Foxy I don't think being the first female PM should have got her a free pass from what appears to be the norm of political behaviour if others are subject to similar tactics. When I say similar tactics the specifics might be different but the approach of attacking PM's, cabinet members etc in pretty much anyway they can is a well entrenched pattern. Gillard had some weakness that her opponents tried to exploit, Abbott, Rudd, Howard, Turnbull etc each have their own and their opponents play them pretty ruthlessly.

Your posts seem to suggest that you think that it was somehow unfair that Gillard copped the style of treatment that she, her party and supporters happily dish out (as do their opponents).

From where I sit it looks a lot like a plea for special treatment for women in Gillards case rather than any real case that her treatment was measurably worse than what is dished out to (and by) others with a different set of genitalia.

R0bert

Dear ROBERT,

I'm not the only one who thinks that our former PM
Julia Gillard got a raw deal because she was a woman.
The treatment of her was not something that was simply
par for the course as you infer. It was vicious and
relentless. The following links support that:

http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-gender-agenda-gillard-and-the-politics-of-sexism-20120225-1tv7n.html

And -

http://theconversation.com/julia-gillard-hits-back-at-a-long-history-of-sexism-in-parliament-10071

And -

http://www.theguardian.com/2012/oct/12/julia-gillard-sexism-australia-women

cont'd ...

Please excuse my omission in the last link. Here it is again:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/12/julia-gillard-sexism-australia-women

Foxy,

Once again, you provide links to political waffle about how badly Juliar was treated which is almost completely devoid of detail. The worst offence actually referred to is TA giving an address with protesters standing behind him with offensive posters. Seriously? In the same period, there were many more cases of left whinge protesters with hundreds of far more offensive language attacking TA such as hundreds of people in F Abbott T-shirts.

That TA attacked Juliar continuously and robustly was precisely because that is what opposition leaders do and it's what he did to Rudd. Was that sexist?

If there is a case that Juliar was attacked solely because she was a woman, you certainly have not made it in any way.

Hi Foxy,
I didn't pay too much attention to Gillard and Abbotts parliamentary battles, but I could make the observation that Abbott was conservative similar to Trump, and they both faced liberal female adversaries, who both wanted to play with the big boys but then cried 'poor me, I'm a girl' to change the narrative when it suited them.

Also women opposed to Abbott's alleged mysogyny largely displayed the same misandry with Trump's election.

Is it really men, or just whinging disgruntled females?
Maybe it's a little of both, and maybe the bad behaviour of men is due to idiot women, and vice versa.

Regards your earlier response to Clinton Foundation. Way to go Foxy, I wouldn't have expected such insight from you on this topic.
Usually you're altogether dismissive of anything bad related to Hillary.
I believe Downer was compromised at some point, he's a part of this whole deep state attempt to install Hillary / depose and indict Trump, Russia Collusion narrative.
Trump's secretly had sealed indictments and the whole lot of them secretly investigated for some time; that's why he's let this go on so long so they will all hang themselves,apparently.

I don't know if Gillard was just playing by Hillary's rules, or what she got in return, but something stinks about that 130 million in payments to me. Hillary is not an honest politician and she was not running an honest non-profit.
Anyone who believes she was, would believe anything.

Foxy I'm well aware that the corporate media run that line as well. A bunch of people agreeing does not make it so.

Thinking about your earlier response re the critics of the Clinton Foundation (and Clinton) which appeared to suggest that it's just some figures on the right making the allegations of widespread corruption, pay for play and very little benefit going to those the foundation is set up to help there are voices on the left saying the same thing Jimmy Dore is the most prominent current voice that I'm aware of of. While he was still alive Christopher Hitchins did some pretty strong expose work on Clinton corruption and the damage that they were doing to the Left and in particular the Democrats in the US. Amongst the notable points he made was his view on Hillaries role in intimidating women who had been allegedly assaulted by Bill. I don't know if John Pilger has addressed the Clinton Foundation specifically but he had quite a bit to say regarding Hillaries ties to the Arms industry. The Wikileaks emails had some very damming material in them (and as far I'm aware none of the material they have released has ever been shown to be doctored or fabricated).

Whilst they are in my view largely on the Right of politics Judicial Watch have unearthed a bunch more damming material on Hillary via FOI requests and lawsuits. For reference they have also gone after Trump in some areas (travel expenses being one I'm aware of).

Likewise Veritas although conservative have released some pretty damming video material regarding the operations of Clintons campaign and other issues.

Perhaps do some searching on the role of the Clintons and the Foundation in Hati.

Left leaning corporate media opinion pieces will not typically be particularly critical of Clinton and the family foundation but it's not just the right wing deeply concerned about the Clintons and the wrongdoing associated with them.

R0bert