PDA

View Full Version : Sexism in Australian politics? [sf Gillard thread]



Basil
25-06-2010, 07:50 PM
Hey, it's not me who's sexist :hand: Look at Tony Abbott's record -
Why Some Women don't like Tony (http://newmatilda.com/2009/12/08/why-some-women-dont-tony)
Crikey Ian - I wouldn't be throwing links like that around - it does you no favours whatsoever *sheez* :D

I confess to giving up halfway through - which is more than a fair suck of the sauce bottle. By that time she hadn't made any point at all and insulted three people!

Igor_Goldenberg
25-06-2010, 09:45 PM
Hey, it's not me who's sexist :hand: Look at Tony Abbott's record -
Why Some Women don't like Tony (http://newmatilda.com/2009/12/08/why-some-women-dont-tony)

The quoted article (By Katherine Barnsley) starts:
"I am a woman and a feminist and I have a problem with Tony Abbott."

Did she ever vote Coalition? Did she ever consider voting Coalition? Did any of her friends who has problem with Abbott ever contemplated voting Coalition?

In this case her opinion is irrelevant on the election outcome. Which she admits later on:
"In fact it is not at all certain to what extent Abbott really does have a problem getting women’s support. But Tony Abbott is definitely a big problem for this woman. "

Goughfather
25-06-2010, 10:42 PM
Did she ever vote Coalition? Did she ever consider voting Coalition? Did any of her friends who has problem with Abbott ever contemplated voting Coalition?

Have you ever voted Labor? Have you ever considered voting Labor? Do any your friends who had a problem with Rudd ever contemplate voting Labor?


In this case her opinion is irrelevant on the election outcome. Which she admits later on:
"In fact it is not at all certain to what extent Abbott really does have a problem getting women’s support. But Tony Abbott is definitely a big problem for this woman. "

You characterise the statement as an "admission" (as if she's being caught out on some kind of secret), rather than an honest disclaimer, which seems like a much more apt description. Admittedly, it might be a concept that extreme-right fringe-dwellers like yourself and Howie are unfamiliar with.

Basil
25-06-2010, 10:50 PM
Did she ever vote Coalition? Did she ever consider voting Coalition? Did any of her friends who has problem with Abbott ever contemplated voting Coalition?


Have you ever voted Labor? Have you ever considered voting Labor? Do any your friends who had a problem with Rudd ever contemplate voting Labor?
Your inference is inaccurate. This discussion chain is about possible changes in electoral fortunes following yesterday's change in PM. Barnsley is being offered by Ian as an external example of a person who doesn't like Abbott and how Gillard may reverse Labor's fortunes. Igor has explained that Barnsley fails to serve that example.

Conversely, and with respect to your question, Igor is not being held up as anything, he merely a particpant in the discussion. It is quite irrelevant to test him by the same (any) standard as Barnsley, as Igor was never being offered an example of change in electoral intentions.

An elementary but unsurprising mistake from you so early in your adventure.

Goughfather
25-06-2010, 11:10 PM
Your inference is inaccurate. This discussion chain is about possible changes in electoral fortunes following yesterday's change in PM.

Your point? The linked article is about Tony Abbott and his electoral appeal. Gillard does not even enter the picture, either with respect to the original article, or with respect to Ian's citation.


Barnsley is being offered by Ian as an external example of a person who doesn't like Abbott and how Gillard may reverse Labor's fortunes.

Wrong again. Barnsley is being offered by Ian in response to the accusation that he was sexist. The idea that Abbott was a turn off to many female voters has been canvassed well before the ascension of Gillard.


Igor has explained that Barnsley fails to serve that example.

Wrong again. This piece is all about the perception of Abbott. Gillard is mentioned a grand total of zero times. And as I said, Barnsley is up front about the fact that she does not like Abbott and that perhaps other women don't share her view.


Conversely, and with respect to your question, Igor is not being held up as anything, he merely a particpant in the discussion.

Indeed. As a participant in the discussion there is the implicit assumption that what one has to say is of objective merit. But given neither that he would never vote Labor in a pink fit, his whinging and whining has no application to the typical swinging voter and is of very little merit whatsoever. He may as well return to his echo chamber and entertain himself with his own screams.


It is quite irrelevant to test him by the same (any) standard as Barnsley, as Igor was never being offered an example of change in electoral intentions.

Indeed it is relevant, for the reason suggested above.


An elementary but unsurprising mistake from you so early in your adventure.

And unsurprisingly, you've missed the mark yet again, not only on your construction of Ian's reference, but also with respect to my argument.

Basil
25-06-2010, 11:59 PM
Unbelievable. Yet another example of your blundering into a thread with your shoes on the wrong feet. Let me explain.


Your point? The linked article is about Tony Abbott and his electoral appeal. Gillard does not even enter the picture, either with respect to the original article, or with respect to Ian's citation.
My point was very clear. You sought to raise Igor's lack of propensity to switch votes as a counter to Igor's refutation of Barnsley's value in this thread. As for Gillard not entering the picture, read on ...


Wrong again. Barnsley is being offered by Ian in response to the accusation that he was sexist. The idea that Abbott was a turn off to many female voters has been canvassed well before the ascension of Gillard.
Bzzzt. Had you bothered to actually follow the conversation between Ian and Spiny, you'd have seen that the issue of sexism, is an aside, (and then only an option to a question) within a greater conversation which was exactly as I described it in my original. That dialogue, in full, between Ian and Spiny was



Half the electorate is female. Of their 3% swinging voters, how many do you think will prefer Abbott over Gillard?


Similarly ... half the electorate is male ... etc etc

Aren't you being just a bit sexist? Or perhaps suggesting that female voters are more likely to be sexist than male voters? Or ... ??? ... :hmm:


Hey, it's not me who's sexist :hand: Look at Tony Abbott's record -
Why Some Women don't like Tony (http://newmatilda.com/2009/12/08/why-some-women-dont-tony)


This piece is all about the perception of Abbott. Gillard is mentioned a grand total of zero times.
:lol: You're a crack-up. It's about "Perception of Abbott", perhaps, but more broadly and relevantly, the piece is cited in relation to the context of this thread (or side issue if you prefer) which is Gillard's appeal to female voters. This is not a Tony Abbott thread, and the Spiny conversation wasn't a Tony Abbott discussion. This thread, only some 20 posts old, is dedicated to Gillard. It is named after Gillard. Gillard is mentioned in, or is the subject of, every post (save a couple of joke posts early on). And as I have pointed out, the side discussion between Ian and Spiny was also clearly related to Gillard and her femininity appeal to swingers. Had you bothered to follow it from the beginning (a whole 3 posts) and not swipe at the word 'sexist' from the tail-end of that conversation, you wouldn't be making a serial ass of yourself.

Mischa
26-06-2010, 12:04 AM
I just keep getting red neck when I read you Howard...my facist radar must be down

Basil
26-06-2010, 12:13 AM
I just keep getting red neck when I read you Howard...my facist radar must be down
OK, I'm game for a futile exercise. What comment of mine would you say is representative of redneck? Take your time.

Goughfather
26-06-2010, 12:36 AM
Had you bothered to follow it from the beginning (a whole 3 posts) and not swipe at the word 'sexist' from the tail-end of that conversation, you wouldn't be making a serial ass of yourself.

The broader context of the conversation and the thread does not change the fact that Ian was responding directly to the suggestion that he might be sexist and that his citation of the article was in effect saying "I'm not sexist and neither are women, simply because they are, or might be turned off by Tony Abbott's sexism".

Seriously, you are a first class twit. If you don't or won't believe me, read Kevin's all too gentle rebuke of your inadequate comprehension skills a few times. Then a few more times. Hopefully, after a while, the penny should drop.

Basil
26-06-2010, 01:06 AM
snip
I'm also adding 'disingenuous' to your ever-growing rap sheet. Full sheet below.

To recap, your entry into this thread was

Did she ever vote Coalition? Did she ever consider voting Coalition? Did any of her friends who has problem with Abbott ever contemplated voting Coalition?

Have you ever voted Labor? Have you ever considered voting Labor? Do any your friends who had a problem with Rudd ever contemplate voting Labor?
What that exchange reflects is firstly, Igor successfully refuting Ian's introduction of this woman. And then you very clearly joined that conversation and attempted to hold Igor to the same standard (of vote-switching). As we now know your line subsequently failed as I originally described.

Of damning import, you didn't say Igor's line of reasoning was inappropriate. You didn't say Igor had the wrong end of the stick because 'switching votes wasn't the issue, sexism was', but instead you did clearly make a parallel analogy and were participating in the conversation in the very same context that I have described from the beginning.

Only after I pointed out that your parallel line failed, did you drop it like it never happened and instead embarked on *yet another* haymaker - your proven specialty in extrapolating, distorting and misdirecting conversations - , by creating a new-found issue of solely sexism (even after you yourself had participated, yep participated! in the apparent non issue! What a joke!

The rap sheet to date:


Disingenuous.
Making unbackable claims and subsequent failure to supply supporting docs.
Ad hominem smugness.
Double standard on same by indulging in posts consisting entirely of ad hominem attacks.
Haymakers.
And best of all, your enduring self-delusion to genuinely believe you've had a win each time.

Kevin Bonham
26-06-2010, 02:58 PM
On Abbott's trouble with female voters, this is becoming more acute in recent polling. Current Nielsen has his approval-disapproval at 43-45 with males but 37-47 with females. It also shows that Gillard's early lead as preferred PM is ten points higher with females.

Spiny Norman
26-06-2010, 03:56 PM
On Abbott's trouble with female voters, this is becoming more acute in recent polling. Current Nielsen has his approval-disapproval at 43-45 with males but 37-47 with females. It also shows that Gillard's early lead as preferred PM is ten points higher with females.
So does this difference show:
-- that males are sexist, preferring the male Abbott over the female Gillard; or
-- that females are sexist, preferring the female Gillard over the male Abbott?

I'm not convinced that it shows that Abbott is sexist, unless the argument is ALSO that females are more aware of sexism and are therefore picking up on his sexist biases (which, in itself, is a sexist argument).

My head is spinning. But I'm already tired of the media rabbiting on about "first female PM" and whether Gillard will be our "first elected woman PM". I don't give a rats *rse about whether the pollies are male or female; but I do care about whether they are competent, honest, and have good policies.

I nearly vomited when they trotted out Joan Kirner (a failed VIC Labor politician from the 80's) to offer her thoughts on Gillard's ascendancy. Do any of these people realise how sexist their commentary is?

Kevin Bonham
26-06-2010, 06:12 PM
So does this difference show:
-- that males are sexist, preferring the male Abbott over the female Gillard; or
-- that females are sexist, preferring the female Gillard over the male Abbott?

Well neither gender prefers the male Abbott over the female Gillard (it's 37-52 vs 32-57) so I think we can strike either of those.


I'm not convinced that it shows that Abbott is sexist, unless the argument is ALSO that females are more aware of sexism and are therefore picking up on his sexist biases (which, in itself, is a sexist argument).

I'm not convinced any poll figure on gender-based differences in voting can prove that a given candidate is sexist either, and I do not offer any such figures as evidence of such. What it does show, however, is that for whatever reason Abbott is less successful in attracting female votes than male votes. This is not just a Gillard thing but was starting to become apparent towards the end of Rudd's term after initially appearing to be something of an urban myth. It is possible a remark he made about ironing has caused him some harm in that regard.


I nearly vomited when they trotted out Joan Kirner (a failed VIC Labor politician from the 80's) to offer her thoughts on Gillard's ascendancy. Do any of these people realise how sexist their commentary is?

I never had much time for Kirner but in fairness to her she was on a hiding to nothing as leader, being installed as the head of a dying government of a state in severe economic crisis.

Ian Murray
26-06-2010, 06:32 PM
Quite a brouhaha I seem to have stirred up. My sole intention was to refute TSK's suggestion that my swinging-female-vote comment was sexist by pointing out that it is Abbott who has the sexist rep. His ultra-conservative views are well known on the likes of abortion, contraception, premarital virginity (for women), housework-is-for-women etc

Some other relevant reports:
http://manly-daily.whereilive.com.au/news/story/women-steamed-up-over-abbott-s-sexism/
http://www.unistudent.com.au/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=34&Itemid=56
http://www.cpa.org.au/guardian/2010/1445/12-abbotts-agenda.html
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/memo-abbott-virginity-debate-is-no-mans-land-20100127-mz0y.html?comments=210
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/tony-abbott-warns-women-against-sex-before-marriage/story-e6frgczf-1225823300045
http://hoydenabouttown.com/20100201.7217/obligatory-tony-abbott-said-what-now-thread/

Basil
26-06-2010, 06:38 PM
Quite a brouhaha I seem to have stirred up. My sole intention was to refute TSK's suggestion that my swinging-female-vote comment was sexist by pointing out that it is Abbott who has the sexist rep.
I accept that was your intention. I note that if that is the case, you excused yourself from the main conversation you were having with Spiny (which is fine). In any event, first comments from Igor, me and Goughfather in response to your post were related to the vote-swinging aspect.

Basil
26-06-2010, 06:39 PM
Some other relevant reports:
Have you ever compiled a report/ list of Rudd's rude outbursts?
Do you think Abbott is sexist?

Ian Murray
26-06-2010, 07:50 PM
I accept that was your intention. I note that if that is the case, you excused yourself from the main conversation you were having with Spiny (which is fine).
No. I was airing (albeit paraphrased) my opinion, shared by others, that Abbott's sexism will alienate the majority of swinging female voters

Ian Murray
26-06-2010, 07:56 PM
Have you ever compiled a report/ list of Rudd's rude outbursts?
Not before now:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/is-rudds-rudeness-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-20100317-qdjp.html
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/rudd-dubbed-kevin-rude-after-outburst/442703/
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/rude-kevin-rudd-will-reap-whirlwind/story-e6frezz0-1225779912448
http://raws.adc.rmit.edu.au/~s3228795/blog2/?tag=kevin-rudd
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/alleged-rat-f-k-outburst-tarnishes-kevin-rudds-china-friendly-image/story-e6frf7jo-1225876417556


Do you think Abbott is sexist?
Absolutely. His personal views are his business, but in our secular society he has no business using his public office to pontificate on women's issues and physiology, based on his religious beliefs

Basil
26-06-2010, 08:24 PM
Absolutely. His personal views are his business, but in our secular society he has no business using his public office to pontificate on women's issues and physiology, based on his religious beliefs
You have the advantage. Can you supply an example?

Ian Murray
26-06-2010, 08:32 PM
You have the advantage. Can you supply an example?
How about his belief that a woman's greatest gift to a husband is an intact hymen? Or, when Minister for Health, his attempt to suppress release of the abortion drug RU486 contrary to the recommendation of his department?

Basil
26-06-2010, 08:57 PM
How about his belief that a woman's greatest gift to a husband is an intact hymen? Or, when Minister for Health, his attempt to suppress release of the abortion drug RU486 contrary to the recommendation of his department?
I happen to disagree with his position on both issues, however regarding the first, I accept that that could be classified as sexist, although I believe its roots are based solely in his religious beliefs. If you'd care refuse my claim, then you'd be obliged to classify all muslims, without exception as sexist.

With respect to the second, I don't think that comes close to proving sexism, else again one would have to assert that all those who took that anti-stance were sexist - even the females.

Any others examples that lead to believe that Tony Abbott is sexist? Any acts of his or examples of behaviour that give you pause for thought that he might not be?

Ian Murray
26-06-2010, 09:19 PM
I happen to disagree with his position on both issues, however regarding the first, I accept that that could be classified as sexist, although I believe its roots are based solely in his religious beliefs. If you'd care refuse my claim, then you'd be obliged to classify all muslims, without exception as sexist.

With respect to the second, I don't think that comes close to proving sexism, else again one would have to assert that all those who took that anti-stance were sexist - even the females.

Any others examples that lead to believe that Tony Abbott is sexist? Any acts of his or examples of behaviour that give you pause for thought that he might not be?
I would agree that his attitudes are derived from his religious beliefs, not necessarily because he regards women as inferior. Nevertheless the result is sexism, as defined:
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

Cf his attitudes to premarital sex (by women only, note) and wives ironing hubbies' shirts And if unilaterally trying to block RU486 is not discrimanatory against women, then what is?

Kevin Bonham
26-06-2010, 10:43 PM
I happen to disagree with his position on both issues, however regarding the first, I accept that that could be classified as sexist, although I believe its roots are based solely in his religious beliefs.

I don't think that gets him off the hook. If a person holds sexist religious beliefs they are sexist.


If you'd care refuse my claim, then you'd be obliged to classify all muslims, without exception as sexist.

Not at all sure about "without exception" as I don't know enough about the less literalist strains of Islam to comment - suffice to say I am generally allergic to such sweeping generalisations about culturally diverse religious movements. That very many Muslims are sexist I don't doubt for a moment.

I don't take an anti-abortion position as necessarily sexist, in that a person might hold it based on a fundamental (and in my view completely mistaken in at least two major ways) belief that abortion is "murder". However virtually all people holding anti-abortion views I have ever encountered (and I've known quite a few of them) are either (i) Christians, or otherwise religiously inclined against abortion or (ii) males who are not Christians but whose attitudes towards women are in other ways strongly prone to be considered sexist or misogynistic. Presumably there are exceptions to this but my suspicion is that secular people who are not sexist are likely to see through the philosophical holes in the anti-abortion case.

Oh, back to the thread subject: isn't it curious how the Green vote seems to be shrinking (and the Green-voter preferencing of Labor increasing) now that Labor has turfed Rudd and installed Gillard, when Gillard will almost certainly be harsher on border protection than Rudd and when Gillard promotes a consensus-building approach to climate change management as opposed to immediate action, and was actually one of the movers behind Rudd's dog of an ETS getting dumped in the first place? A few hypotheses to explain this have occurred to me so far: (i) Some Green voters are exceedingly gullible and less than terribly bright (ii) The "Green voters" crossing back were never really Green inclined ideologically in the first place, were just saying "Green" as a form of "neither of the above" and would never have voted Green at all (iii) Gillard appeals to borderline Labor-Green voters because of issues other than climate change and boat people and the impact of those issues on vote leak from Labor has been exaggerated.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-06-2010, 10:56 PM
Have you ever voted Labor? Have you ever considered voting Labor? Do any your friends who had a problem with Rudd ever contemplate voting Labor?
How is it relevant? Am I being classified as a voter who might change his intention because of Labour change of leadership?

Igor_Goldenberg
26-06-2010, 11:00 PM
Quite a brouhaha I seem to have stirred up. My sole intention was to refute TSK's suggestion that my swinging-female-vote comment was sexist by pointing out that it is Abbott who has the sexist rep. His ultra-conservative views are well known on the likes of abortion, contraception, premarital virginity (for women), housework-is-for-women etc


The article you mention was supposed to confirm that Abbott alleged sexism will cost him vote.
That Abbott is sexist might or might not be true.
That Abbott's perceived (correctly or not) sexism will cost him votes might or might not be true.

The article you mentioned, however, fails to support this point (for the reason I outlined).

Goughfather
27-06-2010, 01:28 AM
The article you mention was supposed to confirm that Abbott alleged sexism will cost him vote.

Well no, as Ian made clear, he cited the article in response to the suggestion that he was sexist. In so doing, he exposed Howie and your poor comprehension of the reasons behind the citation. That is, unless you are trying to suggest that Ian is lying?


That Abbott is sexist might or might not be true.
That Abbott's perceived (correctly or not) sexism will cost him votes might or might not be true.

Indeed both of these questions are open and neither Ian, nor myself, nor Barnsley have suggested any differently.


The article you mentioned, however, fails to support this point (for the reason I outlined).

What point? The point that you are mistakenly attributing to Ian, myself, Barnsley or a combination of the above? It might be worth trying to understanding the point of both the citation and the article before trying to critique either.

Just to provide a helpful piece of advice - when trying to understand the point behind an article, a good starting point might be to carefully read and re-read the title. "Why some women don't like Tony". Why ... some ... women ... don't ... like ... Tony. Six words. It's not that hard. It's really not.

Barnsley, on primarily anecdotal grounds, suggests that Tony Abbott's sexual politics is unpalatable to herself and a lot of women that she knows. Indeed, she quite honestly recognises that perhaps other women love being told that their place is barefoot and chained to the kitchen stove, but she isn't one of them. Any other message you are reading into the article is the result of your own bias and sense of paranoia.

Capablanca-Fan
27-06-2010, 02:19 AM
Barnsley, on primarily anecdotal grounds, suggests that Tony Abbott's sexual politics is unpalatable to herself and a lot of women that she knows. Indeed, she quite honestly recognises that perhaps other women love being told that their place is barefoot and chained to the kitchen stove, but she isn't one of them. Any other message you are reading into the article is the result of your own bias and sense of paranoia.
Except that Abbott doesn't support this for women. Indeed, he supports a company tax increase for increased paid maternity leave that discriminates against stay-at-home mothers (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/64-want-parental-pay-for-stay-home-mums-20100329-r5t4.html).

But Gillard really is sexist, in that she supports a quota for Labor female candidates.

Ian Murray
27-06-2010, 10:13 AM
Except that Abbott doesn't support this for women. Indeed, he supports a company tax increase for increased paid maternity leave that discriminates against stay-at-home mothers (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/64-want-parental-pay-for-stay-home-mums-20100329-r5t4.html).
He stereotypes women as housewives - http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/old-fashioned-tony-abbott-gets-an-ironing-out/story-e6freooo-1225828025114


But Gillard really is sexist, in that she supports a quota for Labor female candidates.
Fighting against existing gender discrimination is not sexism - quite the opposite

Basil
27-06-2010, 11:14 AM
I didn't have time to go through all that has been written since I was last on - just genuinely didn't have time - no reflection on the quality or lack thereof.

Notwithstanding, of the posts that I did read, I am not surprised to find (and as previously predicted on the Rudd/ Chinese/ racist thread) that lefties, at a moment's notice will cut out all obstacles/ defences, such as

personal religious beliefs
other religions holding similar values
old-fashioned values
caucasian women holding the same POV!

to readily convict a right-wing poli of sexism or racism when it suits

whereas similar behaviour from one of their own, (viz, Rudd's abuse of women, service industry, other races) are uniformly denied as fitting the bill of racism/ sexism. Such behaviour is discarded as


tantrum
everyone loses their temper
the comments were off the record and don't count

This dynamic fits squarely in the "Stuff The Message, It Depends On Who Is Delivering It" bin.

Lefties make me wanna puke.

Capablanca-Fan
27-06-2010, 11:17 AM
He stereotypes women as housewives - http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/old-fashioned-tony-abbott-gets-an-ironing-out/story-e6freooo-1225828025114
Yet his crass maternity leave plan discriminates against them.


Fighting against existing gender discrimination is not sexism - quite the opposite
Indeed it is not, but replacing one form of gender discrimination with another is.

Goughfather
27-06-2010, 11:35 AM
Yet his crass maternity leave plan discriminates against them.


Do you have a point? Or are you simply trying to acknowledge that Abbott is doubly sexist?

Basil
27-06-2010, 11:46 AM
I would agree that his attitudes are derived from his religious beliefs, not necessarily because he regards women as inferior. Nevertheless the result is sexism, as defined:
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
In that case we must convict Rudd of racism based on his vilification of "Chinese ****ers".


Cf his attitudes to premarital sex (by women only, note) and wives ironing hubbies' shirts And if unilaterally trying to block RU486 is not discrimanatory against women, then what is?
I agree his attitudes are outmoded, if taken literally, but given that Julie Bishop has a place in his shadow ministry and other examples, I think you'll find that his quaint examples don't fulfill a test of sexism.

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2010, 12:01 PM
This is Ms Gillard's thread and Kev can we have her picture on top (where the poll is)?

No, that isn't possible, however if the thread-starter wishes to have a picture of our new Prime Minister included in the opening post it might be possible to accomplish that.

Rudd didn't get a picture of himself up here when he was elected so I don't see why Gillard should get any special favours. Having a female Prime Minister is not a pretext for turning all political coverage into an edition of Women's Weekly.


In that case we must convict Rudd of racism based on his vilification of "Chinese ****ers".

While it appears Rudd was referring to a specific Chinese delegation and not to his view of the Chinese in general in that comment I do note some negative comments made about Rudd and China in reference to the possibility of Rudd becoming Foreign Minister. The suggestion is that despite the language connection, he doesn't really like them nor vice versa.


whereas similar behaviour from one of their own, (viz, Rudd's abuse of women, service industry, other races) are uniformly denied as fitting the bill of racism/ sexism. Such behaviour is discarded as

I think it's fairly clearly established that Rudd abuses both genders when in control-freak mode - perhaps one of the reasons he lost his job.

Goughfather
27-06-2010, 12:07 PM
I think it's fairly clearly established that Rudd abuses both genders when in control-freak mode - perhaps one of the reasons he lost his job.

Indeed. An egalitarian, equal-opportunity abuser. Can't get much more progressive than that :P

Kevin, can you take over the wheel for a while? No matter how many times Howie and Jono get comprehensively trounced, the idiocy just won't go away and they come back for more. It's getting tiresome and I'm going out for lunch.

Ian Murray
27-06-2010, 12:15 PM
Indeed it is not, but replacing one form of gender discrimination with another is.
Equality is not discrimination

Capablanca-Fan
27-06-2010, 01:37 PM
Equality is not discrimination
It is if sex is taken into consideration in appointments to reach a lefty-beloved equality of outcomes. Real non-discrimination is equality of opportunities for males and females, as per the Coalition.

Goughfather
27-06-2010, 01:57 PM
It is if sex is taken into consideration in appointments to reach a lefty-beloved equality of outcomes. Real non-discrimination is equality of opportunities for males and females, as per the Coalition.

If there were really equality of opportunity for males and females, the Coalition would have 50 percent share of women in parliament. As it stands, the Coalition stand on an embarrassing 22 or so percent while the ALP stands at 31 or so percent.

Of course, if you wished to maintain that an equality of opportunity exists for females in the Coalition, this would be clear evidence that you believe in the inferiority of females as politicians, a very sexist sentiment indeed!

Spiny Norman
27-06-2010, 03:46 PM
If there were really equality of opportunity for males and females, the Coalition would have 50 percent share of women in parliament. As it stands, the Coalition stand on an embarrassing 22 or so percent while the ALP stands at 31 or so percent.
Baloney. Equality of opportunity clearly means giving both males and females equal chances to offer themselves for selection. You're mistaking opportunity with some other thing ... possibly equality of outcome.

Goughfather
27-06-2010, 06:07 PM
Baloney. Equality of opportunity clearly means giving both males and females equal chances to offer themselves for selection. You're mistaking opportunity with some other thing ... possibly equality of outcome.

I think you'll find I addressed this too. Assuming that you honestly believe that the Coalition pre-selects its candidates on the basis of merit, are you seriously suggesting that for every three male candidates, there is only one female candidate that is as qualified and as capable of holding political office?

Of course, there is the possibility that few women put themselves forward for pre-selection as Liberal candidates and that many of the more competent women are not in the pool to start with. Which makes you ask, why is it that the Coalition is so spectacularly unsuccessful in recruiting females at a grassroots level?

Basil
27-06-2010, 06:23 PM
I think it's fairly clearly established that Rudd abuses both genders when in control-freak mode - perhaps one of the reasons he lost his job.
I agree as well. And it is an inverse corollary of this catch-all position which allows Abbott to rightfully escape the charge of sexism on the abortion drug; viz both of 'some men' (including Abbott), and 'some women' are against the termination drug. Unless all of these people, including the women, are deemed sexist then the charge can't genuinely be stuck to Abbott.

Further, Abbott has stated it is his right-to-life beliefs and and it just happens to be women which carry the fetus. One has to ask oneself whether Abbott would likely hold the same right-to-life belief if men were the fetus carriers. If the answer is 'yes' or 'don't know' then one cannot genuinely assert that Abbott is a sexist in this instance.

Basil
27-06-2010, 06:33 PM
While it appears Rudd was referring to a specific Chinese delegation
Apparently that doesn't matter these days. Referring to one as an indigenous person as a f***ing black coon is sufficient for a charge of racism. To argue that for a charge of racism to stick that Rudd needed to capture the entire Chinese race is an incongruous defence.

Basil
27-06-2010, 06:38 PM
If there were really equality of opportunity for males and females, the Coalition would have 50 percent share of women in parliament. As it stands, the Coalition stand on an embarrassing 22 or so percent while the ALP stands at 31 or so percent.
Only 31%? Not 50%?

So on these numbers and your argument, the ALP is still sexist, but not so much as the Coalition. As one can't be a little bit pregnant, you must conclude, by your own argument, that the ALP is sexist.

Goughfather
27-06-2010, 07:02 PM
Only 31%? Not 50%?

So on these numbers and your argument, the ALP is still sexist, but not so much as the Coalition. As one can't be a little bit pregnant, you must conclude, by your own argument, that the ALP is sexist.

Bravo, Sherlock. Yes, of course many ALP figures, both men and women have expressed dissatisfaction with the underrepresentation of women in the parliamentary sphere, while stating that at least the figures have improved dramatically over the last ten to fifteen years.

Thought you'd got me there, didn't you? Truth is, you're always two to three steps behind.

Your analogy with pregnancy is simply devoid of merit. Sexism might be sexism, but the fact that the ALP enjoys a 50 percent greater representation than the Coalition suggests that the ALP is much more serious about addressing the systemic sexism that exists in the political sphere.

Basil
27-06-2010, 07:22 PM
Thought you'd got me there, didn't you?
No question about it.


Bravo, Sherlock. Yes, of course many ALP figures, both men and women have expressed dissatisfaction with the underrepresentation of women in the parliamentary sphere, while stating that at least the figures have improved dramatically over the last ten to fifteen years.
You can keep rewording it any way you like. By your own argument and your own figures, the ALP is sexist.

Goughfather
27-06-2010, 08:03 PM
You can keep rewording it any way you like. By your own argument and your own figures, the ALP is sexist.

I didn't say any differently. All I said was that the Coalition was badly lagging behind in addressing this imbalance and that the current representation of women in the Coalition is pathetic, notwithstanding the fact that the ALP does not have a fantastic record itself.

The sad thing is that you honestly think that I inadvertently left myself open to the charge that by my own argument, the ALP was sexist. But I already knew that this was one of the implications of what I wrote. Indeed, I anticipated that you'd try to bring up this argument thinking you had scored some kind of victory.

Basil
27-06-2010, 08:11 PM
The sad thing is that you honestly think that I inadvertently left myself open to the charge that by my own argument.
The only thing that's sad is your pitiful attempts to cover your tracks. This is what you said:


If there were really equality of opportunity for males and females, the Coalition would have 50 percent share of women in parliament.
For the record then, despite your attack on Spiny's argument as well as The Libs, you do agree that the ALP is sexist. Is that correct?

Goughfather
27-06-2010, 08:29 PM
For the record then, despite your attack on Spiny's argument as well as The Libs, you do agree that the ALP is sexist. Is that correct?

My attack was on Jono's argument that the Coalition offers an equality of opportunity. He did not suggest that the ALP offered an equality of opportunity, which is why I did not address the ALP in my response to him.

To clarify for about the fourth time now, I acknowledged that the ALP suffered from a sexist legacy and that recent attempts to redress that legacy have been inadequate and far too slow, albeit that it is in a much better state than the Coalition.

No doubt you'll fail to understand once again and you'll ask me yet again to confirm whether the ALP is sexism or not. Perhaps by that time, I'll have got bored running rings around you and taken up a more challenging activity like shooting fish in a barrel.

Basil
27-06-2010, 08:35 PM
My attack was on Jono's argument ...
Wibbling drivel. The attack I'm referring to was yours on Spiny's Lib sexist charge/ defence. You've now (eventually) confessed to my satisfaction that the ALP is also sexist.


To clarify for about the fourth time now, I acknowledged that the ALP suffered from a sexist legacy and that recent attempts to redress that legacy have been inadequate and far too slow, albeit that it is in a much better state than the Coalition.
Which is a waffly way of saying yes, the ALP is sexist.

So, now please explain why there is no double standard involved with lefties accusing the Libs of being sexist.

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2010, 08:42 PM
I agree as well. And it is a corollary of this catch-all position which allows Abbott to rightfully escape the charge of sexism on the abortion drug; viz both of 'some men' (including Abbott), and 'some women' are against the termination drug. Unless all of these people, including the women, are deemed sexist then the charge can't genuinely be stuck to Abbott.

I think this is up for debate. There are many reasons for opposing abortion and some of them are sexist. I am not inclined to assume anyone to be sexist just on account of their position on abortion. But if it is part of a set of apparently sexist beliefs then it becomes suspicious. Abbott's opposition to abortion is a perfect fit with his twaddle about the great importance of the "gift" of virginity as part of an agenda that seeks to assist men (especially those with limited experience and/or clue) to control and limit female sexuality.


One has to ask oneself whether Abbott would likely hold the same right-to-life belief if men were the fetus carriers.

This one has to ask oneself what would happen in the following circumstance. The Speaker of the House declares that every male politician who insults another politician will have a brick attached to the front of their stomach and must carry the brick around for three months, then a second brick is attached for another three months and finally a third. Removal of the bricks before the nine months is up is not merely disallowed but classed as brickicide and results in serious criminal sanctions. At the end of the nine months the bricked politician may remove the bricks, but this can only be done by undressing in the company of strangers of the opposite sex who are permitted to stare at Tony's genitals and make dismissive remarks somewhere where he can't hear them. Especially, he is banned from wearing Speedos. At the end of the nine months, the bricks are auctioned and the proceeds used to save the life of a child. One day in the House Abbott gets stirred by Gillard about his nonexistent lovechild, responds insultingly, and is duly "bricked" by the Speaker. One wonders whether he would support the Speaker's right-to-brick at the end of this ordeal. :lol:

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2010, 08:58 PM
If there were really equality of opportunity for males and females, the Coalition would have 50 percent share of women in parliament. As it stands, the Coalition stand on an embarrassing 22 or so percent while the ALP stands at 31 or so percent.

I actually don't read all that much into this. I remember that when Howard was first elected there was a big fuss about a quota of women in winnable seats for Labor, but no such fuss for the Liberals, and then the Liberals' results in getting women elected were no worse than Labor's (indeed if memory serves me well they were better.) Opportunity can be equalised all one likes but there can still remain reasons why one gender or the other is more inclined to participate or more successful in doing so. One possible reason is that nothing can stop sexist voters from voting for males over females. (Or vice versa, though the former seems to be commoner in adult politics. In student politics it is different because of the "jock vote".) Another is that there is still a legacy of more male-dominated days with male veterans continuing to hold the ultra-safe seats.

Basil
27-06-2010, 08:58 PM
I think this is up for debate. There are many reasons for opposing abortion and some of them are sexist. I am not inclined to assume anyone to be sexist just on account of their position on abortion.
Now we're making real progress. This is a far cry from many leftists who (mindlessly? disingenuously?) declare Abbot's sexism as fact simply because of his stance on this issue (and perhaps another, which is equally open to debate).

I think you are entitled call into account balance of other evidence. But I also believe you are duty-bound to note that given a significant number of females share Abbott's position, the weighting on this drug issue should be very low in assessing whether it is a sexist position or not.

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2010, 09:07 PM
I think you are entitled call into account balance of other evidence. But I also believe you are duty-bound to note that given a significant number of females share Abbott's position, the weighting on this drug issue should be very low in assessing whether it is a sexist position or not.

Some of the females may well be sexist against females as well, just as we now consider male-only voting unquestionably sexist but not all females opposed it when it existed. There are some very submissive strands of Christian views on the role of wives out there, for example.


Now we're making real progress. This is a far cry from many leftists

Since I'm not consistently a leftist that shouldn't come as any surprise.

Note that while I don't consider opposition to abortion to be necessarily sexist, I do consider the imposition of anti-abortion laws to be necessarily illiberal. Which, given that that leads to me supporting the right to overturn anti-abortion laws by lethal revolutionary force if necessary (even when they are overwhelmingly democratically supported) makes whether anti-abortion attitudes are sexist all a bit of a trivial sideshow to me. :lol:

Basil
27-06-2010, 09:12 PM
Some of the females may well be sexist against females as well, just as we now consider male-only voting unquestionably sexist but not all females opposed it when it existed. There are some very submissive strands of Christian views on the role of wives out there, for example.
Sure. But I think we can now agree that the charge of sexism against Abbott on this issue is far from proven.


Since I'm not consistently a leftist that shouldn't come as any surprise.
Agreed. Not surprised at all.


Note that while I don't consider opposition to abortion to be necessarily sexist, I do consider the imposition of anti-abortion laws to be necessarily illiberal. Which, given that that leads to me supporting the right to overturn anti-abortion laws by lethal revolutionary force if necessary (even when they are overwhelmingly democratically supported) makes whether anti-abortion attitudes are sexist all a bit of a trivial sideshow to me. :lol:
Yes minister! :D

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2010, 09:16 PM
Sure. But I think we can now agree that the charge of sexism against Abbott on this issue is far from proven.

Elections aren't a court of law so whether it is absolutely proven is irrelevant. In my view Abbott is almost certainly about as sexist (based on policy positions and statements across various issues) as it is possible for a modern politician to be without being expelled from his party if not charged. I really can't imagine how a serious leadership contender or even major frontbencher in a major party could appear to be any more clearly sexist if they tried.

Basil
27-06-2010, 09:17 PM
In my view Abbott is almost certainly about as sexist as it is possible for a modern politician to be
On what grounds?

Goughfather
27-06-2010, 09:32 PM
I really can't imagine how a serious leadership contender or even major frontbencher in a major party could appear to be any more clearly sexist if they tried.

He could start sniffing the chairs of female parliamentarians? Or perhaps that's really only a Western Australian thing?

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2010, 09:32 PM
Apparently that doesn't matter these days. Referring to one as an indigenous person as a f***ing black coon is sufficient for a charge of racism.

"Coon" is a term widely regarded as racist all by itself, and even "black" can be racist in some contexts when used to imply dismissive attitudes towards people of that skin colour. Not so sure about the term Rudd used for the Chinese delegation.


On what grounds?

Pretty much all of those referred to in the various links posted by Ian, with the sole exception that one of the links oversimplifies Abbott's views on no-fault divorce (his proposal was to make an option available for marrying couples to waive no-fault divorce rights). The conclusiveness of any one of the charges can be challenged in isolation but when all the incidents are added together I think it gets pretty strong.

Basil
27-06-2010, 09:41 PM
"Coon" is a term widely regarded as racist all by itself, and even "black" can be racist in some contexts when used to imply dismissive attitudes towards people of that skin colour. Not so sure about the term Rudd used for the Chinese delegation.
Well we're really getting into degrees here, aren't we? I hope the rest of the country, news teams, the courts, football coaches are all paying attention to what is racist and what isn't.


Pretty much all of those referred to in the various links posted by Ian, with the sole exception that one of the links oversimplifies Abbott's views on no-fault divorce (his proposal was to make an option available for marrying couples to waive no-fault divorce rights). The conclusiveness of any one of the charges can be challenged in isolation but when all the incidents are added together I think it gets pretty strong.
Roger.

Ian Murray
27-06-2010, 09:44 PM
Now we're making real progress. This is a far cry from many leftists who (mindlessly? disingenuously?) declare Abbot's sexism as fact simply because of his stance on this issue (and perhaps another, which is equally open to debate).

I think you are entitled call into account balance of other evidence. But I also believe you are duty-bound to note that given a significant number of females share Abbott's position, the weighting on this drug issue should be very low in assessing whether it is a sexist position or not.
It's not his stance at issue, but his actions. When Minister for Health he used his public office to veto release of RU486, despite advice from the Chief Health Officer that the drug was no less safe or effective than other drugs or procedures (Abbott used this advice to claim that the drug was not completely safe).

This unilateral hijack of the democratic process was clearly sexist, discriminating against women's right of choice.

The veto power was removed by a conscience vote in 2006. See http://www.childrenbychoice.org.au/nwww/ru486.htm

Basil
27-06-2010, 09:51 PM
It's not his stance at issue, but his actions.
Assuming everything you have said is true, and I have no reason at all to doubt it, your post only illustrates that he used a furfy reason (drug safety) to support his right-to-life POV. As has been discussed earlier, his right-to-life POV does not, on its face, make him sexist.

Ian Murray
27-06-2010, 10:07 PM
Assuming everything you have said is true, and I have no reason at all to doubt it, your post only illustrates that he used a furfy reason (drug safety) to support his right-to-life POV. As has been discussed earlier, his right-to-life POV does not, on its face, make him sexist.
But imposing his POV on the country via his public office, without just cause, has an obvious sexist effect and hence is a sexist act.

Oepty
27-06-2010, 10:17 PM
But imposing his POV on the country via his public office, without just cause, has an obvious sexist effect and hence is a sexist act.

Ian. I am reading this thread and am not sure who I agree with but one question. Do you believe any decision made that impacts on only one sex is sexist?
Scott

Ian Murray
27-06-2010, 10:46 PM
Ian. I am reading this thread and am not sure who I agree with but one question. Do you believe any decision made that impacts on only one sex is sexist?
Scott
Only under the generally accepted definition:
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender

Basil
27-06-2010, 10:50 PM
Only under the generally accepted definition:
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender
To which I say that no such discrimination exists. I say that Abbott clearly discriminates in favour of the fetus, and it is entirely incidental that that simply happens to be a female carrier.

Ian Murray
27-06-2010, 11:43 PM
To which I say that no such discrimination exists. I say that Abbott clearly discriminates in favour of the fetus, and it is entirely incidental that that simply happens to be a female carrier.
OK, I'm taking my bat and ball and going home. I still think the grass is greener on my side of the fence ;)

Basil
27-06-2010, 11:58 PM
OK, I'm taking my bat and ball and going home. I still think the grass is greener on my side of the fence ;)
Can I come with you? I'm over it too :D

Capablanca-Fan
28-06-2010, 04:03 AM
To which I say that no such discrimination exists. I say that Abbott clearly discriminates in favour of the fetus, and it is entirely incidental that that simply happens to be a female carrier.
Also, more often than not worldwide, the fetus is a female one. Sex-selected abortions have resulted in a huge surplus of males in China (http://www.globalchange.com/select.htm)because of their one-child policy and many parents aborting girl babies:


The Academy of Social Sciences in Bejing research times have found that in some parts of China there are 120 boys to only 100 girls because of Gender Selection - natural births produce a ratio of 105 to 100. Another study of women migrating to Bejing found they were arriving with 159 boys to only 100 girls. Gender Selection in China has already produced a very profound national imbalance with many tens of millions of young men now growing up without women to marry.

But since modern feminists and leftards support abortion for any reason the woman wants, they have no basis for opposition if the reason happens to be wanting a boy.

This is a contrast with the early 19th-century feminists, as cited in Abortion: an indispensable right or violence against women? (http://creation.com/abortion-an-indispensable-right-or-violence-against-women-sex-selection-aborting-girls)


For example, The Revolution, the newsletter of Susan B. Anthony (1820–1906), described abortion as ‘child murder’, ‘infanticide’ and ‘foeticide’. Victoria Woodhull (1838–1927), the first female US presidential candidate, said:


Every woman knows that if she were free, she would never bear an unwished-for child, nor think of murdering one before its birth.

These comments were consistent with the strong opposition to abortion from other feminists. Anthony’s friend Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815–1902), who organized the first women’s rights convention in Seneca Falls, NY (1848), called abortion a ‘disgusting and degrading crime’, and argued pointedly,

When you consider that women have been treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.

The mother of the feminist movement, Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797) had earlier written, A Vindication of the Rights of Women, where she condemned those who would ‘either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast it off when born.’

Capablanca-Fan
28-06-2010, 04:06 AM
But imposing his POV on the country via his public office, without just cause, has an obvious sexist effect and hence is a sexist act.
Yet you would impose your POV on the unborn victims, which are majority female, so your view is sexist. Conversely, more women than men hold Abbott's POV, so he must be pro-women.

Capablanca-Fan
28-06-2010, 04:16 AM
Which, given that that leads to me supporting the right to overturn anti-abortion laws by lethal revolutionary force if necessary (even when they are overwhelmingly democratically supported) makes whether anti-abortion attitudes are sexist all a bit of a trivial sideshow to me. :lol:
Interesting. So let's have no more bleating from you about the handful of murders of abortionists; your supported methods are no different, just the side you're on.

Capablanca-Fan
28-06-2010, 04:24 AM
No matter how many times Howie and Jono get comprehensively trounced, the idiocy just won't go away and they come back for more. It's getting tiresome and I'm going out for lunch.
This lawyer-type wants to be both prosecution and judge/jury.


If there were really equality of opportunity for males and females, the Coalition would have 50 percent share of women in parliament.
Non sequitur. Equality of opportunity often doesn't translate into equality of outcome. The inequality of outcome may well come from fewer women choosing to go into politics, as well as, of course, the Australian voters' choices that you would evidently overturn.


As it stands, the Coalition stand on an embarrassing 22 or so percent while the ALP stands at 31 or so percent.
So even the ALP has a small minority, which would be regarded as an electoral crushing if it was the minority in parliament. This supports my explanation for the disparity, not yours.


Of course, if you wished to maintain that an equality of opportunity exists for females in the Coalition, this would be clear evidence that you believe in the inferiority of females as politicians, a very sexist sentiment indeed!
Nope, just a belief that fewer women choose that career, or are chosen by the people (slightly more women than men).

GF is a typical Anointed Leftard (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=484) who illogically goes from disparity to discrimination. It's the same sort of falsehood that makes Commissar Obamov assert sexism because "women earn only 77% of male wages". Yet for one thing, more men than women take dangerous jobs, as shown in the huge proportion of male workplace accidents. And men often work for longer hours. As Donna Wiesner Keene points out (http://www.iwf.org/news/show/20889.html):


In 1970 women were supposed to earn 74% of what men earned. Obama says 77%. Does that figure amaze you? It should-it is a boldfaced lie. Women have earned 98% of what men earn in a similar job with similar education and experience since before 1985 when I cranked the numbers in the Reagan Administration.

Part of the problem is the Republican administration's refusal to take control of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which has resulted in undue credibility for an agency where bureaucrats and statisticians run as they will. The definition of full time work is 35 hours per week, and not all 52 weeks a year. Since more men work 40+ hours and 52 weeks a year, voila, women make less than men do.

In fact, workers who average 44 or more hours per week earn an average of 100% more than workers who average only 40 hours per week. Men in full-time jobs tend to work 4 to 10 more hours more per week than women in full-time jobs.

Spiny Norman
28-06-2010, 06:54 AM
Assuming that you honestly believe that the Coalition pre-selects its candidates on the basis of merit, are you seriously suggesting that for every three male candidates, there is only one female candidate that is as qualified and as capable of holding political office?
Up to you to show that the Coalition ISN'T selecting on the basis of merit. Give a single example where they chose a poorly-qualified man over a much-better-qualified woman. Otherwise you're just waffling.

For the record, I believe totally in the self-interest of both Labor and Liberal ... which is why its in their interest to choose the best candidates, regardless of gender. Affirmative action is just another form of PC discrimination.

Ian Murray
28-06-2010, 09:37 AM
Yet you would impose your POV on the unborn victims, which are majority female, so your view is sexist. Conversely, more women than men hold Abbott's POV, so he must be pro-women.
No I'm not. It's a woman's choice, not mine, not Abbott's, not yours. Abortion on demand is legal in this country, regardless of minority views.

TheJoker
28-06-2010, 01:29 PM
This thread seems to be bogged down with arguments over whether anyone can prove that Abbott is sexist. I think that's totally irrelevant the fact remains that there is a widespread (at least as I can tell) perception that he is sexist. Whether than can or cannot be proven is irrelevant. The real question is whether that perception will translate into votes or lack thereof.

Unless of course any of the Abbott nuthuggers are doubting the perception exists?

Basil
28-06-2010, 02:15 PM
This thread seems to be bogged down with arguments over whether anyone can prove that Abbott is sexist. I think that's totally irrelevant the fact remains that there is a widespread (at least as I can tell) perception that he is sexist. Whether than can or cannot be proven is irrelevant. The real question is whether that perception will translate into votes or lack thereof.

Unless of course any of the Abbott nuthuggers are doubting the perception exists?
There are two issues, not one:
a) The issue of whether the perception exists, and
b) Whether or not he is sexist.

The perception certainly exists, no question. Polling says so. This board says so. I say so. It is relevant when some of us want to discuss election prospects.

The issue of whether he is sexist, is more philosophical. Some people simply want to understand whether he is. This is discussion for realms outside of party (both sides) strategic manoeuvring.

TheJoker
28-06-2010, 03:25 PM
There are two issues, not one:
a) The issue of whether the perception exists, and
b) Whether or not he is sexist.

The perception certainly exists, no question. Polling says so. This board says so. I say so. It is relevant when some of us want to discuss election prospects.

The issue of whether he is sexist, is more philosophical. Some people simply want to understand whether he is. This is discussion for realms outside of party (both sides) strategic manoeuvring.

Right. But do you really believe the posters on this thread, given the information available to them, have any chance at all of coming close to being able to definitively answer (b)?

Obviously it can't be proven one way or another but if you had to take a punt on whether Abbott is sexist or not based on what you know and have seen of him, where would you put your money? What's your gut feeling?

From what I've seen I'd say he is more likely to be sexist than not.

Basil
28-06-2010, 04:38 PM
Obviously it can't be proven one way or another but if you had to take a punt on whether Abbott is sexist or not based on what you know and have seen of him, where would you put your money? What's your gut feeling?
I think not. I'm yet to see any quality argument suggesting otherwise. However, I'm prepared to consider any allegation as open-mindedly as possible (notwithstanding my own moral and political compass).

My centre of gravity for non-PC attitudes is often perceived as quite extreme, whereas I believe they're enlightened. There are things I believe and can safely demonstrate/say within my circle of friends, which includes blacks, whites, yellows, reds, purples, greens, men, women, gay people, straight people, people with disabilities, and other broad groupings I don't care to mention - that I know for a fact would send other people into apoplexy.

I'm reminded of an event recently from the UK, the short story was:
White man. black man. best friends. work mates. on the shop floor. official-looking person came on to factory floor. white man joked to best (black) friend, "better hide!". Implcation being black person was inferior/ illegal or similar. A third party! took offence and reported the incident. White man was suspended (on pay) while investigated. White man believed he was going to lose job. White (no doubt for a multitude of reasons) took his own life.

Kevin Bonham
28-06-2010, 09:32 PM
Interesting. So let's have no more bleating from you about the handful of murders of abortionists; your supported methods are no different, just the side you're on.

You'll get as much more so-called bleating as you like, because in the absence of uncontentious proof that abortion is murder, anti-abortion laws are illiberal and have no place in any liberal democracy irrespective of the degree of support; anybody who kills in defence of them is doubly bad because they are killing in defence of the illiberal use of force by the State against its citizens.

Also, while I would uphold the right to overthrow a State that supported such laws, doctors who operate according to pro-abortion laws are not part of a pro-abortion State, merely actors within it acting in accord with that State's laws. A more accurate analogy would be if, in a state where abortion was illegal, I supported the use of revolutionary force extending to the killing of citizens who supported such laws, which I would not.

Also, when I talk about the theoretical right to use revolutionary force against illiberal laws, I'm generally not saying I think it is a good idea. Just that it is something I don't think there is an argument against if someone does choose to go down that path, speaking as someone who is (on these things) a libertarian first and a democrat only as last resort.

Goughfather
28-06-2010, 10:10 PM
This lawyer-type wants to be both prosecution and judge/jury.


After repeated requests for you to cease acting as both prosecution and judge/jury which you have ignored, I've decided to level the playing field. Probably more to the point, my strident declarations of victory is really just a parody of your own behaviour and that of Howie.

Interestingly to see though, that you are either oblivious to, or unconcerned by your own hypocrisy.


Non sequitur. Equality of opportunity often doesn't translate into equality of outcome. The inequality of outcome may well come from fewer women choosing to go into politics, as well as, of course, the Australian voters' choices that you would evidently overturn.

No, quite relevant indeed. Indeed, if you read further, I asked the question that considering that only one third the number of (conservative) women as (conservative) men choose to go into politics on the Coalition side of the ledger, then why are the Coalition so spectacularly unsuccessful in recruiting women. My hypothesis: perhaps it has something to do with a culture in which even a politician who was caught sniffing the seat of female member of parliament, snapping a woman's bra-strap at a social function and is well known for making both derogatory and sexist remarks to and about women is still being considered for a prominent front bench role in the future.


So even the ALP has a small minority, which would be regarded as an electoral crushing if it was the minority in parliament. This supports my explanation for the disparity, not yours.

The situation in the ALP is not fantastic itself, but when you consider that both parties were starting from a few percent representation of women a few decades ago and that some of those parliamentarians are still in parliament, this brings the proportion of females being recruited into parliament in the ALP in recent years much closer to fifty percent. That the Coalition only have two-thirds of the women that the ALP does by comparison speaks volumes.


GF is a typical Anointed Leftard (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=484) who illogically goes from disparity to discrimination.


I've explained this above. As I've pointed out, even if it were conceded that the lower proportion of female representation in the Coalition was directly attributable to fewer women wanting to join the Coalition, then this would still be a damning indictment on the Coalition.


It's the same sort of falsehood that makes Commissar Obamov assert sexism because "women earn only 77% of male wages". Yet for one thing, more men than women take dangerous jobs, as shown in the huge proportion of male workplace accidents. And men often work for longer hours. As Donna Wiesner Keene points out (http://www.iwf.org/news/show/20889.html):


In 1970 women were supposed to earn 74% of what men earned. Obama says 77%. Does that figure amaze you? It should-it is a boldfaced lie. Women have earned 98% of what men earn in a similar job with similar education and experience since before 1985 when I cranked the numbers in the Reagan Administration.

Part of the problem is the Republican administration's refusal to take control of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which has resulted in undue credibility for an agency where bureaucrats and statisticians run as they will. The definition of full time work is 35 hours per week, and not all 52 weeks a year. Since more men work 40+ hours and 52 weeks a year, voila, women make less than men do.

In fact, workers who average 44 or more hours per week earn an average of 100% more than workers who average only 40 hours per week. Men in full-time jobs tend to work 4 to 10 more hours more per week than women in full-time jobs.

Where does she get these figures from?

Capablanca-Fan
29-06-2010, 04:37 AM
No, quite relevant indeed. Indeed, if you read further, I asked the question that considering that only one third the number of (conservative) women as (conservative) men choose to go into politics on the Coalition side of the ledger, then why are the Coalition so spectacularly unsuccessful in recruiting women.
Why should anyone be recruited for sex reasons, as opposed to merit and of course just interest in politics?


The situation in the ALP is not fantastic itself, but when you consider that both parties were starting from a few percent representation of women a few decades ago and that some of those parliamentarians are still in parliament, this brings the proportion of females being recruited into parliament in the ALP in recent years much closer to fifty percent. That the Coalition only have two-thirds of the women that the ALP does by comparison speaks volumes.
Volumes of what? That they are less inclined to appease feminazis like the Emily's List abortion-lovers?


I've explained this above. As I've pointed out, even if it were conceded that the lower proportion of female representation in the Coalition was directly attributable to fewer women wanting to join the Coalition, then this would still be a damning indictment on the Coalition.
Why? It might be a problem if that was the percentage of women who vote for the Coalition. But it's not. So clearly many women are not as worried about it, and have no time for tokenism, unlike PC males such as yourself who are ashamed of masculinity.

Capablanca-Fan
29-06-2010, 04:41 AM
No I'm not. It's a woman's choice, not mine, not Abbott's, not yours.
Pure assertion. When there are two human beings involved, it is no longer just the woman's right. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

Abortion on demand is legal in this country, regardless of minority views.
So legal = moral? Slavery and Jim Crow segregation were legal once (ardently supported by Democrats), as was White Australia (brought in by Labor).

Capablanca-Fan
29-06-2010, 04:41 AM
Up to you to show that the Coalition ISN'T selecting on the basis of merit. Give a single example where they chose a poorly-qualified man over a much-better-qualified woman. Otherwise you're just waffling.

For the record, I believe totally in the self-interest of both Labor and Liberal ... which is why its in their interest to choose the best candidates, regardless of gender. Affirmative action is just another form of PC discrimination.
Exactly right!:clap:

Spiny Norman
29-06-2010, 05:56 PM
From what I've seen I'd say he is more likely to be sexist than not.
Your definition of what qualifies a person as sexist is probably going to be different to mine. I don't find discussion of the (generalised) merits, failings, proclivities, tendencies, preferences and otherwise of particular genders to be sexist. Its just discussion.

In my view of things, sexism is where a person discrimintates against another person purely on the basis of gender.

An extreme example: if I have the view that all women are witches and are therefore evil, and this view causes me to not hire women to work in my business, then not only am I being ridiculous, but I am being sexist. A less extreme case is people deciding not to hire women because women might get pregnant and have children, requiring time off work, so they prefer to hire men instead. It is clearly sexist, however the position is not ridiculous and may in fact be justified to greater or lesser degrees based on that person's experience (e.g. if the employer has previously hired 10 women and all 10 have fallen pregnant and taken maternity leave).

In the first example, the sexism is unwarranted and should be condemned. In the second example, yes, its illegal under the laws of the land, but morally the right-/wrong-ness of the action is not nearly so clear. There are any number of examples and counter examples that could be offered to show where sexism is justifiable (or not) according to the circumstances of the individual (e.g. an example might be female employer who refuses to hire men because she has previously suffered abuse at the hands of male employees).

As for Abbott, the typical kind of evidence offered is an off-the-cuff remark about women doing ironing. If in fact women do iron clothes (and some certainly do), then ... so what? ... this doesn't demonstrate sexism to any degree of certainty; there are any number of other possible explanations.

There are counter examples to be offered. Abbott has a female deputy leader. Does this show that he is NOT sexist? No, it shows nothing of the sort.

Is there a PERCEPTION of sexism around Abbott? Yes. Why? Ask the media. They are the ones that beat up the stories and make mountains out of molehills.

Spiny Norman
29-06-2010, 06:03 PM
As to whether the Liberals as a group are sexist ... yes they are ... they positively discriminate in favour of women just because they are women:

ref: http://www.liberal.org.au/The-Party/Liberal-Women.aspx


The Federal Liberal Party and some of the State Divisions have reserved organisational positions expressly for women

The fact that they behave in a sexist way and yet trumpet this on their website apparently to try to convince people that they are not sexist is quite ironic.

Same goes for Labor and its 'quotas for women'. Sexism. Pathetic really.

Ian Murray
29-06-2010, 07:34 PM
As to whether the Liberals as a group are sexist ... yes they are ... they positively discriminate in favour of women just because they are women:

The fact that they behave in a sexist way and yet trumpet this on their website apparently to try to convince people that they are not sexist is quite ironic.

Same goes for Labor and its 'quotas for women'. Sexism. Pathetic really.
While technically discrimination against men is sexism, it will be a long time before women attain a dominant role in society, if ever. So measures taken to assist women to approach equality are not generally regarded as sexist, in that they are intended to redress the existing discriminatory imbalance.

Capablanca-Fan
29-06-2010, 11:58 PM
While technically discrimination against men is sexism, it will be a long time before women attain a dominant role in society, if ever. So measures taken to assist women to approach equality are not generally regarded as sexist, in that they are intended to redress the existing discriminatory imbalance.
They should be regarded as sexist precisely because they take sex into account when appointing.

Affirmative action in general is a gross injustice: they punish people of one group for wrongs these people didn't individually commit, and reward people of another group although they were not personally victimized. Discrimination on basis of sex is either right or wrong; it should not depend on which sex is discriminated against.

Ian Murray
30-06-2010, 12:53 AM
Three years on, nothing has changed (with one notable exception of course):

Long way to the Lodge (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/long-way-to-the-lodge/story-e6frg6z6-1111114166968)
* Rebecca Weisser, The Australian' August 13, 2007


INDIA did it in 1966. Britain did it in 1979. New Zealand did it in 1997, but Australia never has. It is perhaps the biggest disconnect between our egalitarian self-image of a fair go for all and a more discriminatory reality.

One hundred and five years after Australia became the first country in the world to simultaneously give women the right to vote and the right to stand for elections, we have never had a female prime minister or even leader of the Opposition.

Former federal sex discrimination commissioner Pru Goward left no doubt where she thought the problem lay after she was elected to the NSW parliament in March and appointed shadow minister for women.

Goward said she had never worked in any profession as male-dominated or ruthlessly sexist as politics and that the NSW parliament was "extraordinarily chauvinistic, in a very primitive, physical way that I didn't expect people to still behave"....

Capablanca-Fan
30-06-2010, 01:28 AM
Three years on, nothing has changed (with one notable exception of course):
Yet Goward is Coalition. Also, disparity in numbers is hardly proof of discrimination.

Spiny Norman
30-06-2010, 06:59 AM
While technically discrimination against men is sexism, it will be a long time before women attain a dominant role in society, if ever. So measures taken to assist women to approach equality are not generally regarded as sexist, in that they are intended to redress the existing discriminatory imbalance.
Nevertheless, technical or not, it IS sexism ... now we have to have a debate about POSITIVE (or constructive) sexism and NEGATIVE (or destructive) sexism ... and that, my friend, is not a factual debate or a legal debate with clearly defined borders, but rather a moral debate with all the muddiness and lack of clarity (not to mention intellectual fog) that accompanies all such moral debates.

Plus your statement claims "existing discriminatory imbalance" ... I doubt such exists much these days ... my view is that if there is equality of opportunity for all who express an interest, then there is equality ... just counting the numbers of participants is a false and harmful measure.

If such were not the case, then chess is a clearly, heavily discriminatory game. Around 10-20% of participants are female in my experience. But is there really any discrimination at the clubs where chess is played? Probably not. Certainly have never seen anything of the sort at Croydon.

Igor_Goldenberg
30-06-2010, 09:56 AM
As to whether the Liberals as a group are sexist
Of course they are sexist, according to the definition:
"Sexist group or organisation is a group or organisation that leftists don't like"

In reality leftist usually much bigger racists, sexists and bigots, but they succeeded in PR campaign portraying other groups as such.

Capablanca-Fan
30-06-2010, 11:40 AM
Of course they are sexist, according to the definition:
"Sexist group or organisation is a group or organisation that leftists don't like"

In reality leftist usually much bigger racists, sexists and bigots, but they succeeded in PR campaign portraying other groups as such.
Similarly with "racist", although Leftards often support "affirmative action" for blacks or Aborigines, although they would never give up their own job for one to set an example. One nasty effect of this racist or sexist policy is that it usually benefits women or blacks from wealthy backgrounds, and hurts men and whites from poor backgrounds.

TheJoker
01-07-2010, 11:52 AM
Your definition of what qualifies a person as sexist is probably going to be different to mine. I don't find discussion of the (generalised) merits, failings, proclivities, tendencies, preferences and otherwise of particular genders to be sexist. Its just discussion

In my view of things, sexism is where a person discrimintates against another person purely on the basis of gender.

I'd say there is a big difference between discussing observed gender behaviours and suggesting that certain behaviours should suitable for one gender and not another. The later in my opinion is sexist.


A less extreme case is people deciding not to hire women because women might get pregnant and have children, requiring time off work, so they prefer to hire men instead. It is clearly sexist, however the position is not ridiculous and may in fact be justified to greater or lesser degrees based on that person's experience (e.g. if the employer has previously hired 10 women and all 10 have fallen pregnant and taken maternity leave).

... yes, its illegal under the laws of the land, but morally the right-/wrong-ness of the action is not nearly so clear. There are any number of examples and counter examples that could be offered to show where sexism is justifiable (or not) according to the circumstances of the individual (e.g. an example might be female employer who refuses to hire men because she has previously suffered abuse at the hands of male employees).

Perhaps jusitifiable from the inidividual perspective but in both cases it is justifiable from the community perspective to make such behaviours unlawful.


As for Abbott, the typical kind of evidence offered is an off-the-cuff remark about women doing ironing. If in fact women do iron clothes (and some certainly do), then ... so what? ... this doesn't demonstrate sexism to any degree of certainty; there are any number of other possible explanations.

Of course it doesn't prove anything, but I think adds to the proability that Abbott holds to certain gender stereotypes.


There are counter examples to be offered. Abbott has a female deputy leader. Does this show that he is NOT sexist? No, it shows nothing of the sort.

Abbott may still expect Bishop to do the ironing when she gets home from work ;)


Is there a PERCEPTION of sexism around Abbott? Yes. Why? Ask the media. They are the ones that beat up the stories and make mountains out of molehills.

The media probably amplifies the perception, but no more than for any public figure, but I think the underlying perception would still exist based on direct reaction to Abbott's comments without the aid of media commentary.

TheJoker
01-07-2010, 11:56 AM
I think not. I'm yet to see any quality argument suggesting otherwise. However, I'm prepared to consider any allegation as open-mindedly as possible (notwithstanding my own moral and political compass).

My centre of gravity for non-PC attitudes is often perceived as quite extreme, whereas I believe they're enlightened. There are things I believe and can safely demonstrate/say within my circle of friends, which includes blacks, whites, yellows, reds, purples, greens, men, women, gay people, straight people, people with disabilities, and other broad groupings I don't care to mention - that I know for a fact would send other people into apoplexy.


Fair enough, why then do you think the sexist perception exists in the first place, do you think it is a media beat-up as Spiny suggests?

Capablanca-Fan
01-07-2010, 12:04 PM
I'd say there is a big difference between discussing observed gender behaviours and suggesting that certain behaviours should suitable for one gender and not another. The later in my opinion is sexist.
What about motherhood?


Perhaps jusitifiable from the inidividual perspective but in both cases it is justifiable from the community perspective to make such behaviours unlawful.
Spoken like a good communist.


The media probably amplifies the perception, but no more than for any public figure, but I think the underlying perception would still exist based on direct reaction to Abbott's comments without the aid of media commentary.
Nope, it's a total beat-up by the Leftmedia.

TheJoker
01-07-2010, 12:24 PM
What about motherhood?.

What about motherhood? What about fatherhood? both are gendered terms for parenthood. I'd say both gender's are equally capable of caring for children, beyond the physical restraints.



Spoken like a good communist.

You should say spoken like a good economist. Since the fallacy of composition
is a common principle in economics. That is what is beneficial for the individual person or firm is not always beneficial for the overall economy. That applies to both of Spiny's statements.


Nope, it's a total beat-up by the Leftmedia.

Well there you go everyone Jono has settled it, and we all know he speaks the grammtical historical truth:lol: