anybody know?

Belly I went looking. Pretty much the norm in theme for runner if the post I found was the one you referred to.

Any particular reason why that comment would be worse than a lot of other stuff that gets bandied around? Eg if someone had referred to a group of men as sleezes would that have bothered you in the same way?

R0bert

Yes those dreadful 50s, when women were punching bags. I don't know how much of the 50s most actually saw, but I lived through then, & the post war 40s, as an observant school kid.

I saw the folks, like mine, fathers just back from the war with a new demob suite, & nothing else.

I saw the women, desperate for some security, & stability in their life, pinch every penny to build a bank account. Wanting to own something, preferably a house, not as a status symbol, but as something solid, after years of fear & worry.

I saw my father, & all my mates, [yes all], come home with a pay packet full of money. Remember we were paid in real money back then. I've seen them hand the unopened packet to that downtrodden wife. I've seen the wife hand the bloke a 10 shilling note, or even a pound if he was a high earner, his pocket money for the week. This is how it was for most working class.

She would be down at the bank the next day, putting most of it in the "house fund". This was one of her jobs, he worked. Remember banks only opened from 10AM to 3PM in those days.

Mot having to go to a job most of them took turns at the school tuck shop, making "Oslo lunches" for the kids. Strangely I never did see one of them with a black eye. May be that only happened at the up market Grammar school, not at our state school.

things not said by a male
If you're killed,
you've lost a very important part of your life." -Brooke Shields

things not said by a woman

"The people in the Navy look on motherhood
as being compatible with being a woman."
-Rear Admiral James R. Hogg

by the way media dont get off scot free

"We apologize for the error in last week's paper
in which we stated that Mr. Arnold Dogbody was a defective in the police force. We meant, of course, that Mr. Dogbody is a detective in the police farce."

-Correction notice in the Ely Standard, a British newspaper

and here is one for mr bell

Two duck hunters are out in a blind waiting for some ducks to fly by. One of the hunters is drinking tea, while the other is drinking whiskey. A single duck comes flying by. The tea drinking hunter stands up and takes a shot...he misses. The whiskey drinking hunter stands up and takes a shot...the lone duck falls from the sky. The tea drinking hunter turns to the whiskey drinker hunter and says "nice shot". The whiskey drinking hunter turns and says "Twas nothing really, I usually get four or five ducks out of a flock like that.

then for our statesman
[or one for the girls..I had to visit the emergency ward the other day,
and I was treated by a very cute doctor. She said to me that I have to quit masterbating. I told her I promised my mom I would stop when I needed glasses, and asked "is there something wrong with my eyes". She said, "no, its not that, you have to stop masturbating because I am trying to examine you"

lets not name who this is for eh jules

Where would you find a legless turtle?

Do you give up?

You will find a legless turtle, right where you left it.

4 David,
"When you have eliminated the impossible,
what remains, however improbable, is the truth" Sherlock Holmes.

"there's battle lines being drawn,
nobody's right if everybody's wrong, it's time we stop

RObert slut and sleaze are far different words.
No one I ever saw said Gillard is a slut.
Manners forbid but I found a sleaze here.

Belly perhaps you should link to the post of runners you are referring to. The one I found was at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5417#147614 and there is nothing in there to suggest that he is referring to the PM.

In what way are the words slut and sleaze substantially different? Both are words generally used to attack someone else's expression of sexuality. Both seem to be able to be applied based on subjective opinions. The meanings are different but beyond that they seem to be very similar in usage.

Unless you are referring to a different post I don't think runner called the PM a slut (or inferred it) which you seem to be suggesting. Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

If that's what you are thinking then I'd asked would you be as bothered if you had seen or heard a prominent Liberal called a sleaze by a Labor supporter?

R0bert

I agree with most of Houlley's comments on the speech. Yes it was theatric, but theatrics in politics are best accompanied by some honesty and impact best minus the hypocrisy. The gender card is at risk of being overplayed as is the 'I'm offended'. Lots of people standing around being offended on both sides of politics. It is farcical. John Clarke and Brian Dawe are not comedians they are acting 'real parts'.

Tony Abbott probably deserved a good serve to some extent, given the vitriole in his opening attack on the government which also lacked honesty. Overseas reports on the speech will be limited by the commentators knowledge and understanding of Australian politics and I don't think it reflects necessarily on the perceived lack of a similar reaction locally.

We are mugs getting involved too much in this petty politicking and taking it all way too seriously. Perhaps it is from an inner yearning to fill a void that is not currently being filled by anything decent so we fill it with outrage.

Dear Pelican,

You wrote;

“Overseas reports on the speech will be limited by the commentators knowledge and understanding of Australian politics and I don't think it reflects necessarily on the perceived lack of a similar reaction locally.”

While that may be the case among local commentators there is little sign of a lack of reaction among Australian Youtubers.

Here is a link to check the trending videos on Youtube for Australia with preselected age demographics.

http://www.youtube.com/trendsdashboard#loc0=aus&age0=18-24&mode=compare&loc1=aus&age1=35-44&loc2=aus&age2=55-64

While the clip is certainly doing the rounds through the youth cohort, the older the age group - the higher it is ranked.

At the time of writing this the total hits were over 987,000 (amazing) and the split between the age groups I chose was as follows.

18-24 Ranked 7th

35-45 Ranked 3rd

55-64 ranked 1st

What was interesting was that splitting males and females only produced changes in the 18-24 age group where it dropped out of the top 10 for males but climbed one to be sixth for females.

Still to be sixth at that age group has me stunned.

Unimpressed commentators be blowed. This thing has legs.

Past 1,000,000 in the next hour? More than likely.

thanks Robert for at least trying to understand the point of the post. Belly seemed to miss the point. I am not surprised. NO doubt your bigotry got the better of you Belly.

Now, runner, we can't let you get away with that, can we...?

What makes you think you can ascribe bigotry to Belly?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry

Actually, item 1 in the reference above is something you might like to take on board - runner.

Dear runner,

Ouch! Damn! That had to have hurt.

Shades of the Abbott slapdown right there.

“stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.”

Yup, nailed it.

BTW the video just clicked over the 1,000,000 mark.

I wager more than a few of that number are sick of being thought of as suicidal sluts, aborters and porn star wannabes by the likes of you and your ilk.

@ CSteele,

<< Still to be sixth at that age group has me stunned.
Unimpressed commentators be blowed. This thing has legs.
Past 1,000,000 in the next hour? More than likely.>>

LOL

Take it easy old chap. I haven’t seen you so hyped since Mahmoud Ahmadinejaded was elected president of the Islamic republic of Iran.
Have a cup of tea, a bex and a good lie down.

Those hits will taper off real quick when all those lefties -–who have been making multiple trips to the website-- start receiving their ISP bills.

Oh I see Poirot so no doubt you were tolerant of Alan Jones speach or did you also sign up to shut him down. If opposing the killing of the unborn make me a bigot so be it, if calli ng homosexuality perverse makes me a bigot so be it, if calling adultery adultery makes me a bigot so be it. Pity you are so blind to your own.

csteele

'
Ouch! Damn! That had to have hurt.'

Actually coming from people who have supported the handbag brigade that has made a mockery out of decency it has little sting. Like their idol PM they showed by supporting Slipper that they really have no morals. If it came from those who knew me it might have some traction. Thankfully the females I mix with are a very decent people.

runner,

I didn't sign up to anything for anything.

We've been through this many times before. You, runner, are rather adept at pasting anybody with whom you disagree with insulting and vile epithets...such as hatred, deceit and (now) bigotry.

It isn't necessary to ascribe vices to people, but you do it as a matter of course.

"Actually coming from people who have supported the handbag brigade that has made a mockery out of decency it has little sting. Like their idol PM they showed by supporting Slipper that they really have no morals..."

Oh, runner, your "idea of morality" is legendary on this forum - as is your hypocrisy.

Poirot>> An increase in the frequency of unusual and extreme weather events is an indicator of global warming...yes, I know you believe that an unusual event that happens to consist of "cold extremes" must preclude warming, but it doesn't<<

P, I believe in global warming and global cooling, but I do not believe it is man induced...tis the sun....the source (directly or indirectly) of all heat on the face of the earth other than volcanic eruptions.

I believe the entire global warming farce is to distract the plebs from the polluters of our soil and water, which are the only environmental factors we can manage directly.

We are complaining about the weather while energy companies bore CSG wells next to our aquifers. The global environmental movement has been hijacked by the polluters and we are at the stage where we blame and charge the consumer rather than the manufacturers who continue to use the most cost effective and usually the most polluting form of capture and release technology

Er, sonofgloin, how do you come to that conclusion?

There's an entire "skeptic" movement defending and funded to a great extent by big oil and industry - and right-wing think tanks...there's a whole psychological paradigm that dismisses consensus and "scientists" as fraudulent.

Capitalism doesn't abide constraint.

http://www.thenation.com/articles/164497/capitalism-vs-climate

Sorry, link doesn't work...try this.

http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate

(sorry csteele - now back to topic : )

Dear runner,

“Thankfully the females I mix with are a very decent people.”

Perhaps I am getting a little thin skinned but this is how I am reading your last remark.

You are through implication describing Poirot as not being decent. I am assuming you know nothing about her outside this forum and there is nothing that I have read from her that would give any right thinking person any cause to believe she is anything other than a thoroughly decent person.

The only other person I have discussed on this thread as being supportive of Julia Gillard's speech was my daughter.

I have yet to have any comment of mine deleted for abuse but I have to tell you I am about to go very 1950's on you and the likelihood of censure is going to be pretty high.

Perhaps you would like to clarify your remarks and assure me no such imputations were being cast.

Csteele, I have noticed since being on this forum, the tendency of several religious people here and several far right wingers here to "often" personally abuse people here, and people in the public eye, who have opposing political or religious views. Regarding abuse towards people here, it's often done "covertly", in obvious attempts to abuse yet not get banned.

There's only about 6 or seven of these people doing this, but they post multiple post daily, therefore the rudeness often dominates the forum.

csteele

for your benefit I care little if Poirot or others who are willing to continually defend a hypocritcal PM calls me a bigot. They diguise their bigotry well but is evident to anyone following OLO. It would matter to me if it was the many fine woman I know. Take what you want from that.

In the above post, runner does EXACTLY what he accuses another person of doing. Oh the irony.

Last night, I re thought my concerns re this thread.
I do not want Gillard as PM.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/pm-vouched-for-union-body-caught-in-corruption-scandal-20121012-27i7z.html
Above is the evidence of that, it wasto be reborn, intent to remove her the week her Father died.
It will not go away.
BUT please can we draw a line under her troubles, ignore the purely silly bigotry of runner, or other problems he may have with rational thought.
Should ANY WOMAN be spoken about like this? is Australia an ugly country.
Here in these pages we put views about women,and other country,s in print the world may read.
Every pub in this country would consider throwing some of us out, for the words Abbott uses every day.
Are we honestly saying Alan Johns can say as he did?
Then why would it be offensive for me to talk about his sexual orientation?
Can woman be insulted this very low way but not gays?
It will not lessen my man hood to say women are not slaves in our country not targets for bitter hateful old men.
Surely ATA After Tony Abbott Turnbull will show we need not get in the gutter to win in politics.

Belly, not trying to pick on you but I think the point is relevant.
"Should ANY WOMAN be spoken about like this?"

Why's the concern just with how women are spoken about?

Much of the outrage seems to be sexist and paternalistic in nature.
There are those who work towards a general clean up in the way public debate is done but there seem to be others who are happy to see men called all sorts of things but get bent out of shape when similar is done to women.

Other than sexism there is no basis for that attitude.

R0bert

This article says it all:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pms-speech-goes-from-bad-ass-to-bad/story-fn59niix-1226494771520

As the viewers look beyond the headline and into the purpose of the speech being to defend one of the worst cases of sexism on record, the rampant hypocrisy of Juliar is becoming apparent to all.

"On Thursday, John Chalmers, group communications manager at Buzz-Numbers, warned that while the Australian public had largely lauded the Prime Minister's attack, on Twitter, Facebook and other sites, "our analysis suggests support for Gillard may change as the public connects Gillard's contradictory stance".

As the tone of the commentary changed, Jezebel started a debate on double standards."

Poirot, this from your link:

"A 2007 Harris poll found that 71 percent of Americans believed that the continued burning of fossil fuels would cause the climate to change. By 2009 the figure had dropped to 51 percent. In June 2011 the number of Americans who agreed was down to 44 percent—well under half the population<<

The Global Warming lobby lost me when the lies regarding their "climate change models" came out....they fudged the figures by stealth, not mistake.

That Carbon has become the new boogie man and the whole theme of their rhetoric moved from "global warming" to "climate change" seems like straw clutching to me.

When Rachel Carson wrote "Silent Spring" she targeted the chemical and petro chemical industries. Today the environmentalists target the consumer....much to the joy of the afore mentioned petro chemical segment and the financiers who own the segment.

runner,

Your rantings concerning "decent women" verses "anyone-who-fails-to-denigrate-Julia/Labor" are fascinating.

You employ your vile epithets like interchangeable drill bits in an effort to reinforce your often vacuous argument. And you do it by suggesting that these vices are an inherent feature in a person's nature....."Your hatred is this...Your deceit is that....your bigotry is so and so....Your envy is such and such...."

Frankly, if your idea of a decent woman is one who meekly sits back and listens to your nasty, small-minded and insulting diatribes, silently cheering you on while you consult your catalogue of derision, contempt and petty vilification, then it's not surprising that you attack me for pulling you up.

DiamondPete>> Csteele, I have noticed since being on this forum, the tendency of several religious people here and several far right wingers here to "often" personally abuse people here, and people in the public eye, who have opposing political or religious views. Regarding abuse towards people here, it's often done "covertly", in obvious attempts to abuse yet not get banned.
There's only about 6 or seven of these people doing this, but they post multiple post daily, therefore the rudeness often dominates the forum.<<

Dunno about that lot Pete, but the old truism of not talking about politics religion or race if you want serenity and emotionless debate is true. But if you do discuss these subjects be prepared for insult and partisan rhetoric.

Closing the debate because of these slings, or choosing to identify emotive discussion as flawed in fact or content is a passive aggressive act. It is like winning by stealth by closing debate to those who do not discuss what you want, how you personally wanted it discussed.

Climate change or Global warming are two of the same things aint it.
Turnbull will make his move before long. Tony will resign from parliament. He has no intentions of running a country, he just wants to be number one, at any cost to the nation.
More carbon tax infested bills, if only someone could read.
The noalition trying for Thomsons vote.
Parliament is full of excitement.
A lady in the speakers chair, A lady in the number 1 position. Women have got the lead, and take no nonsense.
Court cases on, but impacts are diminishing, any ammunition left. Who cares. Abbott's character in ruins. He can't help it, he just can't take orders from a female. He does not have the welfare of the nation on his agenda. etc

Oh yes Poirot,

and your well disguised loathing of Abbott is somehow better than peoples disdain for hypocrisy as displayed by Gillards support of Slipper. How it must make you feel morally superior.

sonofgloin,

The drop in percentage of those who believed fossil fuel burning was having an effect on the environment is not surprising. There's been a concerted effort by big oil and industry and those who stand to win most by maintaining the status quo, not least through the aid of right-wing think tanks, to influence the man in the street on such issues.

As I mentioned, any real effort to cut back in industrial society means a cut in living standards. Most people. therefore, are happy to jump on the "skeptic" bandwagon, especially when the skeptic voice has become louder and louder - of course, usually based on junk science and disseminated in the main by those who are not climate scientists.

runner,

Sorry to disappoint you, but some of us don't operated on a system that catalogues our preferences into categories of loathing, hatred, etc.

I don't loath Mr Abbott. I believe he's not really "leadership" material and he's liable to open his mouth before his brain is properly in gear, but that doesn't mean I hold him in major disrepute.

Poirot

'I don't loath Mr Abbott. I believe he's not really "leadership" material and he's liable to open his mouth before his brain is properly in gear, but that doesn't mean I hold him in major disrepute. '

Oh so we are talking simply about defintions. So pc.

I see that old Mother Russia, Joan Kirner has weighed into the debate on “female debasing”. I had to laugh that entire long while back when Commisarette Kirner was the sock puppet to the Victorian Trades Hall Council.

She gained the premiership due to their factional manipulations and when she tried to balance the state budget the unions called her all sorts of “botches”…lol. I remember the misogynistic banners the unions regularly displayed when protesting her budget cuts .

I remember the images of a frumpy housewife that graced the union pickets even before the press adopted the character. I recall the gender slanted rhetoric at delegate level, encouraged from the top. Unions made her premier, then took it away by not supporting her…the boys hated her and misogyny was a plank to their campaign at grass roots level against her.

The backroom Union Czars now sock puppet Gillard…….and they are running the “Abbott is degrader of women” bullsheiser. Kirner has been an outstanding advocate for women in the Labor party. The Labor party is run by blokes with their roots in the blokey union movement where misogyny is part of the makeup of the inner sanctum of the Union Czars.

Women have a place in the Labor party. The younger ones get to sit behind the PM and look pretty while nodding their heads in unison, and the rest fill in the numbers for a politically correct mix. One has even attained the position of Sock Puppet leader…until the blokes arm gets sore from propping the inept botch up.

Poirot>> As I mentioned, any real effort to cut back in industrial society means a cut in living standards. Most people. therefore, are happy to jump on the "skeptic" bandwagon,<<

P, we have the technology to filter liquid or gas down nothing and capture the toxins...but it costs heaps and the systems management is expensive and ongoing...but it can be done and would cut our environmental footprint dramatically. But it does not happen.

What has happened is that the Green Movement has the consumer paying a levy for purchasing that goes to green credits or some other tradable “commodity”.
A commodities market run by the polluters.

Something like 2% of the globes population own 85% of its wealth, yet they have implemented a global system whereby the 98% pay for the pollution. The 2% majority own and profit from the manufacturing bases that support our modern societies and pollute the globe. They should cut their OBVIOUS and OUTRAGOUS profits immediately by implemented these costly pollution capturing measures. Over the past 40 years the slide of wealth from the majority to the ridiculously few has escalated at an astounding rate. As I mentioned the Silent Spring movement is really silent now that it has new owners, the 2%.

The pollution of our land air and water threaten us all and the money to FIX the problem sits in the bank accounts of 2% of the globes population. P I don’t buy the Green Movement, the foot soldiers are true believers but the generals are financiers.

RObert, quote from runner SLUT, AJ father died of shame, Abbott a history of such.
Mate no one should be spoken of like that .
African Americans have their own insults, one says sex with your mother takes place.
And calling men, or women bitches?
Is there a line? RObert you are talking to a bloke who knows SOME women expect men to have a thing they do not GOOD MANNERS.
But here in this thread and other active ones, attempts to water down behavior from Abbott and his mate Jones, hide Runners ranting bigotry, are disgusting.
Real men need not put women down to prove they are men, the reverse is true.

Dear runner,

You really are a joyless little creature aren't you.

I have held my nose and gone back through some of your posting history and challenge I you to find even one uplifting, positive post because I can't.

For me it is hard to go past the conclusion that you are a hateful person, but what has been reinforced with your 'decency' comment is that you are also appear to be quite spiteful.

I can only personally surmise that exhibiting such joylessness, hate and spite must come from a deep sense of self loathing.

All of us at some time wrestle with this affliction but it is obvious to me it has developed well past what would be considered normal, even in someone as religiously consumed as yourself.

At least the more 'devout' Catholics have the decency to wear the cilice to assuage their deep feelings of guilt and unworthiness, you on the other hand choose to afflict this toxicity on the rest of us.

To paraphrase the good book, 'For what shall it profit a man, if he shall abuse the whole world, and lose his own soul?'

What poison issues forth from your keyboard is done in such an autonomic fashion that to me you are the closest thing to a soulless person on this site.

There are many on OLO I disagree with, sometimes quite strongly, yet there are very few, given a different topic, that I am not able to have an amenable conversation with.

Yet your metronomic responses are predictable, usually bigoted and often vile, whatever the topic.

You need to get a life. Perhaps we both do.

How about you taking a sabbatical from OLO, let's say three months, and I will undertake to do the same. I'm confident it would do the both of us and the forum the world of good.

Do we have a deal?

Great post csteele! Lol .
But please don't give up posting yourself because of Runner. That will only encourage him even more.

I too am not a Gillard fan, but I was impressed with her speech on misogyny in Parliament .
After poor, misguided Margie Abbott's impassioned pleas about her cute and cuddly woman-loving husband earlier in the week, it only served to highlight just how 'misunderstood' by women he really is.

We can all recall Abbott's continuing friendship with men who so obviously have anti-women issues, such as Heffernan, Pell and Jones, who he has never really talked strongly against.
His well known thoughts and attempted actions against giving women the right to some abortion drugs and embarrassing comments on his own daughters virginity were enough to put me off him.

Seeing him standing proudly under banners on TV stating "ditch the witch" and ' Juliar'
, and other very nasty comments, made my skin crawl.
Whether he did or didn't punch the walls either side of a young woman who beat him in a much earlier vote in his Uni was not the issue. The issue was that many people did believe he would be capable of it!

Yes, he is a real 'softy' of a blokey bloke ...

csteele donnt you dare leave because of runner.
Bet you have come close to it because of me, but at least some thought go,s in to our differences.
I think you have the bloke down to pat.
BUT we should not even consider all Christians, or followers of any faith, are anything like that.

Susieonlines is linked to the sisterhood.
'I too am not a Gillard fan, but I was impressed with her speech on misogyny in Parliament . '

impresssed with Gillard while voting for a man who had just displayed misogyny to its empt degree. Hang in girls thankfully the majority can see the hypocrisy in it.

'I to am not a fan of Gillard but ' I hold Abbott with contempt should be the next phrase.

btw Csteele I cheered and even wrote well of Gillards decision to support the definition of marriage between man and woman.

Wrong again Runner.

I voted for your personal favorites , the Greens!

I am heading that way again this coming election, unless Turnbull returns to oust Abbott....Oh what bliss...

csteele,

Thank you for your earlier sentiments : )

runner you are not alone, others hide behind things like God or miss placed self assurance.
I want you to think, my days among the lost, Christians waiting for a God to fix every thing,never saw your God.
My God preached love and equality, he spoke of people as equal and put few down, I doubt he ever called any one a slut.
I would have, in my days following him, have walked out of the Church, in his name, on you entering.
You hurl your insults but have no repect, for your self or the God you claim to serve.

Hi csteele
Thanks for the YouTube link. It does not really change my view about the speech itself. The statistics are understandable given the nature of the speech and why it would be of interest to international visitors. A visit to a site does not necessarily = approval or disapproval. The nature of the speech would certainly attract interest from a titillaton POV. (One thing surprised me in the older age group that Bieber rated more highly - what the..).

An international visitor to the YouTube site is viewing it from an outsider's POV with no great knowledge of Australian politics nor of the players involved in that week's turn of events. While many may welcome attacks on misogyny what do they know of the situation or if the accusations are true. What is the context and back story.

Mainstream media in Australia know the back story and the press gallery has a greater insight to the goings on. (As much as I am disppointed with mainstream media overall to report more rigorously and the fact many don't want to lose their 'inside' positions with the pollies).

I don't agree that there was a lack of response to the speech even in Australia but it was tempered by local knowledge.

Don't get me wrong. The PM's assertive response to Abbott's motion was I suspect motivated by his using 'of shame' which was a low act on Abbott's part. I still hold the misogynist label is not one to be bandied about lightly. I don't believe Abbott is a misogynist, more sexist and chauvinistic in some of his world views.

The ALP is not squeaky clean particularly in supporting Slipper due to self-interest. Could you imagine if the situation was reversed that Labor would react the same way to a Liberal incumbent.

Also, please don't have a sabbatical from OLO due to runner's commentary. There are some on OLO who define 'decent' females as those who agree with them rather than look openly and with a critical eye at any information presented to them.

I think I missed something. Admittedly, I'm not particularly bright, but that 'debate' lost me. Let's see:

* it's sexist, even misogynist, to use the word 'she'.

* a homosexual pervert who harasses young guys sends text messages with the most revolting misogynist - 'hateful of women' - content. Well, what else would you call it ?

* Abbott moves a motion to force Slipper out of the Speaker's position, quite properly;

* In defence of a misogynist, the Prime Minister accuses Abbott of misogyny, and goes into a faux-rant (I've been a school-teacher, so I know how to do one), using a trick that is absolutely out of bounds for Abbott, i.e. that she is a woman, and therefore can beat Abbott around the head with that, and he's got to take it.

* with Slipper's vote, the Government defeats the motion by one vote.

* Slipper resigns, mainly under pressure from some honorable Independents. Not from Bandt, not even from Wilkie or Katter - and certainly not from the Government - but from Oakeshott and Windsor.

* The Government now relies on Slipper's vote, and Thomson's vote. Apart from Thomson, the Labor Party has 69 seats in Parliament, and the Liberal-National coalition has 73, is that right ?

My vote has always - eventually - gone to my local Labour member, I like him, he's a good bloke. (Am I allowed to use that word ? So confusing.) But that was it. I don't know if one can be fined for declaring that one is going to vote 'informal' - but I can't bring myself to vote Liberal.

So let the chips fall where they may.

Come to think of it, yes, this Government should die of shame. Spot-on.

Joe

An informal vote is the squibs way. A mighty fine speech was given by Julia. It just goes to show, don't tangle with a female in a corner.
Abbott deserved every bit of it, as the blood drained from his rosy cheeks, he looked like death reincarnated.
A smash hit around the world.
The noalition one day will ask some valid questions in question time, i can sense it coming. Then again there's always some grime around.
I am convinced Abbott is not the least bit interested in politics, he just wants to be number one.

Here are more examples of the rampant sexism and hypocrisy of the labor party:

Mark Latham just before he became leader of the opposition (under which Juliar served) referred to a female liberal MP as a Skanky Hoe. There was no apology.

At the union convention in parliament building the comedian made a terribly sexist joke at which half the Labor front bench were present. Wayne Swan gave a speech directly afterwards and made no comment then, but only the next afternoon when the story came out.

Juliar does not need to be lectured on sexism by Abbott, as she has had more experience of it in Labor than anywhere else.

Shadow Minister you dug deep to get that.
Sure sign you are aware Abbott and Jones are grubs.
I have marginally less respect for Latham than Gillard.
Enjoy your flight of fancy , I am,you are good for a grin.

Belly,

This was all on Australian Agenda today.

Sure sign that you know Juliar, Swan, Roxon, etc are also grubs. For any example of incorrect behaviour on the liberal side, there are two on the Labor side.

Christ almighty, 579, did you read what you just wrote ? And compared it to what others have written, i.e. me ? What people write is not a Black Box, about which you can easily detect anti-whatever your position is without actually examining it, then condemn them, but I urge you to look beyond spin and ideological position at what is actually on people's minds, what fuels the unease.

This is not some silly children's game of 'us good forever' vs 'them bad forever' - there are real issues here.

Just for example, Slipper makes some disgustingly misogynist remarks - yes ? no ? - and on those grounds Abbott tries to move a vote against Slipper returning to the Speaker's chair. Instead, should he have come out in support of Slipper making those comments ? Yes ? No ?

But the Labor government did.

Then the Prime Minister defends Slipper, a misogynist - right ? wrong ? Yes indeed, a very passionate speech, using a very dirty trick to keep Abbott quiet, mainly that she is a woman and has the right to shup Abbott, a man, up, to try to put him in a lose-lose situation. Quite properly, he didn't respond.

The Labor government defeats the motion, and saves the pervert Slipper, by one vote.

Then he resigns.

Now the Labor government relies on his vote, along with Thomson's, the votes of a pervert and a thief. And it knows it.

So do we.

How much lower can our party sink, 579 ? Yes, ours, the one that so many of us have always voted for.

But maybe not for a long time yet. Squibs 1, Labor Party 0.

Loudmouth,

"...the votes of a pervert and a thief..."

I must have missed the court proceedings....can you give me a link, for example, where it's been established that Craig Thomson has been found guilty of theft in a court of law or (dare I ask) has even been charged?

Hi Poirot,

Taking sides, I see :)

And how did I guess which side you would take ? Thomson's - well, I didn't quite expect such 'definition'. Do you want to support Slipper as well ? He hasn't been found guilty yet of any offence either. Don't let his misogyny worry you, after all, he's one of yours.

But we suspect what those two have done. And the government relies on their vote.

So Abbott has been in court and it has been proven that he is a misogynist ?

It's called 'opportunism', dear Poirot: ignore the issues, hold your nose, push your own creature or cause, no matter what. Smear whoever opposes your position.

So which side of that battle are you on: opportunism no-matter-what or integrity no-matter-what ?

Cheers,

Joe

Hee, hee, Loudmouth,

Does one have to appear in court to be declared a misogynist?

No...the thing that got me wondering was this.

I've heard you continuously banging on (usually to make a point) about Enlightenment values - you know, the values that set us apart from less "enlightened" members of the human community.

One would imagine that somewhere nestled under the umbrella of Enlightenment values would be abidance to due process under the law.

I also imagine that that would include not assuming someone's guilt resting on allegation and innuendo - when they haven't even been charged let alone found guilty.

So your "But we suspect what these two have done..." line just doesn't cut the mustard.

Or do these sorts of guiding principles only apply if those accused are on "your side"?

(Slipper's case is before the court - I'm not commenting)

Got me, Poirot ! :)

But aside from courts of law, what do you reckon, in your heart (apologies for such an un-Enlightened concept) ? Were the alleged text messages of Slipper's misogynist or not ?

Is it misogynist to use the word 'she' or not ?

Which is worse ?

And which is worse, to defend such a person, or to move a motion against his holding a key position ?

On the basis of his alleged offences, of course.

So who is the misogynist ? Gillard or Abbott ? Isn't that a bizarre question ?

Germaine Greer, Faux-Feminist Champion, out of the blue, talked on Q&A about the Prime Minister in explicitly physical terms (would she have done that with Howard, or Hawke, or Menzies ?)

Clearly, if a man - provided he was a Liberal politician - made such a description, it would be misogynist. But not if it's made by a non-man (I'm afraid to use the word 'woman', it might not be PC these days). I apologise inadvance for using it in the previous sentence. So confusing !

But I suppose now we know: it's OK for someone to use vile language if they are, in some way, supporting the government, and we shut our eyes and hold our nose t othat - but not to use the most innocuous language if they support the opposition. Like - pardon me, I'm quoting - 'she'.

Poirot, THAT'S called 'opportunism'. Look it up.

Cheers,

Joe

:)

The issue of proof in public debate is a tough one, I wonder how many of those keen on the the "found guilty in court" part have been as vocal in rejecting claims of corruption against Joh Bjelki-Peterson or Russ Hinze when they have heard them expressed. How many reject Labors changes to treatment of Domestic Violence in family law which enables accusations to be acted on without proof? Accusations made by someone who often stands to gain personally and financially from the outcome.

At the same time we don't want a situation where an accusation is equated with guilt. I pondered the reverse of those two situations and don't think it necessarily applies. Some conservative voters will make the point that Joh was not found guilty (might have done so myself) but I know few who would jump to Russ's defence on that basis.

Does anybody know who was paying for the phone account used to send the messages?

In my work place using work owned IT equipment to send sexually explicit material can get you sacked without any trial. Even emailing a link to your own private email account from a work account can be cause for dismissal.

Not sure of the rules for sexual activity between bosses and those who report to them but in most workplaces where the boss in question is not the owner I suspect that it could be cause for disciplinary action.

I'm undecided how much of what the Libs did was stunt and how much was for show. In the end that's a side issue, Labor should have dealt with this well before it got to a vote.

I think Julia hid behind her gender to make that attack on Abbott relying on the protection her gender gives her to avoid a response in kind. If so a particularly low form of bullying behaviour.

R0bert

RObert
'In my work place using work owned IT equipment to send sexually explicit material can get you sacked without any trial. Even emailing a link to your own private email account from a work account can be cause for dismissal.'

It is same for public servants, it seems politicians are not monitored in the same way as bureaucrats. A double standard.

However in reference to making judgements that are before a Court, it is okay for anyone over a social chit chat and cup of coffee to discuss who they think is telling porkies, but for a Minister to come out and describe a litigant against the government (or one of it's representatives) as 'vexatious' or 'as more rehearsed than a kabuki actor' is to abuse privilege of power.

While it is true that the outcome of a court case or an inquiry does not necessarily reflect truth or justice in some cases, the least an elected official can do is await the outcome before casting aspersions. If the government was interested in saving taxpayers money from long drawn out court cases why not in every case when a disagreement can be settled with a fiscally responsible payout. Why not just dispense with justice and jurisprudence altogether

Too much over-reaction and reading nonsense into straightforward events.

It makes me want to go and punch a wall - preferably on either side of someone's head.

Here is a summation from the SMH:

"The opposition moved a motion to remove the Speaker of the House, Peter Slipper, on an accusation of denigrating women, and obscenely so, in private text messages to a staff member.

The moment Gillard rose to defend Slipper and keep him in office, she chose to defend the indefensible, to excuse the inexcusable. The government had spent a month vilifying Tony Abbott for having "a problem with women". But when one of the bulwarks of the government was exposed as having a problem with women, it was suddenly acceptable.

But isn't that what we've come to expect from all politicians - choosing power over principle? Don't they all do that? That is the point. If there was one thing that should have been different about Gillard's prime ministership, it should have been that Australia's first female prime minister should have been a flag bearer for women.
Remember when she ascended to the prime ministership? She was greeted with a surge of approval in the polls as Australians anticipated a refreshing change.

She started on her long trajectory of electoral disillusionment when, bit by bit, she revealed herself to be just another politician. That trajectory reached its lowest point yesterday when she showed she was prepared to defend even the denigration of women if it would help her keep power. If Gillard will not defend respect for women, what will she defend? Just another politician indeed.

Gillard berated the Coalition for endorsing Slipper as a candidate for Parliament in his former life as a Liberal before he betrayed his party to take the Speaker's job. But after abusing the Coalition for defending Slipper in the past, she mobilised her government to defend him in the present. The government managed to garner the barest majority, 70 votes to 69.

Four hours later, this was revealed to be a waste of political capital when Slipper resigned. He recognised what Gillard could not - that he was a lost cause.

Gillard's judgment was flawed. All she achieved was a serious loss of credibility.

Both old age and a lifetime habit sees me sleep about 4 hours and a couple of power naps.
It had its reward this morning.
Out of bed at 11 PM still awake at 2AM looking for something to watch a gold nugget floated by.
Gillards speech ABC I, first Abbott,s.
Had the jug boiled and siting down in mili seconds.
Knowing what we do now, I got to see it from todays prospective.
No fan of either, both are a blot on our country Abbott far more than Gillard, she lies he never does anything other than lie.
Well Tony only had to open his mouth, the thing is on auto.
He out did himself, bought instant thought, both times I saw it, how much his wifes support had been wasted.
Gillard was great,a rare event, but the house knew it, was quite,even Pyne and Bishop!
You could see on the faces, behind her,and tellingly behind Abbott,history was being made.
Great win Julia, now get on with it, you will not change Abbott or his bottom sniffing hit crew.
But in time, it will be clear, you got rid of the rodent.

Magnificent speech, Abbott puts himself forward as a leader but his ability to decipher a power bill is astounding. He has no attention to detail. How many times has this happened. Advisors, a whole front bench full of supposed learned bodies and not one of them got it right.
BHP was wrong and Abbott was right according to him.
The demolition that the carbon tax would cause was extensive and economy breaking.
Every time he opens his mouth another lie drops out, then he proceeds to fill the gap with a foot.
This man can not be taken seriously, in-fact i think he would be world renowned by now.

'Great win Julia, now get on with it, you will not change Abbott or his bottom sniffing hit crew. '

Belly is offended by the word slut to describe some peoples behaviour. Are you related to Deveny?

Runner I understand, it is the best you can do, mate know I can do much better.
But to what end, we here in this section are already seen to be rude to one another, with justification.
I think your own words best be little you.
My mum was a good lady a true Christian, she if still alive would flog me!
First for Leaving God.
Second for talking to you, she disliked Sunday Christians weekday Devils.
See? not strong enough to ignore you, but the description fits.

Belly,

In spite of the sordid business last week, I'm kind of proud of our Prime Minister for going to Afghanistan and reiterating that we are there for the long haul, against brutal Islamists, and in support of the rights of all Afghans, especially women and girls. Good on her !

Just maybe, she might get my vote again :)

Cheers,

Joe

oh dear joe
''against brutal Islamists,""

ya the mungrel missoginists..
she is now bvegging one for photo opps//lol

[quote]
and in support of the rights of all Afghans,
[/quote]
or rather the war lords that may protect the foreign assets
looted by privateers..and blsack water..ooops whats their new game name again now?

[quote]
especially women and girls.
[/quotew]
yeah she visited the schools there
oh no she didnt..what schols for GIRLS

she looked pathetic in that handgrenade covering her chest and one hip..[the only one wearing protection..

well dun girl
protection rasckqueteering is god

[quote]
Good on her !
[/quote]
yeah good luck with that..bah
spin..ie run out of town fast girl

let us defend your honour
that way we look good..and you just go hide

bye jules
bye;;recall when kevie went bye bye at the wrong time
he listened to the same missoginists..anyhow cheers girley

your a great image
for the anzac*..but try to reach too far..[its not your fault really
[i blame it on the father figures..[go figure eh?

Belly

'First for Leaving God.
Second for talking to you, she disliked Sunday Christians weekday Devils.'

I pray you come to your senses.

Well, OUG, I keep trying to get across the notion that in the real, nasty world, conflicts don't just have two sides, but often many sides, and so some of our 'fellow-travellers' are pretty unsavoury characters.

But since in all conflicts, we have to do a sort of ranking from 'worst' to 'least worst' to 'best' (if there are any), yes, I'm sure that in every conflict, we can find that yes, trash like warlords and even drug-barons might for a time ally themselves with 'our' side, rather than the Taliban or al Qa'ida. And some of those 'allies' are pretty untrustworthy, and are probably doing double-deals with the Taliban all the time.

That's the unpleasant reality of the war in Afghanistan: it's probably far more complicated than we can imagine - for example, in what ways might the Russians or the Chinese or the Indians be involved, let alone the Kazakhs and Uzbeks and Tajiks ? Or the Saudis and the Iranian ayatollahs ? They've all got vital interests there.

Probably the stuff of some pretty grisly, and unbelievable, spy thrillers.

OUG I like to think we are mates.
But what was that all about.
D0 you understand few, if any understand some of your posts.
Mate why so good then so bad.
Loudmouth yes Joe she did us proud, we must keep the fighting till we know the population are not going to be murdered in a sports arena.
Primitive, hate driven lie powered great religion of peace.

Belly, OUG sits there waving his arm,s like a man possessed, which might be not far from the truth considering some of his strange behaviours, however even left-wing socialists have a soft spot for the mentally disadvantaged that seems to portray a multiple of personalities like many of the oddities that came from the sand dwelling camel jockeys of the time period.

OUG your all right:)

There,s one thing I,d like to know....why on your gods earth would you worship Jesus like the U.S and then support blowing it up?

These and many other strange questions I have concerning Gillard's speech which seems to be a double mind play with no real foundation of religious value.

Maybe you can shed some light on the matter as to where GOD will somehow lead the human race into some safer peaceful future?

PLANET3

If you listen to the whole 15 minutes of the speech rather than the selective news grabs you would see that it was not really about Slipper.

The Slipper argument was that the Opposition put forward a very significant motion without notice and on no real basis as Slipper had not been charged with any offence and the matter was still before the courts. It was clearly a political stunt meant to embarrass Gillard.

She could have made that point in a couple of minutes and moved on.

The real purpose of the speech was to demonstrate that she was no longer going to put up with what many consider personal sexist attacks on her character rather than debates based on policy substance and was targetted specifically at Abbott. His discomfort was obvious.

In addition she could see that the LNP had exposed it's weakness in that Abbott has already been tagged in a sexist role, given that he was now hiding behind his wife's skirts and had put out those big prepared media releases to show himself as a caring and sensitive new-age guy. (Downton Abbey doesn't clash with the footy by the way).

This is their major weakness and threatens Abbott's role as leader, despite the current polls. When the election is called he'll not only have to convince the voters of his policies but also his own members who are still opposed to his ill-considered paid maternity leave scheme and may yet be further embarrassed at the non-appearance of the famous Carbon Tax wrecking ball.

Although the mainstream media have unanimously interpreted it as a failed speech it has huge resonance throughout the community and may yet make many stop and reconsider their voting intentions, especially after the stupid "died of shame" reference Abbott made afterward.

Not all of course, but maybe just enough to matter. The election is still Abbott's to lose and that warm and cuddly media nonsense proves it.

i completly agree belly..your a good mate
and i too feel we together can face certain truths

you know i copied your posting style
but space differently..yet because of the same concerns..reveal stuff that comes back to bite me..so here goes..you said why not write like that all the time..[i didnt write it..just cut it up into 3 bits

thats what i do ol mate

http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/viewtopic.php?p=14487#14487

anyhow cheers
that link explains how much i respect you
and why..ps thats as good as my writting gets..
and only cause of whos words.. im using there..

here mate we all locked in..to our loves/hates etc
mates..but we are so much more.. we are brothers.so to say that clearly i feel the energy to put more efforts in..

but as for money..couldnt give a fig bout that..
so cut it paste it ..them..get the heck gone..move back to what really intrests me.

is my only true passion
god..and you lot..his creations..the poor have allways been hgungry
its only the new rich...boby bonus boomers.. who loose even that they thought they had.

but that dont concern unions nor poliotics parties
nor libs nor greens nor independants..or media a bit..why should we?

im tiredol mate
requested no one attends my funeral
they didnt want me in life..i dont want them at my death

and i cant wait

OUG may I talk to you?
I could not read ,not properly, until I left School.
Being left handed in an era that saw the ruler across your fingers for writing that way.
I still can not write well, at all, and not with my left hand.
I spelling and all, put out a hand written, then copied news letter, an industry one, for my work mates.
Gee I copped it! but abuse too if I failed to get it out.
Mate one of my proudest achievements? helping another Delegate after work paid for, lessons in reading.
For 40 year old men.
See my generation left home young, the eldest or only son to feed the others.
In 1970 one in six it was found could not read or write.
Hard to believe? believe!I have had the best Dozer driver I ever saw, a huge lovable bloke, take me away from the crowd in near tiers, to say I can not read mate can you read this?
If you see some one who left the glasses at home or says take this home to the wife, be careful, you have his/her pride in your hands,offer on your own, not in front of others help.
Mate. I HAVE KNOWN OTHERS LIKE YOU, HEARD THOSE SAME WORDS,
OUG every life has value never give up, ever.
I am fighting a fight I may yet not win, but with pride and a natural love of every new thing I learn.
You no one else are the Medicine for what ails you.
Know you are not alone, know too each of us fight our battles as Lexi is now and as I am, go down only after fighting every inch of the way bloke.

much the same for me belly..left hand till in grade 2 i said im going to holland..[did 4,5,6 in dutch..came back to start highschool

the left hand thing..was so the dutch wouldnt think
that all you aussies backwards/lefties..so i took it for the team

people who see my handwriting say i write like i talk
loudly..mainly using capital letters..cause im a reader not a writer.

because i trained myself to read science/religion etc
i read one wurd before i read the next..one word at a time

[the only way i can read yours is by bustin it up
and replying line by line..to stick on the topic

im not going to any school..im over it
people dont want to know..and im tired of tellen it
i just sat back and thought what else to say..but immediatly massive pains

its all simply too painfull..
the luckey ones die earlier on

Csteele, I have noticed since being on this forum, the tendency of several religious people here and several far right wingers here to "often" personally abuse people here, and people in the public eye, who have opposing political or religious views. Regarding abuse towards people here, it's often done "covertly", in obvious attempts to abuse yet not get banned.

There's only about 6 or seven of these people doing this, but they post multiple post daily, therefore the rudeness often dominates the forum.

Posted by DiamondPete, Friday, 12 October 2012 10:53:37 PM

Pete....welcome to the sand pit:)

Planet3

Plant 3

The left whingers are certainly not shy in their abuse either.

I actually, truly, agree with you Shadow Minister!
We are however talking about the truly lost left.

PLANET3

I think csteele might have gone on holidays. I suspect that he tried to take me with him.

No Belly not just the lost Left.

In this case not personal against other posters but within the comment by DiamondPete "and people in the public eye, who have opposing political or religious views."

The following is from one post by one of the more honest Labor supporters

" both are a blot on our country Abbott far more than Gillard, she lies he never does anything other than lie."

"you will not change Abbott or his bottom sniffing hit crew."

"But in time, it will be clear, you got rid of the rodent."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5417#147860

Belly you know I respect you despite opposing political views but I think that post is useful to point out how those like DiamondPete who just see abuse by the right are choosing not to see a lot of what happens.

It would be a fairly easy thing to compile a much longer list from a variety of posters (of various political leanings).

The constant attempts to portray that kind of stuff as one sided (be it political, religion, gender etc) gets rather old after a while.

R0bert

OUG and Belly,

Isn't that amazing I'm left-handed too, but was made to change in (I think) First class, I'm not sure what school, I went to so many in the late forties. Maybe at Gymea Bay Primary School. But I've hated physically writing ever since. But I love typing :)

I came top of the class once, at Penrith, but last in Writing.

Why did they do that to us ? Of course, the left hand is the hand of the Devil, according to the more crackpot Christians, and mainstream Muslims as well. The sinister hand, the hand without any starry, astral future or protection. But there is a left-hand to everything, even the right hand, so I don't know how they square all that off. If Christ or somebody sits on the right hand of god,vthen god sits on the left hand of that other person. Bloody stupid, but they're stuck with their own idiot logic.

I wonder how many other frustrated liefties are out there in OLO-land :)

Keep it going, blokes. We'll beat the b@stards yet. Our day will come.

Cheers,

Joe

I feel for you guys!
My husband was smacked on the left hand and on his head by the Nuns and Christian Brothers in Ireland every time he tried to write with his left hand!
He says they were cruel, saying he had the devil in him!
He developed a stutter with the stress of it all...

Thanks folks, well still bat left handed cricket, and golf.
Like Joe I had many schools , not an advantage.
But yes got the cane on the fingers in two at least.
Big country family's moved a lot, dad a railway man for much of it.
A good story from my schooling.
My bush teacher not much more than a kid 20? picked on my family.
I was a big eleven but could not other than call him out for it.
He did it all the more, enjoying it, until my 5 ft 4 inches tall tiger of a dad visited him.
Age 32 I met him, was asked to give a speech at HIS SCHOOL, not the one room 13 kid one of my youth.
After the speech had coffee with all his, he was head master, teachers.
Told them, all of them, about him INCLUDING sending the three big boys out to? cut fire wood to buy his engagement ring.
Bet lofty is dead now but he would never have forgotten my visit.
ps education is to good to leave, wish I knew that before I left.

RObert yes guilty and I know it.
I too, think, and believe it.
DP in my view, and others you have in the past mentioned betray the ALP.
Yes fair dinkum, blind support , blind to fault and the need for constant improvement and above every thing accountability, harm my party.
I never claimed a halo, but judge too Shadow Minister, Hasbeen Rechtub Individual, not a hairs breath between them and DP, AND A LIST QUITE LONG ON MY SIDE.

Hi Belly,

Yes, and I'm thrilled to point out that President Obama is one of us, a leftie :)

Not only that but he's married to Michelle Obama, lucky man.

And my father was on the railways - during the War, he was on the munitions train between Sydney and Brisbane. I rang my mum up in 1992, on the fiftieth anniversary of the Japanese submarine attack on Sydney Harbour (yes, children, it did happen) and she started laughing.

I asked her why, and she said that my dad had to drive the munitions train to Brisbane that night, and when he heard the news on the wireless, he went white as a sheet, she said. She made his lunch like it was the last meal of a condemned man, because everyone knew that there were supposed to be submarine nets across the entrance to Sydney Harbour but not across Broken Bay, leading up to the Hawkesbury River bridge, the only railway bridge between Sydney and Brisbane. Still is, I think.

He still drove the train, for the rest of the war. Of course, he took to the drink pretty soon afterwards, poor bugger. The last time i saw him would have been in about 1949.

If the Japanese had done their geography homework, who knows ? Almost all of Australia's industry was to the south of that bridge, and all the troops were in the north, mostly in north Queensland in fact. So the destruction of that bridge, rather than that stupid attack on Sydney harbour could have taken Australia out of the war.

And what might have been the consequences of that ? For the world ?

Thanks, Belly.

Cheers,

Joe

Interesting Loudmouth, I liked it very much.
Gee spot on about Obarma, hope he wins.
My dad was a fettler worked on the Syd to Melbourne line and we moved a lot.
He hit the grog but put us first every time.
Gave the grog away died of very hard work aged only 54.
He instilled work ethic in us all.
Wish I could have a last beer with him.