What actions? A text message about a women sent to another grown man before Slipper was speaker? If that is sexist then Marianne Faithfull and Chrissie Amphlett who use the same descriptors of their genitals are sexist.

MIght I suggest you go to the local pub on any night of the week, you might learn something.

What childish drivel.

There is no legal right of any parliament to sack the speaker on a vote on the floor.

As an older woman I found Gillard's whine to be pathetic in light of what she did that same day to single parent and their kids and refugee women and kids to be forcibly exiled to Manus Island under these condtions.

Papua New Guinea
"The Government of Papua New Guinea in accordance with article 42 paragraph 1 of the Convention makes a reservation with respect to the provisions contained in articles 17 (1), 21, 22 (1), 26, 31, 32 and 34 of the Convention and does not accept the obligations stipulated in these articles."

Article 17 1 – the right to work.

Artilce 21 – no housing

Article 22 – no right to education
Article 26 – no freedom of movement
Article 31 – they are allowed to punish refugees
32 – they can expel refugees
34 – no naturalization

I agree, Marilyn. I found Gillard's speech quite offensive in light of the harm that hers and Labor's/Green's policies does to ordinary people who suffer vastly more than she does, and on a daily basis. And here she is, shedding crocodile tears for the hurt that a politician has inflicted on her feminist ego. Give me a break!
Where are thou, Kevin? Must I vote for Abbott?

If referring to lady parts as mussels is sexist then referring to man parts as a budgie is equally sexist, and we've all been party to referring to Tony Abbots parts as a budgie.

But it's not sexist or misogynist. Slippers text messages were crass and offensive. He called someone a botch, we all know what he meant and that's not ok. But it is about as sexist as if I called someone a wanker. You don't call a man a bitch and you don't call a woman a wanker. They are gender-specific terms, but not sexist.

But if you call a lady someone else's bitch, then yes that is misogynist. That is a different context.

Of course, it's never actually ok to do any of these things, but it would be great if things were put in perspective. Slippers SMS's were not some heinous crime against women, they were just a crude and crass private conversation that once made public makes it difficult to like or respect him.

Thank you for your comments Chris, even though I disagree with you, your last paragraph in particular. :)

It seems as if your premise is that if someone has a significant amount of power then they can't be on the receiving end of abuse. I think Julia Gillard is a prime example of how a person with a lot of power can still be verbally abused and dislike that experience.

Julie,

I agree with your last sentence completely. However, it is my perception that the Government doesn't hesitate to smear opponents if the opportunity arises.

I would very much like to see an improvement in tone, but, to me, it is clear that the charge down slope has been led not even by the Government, but by the highest echelons of the Cabinet.

If there is to be an improvement it must be led by those same people.

I am quite happy for the Prime Minister to defend herself, but having reached the position of Prime Minister she is quite clearly no victim. For her to present herself as such, and attempt to hide behind her sex in order to shield herself from criticism, was an insult to the intelligence of everyone.

To make a speech as Prime Minister attacking sexism is reasonable, even admirable. To claim that "You can't criticise me because you are a man and I am just a girl", which was all that speech was, was pathetic.

To smear a decent man using Parliamentary privilege was repulsive.

To paraphrase - I will take no lessons in probity from that woman.

In her speech I didn't think she was posing herself as a victim. Indignent and fed up with sexist attitudes yes.

Julie, I quite like the PM, much more so before she became PM. But this speech was cringe-inducing. She said more than 15 times that she was 'personally offended' by this and that. What a big girl's blouse. She is the elected Prime Minister for goodness sake, not a trainee at the Pony Club. If she can't stand the heat of ironing, get out of the way. We have affirmative action programs to give certain groups/people a hand-up so they can shine. When one actually succeeds, the AA program ends, and the kid gloves passed to the next up and comer; you are no longer marginalised. And once you get into Parliament, let alone a cabinet position, let alone the elected PM for goodness sake, then YOU are the power. It is impossible for you to be the victim any more, as it is you who can victimise so many others.

To hear a Prime Minister of an extremely rich liberal democratic nation of 22 million people wailing about how people in civic society - let alone the parliamentary opposition - are "offending" her is pathetic. What next? Calling a parliamentary recess because 'her nerves are playing up', or somebody calls her a 'ranga'? Shall we employ a team of 500 counsellors and doctors to be on red alert next time Germaine Greer comes to town exasperated that 'Julia's got a big bum'? Heaven forbid that the sexist and misogynist Professor Greer call JG a 'skanky ho'. Oops, it's only Labor leaders who do that,

Nicola Roxon's people are probably already drafting legislation banning any broadcast which includes Paris Hilton, or Nicole Richie, in case they say "wassup bitches"? Oh, and of course banning all Australian high schools from teaching Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" because it uses 17th century Salem as an allegory for the 20th century Macarthy "witchhunts". "I am offended by Arthur Miller's offensive use of the misogynist 'witch'."

If there are any 'sexist attitudes' to be fed up with, they overwhelmingly come from Gillard and her goons.

I am also offended by a mob of bogans holding up signs that were truly insulting to the leader of our country and endorsed by the alternative leader. And, if our society was 'civic', things like that would not happen.
I think that Gillard made that speech after the final straw of Abbott deliberately bringing up the 'died of shame' remark. I truly fear what our society could become with him as prime minister. He's already trashed it as opposition leader, what could he do as the national leader.

What signs are you talking about that were endorsed by the alternative leader? I expect you have proof of this endorsement. Tell me when Abbott said "died of shame". It sounds like you think the word "shame" should be eliminated from everyone's vocabulary because of some off the cuff remark by a speaker at some private function.

Are you trying to excuse Abbott from standing in front of a 'that sign' knowing that it would be shown on national TV? And before you try to say that it was behind him so he couldn't see it, he has an army of advisors that would have advised him. Unless of course they are just pocketing the money we pay them and playing on their iphones.
'Died of shame' ? You didn't see him say that? Really? 'This government should already have died of shame,' As I suggested, that is what I think lit Gillard's fuse.

No - I simply questioned where you got the idea that he endorsed it. I doubt he had noticed it - I didn't until it was pointed out. It hardly matters. If Gillard had got up to speak at the time, would you accuse her of endorsing it?

I didn't see Abbott say this - I wasn't there, - perhaps it was on tele. I see he was referring to the government, not Gillard's dad - different application, though perhaps a poor choice under the circumstances.

However, overall, I'm still trying to find some justification for accusing Abbott of hating women.

Phil, you're a delicate little flower, aren't you? How old are you? You must not spend much time with people under the age of 40, let alone 25. "Bitch" is used by every single person under the age of 25 from Australia to North America, Asia, the UK and beyond every single day. It is used by men, women, the transgendered community, children, teenagers, school teachers, and beyond. It is used on most prime-time television programs, most nights of the week.

Women/girls describe both men/boys as well as other women/girls as "bitches" with an amazing number of contextual meanings. I overheard a school friend of my niece say recently about a neighbour's new car - to the cars owner, a 45 year old man - "man, that's a bitching set of wheels you've got there, Mr. Smith". Another young lady regaled us excitedly about the "bitchslapping" her boyfriend received from his mother, when she found marijuana in his room. I have heard a 12 year old boy yell out to a mate of his " if Madison isn't allowed to go on Saturday night, you can be my bitch for the evening."

Now, I support the carbon tax and voted for Jules. And while "bitch" is part of my vernacular, I would never describe the Prime Minister - whatever sex and party - that way, because I'm a bit old-fashioned and think once the campaigning and voting is done, the Prime Minister is the Prime Minister, and will get my respect. However, I know I am in an extremely small minority in that view.

Any person between the ages of 5 and 40 would not bat an eyelid at a sign saying "Julia Gillard is Bob Brown's bitch". It is actually a back-handed compliment suggesting that Julia Gillard is the Prime Minister and she should not let Bob Brown have so much power her. "Bob Brown's Bitch" is also catchingly alliterative, as opposed to say, "skanky ho".

The chances of a political leader of any sex or party enjoying political power without also attracting vitriol, bile, and name-calling of the vilest sort in zip, zero, non-existent. She is the most powerful person in the country. She enjoys unimagined privilege and power. We should be grateful we live in a country where people feel as comfortable of calling her a "bitch", "bucket ass", and even worse. I bet Pussy Riot would kill to be the victims of poor offended Julia's barbs. It could be worse. She could be called a "skanky ho", "unflushable turd", or "perfumed gigolo"

So, you're getting into this argument without knowing anything about it? If you haven't heard that remark of Abbott's then you haven't had the news on all week.
And I also think that Abbott doesn't hate women as a general rule. I do think though that he thinks he's better to lead than any woman and to be an also ran when a woman wins would incense him, as was reported by Marr.

So I guess the old farts holding up that sign were using bitch in the old fashioned way then. They were not in fact complimenting her. So your excusing them is not really valid.

Phil after the 'mob of bogans' and 'old farts' is there anybody you do like? And no I would not "excuse them" in a million years. They have not asked me to "excuse them". Why would they? But I will defend their right to demonstrate against the policies of the government, and to hold up signs saying whatever they like about the most powerful person in the land. Call me old fashioned, but I am a democrat, who will always side with "bogans" and "old farts" in making their voices heard, and defend them against the more privileged who would shut them up, jail them, vilify them, anything to deny them political expression.

I read about the remark, but saw little significance in it. The same thing's been said many times by Abbott about the government's performance. If he'd said it about her father (as Jones did) it would be a different matter.

The problem is that Gillard accused him of hating women, while at the same time supporting Slipper, who's disgusting text messages were and insult to female dignity. As you said, Abbott is unlikely to hate women - he married one, yet this is what Gillard has accused him of - certainly pre-meditated (I doubt she'd know the meaning of the word "misogyny" off the top of her head.) I see that as a serious accusation that should be challenged.

Interesting - perhaps I'm missing something. I know of two meanings for the word "bitch". The most common one which I use is a female dog. Another more obscure one is a nasty female. I don't know of any others - am I missing something? I don't recall ever hearing the term on TV (although I don't watch much outside documentaries and news).

Ross, I shared some of the meanings of 'bitch' in my post you just replied to.

Ross, my take is that the PM's speech was a confused - but visceral and sincere - attack on Alan Jones comments about her father, which she mistakenly projected onto Abbott. I would imagine JG was completely gutted when she heard what Jones said. I imagine she would have collapsed into tears of great sadness and hurt, that her father whom she loved and admired so much had not only gone, but was barely buried, when some malicious old queen so violently invaded her mourning.

Abbott got the spray that should have gone to Jones. Two events formed a psychological perfect storm for the PM: Abbott's use of "died of shame" pierced straight through to her "I hate Alan Jones" space, but before she had time to process it, out came the Slipper texts. Abbott did precisely what a clever tactician should do. He turned the Slipper texts into a multi warhead bomb: by adding yet another reason that the government should "die of shame" as it can't even choose a Speaker without bringing the Parliament into disrepute. But the bullseye was Abbott attacking the Government's pride in its gender credentials. Here across the dispatch box was this Tony-Alan Jones-Abbott getting recorded into Hansard that she, the first female PM, and her women-heavy front-bench were actually misogynists and sexists who condoned sexual harassment, and tittered about female genitalia. I would not have been surprised if the PM's head did a Linda Blair as she delivered that speech.

The only problem was, Alan Jones was not sitting across the dispatch box, and the man who was never hurt her about her father. On the contrary, only the week before Tony Abbott addressed the Parliament saying 'John Gillard had done Australia proud in producing a remarkable daughter. A remarkable parent who produces a prime minister of this country.'

I think when people revisit all this in the future, Gillard's speech will seem wacky.

'more privileged who would shut them up, jail them, vilify them, anything to deny them political expression.'

Or throw them out to sea in a chaff bag.

Katherine in matters like these a lot of it come down to our individualt tastes, and whether or not the speech sang to us personally. You, and clearly millions of others will be probably still on Cloud 9 a year from now. I respect that, and in some ways, envy that. It’s not very often that us jaded westerners get to feel passion and hope about our politicians. So you go, Girls! Don't get me wrong, I love a good bitchslapping as much as anybody, and I agree totally with your thrill for a return to high class prime ministerial theatrics.

Putting aside any differences for the moment, I would agree 100% that the female half of the species is justified in getting such slaps in whenever a moment presents itself, because as my father once said to me after spanking me for something I didn't do, "well I'm sure there's enough things you've done that would earn a spanking, but I don't see! :)

It would be pretty hard to take exception to a legitimate female leader being able to lead on her own terms, and as a woman speaking to other women, and having that womanhood acknowledged. Our PM achieved something Lady Thatcher never got. The roar of womanhood that yep, this Prime Minister IS a woman, and is FOR women. I think it will be some time before a contender for most sensational rhetorical flourish by a woman in the 21st century than

"I say to the Leader of the Opposition I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. I will not. And the Government will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. Not now, not ever."

I have often argued that that award in the English speaking world for the 20th century went to Margaret Thatcher for

"To those waiting with bated breath for that favourite media catchphrase, the 'U-turn', I have only one thing to say: "You turn if you want to. The lady's not for turning."

In Australia, I gave the award to Pauline Hanson for "Please Explain". Nobody needs to know anything about the context of Gillard's speech for that spray and the imagery to resonate, as it already has internationally.

BUT. For those of us living here, the speech does have a context, and can never be JUST rousing rhetoric and exciting theatrics. I gave what I thought were reasonable and clear reasons for my conclusion the speech was 'confused''. In particular, I emphasised why I thought it was not clear. So, I would be keen to hear reasons why I am not persuasive.

Do you really think it was rehearsed? After all, Abbott made his speech to sack Slipper and Gillard immediately responded. Surely, she couldn't have known he was going to use the words 'sexism' and 'misogyny'? Though, I imagine that speech has been brewing, rehearsed, and refined many, many times, by many, many women in Gillard's circle over the past few years, just waiting for that moment. The inclusion of "my father did not die of shame” was one very weird bit, as not only did Abbott say he did, but he said the exact opposite the previous week in the same place.

As for strategically-timed. Well, here is the problem. She had to use it only AFTER Abbott got the first punch in by accusing HER of being 'sexist' and 'misogynist'; a punch whose shiner she is still wearing if the tone of debate in the MSM and social media is any gauge.

But my main criticism is that her impressive dossier of Abbott's 'misogynist' and 'sexist' utterances quickly turns to sand once you actually read the speech. None of the 'offences' she mentions (15 or so!) amounts to misogyny, and in fact revealed a major weakness in Gillard’s support base.
While the academics and femocrats were popping bubbly, the people who will take the most notice are precisely those people Gillard so patronisingly dismissed, and even denied existed in her speech: from housewives who cannot afford (or choose not to) to dump all their family’s laundry at the dry cleaners ever week, and thus who actually do do the ironing (40% of Australian women who have children below school age); people who listen to Alan Jones; parents who raise children responsibly, and consider it their duty to prepare their children for the wonderful world of sex, and the fraught sexual ethics, including the very different realities faced by males compared to females, whether bequeathed by biology or more culturally determined; the millions of Australian men and women, Catholic/religious and atheist people all, who consider issues around contraception, abortion, and euthanasia (aka 'life and death') to be very complex, with potentially devastating consequences of flippant decision-making; men and women who think there is something wrong with treating abortion as just another form of contraception; men and women who do not privilege high-powered pole-climbing careers, preferring the joys of hands-on parenting.

In all, it is far more likely that the PM's speech was naively aimed at a narrow demographic, but listened to with great care by several millions more. Between now and the next election, the PM would be well advised to start reaching out to those millions her speech so summarily ignored or dismissed.

Katherine will correct me if I am wrong but I took it to mean that the speech was rehearsed by Abbott not Gillard.

“I'm glad Gillard was able to express her outrage at current inequalities in such a dignified manner”

A part of what Julia Gillard said was : “And the government will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. Not now, not ever.”

Regardless of the issue, the words “Not now, not ever” should ring some type of alarm bell for anyone interested in democracy.

Does the ruling party intend to somehow censure what is said by the leader of the opposition?

If so, we no longer have a democracy.

No academic has picked up on this, with a number are applauding the speech it seems.

It does appear the academic world is now so feminist, it is totally prepared to disregard democratic principles.

Well if it wasn't, I certainly claimed it for the way many women have been treated by the blurring of the lines between church and state by misogynist clergy or ex-seminarians, it's all in the formation.
Our Prime Minister being one visable result, you would never hear of the others.

Hi Lynne, was that reply to me? I was responding to Julie's post, so I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to when you say "Well if it wasn't, I certainly claimed it..."

I'm sorry, yes it was, with all due respect of course.
In relation to "bitch" being a common word in today's society I have to agree, and not only from the 25yr olds either.
The Melbourne Archbishop prone to same, recalling the episode when one woman, was condemned to hell.

A sure sign of being officially "old" is not realising that language evolution has overtaken us. The first time I heard 5 year olds dismissing something as "so gay", I bristled wondering if homophobia was taking over our schools. I had completely missed the makeover of "gay" to mean 'rubbish', 'boring', 'lame', whatever. Kids use the word 'gay' as a homophone with 3 completely different meanings - homosexual, merry, rubbish/lame as we do with "which/witch".

In the 90s, I was very critical of the whole 'reclaiming language' as political strategy, but now am totally onboard. If you try and censor/ban words, you only add kerosene to the fire. The ease with which people fling around "poof", "sheilah", "wog", and all sorts of other words that were once so associated with hatred and violence is one thing I really like about Australia. Ironically, we will know Australia has really progressed when we all - indigenous and non - will not even blink at "boong". Sadly, I think we've still got a way to go on that one.

What the Americans have done - largely via the misogynist chic of rap culture - in reclaiming "bitch", "pimp", "ho", "girls and boys", "nerd" represents a very laudable political victory, especially the way they have been able to largely democratise these words by applying them to all, regardless of gender and race. The only holdout is "nigger", but its days of privilege are nigh.

To anybody over the age of early 30s, this is a huge change from even when we were kids. Now, I understood why so many older people resented the appropriation of 'gay', which used to mean 'happy, merry, joyful'. This is what I think is behind the outrage, indignation, and offense in some parts of our society over "Ditch the Witch".

Consider the Offended In Chief, Anne Summers. She's pushing 70, and has lived her whole life in a bubble of white upper middle class academics and bureaucrat types, whose last transgression was probably inhaling while holidaying with some bohemian friends from the Office for the Status of Women at Noosa in 1983. When I read Summers' speech a couple of days ago, I just shook my head, thinking "you poor old dear, you really are stuck in a time capsule, aren't you"?

http://annesummers.com.au/2012/09/my-speech-her-rights-at-work-the-political-persecution-of-australias-first-female-prime-minister/

Now, I'm watching my step here, but the PM, like the Summers set do not have children, and move in very narrow circles, so are probably completely oblivious to the sorts of discourses taking place on TMZ, Perez Hilton, in literature like the Hunger Games, Twilight, let alone rap. Summers would probably be 2 generations behind. That can be the only explanation for her very silly pearl clutching and attacks of the vapours. I now understand there responses to these 'offensive outrages', but it is they who have to catch up, or get out of the way.

There's an element in society today, that are now calling for a back to the old rules, such as common courtesy, language and behaviour in public places.
My family were raised on such as these, and I was always assured of respect given and received.
A casual meeting with Germaine Greer was interesting, with one sixteen year old persisting to hold the door open for her to enter a well known city store.

Off topic - but just to correct you - the cessation of qualification for Parenting Payment was indeed a change to qualification legislated while the Liberals had government. It took effect from 1/7/2006, which means it would've been debated in parliament likely in either 2005 or 2006. Rudd didn't get voted in until 2007.

All new claimants since 1/7/2006 have in fact already been affected by this policy. Most might not have realised it because most new claimants since then would mostly have only been new claimants for a new birth and their children (born after 30/6/2006) would not as yet have turned 8. Some might have been new claimants due to a child coming into their care rather than being born and if the child has since turned 8 then those few would have already had their Parenting Payment cease.

The only people not impacted by the new policy were those already receiving payments prior to 1/7/2006 as they were 'grandfathered' - that is, they were quarantined from the change in legislation.

Also, saying they'll be on Newstart is kind of misleading as (what most people don't realise) Newstart has differing rates of payment depending on a person's family situation. This includes two different rates of payment specifically for single persons with dependent children.

The first is more than Newstart for a single person without children, but less than a single pension.

The second rate is equivalent to the single parenting pension and is for people whose children are either home or distance educated, or who is a foster parent, or who has 4 or more children under 16 in their care. Basically it recognises the additional drain on the parent's resources that these situations create, thereby creating significantly greater barriers to finding their own employment.

They still access a higher rate than regular Newstart recipients (possibly even the equivalent of a pension depending on their situation), they still get a pensioner's concession card even though they don't actually receiving a pension, they still get the Family Payments - those payments haven't changed. The only notable difference to my mind is that they no longer have access to the pension income test - they get affected by the benefit income test instead. If people wanted to get up in arms about anything it's that.

Frankly I'm for the change. To my mind being able to stay on a pension when your child is attending school is getting welfare too easily. There is no reason why a person whose children are attending school should continue to receive a pension rate of payment and access to the pension income test when they could also be working, or looking for work, during school hours - when in theory a pension is paid when a person (usually) doesn't have sufficient work capacity to support themselves. I would even argue that keeping single parents on pensions up to their child's age of 16 can even be to their detriment as if they happen to be a single parent who does not work until their child turns 16 (and I am cognizant of the fact that many single parents do actually work) then having spent 16yrs (more if they had more than one child) out of the work force can severely limit their opportunities in gaining employment when returning to the workforce, and also severely impact their confidence in attempting to do so. Not to mention the ever present possibility that being a welfare parent can impact on their children's attitudes to also living on welfare and create a generational welfare culture.

Our government coffers are not endless and there has to be a limit somewhere. Requiring school-aged children's parents to be on jobseeker-type payments instead of pensions is a limit I'm in favor of.

...and bear in mind I have this opinion even though I'm a person who is very much a more 'liberal' (small 'L') person compared to the majority of my aquaintances. Actually, I'd probably say all of my acquaintances.

Excellent comment Kate, but I'm afraid there's no point correcting Diana - she "knows what she knows" and facts aren't relevant to that.

And I identify strongly with your last paragraph. I'm constantly amused by the lack of perspective of those on the far loony left. Anybody who disagrees with their particular version of group-think is automatically a conservative at best.

Sadly, it reflects the great polarisation of political debate that has taken place over the past decade or so as the the two major parties, which are both centric in reality, have sort to distance themselves from each other both rhetorically and in the marginal groups they wish to attract.

Katherine, I WAS being nice...

Thank you for the compliment Katherine and for the somewhat ironic observation.

It's a shame that more subtle irony doesn't translate well on screen. It's a strong confirmation of the importance of visual cues in our communications.

John, Julia is no misandrist.; In fact, she's really 'one of the boys, far more comfortable meeting up for beers with some trade union buddies, greeting them with a wide smile, a grab of the his balls, "mines a pot of Cascade thanks, cobber. Her idea of hell would be shopping with her gals for a ball gown, or even worse, having to be Nicola Roxon's plus one at a First Friday Melbourne Feminist Collective Book Club meet.

Terrence

I agree with every word you say. Some women can only see themselves in relation to a male and resent other women for being forthright and outspoken. In the past 'uppity' women were tarred and feathered by their outraged sisters. Now female supporters of the patriarchy claim that their beloved is really a sweetie at home even if he doesn't believe that women should hold positions of power or have access to safe contraception and family planning.

Seems hard to believe it is the 21st century when women are still subjected to such vitriol as being informed by a few bitter men they are 50% less productive than men - here, in Australia. If it was one of the Middle Eastern countries I would not be so disappointed.

As well as women being their own worst enemies, men too are subjected to (at worst) higher levels of violence by other men or as in the case of these debates, subjected to abuse by other men; simply for stating that women have equal rights to men.

Not all men are 1.85m+ physical hulks and not all women are petite little damsels; my sister could bench press her small statured husband if she so wished. My point in saying this, is that both men and women are all different shapes, sizes, colours, strengths and intellectual ability and, therefore, we are all entitled to equal opportunities.

I am above average height and very capable, if I was to claim that this makes me 50% superior to anyone shorter and less capable I would rightly be called a bigot.

Terrence,

You said: "strain credulity in the same way that his climate-change denial sorcery"

You see, this is an example of how divorced your entire rant was from reality.

As someone who has been convinced by the observational data, and the way the planet keeps failing to comply with the predictions, I find your claim that Tony Abbott is a climate change 'denier' to be a fantasy. I feel nothing but for disgust at the way both the Liberal Party, and its leader, keep pandering to the great global warming scam. That you don't see that they are doing this just confirms to me that you aren't looking.

Given that this demonstrates you have no idea of what has been said, or what policies are in this area, why should anyone take seriously anything you have to say on any other matter about someone you clearly hate?