I can't believe he finds her disasterous as a leader, he was absolutely besotted by her sometime ago classing her as Australia's most sexiest woman, something about her "pheronomes" and going from "put down to pin-up, simply by applying the finest make up: a powerding of pure power"!
AustralianConservative: Boltes Passion for Julia

Actually, I couldn't see anything flattering with what Andrew said, in fact I thought it in bad taste and made reference to it when the occasion arose.
My sentiments remain the same with the chance someone may have picked it up.
I can't imagine her saying what you have quoted her as saying to be honest, but one lives and learns.

Linus Bowden: "... Gillard's goons were organising race riots and trying to blame Tony Abbott ...". Evidence?

Dishonest trick #3, I believe:
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Clear_Thinking/Informal_Fallacies/Tricks/tricks.html

Especially when Abbott admits to having told his daughters that their virginity is “the most precious gift” they could give someone." - This is not true.

He replied "I would tell them IF THEY ASKED ME that virginity is a precious gift.."

Its a semantical difference brother, you are arguing that he only said that this would be his response - he didnt actually say it......

Man, him saying it is not the point, you missed the point, the point is that this is his view of women's sexuality - not whether he said it to his daughter or not. He claims thats what he would say, he claims that is his view and your response is soo shallow that your argue "Naha, he didnt actually say it to his daughter, he only thinks he would say it"

Michael has it occurred to you just how bizarre a thing that is to even contemplate saying when asked? What on Earth's so important about whether someone has had sex or not? Is this e.g. how you choose friends? employees? partners for doubles tennis?

Maybe a medical person can help me out here, but I thought virginity was a physiological (possibly social?) state. Not a commodity. When you can "give" something it's a commodity, not a physiological state. What's more, this nature of "virginity as commodity only applies to women. All women - not just his daughters. He said"

"Asked whether he expects his own daughters to remain virgins until they are married, Mr Abbott says all women should regard their virginity as a gift that should not be given lightly"

His advice to males? "Much the same - treat people with respect and don't act in ways that demean other people."

Very much NOT the same, actually. There have been a huge number of analyses of the comments e.g. here:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/virginity-is-one-hell-of-a-gift-20100201-n75t.html

But what it boils down to is this: men are people, women are property. Womens' virginity is a commodity, and part of their value. A non-virgin is worth less because she's given away something precious about herself. A man's virginity is evidently neither here nor there, and "losing" it has no effect on his value as a person.

Does this matter? This is a man who thinks of womens' sexuality as property; who sees no problem with men still holding more power then women, and in whose mind there are fundamental differences between men and women in terms of acceptable sexual behaviour and the suitability for leadership.

So does the Saudi government, who don't allow women to drive, to take one example at random. All over the world, womens' rights and freedoms are more or less severely curtailed by men who hold the view that are fundamental differences between men and women in terms of acceptable sexual behaviour and the suitability for leadership.

If anyone can provide convincing evidence of a qualitative difference between Abbott's views and those of Governments and groups round the world who restrict womens' freedom, I'd be glad to hear it.

Qualitative.

Tony Abbott's comment about virginity shows that he sees womens' value deriving in significant part from their sexuality. He would seek to control his daughters' sexual behaviour.

He also considers women as intrinsically less fit to hold positions of power or authority.

Maybe you should appraise yourself of the meaning of the word "qualitative".

Oh dear. I don't see any point trying to explain the significance of the word "qualitative" because you're clearly not prepared to try to understand.

As for this:

"I suspect you have a problem with men".

Says it all really.

I am fully aware of the word ‘qualitative’.

“Tony Abbott's comment about virginity shows that he sees womens' value deriving in significant part from their sexuality”

It says no such thing.

Your whole posting above is offensive and baseless.

What I see is a loving father expressing his hopes and concerns for his children. There is nothing he said that I wouldn’t expect from any parent who cares for their happiness and wellbeing. The conclusions you come to are fanciful at best.

The idea that he seeks to control his daughters sexuality is a pretty vile smear which simply is not supported by his words.

What you demonstrate here is the reality that if offense is sought for it can be found in the most innocuous words.

I repeat, the problem isn’t with Mr Abbotts attitude to women, but your attitude to men. If you can truly draw this conclusion from the words of a caring father, then there is no form of words safe from your determination to twist them and smear with fanciful invention.

I get it. You obviously share Abbott's worldview - that's why you don't see a problem with it.

"I repeat, the problem isn’t with Mr Abbotts attitude to women, but your attitude to men".

You're in a hole mate, and you're carrying right on digging.

Thanks for the link David. Sites like these are useful not just for pointing out to someone that their reasoning is faulty, but for improving our own reasoning. This is a complex topic - there's always something new to learn or improve.

One of the simpler ones to understand is the ad hominem. It's damning because resorting to personal attacks usually suggests an inability to engage with the argument itself.

Here are some example of ad hominen attacks:
"Your ignorance is monumental"

"I suspect you have a problem with men"

"A person with your views would put boys' self-image at risk"

"Is it misandry on your part? Or just straight misanthropy? Or is it possible that you feel such contempt for the women in Mr Abbott's family that misogyny is also one of your attributes?"

I'm particularly amazed by the last one: a man accusing a woman of misogyny based on her not having said anything about some women. If that's not a complete failure of critical thinking I don't know what is.

The problem with these attacks, and failure to use reasoned argument in general, is that they make the discussion - well - boring.

Out of interest, all those ad homs were made on that page, about me. Feel free to play "ad hom bingo" with the page.

"A person with your views would put boys' self-image at risk"

That's quite an allegation to make, don't you think?

Sorry I failed to quote one of theose ad homs fully. We all kow how different things can look in context. Here it is in full:

"A person with your views would put boys' self-image at risk. Is that part of your agenda?"

I wonder if Phillip has any evidence for alleging that I have an agenda to harm the self-image of the boys I teach. Because to me that looks like an accusation - on the record - that I'm not fit do do my job. An accusation that I set out to deliberately harm the people to whom I have a duty of care.

I encourage anyone who hasn't seen the Q&A episode in question (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3599227.htm) to watch it. The phrase that came to mind on Tanner and Pyne' performance was "mutual masturbation".

Pobje is a highly rhetorically unusual writer, which is why we LOVE him!

You need to read that article properly to get where it is coming from, and also to have an appreciation of irony and parody.

He is actually making a point about that "feminism-is-boring" line - ie. that it is boring for feminists too, but the most boring thing is the same-old sexism that has to be called....again....and again....etc..

Are you recommending voluntary purdah Linus? I'm guessing you're not trying to pass yourself off as a feminist.

Irrelevant, but it gives me an opportunity to expand. Thanks for that.

As a bloke, I'm ashamed of the performance of all of the men in the Q&A episode.

David,

You said: "As a bloke, I'm ashamed of the performance of all of the men in the Q&A episode"

Why?

You weren't there. You didn't speak. What do you have to feel ashamed about?

I am responsible for my own actions and words, not others. I would have no reason to feel shame for the actions of people who are complete strangers. We are individuals, and individually responsible for ourselves, but not collectively responsible for others.

Chris Harper: "I am responsible for my own actions and words, not others." When members of our group behave shamefully, don't we all wear some of the stain?

Though the fact is anathema to extreme individualist psychopathy, humanity remains a social species. We're all grouped in various ways; whether we like it or not, whether we admit it or not. The behaviour of individuals reflects on the group.

No matter how many times I watch the Q&A episode in question, I feel nothing but shame regarding the behaviour of the men involved. Perhaps Tony Jones allowed the others free rein to reveal their degeneracy, but it looked like he was pandering to them.

Philip Dowling: "... you believe in responsibility based on biology." Non sequitur; getting desperate, Philip?

Rob,

How does your emerging hypothesis about "gendered myopia" explain the likes of Miranda Devine (oh no +2more mmHg)? On a more positive and blood pressure-reducing note, the hypothesis also doesn't account for the female characters created by those bearded men, Hayao Miazaki and Terry Pratchett. Clearly these men have the ability to think themselves into the headspace of women.

On the other hand, I agree with Forth, that men certainly have a set of privileges that they're often quite unaware of. Hence the "victim" mentality when their hegemony is challenged: they don't understand that they were in a position of unfair advantage to start with, so they see the playing field as not being levelled, but tipped. Ditto race, sexuality, disability etc.

I read recently about a biologist who underwent male to female sex change and wrote about the difference in how her research was received.

Rob

I don't get the Sarah Palins, Janet Albrechtsens or even the Margaret Thatchers - although they all have one thing in common, the desire for power and influence and, in this, I think they differ little from men with the similar ambitions. They certainly are not interested in their sisters, unless it is in limiting their power. For example, some of the most strident anti-choice lobbyists are women.

And then there are the men who can put themselves into a more female perspective - these are the men who are not threatened by women in power.

I think we are witnessing a clash between those who want to retain the status quo - knowing full well how much benefit having a spouse at home to do all the domestic work and provide continuation of the male line. We still have women adopting men's surnames. Even on a bureaucratic level, forms when requesting the sex of the person completing the form, 'male' is placed ahead of 'female'.

And even in so-called male industries such as mining, construction, road work, truck driving, there are women working but never acknowledged. Yet if a man decides to take up Nursing as a profession - it is applauded, also men seen taking care of their children; applauded. Not so mothers - they are just taken for granted.

The only way I can encourage men to consider how a woman might feel about a comment is to ask themselves would you say that to a black person?

Then there are the women who do see men as some kind of meal ticket - I sometimes wonder if they aren't worse than the uber-conservative women mentioned above.

In conclusion, I think this is the debate we really need to have. Julia Gillard spoke for me with her bringing a few home truths back to Abbott. All the times I have just said nothing because I would be hit - my ex husband, or fired, or even slept with someone because it was easier than being beaten up.

Hi Matt. I don't know if this is the same researcher Lorna is thinking of, but Ben Barres is an American transgender neuriobiologist who has made a strong statement about gender descrimination in the sciences, informed by his lived experience.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060714174545.htm

Its a pretty intriguing story.

Gillard turns her back on Abbott when he and other LNP male members speak in the House. I have seen her, and there is ample footage of this. She interjects when they are speaking (very rude) and especially with males. She does not refer to Tony Abbott as the Leader of the Opposition, but rather calls him derogatory terms like Mr. Rabbit (ha,ha,ha...). She has been seen at factory visits speaking more to the women than the men and sometimes she even moves in to kiss them (knowing they are married). She never shakes hands with a man firmly the way men like it. She just does not like men and the way she treats Tony Abbott is just symptomatic of this lack of respect.
Men already know how Gillard feels about them, just look at the polls. But does she care? No!

Relevance?

"Abbott is clearly NOT a misogynist"

Any shreds of proof for that assertion, John? Because there's a mountain of evidence says he is. Plus, if you were prepared to trust the views of women, you'd understand why so few of us want anything to do with him. His attitude to us makes our skin crawl.

But some men (and a few women) don't set any store by what women think. Those are exactly the sort of men who don't see the problem with Abbott. As Rob Brooks said:

"If you talk and behave like a man who has never given a moment’s thought to what it is like to live as a woman, then the best you can hope for is to represent other men who have given just as little thought to what life is like for their daughters and wives (should they be so lucky)".

". Whilst that may be true in some cases, I fail to see how it applies to Abbott's relentless attacks on Gillard's leadership. That is his job" - His job is not to call her a Man's Bitch, his job is not to wolf whistle at her and ask her when she is goign to be an honest women, his job is not to repeat talking points from alan jones in relation to her fathers death - this is just dishonest bullying

and I like how when Abbott attacks Gillard and is openly sexist about it - you say "Thats his job" but when Gillard stands up and says that she has had enough of these shallow and mysoginst attacks you claim that they are "Running and hiding"

You dont see any double standard here at all? nothing stirkes you as possibly bigoted or bias about what you wrote

Michael your whole first paragraph indicates what is wrong with your argument - When did Abbott call Gillard a 'Man's Bitch" ? When did he repeat Jone's repulsive jibe? - For one who's pretty hung up on semantics, you can be pretty lax with the facts when it suits.

Based on the polls over half the women of Australia support the LNP.
That party is lead by.. oh that's right, Tony Abbott.
So, half the women in this country are happy for a misogynist to represent them as leader.
Meanwhile Gillard has a problem with men. She just does not "get" what is important to men. She cannot relate to men's needs. Men feel alienated by her.
Her anti male comments laughing at Tony Abbott's swimwear (which all lifesavers wear) as "budgie smugglers" effectively slagging off at male genitalia was highly offensive. Her abuse of Chris Pyne calling him a "poodle", code for non manly was also extremely offensive. I think these clear examples of a vicious anti male attitude with Gillard and the other senior female members of the government explains Gillard's problem with men, as borne out by the polls.
It is high time that this behaviour was called to account as males are almost 50% of the population and do not deserve to be referred to in this manner by a dictatorial female PM.

The only double standard was Gillard defending Slipper along with Tanya Plibersek, Nicola Roxon and Jenny Macklin and then in the next breath attacking Abbott for hating women.
By the way he did not call Gillard a "man's bitch" (evidence please). He did not attack Gillard's father, instead he made a very nice speech supporting him.
He did not tell his daughters when they could have sex. He does not beat women, molest women or refuse to be around women. He just abuses Gillard and the ALP for being what they are, a pack of useless politicians who have no clue about how to govern. He abuses the women the same as the men. He is as aggressive with the women as he is with the men. Its equality.
In return, the ALP women attack him the same as they do the men in the LNP. There is one difference though, the LNP does not play the victim and whine about it. Oops.. was that sexist?
Get a grip!!!

"I personally don’t like the word misogynist, because I don’t exactly know what it means" - then listen & learn. -a.v.

At an anti-Carbon Tax rally he was quite happy to be recorded on camera giving a speech while standing in front of two placards. One said "Ditch the Witch" and the other "Juliar - Bob Brown's Bitch".

No misogyny there - no sir.

He echoed Jones' jibe in parliament when he said the government should have 'died of shame'.

A misogynist is someone who says this:

"...but what if men are by physiology or temperament, more adapted to exercise authority or to issue command?”
Someone who thinks women are inferior - should stay at home looking after the kids and doing the ironing. And if they are extra good girls they can be deputy leader - but not leader.

Someone with a deep seated fear of powerful women perhaps?

my oed says hatred is "intense dislike, enmity, rejection and ill will".

you say marriage & misogyny are incompatible & cite mr & mrs abbott as example.

i'd warrant misogynists marry non-feminists & cite mr & mrs abbott as example. -a.v.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/24/3172088.htm?site=canberra

There are two possibilities here.

1. He had no idea what he was standing in front of to make his speech.
2. He knew the placards were there and took advantage of them to send a message that he supported the sentiment.

I find it a bit hard to believe that even if he hadn't seen the placards, the mobs of staffers, spin doctors and security knew there were there. Hence conclusion 2.

Relevance?

Relevance?

Gary Murphy: "No misogyny there - no sir." Is misogyny the right term?

My mother was born in 1910. As a young woman, she scandalised a small rural city by having her hair cut relatively short. She subsequently qualified as a teacher, then worked as a bookkeeper; unusual in a time when most people left school at 12 years of age and most women were mothers before 20.

Even so, mum's options were limited. She couldn't get a loan, for example.

Abbott's attitudes seem to be those of earlier times; women as lesser beings or chattel. There's more than a hint of disdain, but does it qualify as hatred?

Dale Bloom: "... someone married to a woman." So a wife-beater doesn't marry his victim? Which brings up a worrying thought.

Elsewhere, I've described Abbott as a pugilist, accustomed to arguing with his fists. I wonder how that attitude manifests in other areas of his life. I wish I hadn't thought of that.

When Mr and Mrs Abbott appeared together, the body language spoke more than their words.

Philip Dowling: "... you don't think it strange ...". Why would I? I'm not fool enough to think I know all of the facts.

Phillip,

Gosh those poor patrons of elite, high-fee schools. My heart bleeds so it does. Where I went to school, the badge on the jacket was a removable pin, in recognition of the fact that some kids didn't own another jacket.

Did it occur to you that he could have sent them all to a cheaper school or - *gosh* a state school?

"Your ignorance is monumental."

Your rudeness is breathtaking - and telling. Notice how Abbott's defenders descend into personal abuse of anyone - especially women - who's views they don't like?

That's called ad hominen. Personal abuse is a sure sign you don't have a credible reply to the points being made.

"So I presume that you will never teach in a school with boys".

If I held such easily-refuted assumptions I'd keep them to myself. It doesn't do much for your credibility.

Dishonest trick #6 again:
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Clear_Thinking/Informal_Fallacies/Tricks/tricks.html
Can't you mob come up with anything convincing?

Hi David,

As one of the sex potentially being viewed as "lesser" or "chattels" (ie: property) that's exactly where the problem lies.

As I see it, you either hold that the same "rules" and values apply to men and women, or you don't. There are analogies: historically black people were treated exactly as property by white people. Whether that deserves a worse word than "racism" I'm not qualified to say - but there are still plenty of people who still regard people of other races as intrinsically "lesser" (and for the record, they all make me sick).

If you were black, would you be prepared to be seen as "lesser" just so long as you weren't physically in chains? Injustice is injustice, whether the perpetrators are well-meaning or not.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I sense you have a lot of pride in your mother.

Dishonest trick #6 again:
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Clear_Thinking/Informal_Fallacies/Tricks/tricks.html
Don't you have any imagination?

Dale Bloom said that marriage proved something. I followed where his comment led. If you don't like where we are, then take it up with Dale.

The medical profession doesn't need me to tell them about body language; they know all too well. I presume you're trolling but, on the off-chance you're not, try googling the term or buying a book on the subject; Allan Pease has made a fortune out of it.

Lorna, I'm proud of both my parents. In WW2, my father served in Northern Australia and islands to the north. He was horrified by the treatment of black US servicemen. He also seemed to develop close relations with most of those he encountered, even difficult characters like Xavier Herbert and some Japanese WoWs. There's a book titled "Curtin's Cowboys" that's worth a read.

On gender relations; dad was old-fashioned. Not in the status of individuals, but his duties. For about the last 20 years of her life, mum got increasingly difficult. Dad stuck by her and died soon after mum. We (their children) reckon he stayed alive because she needed him.

The upshot is that I was brought up to take people as individuals, regardless of race, religion or gender. Maybe that's the problem with some others in this discussion; an upbringing of hate and bigotry is bound to have a negative impact on personality.

Chris; I don't believe anyone hates Abbott, any more than most of us hate snakes. Most people I know tell me he creeps them out. They can't really tell me why. I'm inclined to the notion that they're subconsciously recognising in him psychopathy, or something of the sort.

As to the subject of this article, I reckon others have shown clearly enough how he's revealed his disdain of women.

Philip Dowling: "... you are prepared to quote a pop psychologist." When did pointing out that someone made a fortune writing books on a subject become a "quote"?

Philip Dowling: "Medical training doesn't include body language." Are you certain? Doesn't medical training, particularly in General Practice, include communication studies? Don't those studies include body language? Isn't body language a study of psychology?

Philip Dowling: "... please explain why you hate snakes?" Did I say that? Perhaps you need English language comprehension lessons.

Philip Dowling: "Psychopathy seems to be a theme ...". I have encountered a few in my time. As part of one of my jobs, I studied the issue. Here's a reasonable explanation from http://docbonn.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/doc-bonn-explains-the-difference-between-a-sociopath-and-a-psychopath/
"Psychopaths, ... often have charming and disarming personalities. They are manipulative and can easily gain people’s trust. They learn to mimic emotions, despite their inability to actually feel them, and will appear normal to other unsuspecting people. Psychopaths are often educated and hold steady jobs. Some are so good at manipulation and mimicry that they have families and other long-term relationships without those around them ever suspecting their true nature."

You do realise, I hope, that by attacking the source rather than addressing the issue, you raise questions? Do you recognise what makes Abbott "creep out" so many? Do you know something about Abbott that might worry the electorate?

Hi David,

Was your reference a conscious or subconscious reference to this reasonably well-known book?

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=lV8PAQAAMAAJ&q=snakes+in+suits&dq=snakes+in+suits&source=bl&ots=6uLDUBI0VA&sig=zor5r-Vzlktyfc9JYECh8_rvpCQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rxl_UJOuNujvmAW6voDgCw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA

Lorna, I did my research in the late 1980s. I was working at an employment agency and we were concerned about some of our employer clients. We had psychologists on contract to assess job-seeking clients; their skills, when focused on some of our employers, led to alarming observations. The issue of organisational psychopathy was known at that time, but not widely acknowledged.

I sometimes regret my experience. A mind tuned to the issue tends to see levels of psychopathy in many, particularly in the powerful and influential. It seems to me that, to some degree, it's an advantage for the individual. If not managed, it's invariably destructive for the organisation/business. Businesses in which a psychopathic personality is influential tend to rise spectacularly, then crash. In my experience, the one responsible often manages to escape before the crash, so others pay the price.

The rise of terms like corporate psychopath and workplace psychopath in the decades since my active involvement indicates a wider awareness of the issue. That doesn't make it any easier to manage, but at least people are less likely to be taken by surprise. http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1360571.htm rang a few bells when I saw it.

In Abbott, I see a psychopathic personality. In lower-ranking positions, that can be useful. In the top job, it's disastrous.

One, more recent, comment:
http://www.fisheadmovie.com/
I don't necessarily agree with their conclusion.

Lorna, How many teachers have advised police of illegal operations?
How many have you advised?

Phillip, I'd be happy to reply but I have no idea what your comment means.

Are you trolling?

David, You along with the rest of Australia have been ostriches.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-13/four-arrested-over-genital-mutilation-of-girls/4260112
Is the ABC a credible source?

Yaiiiirrrrrssssss, because eveyone wants to hear the dross of Judith Butler, right? Such as

"The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power."

Don't conflate 'feminism' and 'lesbianism'.

Hi Rob, thanks for replying and snap! The problem with assuming all biology as biologically reductionist is actually exactly what my paper is about! Likewise, claims against actual biological reductionism should not be assumed to come from a culturally reductionist stance...

I am a biosciences undergrad in my spare time, as well as being a professional academic historian of gender, sexuality, biology and medicine (not a sociologist). My current research is on the history of biological reductionism (as distinct from biology), and much of my previous scholarship has been on the history of ideas about sexuality and gender in medicine and psychiatry. Evolutionary claims about sex have a long history all their own. Understanding something about that would probably be the main thing that would help you to contextualise your own approach.

There is one very important assumption embedded in such claims which is never really discussed at all - that human culture functions according to the same evolutionary laws as biological organisms. It is not a crazy idea, it is just not proven, or even argued.

Transcending the boring old n/n dichotomy is what many of us at the nexus of biosciences and humanities are committed to. The trick though, is in undoing certain habits of thought which emerged from that dichotomous subtrate and which linger around even when we think we have overcome them.

You might be interested to check out the conference where I am giving my paper, which is appears to concerned with many of these themes:
http://www.csaa.asn.au/about/conference/2012/index.shtml

Relevance?

Relevance?

Phillip,

"The right has a lot to answer for. Endless negativity, abuse and policy vacuum."

Fantasy, political propaganda.

It is the job of the opposition to oppose. This is not some socialist paradise, where it is the role of the token opposition in parliament to offer mild criticism but otherwise extol the wisdom of the government. This is a free country where it is the right of anyone to point out the ongoing dishonesty, deceit, incompetence and sheer addiction to smear which are the defining characteristics of the current government.