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.