Now we are in the second decade of the 21st century one would think Australia would have reach a state of maturity whereby this perceived macho type of behavior, would well and truly be a thing of the past.
I have to question the conservative side of politics as to where they really are in relation to woman. Based on their attitudes, comments, questions, so called funnies, menus, jokes etc, these conservatives seem to be locked in some pr-enlightenment time warp, where it’s okay to publicly "bag the sheilas" or in the case of the PM "bag the bimbo", as being not male, in what is in their way of thinking a man’s world. The sad fact of it all is they don't think they are doing anything wrong. It’s not a question of political correctness, rather it’s a question of respect for other people and their abilities and achievements, be they gay, be they black, be they whatever, or in this case be they women.

Paul, the 21st century is simply an arbitrary date refernced from an arbtratry date of a possibly fictional event. At this time it is also at the sharp end of a very long extended period of peace for Western nations, with the odd police action and minor war to keep the military-industrial complex ticking over and use up all the old munitions all safely contained in places far away from the home front. Women have been given unprecedented access to public roles and great preferment in every aspect of life, including those that have traditionally been regarded as male for good reasons based on efficient division of labour and preservation of the capacity to quickly rebuild populations in the event of cataastrophe, such as disease, war or natural disaster.

For the bulk of the 300,000 years of human existence ice has covered a lot of the planet and life was hard. It is thanks to the last 11000 unseasonably warm years that humanity has exploded in numbers.

One of the things that allowed our ancestors to survive and breed is suspicion. When things don't look right we, like they, notice and when the leader of the band looks less than entirely reliable for any reason, it makes us start questioning why they're in charge.

If the Gillard relationship is a sham, it is a matter of public interest, because it means she has chosen to deceive us, the voters. If it is not, instead of playing at being offended, she should go out of her way to make that clear.

As I said, I don't think he's gay and I don't care if he is. But if he's simply playing at playing house, then I do care, because it means my government is being lead by a fraud.

I also care because I think the Gillard politics are badly skewed from the social norms and that a woman or man with no genuine committed attachments is not the right person to be making policy decisions for those who do. This is not about Mathieson, but Gillard's personal credibility and judgement.

"This Tim fellow is not married to the PM & hairdressers albeit not necessarily are generally queer or of some other form of sexual orientation. talk about drawing a long bow!
this is the equation:
Tim = hairdresser = queer, simple logic must dictate
hairdresser = Tim = queer. note the use of the word queer and it connotations.

Indi, would you like to finish this sentence for me, in the same manner as you have applied the above.
This Tony fellow wanted to be a priest, priests albeit not necessarily are generally pedophiles or some other form of sexual predictor.....
Just as ridiculous as the Tim rubbish above.

Paul, "queer" is a term used by homosexual activists as a form of identification. As they have done with other derogatory terms they have usurped it from those who would like to use it as an insult and broken its power as a result. As an aside it's a shame the Aboriginal community can't learn from that.

Which leads to the question about why it would be thought insulting to ask if someone is gay. Any ideas?

voteland: Forget the PM and concentrate on electing decent MPs.

Er... Where ya gonna find one o' them?

Antiseptic: Paul, "queer" is a term used by homosexual activists as a form of identification.

One could ask the question, "Is Tim funny Ha ha, or funny peculiar?."

It’s time the Australian unloaded the main players in Australian politics. Not one of them has Australia’s interest at heart. They are all just self serving mongrels.

I urge you all to vote them all out of Office at the next Election.

Anti,

I think the point that Paul was making to individual was that if you're going to assume every male hairdresser is gay, then why not assume every one who ever thought of being a Catholic priest is a pedophile...obviously both assumptions are ridiculous.

I expect the next time Mr Abbott is interviewed, we'll be treated to a few inquiries into anything a tad juicy from his private life as well - after all why stick to political issues when apparently the point is to get well and truly stuck into peripheral matters of no political consequence whatever. (Hey, Loudmouth, this sarcasm stuff is fun!)