Quod erat demonstrandum. And there it is - proof positive of what was described in the article above.

(Dale - is that you under a different monniker?)

No-one wants to be in 'the sand pit' with you, Craig Minns. We're adults. Sand pits are for kids.

"And there it is - proof positive of what was described in the article above."

Really? Do enlighten us all: where are the threats of mayhem and the random vilification of women?

Never mind, I'm sure what you wrote is real to you and surely that's what matters to you...

I'm very glad to hear you're so grown up, Anthony Nolan. Shame you're not sufficiently adult to actually add to the discussion instead of simply woofing loudly on command of the "lady" blowing the dog whistle...

Sue Leraci,
No unfortunately, it wasn't me.

But I was surprised when feminists didn't bother to complain when John Howard was being called "Little Johnny", or was said to be too old for the job.

That was discrimination on the basis of physical feature and age, and feminists (including the current Prime Minister) should have been right on to that, stomping their feet, waving their fists in the air and vigorously complaining about it.

But didn’t of course.

Byron old boy!!!!

What are you doing all the way over in Politics and Society.

I don't think Mr Minns is being too tough on women. I have a relative who is a senior shadow minister, and boy, she wouldn't just take take the best shovel, she would take the sandpit and organise a womens collective to run the sandpit as well. I am sure that Ms Gillard can handle the tough stuff, after all, she can dish it out pretty hard.

Anyway, I am not going to get too involved on this article, as a matter of fact, I am not even going to mention JetA1fuel. Oh, damn, I mentioned it.

No point really, the girls wouldn't know what it is anyway.

Over to you Byron.

Gerard Dean

I am starting to like you Mr Minns.

However, I usually thrash it out with Young Byron and Dr Harrigan and Mr Hansen over in the Environmental area where I gather many Red Ticks. In fact, I got 37 Red Ticks on one comment, I was very proud of that one.

Wear your Red Ticks with honour Mr Minns, it means you are on the right side, sorry, correct side of the issue.

Thanks

Gerar Dean

Goodness me! There I was naively imagining that The Conversation would be about the free exchange of ideas between grownups. Instead it's just another outlet for the tiresome drivel of the toxically embittered, spitefully blasting their discontent into good ole safe-and-no-reprisals cyberspace. SO much cowardly misogyny, it's astounding. And from both genders: that's the sad part, I guess.

That premise would actually be incorrect.
The true current derivation of misogyny is driven largely by mass media, the sexual perversion of the few driven onto the majority bellow. The success or failure of men driven by the physical illogic of the greatest number of non-reproductive sexual encounters with wit as many different women as possible, any means acceptable failing just short of 'reported' rape, including unrestrained deceit, alcohol, drugs and, spending but not direct spending.
With masturbation being seen as a failure of the weak.
Here there is no doubt that in the Prime Minister reacting with rants of misogyny, sorry but when you react to trolls you are ranting, without going on to tackle the true underlying clause, all she is really doing is 'bitching'.
Basically she is abusing her post as Prime Minister, by bitching and attacking from a position she feels superior in and can attack others with the power she believes she holds over law and justice.
If you are going to tackle misogyny do not so readily attack it's victims, the weak males who are victims of peer pressure marketing but attack those that promote 'SEX SELLS' to all ages and all sexes.

Actually Byron, whatever you have INFERRED is your own work, it's nothing to do with anything I IMPLIED. A good "Christian ethicist" (gawd 'elp us) should be able to grasp the difference...

The implication was simple: if you want to be treated like everybody else, then you have to behave in a way that's acceptable to everybody else. Feminist types like Gillard and the author of the particular dog-whistling response here, proclaim their commitment to equality, but as soon as they experience genuinely equal treatment they start whinging and whining because it's not sufficiently better than everyone else's treatment.

Gikllard's position has nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her rather suspect personal character. Anybody who falls for the cries of "misogyny" is simply a fool. Anybody who propagates the misogyny dog-whistle is a feminist fool, although I must say that in my view those two words are very close to synonymous. The intent of such dog-whistling is very clear: to distract the discussion from being about Gillard's dishonest dealings and direct it onto safe ground, where they can regurgitate anti-male polemics ad nauseum, with no genuine content.

A few days ago the Fairfax press ran some stories on the maltreatment of a couple of men by the airlines. Those stories had to have comments closed after they each attracted too many responses for the moderators to cope with, all negative and all making a comment on the view of australians that feminist policies and discrimination on the basis if them are not acceptable. An online poll run by Fairfax on the subject got well over 50000 responses, nearly 90% agreeing that it is not acceptable to discriminate against men simply because they are men. This is by far the largest response I have ever seen to any social issue,

Australian men are fed up to the back teeth with being treated as disposable items. This is not going to go away, no matter how many girls hang from the monkey bars screaming feminist imprecations.

Actually Diana, there are two people here who disagree with the views being put by you and the rest of the nodding donkeys who are asupportive of the dog-whistling from Gillard and the author. It's instructive that you'd like to see those two dissenting views prevented from being put.

I guess it's just another example of the sort of stuff one expects from the prerennially self-entitled...

In fact, Robert, the majority of media coverage is strongly feminist. There are hundreds of column metres devoted to feminist polemics in both the Fairfax and Murdoch press and very rarely is a dissenting view allowed to be put.

I do agree that Gillard is abusung her position by blowing the dog-whistle, but she is simply doing what all good feminists do when under pressure: claim to be the victim of misogyny and hope nobody notices you haven't actually given a proper answer to the questions being put.

My own dislike of feminism is simply-based: it's dishonest, it's a weak claim to special treatment based on a characteristic that is shared by approximately 50% (around 51% in Australia) of the population and it's counter-productive of a better life for all, which is what should be the aim of a social democratic nation of laws like Australia.

Part of the reason for feminism's success in Australia is simple: women are the majority. In any given electorate, with the rare exceptions of those far from the city where men are working in dirty, dangerous jobs with hardly any women around, women are the majority of voters and women have a strong tendency to respond to claims of maltreatment of women, regardless of their reality.

Men are far more likely to be concerned about the latest data about the economy than whether there are women in charge, so this imbalance has lead to feminism dominating any discussion of social matters: the majority of the women are following the dog-whistle and the majority of men believe in "happy wife, happy life".

However, men are becoming less willing to play nice, because they're coming to realise that there's absolutely nothing in feminism for them, and that feminists genuinely do want to take their jobs, destroy their familes and create a world in which men are second-class citizens. You can only fool people for so long.

How rude and how full of assumptions! Where in that post did I actually declare that I was "asupportive" of either side? Where did I suggest that I wished to eradicate the expression of dissenting views? I didn't! I was commenting on the way some posters express themselves. Your response delightfully illustrates what I mean.

Why do you assume that I, a complete stranger to you, am a 'nodding donkey' who is 'perenially self-entitled'? This leads me to make assumptions about you, or would if I cared enough to do so, and thus the chain of misunderstandings and unpleasantness would grow and grow.

And then The Conversation would entirely resemble any other daft internet forum. That was my point.

Diana:"Where did I suggest that I wished to eradicate the expression of dissenting views?"

From your previous post:"There I was naively imagining that The Conversation would be about the free exchange of ideas between grownups. Instead it's just another outlet for the tiresome drivel of the toxically embittered, spitefully blasting their discontent into good ole safe-and-no-reprisals cyberspace. SO much cowardly misogyny, it's astounding."

Now, I'm assuming that when you wrote that you weren't trying to be supportive of the right of people like me, who is avowedly anti-feminist, to express our views, but were expressing the view that to do so is "cowardly misogyny", not fit for "grownups".

In return, I expressed my opinion of those who would like to see a world in which their own preferred view is the only one expressed, leading to forums like these becoming the habitat of the nodding donkeys mentioned.

The real problem for the Conversation is that Australian unis have few people of sufficient intellectual courage to put such a view and lots of nodding donkeys of their own, hence the vast seas of red that seem to attach themselves to my name on posts critiquing the feminist world view. fortunately for the future of proper discussion, few of that crowd of "infinite monkeys" seem capable of formulating a response using the keyboard rather than the mouse.

My view of you is entirely based on what you write. As you say, I don't know you.

I tend to the view that I'd like to see more blue ticks, but I remind myself that the numbers are net and that geese tend to move in large flocks and peck at anything that startles them.

I'm not a feminist. Actually. *laughinggggggggggggg*

Whether you are or not is irrelevant, you made it clear that you would prefer it if I were not allowed to express my view here, when I have not been abusive, but rather have been the subject of abuse, including from yourself, over expressing a rather straightforward viewpoint. I find that quite outrageous.

The "little Johnny" moniker was a term of endearment when compared with what Julia has had to put up with throughout her term as prime minister. The way she has handled the muck thrown at her by the likes of certain Macquarie radio talkback thugs, News Limited newspapers and pathetic demonstrations by baby boomers and truckers with nothing better to do, just shows how much backbone she has. A lesser person would have buckled long ago! The Opposition leader and his gang of four just look pathetic with the purile rubbish they're trying to disrupt parliament with. It's all getting very boring!

https://theconversation.edu.au/does-tony-abbott-have-a-problem-with-women-labor-certainly-hopes-to-give-him-one-8992#comment_65962
Craig Minns on Julia Gillard: "Basically, she's a nasty piece of work ..."

I don’t pay much attention to the talkback radio or News Limited, but I have never been a great admirer of the current Prime Minister, for nationalistic reasons.

A childless, unmarried woman living with her current boyfriend in a government house, all paid for by the taxpayer, and now she wants renovations carried out.

I sometimes wonder if it has all been a feminist prank, or if she actually wants other women in Australia to act the same.

No Dale I don't think you pay much attention to talkback radio or News Ltd. I don't think you pay much attention to anything at all really. You've got it all worked out. What would they know?

No stone too small; no stoop too low.

Peter Ormonde

Of course I jest.

The current Prime Minister should be an inspiration to everyone, and definitely someone to write home about.

"Hey mum, you can live with your new boyfriend in a government house, and the taxpayer will pay for everything. Just become Prime Minister."

Now when we're looking at family homes suckling at the public trough, let's look at this:

John Howard (1996–2007), who stayed at The Lodge when he was in Canberra for parliamentary or government business, but lived primarily at Kirribilli House, Sydney. The latter is a residence maintained for the official use of Prime Ministers when they need to perform official duties and extend official hospitality in Sydney.

That's not me saying that - that's here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lodge_%28Australia%29

The reason I remember is that somewhere or another there's a really excellent costing of the Howard's preference for water views.

But meanwhile, further on in the History of the Lodge ...

"Although the Howards generally stayed at Kirribilli House in Sydney, this did not prevent them from improving The Lodge. From 2000 to 2005, the reception areas of the residence were progressively refurbished with the assistance of interior designer Mary Durack. The two main reception rooms, the Morning Room and the Drawing Room, were redecorated in a complementary theme rather than as two distinctive areas, as was previously the case. The dining room and the foyer were also refurbished...

Some folks just open their mouths to change gear.

Snort!

Peter Ormonde

At least John Howard had the decency to marry the woman, and together they had three children.

As for Julia Gillard, it is now obvious she has something to hide, and is trying to scatter red herrings by using words such as misogynist and nut jobs.

Her whole stint as Prime Minister has been mired by back-room deals, distrust, disbelief, low public opinion polls and general suspicions of feminism.

AH yes, decency. But what is this decency business?

See Dale some folks would find some of your more logic defying outbursts well indecent. Judging not lest ye be the one to cast the first stone if I can mangle my parables Dale, who are you to judge?

You folks just hate watching history happen. Despite your best efforts and moral judgements. Hell-fire! Plagues of locusts and slaughtering angels?
I do love the smouldering smoke of martyrs in the morning.
Seeth on dude.

Peter Ormonde,
Actually, Julia Gillard spitting the dummy, her attempts at hiding something (yet again), and her resorting to name calling and feminist terms (because she couldn't think of any other words) reminds me of you.

Did you both attend the same university?

What exactly is it that you object to, Dale? Her sex, the job she's managed to get, her being unmarried or that she went to uni? Or all of these things?
That's a pretty mean view, Dale...

As a child did you not get enough cuddles from mummy, perhaps?

Nodding donkeys, dog-whistling, infinite monkeys, startled geese. Zoomorphic metaphor bingo is fun!

I wouldn’t vote for Julia Gillard if she was male either.

I stopped voting for Labor after the Rudd debacle, and after a certain state Labor premier flew to Brisbane on a taxpayer funded government jet to watch a state of origin football match (while knowing the state had a massive debt problem).

So really, this has nothing to fo with the latest issue?

Your attacking Prime Minister Gillard and making unsubstantiated slurs that "she has something to hide" and stating "A childless, unmarried woman living with her current boyfriend in a government house, all paid for by the taxpayer, and now she wants renovations carried out" is NOT in fact a sign of a misogynistic ranter but in fact a disaffected labor voter giving vent?

Thank you so much for clarifying :)

Thank you for reposting my work from elsewhere David. I'm flattered you think it worthy of repeating...

I could have mentioned chattering gibbons, but I've restrained myself thus far.

Ah, but you now have used the G word! Gibbon; bingo! And by the way, we gibbons do not chatter, we sing raucously each morning. Must swing away now, there's choraling to be done!

I'm sure the neighbours are grateful for high fences and think walls.

"thick" walls, of course, but I quite like "think" wall too

Must be nice being super intelligent. An answer for absolutely every other point of view. But, do you really need to call people names like donkey etc? How intelligent is that?

I can't remember Howard getting very much flak after the non-core promise compared to what has been heaped on Gillard.

"Actually Byron, whatever you have INFERRED is your own work, it's nothing to do with anything I IMPLIED."

Good grief - misogynist AND pedant!

I've been thinking about your comments Craig and just had to come back and reply.
You definitely have an 'us and them' philosophy. Why? We are not in competition.
It's obvious to anyone that for thousands of years women had no say and were chattels. For about a century women have won a lot of rights, voting etc. but it's obvious to me that they are still discriminated against in various ways in various societies. And the thought that they are out to disadvantage men and take over the world is frankly weird.
And consider this; feminism started because men treated women as property. As stated, for thousands of years we were in charge, women did what we told them, they had no say. But you say that in a century men have evolved past that and are now going backwards. Evolution works slowly and a lot of men still believe that women are second class citizens. It is getting better, but it still has a long way to go. And it needs men to get past comments like, 'grease under your nails' as if that is worse than childbirth.

"Hey mum, you can live with your new boyfriend in a government house, and the taxpayer will pay for everything. Just become Prime Minister."

Easy - right? Get a good education, work for a while, slog to get pre-selected, slog some more, win your seat, spend weekends at school fetes and supermarket openings, work your way up through the system, become party leader - take a position that only one person (at a time) in twenty million can occupy - and you get..... a house and a couple of hundred thousand for an even harder job - with no million-dollar bonuses. What a rort! (not)

Of course, when challenged to substantiate your puerile dummy-spit, you came back with "You obviously don't read newspapers ...".
https://theconversation.edu.au/does-tony-abbott-have-a-problem-with-women-labor-certainly-hopes-to-give-him-one-8992#comment_65981

Dale, your standard retort when you feel you are being insulted is to ask if you and (the other <insert name here> party) went to the same University. I am wondering at which institution you learned lack or originality.

We find these truths to be self evident....

Oh, it's nice that you care so much, David, but perhaps you might consider putting your own views, instead of simply repeating mine...?

Just for you, Sue.

To IMPLY something is to suggest that it exists or occurs by your words or deeds, rather than explicitly stating its existence.

To infer something is to derive its existence by a process of observation or rational thought.

Therefore, when Byron suggested that I implied something, he was incorrect, because my words did not suggest what he thought he was observing.

Sorry if that's too pedantic for you, but I find working from actual meanings is so much more useful than trying to make words mean what you want them to: like "misogynist" for example...a perfectly good word ruined by feminists trying to pretend that disliking feminism means hating women, which is patently onviously not true.

Phil, I have an "us and them" philosophy" for a smple reason: I have watched my gender come under attack after attack, to the point that we are no longer regarded as fit to sit beside children.

Every social issue is discussed in terms of its effect upon women, but men are rarely even considered, even when it's men who bear the brunt of the costs. When I attend my children's school, I see lots of affirmative messages for the firls in the form of government-provided and funded stickers that say things like "Girls - building the future" and "Girls can do anything", but a strange absence of any form of positive message about boys. "Boys can do as their told" might be appropriate under the circumstances.

This whole thread is because a silly feminist woman chose to call the people who are saying she has questions to answer over her professional conduct "misogynists" or "woman haters" for daring to even question her!

You say:"feminism started because men treated women as property."

I say that's rubbish. I have never seen in my 50-odd years on this planet, a woman treated as property. It's nothing more than propaganda which you are treating as an unexamined assumption.

I have no interest in what happened thousands of years ago, but I call bullshit on the feminist orthodox view. I grew up in PNG, which is and was one step from the stone age. Our "houseboi" was a man from the Chimbu reason, which was only contacted by whites in the 30s, one generaton before I was born. I saw women beating men regularly, I very rarely saw a man beat a woman. I saw women "mobbing" men, but I never saw a crowd of men "mob" a woman. as a child, I wandered freely around my town of Lae, and I was never sexually molested by a man (or a woman), despite often being unaccompanied in the presence of men.

I say that feminist revisionism is just that, not a reflection of the real state of play that has existed between the sexes. Men have traditionally been and they remain willing to put their physical wellbeing on the line for women. I have met few women who see it as any part of their role to do the same for men.

You say:"it needs men to get past comments like, 'grease under your nails' as if that is worse than childbirth."

What on earth does childbirth have to do with it? That's a normal, natural process which I'm reliably informed is highly desired by women. It is not somethng they do to earn money to feed the family that it creates, which was what my comment was about. Once upon a time childbirth was a hard, dangerous time, likely to end with either the child or mother or both dead. It was a match for the hard, dangerous work that men did, often ending in premature death or serious ill-health. The rise of the elective caesarean and good obstetrics generally has made it largely risk-free, thankfully. Moreover, women are now free to choose when and whether they become pregnant in the first place, making it an almost entirely optional state.

Work choices, on the other hand, are constrained by a couple of factors that have little to do with voluntary exercise of the man's desire. Education, which is now mostly the province of women, is a big determining factor, as is the rate of pay available. One does not necessarily imply the other, but it's a good way to bet. Given a poor education and a desire to make as much money as possible for his household, a man will often choose to do those "grease under the fingernails" jobs, but given the same conditions a woman rarely will, prioritising comfort and clean working conditions over income, but then (and this is the feminist bit) whinge loudly that those ignorant buggers over there all covered in shit are getting paid more and it's not fair...

That was the reason for my comment.

I would just like to add that I love women. I've rarely been without a woman in my life, including one marriage and one very long-term monogamous relationship. I think women are fabulous creatures that are perfectly complementary to men. It seems to me that lots of people here have a lot of trouble disentangling "woman" from "feminist". The men feel a strong desire to protect the women from my horrid calumnies, and the women naturally "flock" when they perceive a threat, even if as in this case, it's entirely a fantasm of their own making.

I despise feminism, I abhor feminists, but that has nothing to do with women - just politics.

That was the reason for my comment

Another reason why I stopped voting for Labor was when my local Labor state representative fell asleep while siting on a chair in front of an audience at an Australia Day ceremony.

As for hard slog, it appears the ex-premier of QLD will now have to open their own mail, and won’t be given a secretary, (while relaxing on their $150,000 per year pension).

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/former-premier-anna-bligh-wrote-to-successor-campbell-newman-asking-for-taxpayers-to-cover-costs-of-her-mobile-phone-ipad-and-staffer-to-answer-her-mail/story-e6freoof-1226352442922

Oh the misogyny, but maybe they will now have time to dwell on the fiscal mess they have left behind, although QLD did get a female premier, so it was all worth it.

Craig - I know perfectly well the difference between imply and infer - but thank you for the lesson.

There is a difference between being able to make correct use of the terms personally, and feeling obliged to gleefully point out another person's error.

Sorry if the difference is too subtle for you.

"Another reason why I stopped voting for Labor was when my local Labor state representative fell asleep while siting on a chair in front of an audience at an Australia Day ceremony." Very mature political thinking indeed.

You are outraged by $150,000 per year while CEOs are getting bonuses in the millions, while presiding over company losses?

Lack of perspective on both fronts, it seems.

I guess it must be nice to be super intelligent. If ever I meet anyone that fits the bill I'll be sure to ask them.

I would like to take issue with you on one small matter though: I was not calling people names, I was making use of a picturesque metaphor to create an image that I feel is somehow evocative of the sort of behaviour I am taking issue with.

You can dress your superior disdain with as much colour as you like. You can take issue 'til the cows come home but you cannot convince me that your implication, that all who have an opposing view to your own are short of a brain cell or two or are otherwise inferior, is not deliberate and condescending. Reminds me a bit of quotes from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich attributed to Herr Dr Gobels. Perhaps it's just my inferior thought processes not seeing the wood for the trees.

Craig Minns: "... men are rarely even considered, even when it's men who bear the brunt ...". Awww, po' baybee!

Craig, I find it amusing to point to your faults. You provide so much ammunition.

Thank you for going out of your way, David,I'm sure you've plenty of expertise in faults.

Your demonstrations of faulty logical process are close to state of the art, for example.

I note you bear few marks of a hard day's work, David.

Well Craig. In reply to examples of misogyny look no further than your long post above.

Thank you Phil. one-liners are so cool, aren't they?

Much better than saying anything

Somebody quite recently said that no matter what she said or did the BS would still carry on. I paraphrased. I know when I'm beaten too. I could get misogynists I know to say things to you, but it wouldn't make any difference. You know and we don't. That's it. Carry on in your own way and I hope for you that you never wake up because you may feel just a tad guilty.

Byeee

Craig, I'm retired. I bear the cars of a lifetime of work.

Now, have your mummy change your nappy. Your mewling indicates the need.

"Work"is not the same as "hard work", David.

Nice abuse, by the way. And still no sign of anything approaching a rational thought in that head...

Craig Minns: "Your demonstrations of faulty logical process ...". That' from a pathetic nonentity who makes a habit of onanistic rants that he can't substantiate: https://theconversation.edu.au/does-tony-abbott-have-a-problem-with-women-labor-certainly-hopes-to-give-him-one-8992#comment_65981

A feminist is someone who subscribes to the radical notion that women are human beings.

So sad that the word feminist has been so maligned that women won't even admit they share the original ideals of equality.

Anyone who believes that all people have equal rights, no matter their race, colour or physicality may be considered feminist, or humanist if they prefer.

Most men are stronger than I am physically being of average height and build, therefore I am very careful to mind what I say in the outside world - for example in a pub, I would be foolish to take to task a drunk and belligerent 'Craig Minns'. Women still have to watch what they say when in public even in Australia.

However on forums like TC, I can present my POV. Here, I can ignore the taunts. Here, I find other people who believe as I do that all human beings have a right to vote, education, employment, to drive a car and so on. Here, is Australia and I am grateful that I just happened to be born here and no in Afghanistan.

Here, I am not ashamed to say I am a feminist.

And just finally, from the September 1995 transcript and Con the builder:
"Obviously, it accords with what David Feeney has told me that he was sent away by the AWU and without explanation an account from Con was put in my letter box last week, so that's the first account that I've had from him. It is an account dated June directed towards me, yeah, I think that's right, directed towards me, dated June and it's got a letter on it, some of which is not decipherable but talks about finishing off the tiles. The account is for $3780. I've paid $2000 of it already and I'm making arrangements to get the $1780 together to pay the rest of it"

If she said that, I am sure it was true. But whether Con the Builder's account had been sitting around unpaid those four months, is a matter for the individual to decide..

Hi Sean,
The pickeringpost and its affadavits are part of the actual disputed allegations. They have not been submitted for scrutiny in any court and are unlikely to be so scrutinised, despite their strident dare for anyone to do so, simply because JG is, IMHO correctly, disinclined to dignify them with such a response. If JG does take defamation action, it is likely to be against those people relying on those documents despite JG's rebuttal.

Is that a threat, Mr Alexander?

Ian Cambridge was the national secretary of the AWU widely credited with cleaning up the AWU after Julia Gillard's then boyfriend had trashed it. Nothing in his affidavit, or at least the one I have read, has anything to do with Julia Gillard, but it is exclusively to do with what he could uncover about the various accounts that identified as improper..

All we can say is that with the release of the transcript of Julia Gillard's 1995 interview with Peter Gordon is that the names of people who were signatories of some of the various slush funds are the same as she described as organizing her renovation work.

Personally I expect my politicians to be corrupt liars so I am neither surprised, shocked or even concerned. Someone getting a few thousand dollars kickbacks in renovation work is nothing compared with the Clinton's sudden acquisition of expertise in cattle trading futures.

Why would I bother with a threat, it's just speculation.
And the pickeringpost documents are disputed - just observation.

For a mocker, you're pretty touchy (comment).

"Why would I bother with a threat"
The thought had sprung to mind that it was because you secretly believed that the Prime Minister was indeed guilty of knowingly profiting from misappropriated funds. BTW - according to Ian Cambridge the funds originally came from the WA State government for safety training which was then paid by Theiss into the slush funds.

"And the pickeringpost documents are disputed - just observation."
There are no pickeringpost documents, this is an affidavit lodged in court. I am not aware of any dispute regarding its contents - and certainly not by Julia Gillard. As I said previously the affidavit of the gentleman who is now a judicial officer with FWA did not mention Julia Gillard. We can only line up the names he details as signatories of slush funds with the people who organised her renovations from her recently released 1995 interview.

"For a mocker, you're pretty touchy"
Actually I was more amused than anything else. My means of expressing humor can at times be a little dry for some people's taste.

keep narrowing your reading Mark and pretty soon you'll just be reading things written by yourself. LOL

Just for you Mark, I've cited this piece from this morning's SM-H

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/the-men-behind-pms-hellish-week-20120825-24t6y.html

"IT WAS two retired lawyers from Melbourne who sparked a fresh examination of the 17-year-old Australian Workers Union funds scandal that has long stalked Julia Gillard.

Harry Nowicki, a former personal injuries lawyer who worked for the now defunct Builders Labourers Federation, and Richard Thomas, formerly a prominent lawyer with Arnold Thomas & Becker who did some work for the AWU in Victoria, say they joined forces in an effort to finally get to the truth about the scandal.

The pair reject Ms Gillard's assertions on Thursday that the present allegations are nothing more than a smear campaign being driven by ''misogynists'' and ''nutjobs''.

''Nothing could be further from the truth,'' Mr Thomas said. ''In fact, it all started again publicly when one of her own ministers [Robert McClelland] raised it in Parliament.''"

Never let the facts get in the way of a good bit of knee-jerking, eh?

Thanks for the link Craig. It says nothing. No evidence, no facts, no additional contributions. Just a couple of old blokes (one an ex BLF sympathiser - we can sure he's pristine can't we?)

All they have to offer is "it is not the scandal itself but the subsequent cover-up over AWU funds that is the problem"

If someone has some more facts to offer, fine. You;ve put forward none. Just more inunendo

"Thanks for the link Craig. It says nothing. No evidence, no facts, no additional contributions."

But it's from Fairfax!!! I guess that's another media poutlet you can cross off your reading list...

Apparently the worst thing of all is to be called a feminist, judging from the inevitable flood of red marks whenever I mention it...

Yes, being called a feminist may be worse than being called a terrorist.

There are also people who won’t call themselves a feminist, but actually show all the characteristics of feminism, and use all the methods, techniques and practises of feminism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ-xKGC32ew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMFGba7Ckx0

"Yes, being called a feminist may be worse than being called a terrorist."

Dale - do you speak from personal experience ? I feel confident that you have never been called a feminist, so you must have been called a terrorist? What did you do to deserve that?

Phil, I suspect it simply doesn't exist except in the fevered imagination of those who prefer name-calling to genuine discussion, or those who are looking to deflect attention from their own obvious problems...

I know it exists. I have witnessed it constantly. I just cannot understand why someone would think they are superior to someone else purely because of gender. And that goes for race, religion, nationality etc. I also think that if someone believes that, they are a lesser person than someone who doesn't.

" I have witnessed it constantly."

Would you mind giving some examples? I'm struggling here.

I do agree that if someone has such a perception it says more about them than others.

None is so blind as he who does not want to see...

Terribly wise and all that, but I asked a simple question, which your bon mot doesn't address.

Craig Minns: "... I asked a simple question ...". Which was no more than Troll sophistry.

I note that Phil seems unable to give us any examples of the "misogyny" he "witnesses constantly". I wonder why?

Craig Minns: "I wonder why?" The wise do not respond to trolls.

nd of course, those without a case resort to name-calling in place of discussion. thanks for the excellent demonstration of the at of ad hominem, David.

It would be nice if you could have demonstrated the art of having a conversation instead, but I'm learning that some things are simply not reasonable to expect from some people.

Ratuional argument from those who claim to be feminists is high on the list.

And perhaps the examples you seek are right here on this page.

And perhaps you're simply talking through your hat.

There are lots of examples of simple stupidity (thanks for the demonstrations, David) on this page, but none of anybody acting as though their male gender makes them superior. There are several examples of posts from women acting as though their own gender makes them superior, which is standard fare on these sorts of threads, and there are some examples of rather silly boys trying to show off for the "ladies", but none of the misogyny that Mr Dolan claims to "see every day".

I think he
s making things up, in the same way you make things up, David. You might have the excuse of senility, but I'm not sure what his might be: perhaps it's simple delusion.

I see the nodding donkeys are exercised at the idea of holding a conversation rather than name-calling. I guess braying loudly on command doesn't tend to cut it in the rhetorical stakes, after all...

Craig, you are totally deluded.

Thanks for that contribution David. Content-free as always.

Dianna, I concur with your opening statement, but I abhor feminism. It is an ideology of division, as exemplified by Gillard's use of the claim of misogyny, simply becuse some people are asking perfectly legitimate questions going to character, that have not yet been answered, despite Gillard's confident assertions that they have been.

I abhor feminism because it relies on demonising men and reducing men to bystanders whilst women are encouraged to prosper. If 2/3 of the students at Australian unis are women, what of the "equity" for all the young men who are excluded in favour of all the women doing women's studies and childcare? what of the men who know that airlines believe that each and every one of them is a likely paedophile predator, so we can't be seated beside children? Equity much? What about the men who can't get a job in the public service or who miss out on promotion because of preferential hiring and promotion policies regarding women? Pretty equitable, eh?

I abhor feminism because women who proclaim not to be feminists are happy to use the tools of feminism and take advantage of the special treatment and feminists then claim that makes them feminists. No it doesn't, it makes them self-interested.

I abhor feminism for many, many reasons, but mostly because it has never been about equity and never will be as long as people like Gillard can see a use for playing the victim card as a plea for special treatment.

What interests me is that there is so little genuine effort to defend the positions that have become entrenched as articles of feminist faith. Instead there is a descent to name calling from those who would happily say they are feminists. this thread has been dominated by such name-calling directed at myself and another. I think that says a great deal about the level of genuine thought that has gone into the views of those who have chosen to hurl the abuse.

Don't give me any guff about equity.

Dianna Art
I have never heard the term “nut jobs” before, and it could be new, and something the Prime Minister invented all by herself.

But the word “misogynist” has been used so often by feminists, it is now empty, boring and has no meaning. It is simply a word said when feminists cannot think of another word.

So it could be a plus for our current Prime Minister for thinking of a new term such as “nut jobs”, but a double minus for being feminist, and then using unimaginative and boring terms that have no meaning such as “misogynist”.

" abhor feminism because it relies on demonising men and reducing men to bystanders whilst women are encouraged to prosper"

Your subjective view.

If 2/3 of the students at Australian unis are women, what of the "equity" for all the young men who are excluded in favour of all the women doing women's studies and childcare?

Do you evidence that the higher number of women undertaking university studies occurs on the basis of a policy to exclude young men?

"Childcare" is a TAFE course. "Early Childhood Education" is a teaching degree at a university. Men are actually actively sought for the latter as there is a shortage of men in Early Childhood Education - some universities even advertise specifically for male candidates.

"what of the men who know that airlines believe that each and every one of them is a likely paedophile predator, so we can't be seated beside children? Equity much?"

Take it up with QANTAS - that is the policy of a privately owned company.

"What about the men who can't get a job in the public service or who miss out on promotion because of preferential hiring and promotion policies regarding women? Pretty equitable, eh?"

Evidence of this occurring? Or are you just pulling out the same tired old whine.

You use "feminism" as a pejorative and seem to have a total lack of genuine knowledge about it. This is obvious because you seem to see it as a fixed playbook of rules some women operate by.

You fail to add substance to the debate - bring evidence to back up your claims.

LOL Craig Minns on your "If 2/3 of the students at Australian unis are women, what of the "equity" for all the young men who are excluded in favour of all the women doing women's studies and childcare? "

Are you serious? Child care is about the most difficult and under-paid occupation there is - I don't see queues of men clamouring for it.... if there are, are they being banned from studying it? I don;t think so, somehow.

Dale Bloom: "I have never heard the term “nut jobs” before ...". If so Dale, you must have had your fingers in your ears since birth.
Dale Bloom: "... it could be new ...". Been around at least four decades that I know of. By all reports, it was old even then.