Gillard attracts misogyny like kitchens attract ladies

A Bit Rich says:

11:35am | 22/09/11

Exactly Super D. Just like Krudd, it’s an unfortunate (or fortunate, depending on your point of view) word-play that’s available because of her name. Tony gets “The Mad Abbott” (a play on his name and religious values) and plenty of politicians all have their own unique epithets. Then of course there’s Not Happy John the Lying Rodent,  Doesn’t Have the Ticker Beazley and that Thuggish Mark Latham. To claim Julia is getting branded only because she’s a woman is just a bit rich, don’t you think?

A Bit Rich says:

11:35am | 22/09/11

Exactly Super D. Just like Krudd, it’s an unfortunate (or fortunate, depending on your point of view) word-play that’s available because of her name. Tony gets “The Mad Abbott” (a play on his name and religious values) and plenty of politicians all have their own unique epithets. Then of course there’s Not Happy John the Lying Rodent,  Doesn’t Have the Ticker Beazley and that Thuggish Mark Latham. To claim Julia is getting branded only because she’s a woman is just a bit rich, don’t you think?

Tony of Poorakistan says:

12:19pm | 22/09/11

They didn’t need a play on names with Howard (besides what can you do with John?) - they just called him the rodent.

And I think Juliar is fine .. it simply seeks to recall one of her most oustanding features (the fact that she is a serial liar) and is in no way based on her sex.

Minger says:

08:16am | 22/09/11

I think the premise of this article is fundamentally flawed. We need to redefine misogyny—which is is the indiscriminate hatred of women. As a gender…

I would say that the hatred is more or less directed at only Julia as a direct result of her actions undertaken in her office as PM… I call BS on labeling the public’s reaction to Julia as misogyny.

Tezza says:

08:23am | 22/09/11

Agree with everything you say.
But I also think that the ABC is being unnecessarily insulting to the Prime Minister, although it is fascinating to see the usually left wing ABC having a go at an ALP leader. They must feel quite conflicted over it

marley says:

08:23am | 22/09/11

Actually, Erick, I wonder whether your complaint about health funding is accurate.  I read, not so long ago, that most drugs and vaccinations are developed and tested primarily on men, and that many aren’t as effective when prescribed to women because of physiological differences between the two genders.  So men get a higher benefit from a lot of medical research.

That being said, while I do think there are elements of misogyny in some of the criticisms of Gillard, there are very legitimate complaints as well, and we shouldn’t be expected to pull our punches just because she’s a woman.

KH says:

08:30am | 22/09/11

The article is absolutely correct.  Previous ‘satires’ of politicians concentrated on their job.  The attacks on Gillard are personal.  Despite all the media available on Gillard, I can hardly find even a hint of what goes on in her personal life. Its insulting, demeaning and MISOGYNIST.  Just like you Erick.

Tubesteak says:

08:35am | 22/09/11

Agree. Misogyny is one of the most poorly understood and poorly used words in the English language.

Any time someone doesn’t stand around worshipping women for all their supposed glory they are incorrectly labelled a misogynist. Too many people think women are beyond criticism.

I remember plenty of Abbott and Costello jokes from back in the day.

Minger says:

08:45am | 22/09/11

@Tezza - Absolutely. The ABC has previously had a good track record with riding the line between political satire and outright disrespect.

This show is, ironically, a joke.

Direct says:

08:45am | 22/09/11

The current definition of misogyny is fine. It’s constant misuse to label any behaviour that the utterer doesn’t like, however, is not. It’s essentailly a female specific version of un-Australian. Trite, tiresome and flat out wrong

Tedd says:

08:46am | 22/09/11

Gillard attracts misogyny more because the Federal Opposition and their supporters attract most, if not all, of societies misogynists.

marley says:

08:50am | 22/09/11

@Tubesteak - I reckon, if you criticize an individual woman, that’s fair enough.  If you criticize all women as a group, that’s misogynist.  So, if you criticize Julia for misspeaking herself on the carbon tax, or for fumbling the asylum seekers’s issue, there’s nothing misogynist at all.  If, however, you go on to say that Julia’s failings illustrate why women in general are untrustworthy or incapable of leadership or incompetent at politics, that’s misogynist.

So, a lot of the comments about Gillard fit into the first category, as legitimate political comment.  Some, however, are well into the second category.  The problem with this article is that the author doesn’t distinguish between the two.

Erick says:

08:50am | 22/09/11

@marley - “I read, not so long ago, that most drugs and vaccinations are developed and tested primarily on men”

I think that’s because men are regarded as being more expendable than women. First you test the medicines on rats, then monkeys, then men. If they all survive, then it’s safe to try it on women.

@KH - Putting something in allcaps makes it extra true.

TomZ says:

08:52am | 22/09/11

Whenever a woman is a failure, out come the rusted on boilers to play the “misogynist” card. The all purpose excuse for females. ICB.

acotrel says:

09:03am | 22/09/11

@ Tubesteak
Why would anyone waste time dreaming up an ‘Abbott and Costello joke’ ?  If you wanted a laugh, all you had to do was look at their behaviour behind John Howard when he was speaking in parliament, and also the look of exteme annoyance on Little Johnny’s face !  - Absolutely hilarious !

Bev says:

09:12am | 22/09/11

marley says:08:23am | 22/09/11

Actually, Erick, I wonder whether your complaint about health funding is accurate.

You are dead wrong. These figures are a bit dated but nothing much has changed and in some areas the disparity is worse.

A quick google shows:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~irgeo/0197p23.htm

http://menshealth.uws.edu.au/docs/Refereed - Woods Micheal.pdf

Commonwealth Government Funding For Women Only Health programs (Annual), Commonwealth of Australia, 2001
$212,500,000

Commonwealth Government Funding For Specific Men Only Health Support Programs (Annual)

$1,000,000

In other words mens programs receive less than 1% of the money allocated to womens programs! (.46%)

Table 3: Health System Costs by Gender (1993-4)
Mathers, Penm, Carter, & Stevenson, 1998
MALE $13.4 billion
FEMALE $18 billion (34% higher)

Markus says:

09:17am | 22/09/11

“Previous ‘satires’ of politicians concentrated on their job.”
The Adventures of Bob and Blanche was a running joke on Fast Forward, yet nobody felt the need to defend Hawke at the time, especially not on the basis of cruel misandry…

Barry says:

09:18am | 22/09/11

@KH
Making personal attacks on someone, who just happens to be a woman doesn’t make you a misogynist.  I think you’re still struggling with the definition.

marley says:

09:24am | 22/09/11

@Erick - no, the reasoning isn’t that men are expendable - it’s harder to get women into clinical trials because of concerns about pregnancies, etc, so the default has been to have males in the trials, and assume that the results will apply to women. So, drugs are designed and tested to work on the male physiology, and then applied to the female physiology, where they don’t always have the same effect.  It’s one of the reasons why they’re trying to get more women into the clinical testing programs - because they’re starting to have some issues with a few of the drugs that work very differently on women than they do on men.

Tim says:

09:25am | 22/09/11

If anything At Home With Julia is misandrist rather than misogynistic.
The vast majority of attempted “jokes” in the show are at the expense of Gillard’s partner Tim Mathieson. And most of them because he’s a male hairdresser.
The show should really be called:
Unmarried Male Hairdresser.

TD says:

09:27am | 22/09/11

@Erick - of course you’re expendable, it’s laughable if you think otherwise, with the highest ‘deposits’ of sperm banks all over the world, we don’t need an actual man to get pregnant and once they perfect human cloning we won’t need you at all anymore, the end of your world is nigh.

it’s battle of the sexes and sorry gents but we won (because you’re all still bitching about it)

marley says:

09:31am | 22/09/11

@Bev - your paper dates from 1997 and the figures from the early 90s.  Care to find something a little more up to date?  And then factor in that research on reproductive care, which amounts to a big chunk of research and health care, is going to be overwhelmingly on the female side, but that the babies will be 50% male.

Ray says:

09:31am | 22/09/11

Marley, you are a goose. Breast cancer research and funding exceeds a combinrd total of all other medical research and funding.

Got this from the Eva Cox finishing school

bec says:

09:40am | 22/09/11

Erick, historically men were used as treatment subjects for experimental procedures/medications because at the height of when they were developed in universities they tended to comprise the majority of test subjects available. A lot of experiments tended to be done on men in prison/army environments which are also predominantly male, though changing in composition.

Medical trials for most conditions unrelated to gender tend to be very balanced in how they compile test groups - I’ve been knocked back for some university medical trials simply because they fulfilled their quota of female volunteers.

Men weren’t tested upon because they were considered expendable - they were tested upon merely because they were the most available gender to do so.

Bev says:

09:50am | 22/09/11

marley says:09:24am | 22/09/11
I call red herring.  I don’t dispute what you say however it has no bearing on Eric’s original statement on the women versus men health dollar. Or are you disputing the fact that expenditure on womans health/research is far greater than that spent on men.

Bev says:

09:55am | 22/09/11

marley says:09:31am | 22/09/11

@Bev - your paper dates from 1997 and the figures from the early 90s.  Care to find something a little more up to date? 

I stated that.  I suggest you show me that thinks have changed dramatically in the last 10 years.  Good luck because I don’t believe you can!

Bev says:

10:01am | 22/09/11

TD says:09:27am | 22/09/11

@Erick - of course you’re expendable, it’s laughable if you think otherwise, with the highest ‘deposits’ of sperm banks all over the world, we don’t need an actual man to get pregnant and once they perfect human cloning we won’t need you at all anymore, the end of your world is nigh.

So women are going to take over society’s “heavy lifting”.  Good luck on decorating your future dwelling, a cave.

Greg says:

10:05am | 22/09/11

“women are privileged and men are not… I think that’s because men are regarded as being more expendable than women”

Dude, pull your head out of your arse and toughen up.

Bev says:

10:06am | 22/09/11

bec says:09:40am | 22/09/11

Thank you for a balanced comment. Trouble is feminists like to forget the little problems for their arguments you raise.

Ray says:

10:07am | 22/09/11

TD ya right. That’s why all women are arseholes and will remain so. No pity.

Bob says:

10:27am | 22/09/11

TD sure women won the battle of the sexes, BUT YOU HAVEN"T GOT ANYWHERE.

I think you’ve got us with the level of bitching too.

Bit like knowing the difference between opium and a woman. One is a slow working dope. The other is a plant.

Where does Julia fit? Leave that to you.

TD says:

10:32am | 22/09/11

@Bev, I have moved house several times and done it all myself, I am quite strong thank you, I don’t need a man to do heavy lifting, I am quite capable of doing it myself, if not I will get some trained chimps for anything that I can’t do myself

Hi Ray

Bev says:

11:10am | 22/09/11

TD says:10:32am | 22/09/11

@Bev, I have moved house several times and done it all myself, I am quite strong thank you, I don’t need a man to do heavy lifting

When women build the house you live in, operate the mines, obtain the oil, build the cities, design and build the power plants, design and build the cars and transport, go down the sewers, cut the timber, come up with all the inventions which make life easy etc, etc then you may have a case. As I said enjoy your cave as I don’t see chimps living in houses yet..

Tubesteak says:

11:14am | 22/09/11

marley
“If you criticize all women as a group, that’s misogynist.”

No. misogyny = hatred. Criticising someone or a group does not mean hatred. You are pointing out their flaws. Often there are traits within groups that are common, this is what makes them groups.

In this case, it is not misogyny even if a person has an opinion that Gillard’s performance is a reflection that women can’t lead. It may not be factually correct, or even logically correct, but it is not misogyny.

acotrel
This country lost a lot when Howard decided to stand again in 2004. Imagine if Costello took the helm with Abbott as his Deputy Leader of the Libs (not of the nation because that would have gone to the Nationals). The running jokes about “Heeeeyyyyyy Abboooottttttttt” would have been hilarious. Then Abbott and Costello vs The Mummy. Abbott and Costello vs Frankenstein. Abbott and Costello vs the Wolfman.

It would have been a comedy goldmine.

dovif says:

11:25am | 22/09/11

yeah I wish everytime I stuff up, I can use the you are all dovi-est card

Quiet simply it is reverse sexism.

marley says:

11:29am | 22/09/11

@Ray - “Marley, you are a goose. Breast cancer research and funding exceeds a combinrd total of all other medical research and funding.”

Once again, you come up with a statement unsupported by any evidence, and you throw in an insult to boot.  Should I take this as evidence that all men are incapable of research, rational argument and civil discussion?  Nope, I’ll just take it as confirmation that you can’t manage any of the three.

By the way, if we look at research funding for cancer alone in the period 2003/5,  generic research got 60% of the pie. Of the remaining 40%, dedicated to site-specific cancers, breast cancer got around a third.  So, a goodly sum, but hardly more than all other cancer research combined, never mind more than all other forms of medical research in areas not involving cancer.

Ray says:

11:54am | 22/09/11

As usual Marley your research is flawed.  Your research is channelled and dated.. Dated, an argument you had against Bev I believe. So you’ve got form, a pattern and immaturity, all bundled up in the present day feminist. Funding for breast cancer has reached the stage where it is offensive. What other cuase has a fundraising dedication day at the races, cricket, NRL, ARL and Rugby Union. Then to top it off the lopsided contribution by government with the free brest cancer screening to boot. Men make up 50% (thereabouts) of the population. Men however find themselves in the position indigeanous Africans were 150 years ago in slavery or more recently apatheid.

Anyhow, you motor along in your conceited throne of privelege.

Meanwhile I will not dodge telling you and ilk how it is.

MarkH says:

12:04pm | 22/09/11

As much as Gillard has demonstrated her incompetence and true lack of any real political acumen I do think the attacks are largely and deliberately personal. Not necessarily because she is a woman, but because she is Julia Gillard. Add in incumbency and you’ve got the ripe pickings of political muckraking and all the rest news (print media in particular) love to focus on.

To me this isn’t an issue of misogyny or lack thereof but of a dose of political attention seeking because it’s de rigour and predictable to hate on an apparent ‘loser’. Men defending themselves (or even their gender) against charges of misogyny just make themselves look silly also to a degree. It truly is not an ‘us versus them’ world…men need to realise that we can ALSO be politically incompetent and lacking in political acumen too. Kind of like failing to achieve majority government in 2010 despite the levels of voter backlash that was present….

Bev says:

12:31pm | 22/09/11

marley says:11:29am | 22/09/11

Your figures are limited. By your comment reproductive care absorbs a big chunk (mostly I presume IVF).  There are other forms of women only cancer besides breast cancer.  Care to enlighten us as to what percentage of the 40% specific research funding they get.  Add up all the funding research and other funding and the original statement by Eric stands. By far the overwhelming health dollar is spent on women both research and general funding. Produce figures to show otherwise.

Ray says:

12:38pm | 22/09/11

Marley I think they’ve censored my response. Could you Google and find out please.

marley says:

01:08pm | 22/09/11

@Tubesteak - “misogynist:  a person who hates, dislikes, mistrusts, or mistreats women. ” 

I stand by what I said.  If you mistrust or dislike a woman as an individual, you’re not a misogynist; if you mistrust or dislike them as a group, without bothering to distinguish their individual qualities, you are.  It’s no different than arguing that, because you found one Black person or one Muslim or one Sydneysider to be untrustworthy, therefore all Blacks or Muslims or Sydneysiders must be untrustworthy as well. 

It’s lazy to think that way;  it’s also pretty dumb.

Cat says:

01:21pm | 22/09/11

You do realize breast cancer is confined to women?

Kika says:

01:23pm | 22/09/11

I was just about to ask - ‘where’s Erick? Someone said MISOGYNY!’

Erick, I know something which will help you permanently. Move to Saudi Arabia. You can be as misogynistic and controlling towards women as you like and you will be backed up 100% by the law. You will find happiness there, I guarantee it.

Kika says:

01:38pm | 22/09/11

A response to your list of ‘privileges’

1. Women are much less likely to be murdered as the stats are that men mostly murder other men. Why?
2. Men don’t talk about their issues and thus bottle up their issues more than women do. Hence the more likelihood of killing themselves rather than seeking help.
3. As with the first point, men hurt other men more often than men hurt women and visa versa. Explain reasons why, Erick.
4. All kids are told not to cry. Women do it more often because we are more emotional. My husband has cried a few times. Not in public.
5.  Women take better care of their health than men do and thus are likely to live longer.
6. Dubious. Not these days. However I think you are ranked if you are a mother, rather than a career woman. If you are a mother you have reached the pinnacle of society, or so what other females try to make me to believe
7. Really? NO way, not these days. I know of many girls being dumped for being broke and expecting men to pay their way.
8. Rubbish. Where did they pull this one from? Men express friendships in different ways to women. I’ve never seen a man having an intimate conversation with a friend unless they want sx or unless they are gay. Either or.
9. Women are less likely to work in heavy industry or in high risk OH&S occupations.
10. As above. Women are also less likely to take risks than a man.
11. Who wants a man who will take to his fists rather than being a real man and walking away from an argument?
12.Women can be violent and if they are and convicted they are mostly always treated as ‘mad’ by the courts and handed down harsh sentences. Of course, unless they have the golden pinnacle of womenhood - children.
13. LOL. Talk to your parents about being circumcised. It’s a religious hang up. Not the feminists fault. Plus if you want to go ahead and get infections etc go right ahead.
14. Haha if you want to hug your friend, why not. Men are the ones who are unnecessarily homophobic to each other. Ask yourselves why. In asian countries male friends can walk down the street with their arms around each other and no one questions their sexuality, they are just seen as friends.
15. AS ABOVE.
16. AS ABOVE, this is a male issue between yourselves. Fail to see how feminists are responsible for that.
17. Absolutely not. Every family is different. I was the ref in my parents arguments right from the age of 5.
18. Ever heard of Metro? There’s many fashions out there these days that guys can wear to do this. Who says you need to wear wife beaters, stubbies and pluggos?
19. Individual. I know many guys like that. Your choice.
20. No, not necessarily. I feel the same way even though I am a female. I don’t instinctively like other people’s children and feel awkward around them. Not every female is born with an instinct to ‘love’ kids.
21.Maybe coz it’s BS?
22. Individual and relative.
23. Rubbish. A man can pick up for a lot longer than a female. Men can get women 20 years or more younger than them. A rare female would be able to do the same at the same age. The media doesn’t mind men with wrinkles, makes them look distinguished. The media only likes young women. Once they are middle aged and wrinkled they are often tossed to the scrap heap. Related to fertility. Once a woman is barren, she ages considerably.
24. Whilst this is true, especially in the early years, a father is very important to a child’s life - particularly once the child is older and starts exploring the world. A little girl needs her dad just as a little boy needs his Mum.

Bev says:

01:42pm | 22/09/11

marley says:01:08pm | 22/09/11

So your saying the sisterhood is dumb.  Perhaps you should inform them of that fact. Feminists always generalize the sins of a few men to all men it’s their modus operandi.  Thanks for confirming the fact.

Ray says:

01:46pm | 22/09/11

Kika, just like women are here, and in Saudi Arabia too.

AJ says:

02:19pm | 22/09/11

Cat says:01:21pm | 22/09/11 You do realize breast cancer is confined to women?

No, it isn’t.

marley says:

02:23pm | 22/09/11

@Bev - the “sisterhood?”  You do realize (I’m assuming that you’re female) that you’re part of the sisterhood, at least according to Tubesteak’s definition.  I suggest you read his comments again.

Then ask yourself, do you think you should be lumped in with extreme feminists?  Or would you prefer to be assessed on the basis of who you are as an individual and what you believe as an individual? 

It’s pretty clear that there’s enormous variation in what women think about men and about gender issues.  Should all women be treated as though they shared a common platform?  Do you want to be considered a feminazi, not because you share feminist views but because you’re female?  That’s the point.  If you want to criticize extreme feminism, be my guest;  but if you try to ascribe to all women the views of an extremist minority, well, yes, I do think that’s dumb.

Bev says:

02:25pm | 22/09/11

Cat says:01:21pm | 22/09/11

You do realize breast cancer is confined to women?

No men can get breast cancer. Admittedly very few.

dovif says:

02:34pm | 22/09/11

I wish I was a Purple Martian Gay Lesbian Midget Woman with big ears ... nothing will ever be my fault ... I can just blame it on one of the above

Tubesteak says:

02:46pm | 22/09/11

Marley
Repeat after me: “You are not all unique individual snowflakes. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else”.

Words to live by.

As I said, when there are common traits within a group and an individual displays those traits then it is not racist/misogynistic/whatever to criticise that person for having those traits.

For example, just below me Kika says “Men don’t talk about their issues and thus bottle up their issues more than women do. Hence the more likelihood of killing themselves rather than seeking help.” Is this misandrist or an observation of fact acknowledged by many studies that prove this.

Greg says:

02:56pm | 22/09/11

Paul Horn “You are a class one suck it up moron Greg. I’d like to knock your teeth out!!
Care to accommodate me in the ring mate!!!”

Hmmmm, this seems to be an unusually emotional response to a comment that wasn’t directed at you Horny. Or are you really Erick?

Either way, I’ll politely decline your offer and wish you well angry little man.

Hilarious.

MarkS says:

03:17pm | 22/09/11

@TD
“Women have won the battle of the sexes.”

The reasons why women where 2nd class human beings were complex but involved the inability to control fertility & the lack of ability in doing violence.  In all societies at present where women are unable to control their fertility & the ability to do violence is important, women remain 2nd class human beings.

Our society has outlawed violence as a method of dealing with issues. Certainly within society & the lawyers keep trying to do it between nation states as well. The problem is that this outlawing of violence like all law is maintained by the application of violence. It is mainly men who are the police & soldiers.

If most men in our society come to the same conclusions that posters like Erick have or really practiced misogyny then women would find the laws being rewritten to make them 2nd class human beings again & there is nothing that women could do to stop it.

Your freedom dear is our gift.

Bev says:

03:30pm | 22/09/11

marley says:02:23pm | 22/09/11

@Bev - the “sisterhood?” 
When I refer to the sisterhood I refer to feminists.  A definition accepted by most. No I did not read into @Tubesteak’s comments what you have.
By definition a group or class will have some common attributes and yes there are variations within a group.  I will repeat again feminists extrapolate from the few to the many and do it the majority of the time.

marley says:

03:33pm | 22/09/11

1.  Tubesteak:  actually, we are all individual snowflakes.  Our genes and our experience shape each of us in slightly different ways.  That’s why I refuse to categorize people by race or gender.  Too many exceptions to make a norm. 

And anyway, I specifically used the word “criticize.”  If you judge all members of a group by the shortcomings of a few individuals, then you are misogynist/misandrist/racist, depending on the group.  Note the use of the word “judge.”

Finally, for every generalization about either gender, I could name a whole lot of people who do not fit the generalization.  In science, when you have a theory and an exception pops up, you dump the theory.  In assessing “groups,”  you might want to consider applying the same rule.  If there are exceptions then the generalization is wrong.

marley says:

03:45pm | 22/09/11

@Bev - look, we’re talking slightly at cross purposes here.  My original comment was meant to point out that quite a lot of research is not gender-specific, and further that men benefit at least as much, if not more, from some of that research because of the way clinical trials have been done in the past.  I was specifically talking research, not health care in general.

Then someone jumped in with an idiotic comment about the funding of breast cancer research amounting to more than all other forms of medical research combined.  Breast cancer gets a lot of funding, perhaps even an inordinate amount, but certainly not more than all other research combined.  And if you want the figures for other forms of cancer research, go here:

http://canceraustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/user-upload/publications/national_audit_of_cancer_research_projects_and_research_programs.pdf

As to medical care in general, I would agree that women get a bigger share.  But when I said reproductive care, I wasn’t thinking IVF,  I was pointing out the rather obvious fact that women have babies, and having babies puts demands on the medical system - obstetricians, midwives, pre-natal check ups, ultrasounds, a hospital bed, etc etc.  So of course women are going to absorb a bigger chunk of the health care budget than men.  Surely you don’t think we should cut back on those services to equalize the expenditure pattern?

OM says:

04:08pm | 22/09/11

@ Erick I think that your mistake is believing that because society doesn’t necessarily treat men well that it must treat women better. There are a number of issues with the way in which men in society are treated these days, especially as regards physical and mental health, and perhaps also in family law. But that doesn’t in any way suggest that women get it easier. Women are still paid less, bombarded with negative and sexist imagery from adverstisers and the media, underrepresented in business, professions and politics, are victims of horrible violence (sexual and otherwise) and often exposed to double standards, not to mention accused of ‘shrieking’, ‘screaming’ or similar if they dare to get angry, and a litany of other hangups from a time when society was more blatantly and proudly sexist. Society should seek to do good by all of its people, and attempting to improve the lot of members of one gender is not to suggest that it must come at the expense of the other. And to say that misogyny doesn’t exist is simply false, I have met plenty of people from all walks of life that do, in fact, hate women.

Benevolent Rapscallion says:

04:14pm | 22/09/11

@ Erick - Women require more medical services than men, partly due to their reproductive role, and they live longer. The treatments for female-specific health problems are often more complex and expensive than for male-specific health problems. Therefore it stands to reason that there is greater funding for women than men.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

05:07pm | 22/09/11

Erick - what a load of crap your list is - your saying its women’s fault that men and women are instinctively different - i.e. men get into more fights than women because they are naturally more aggressive, men repress their feelings more than women because women are naturally more emotional - you’re an idiot - most of what’s on this list are what men expect of other men’s behaviour so go take it up with them -

“women are a privileged class, afforded more power and more rights than men” - it gives you excuses to hid behind and whine because of your insecurities - why don’t you take note of what other real men on this post are saying and pull your head out - or go seek professional help -

Condor says:

05:58pm | 22/09/11

@marley @Tubesteak

Marley, you’re probably the type of person that thinks there’s a huge difference between bone and cream. There isn’t. They’re both white.

If there are certain traits that are characteristic to the majority of a group then it’s perfectly fine to label them as such.

marley says:

07:03pm | 22/09/11

@Condor - sorry, not sure what your point is.  Mine is, that while I believe everyone is an individual I just don’t believe there are definitive differences between the sexes when it comes to beliefs, behaviours and values.  All this garbage about women are this, men are that, from both sides, is infantile.  People are people - good, bad and indifferent - greedy, generous, caring, selfish, gentle, caustic, intelligent, dumb - and I don’t believe it has a damn thing to do with gender.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

08:42pm | 22/09/11

Condor - but bone and cream aren’t white - if they were they’d be a called these like nearly white or off white - they’re bone and cream -

Robert Smissen Of rural SA says:

12:04am | 23/09/11

Marea, you are drawing a very, very loooooong bow here, nobody detests Julia because she is a woman (yet to be proven) we detest her because she is CRAP as PM

Mayday says:

09:25am | 22/09/11

Lets not forget “Little Johnny” too.

Wayne Kerr says:

09:54am | 22/09/11

There was also the radio show “How Green Was My Cactus” which used to delve into the personal life of King Bob and Queen Hayseed in a comedic sense. There was also “Little Johnny Wayward”

Every Prime MInster and politician has been satirised in the last 30 years that I can remember.  They’ve been made fun of as well as being called names.  Just because Julia Gillard is a woman everybody jumps on the “you’re so mean, you wouldn’t do this to a man” band wagon which is aboloute crap.

She knew the job weas dangerous when she took it and neither she, nor any feminists nor Tim Mathieson should be saying go easy on her because she’s a woman. 

To go easy on her would in fact be just as good as saying women can’t do a man’s job and they can’t handle the same pressures as men whuich I’m sure the author of the article would not want to hear.

Mayday says:

09:27am | 22/09/11

Gender Studies anyone?

TomZ says:

02:07pm | 22/09/11

Mayday, being obtuse does not necessarily mean you are clever or correct. Why don’t you state your point (that’s if you have one)?

BMack says:

08:08am | 22/09/11

The character on ‘At home with julia’ is actually likable. There is nothing likable about our PM, Julia Gillard, though - she is a lying backstabber who can’t implement a policy to save herself or her government. 76% of voters don’t want her as PM, not because she is a woman, but because she is incompetent.

Ted says:

08:46am | 22/09/11

It is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to make people feel sorry for thr character, hence Juliar. ABC has entered a new angle to protect their comrade.

jf says:

08:55am | 22/09/11

“Some of the poisonous bitches even accuse Julia of telling lies ! “

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony

Anubis says:

09:13am | 22/09/11

@ Acotrel - Whaaaaat?  “The truth is that she effectively told ONE lie”

There’s “No carbon Tax under a Givernment I lead”
“I was only a member of the FAbians during my University days”
“I fully support Prime Minister Rudd”
“We will undertake branch and root reform of the TAx system”
“Fuelwatch will lead to cheaper prices at the pump”
“We will establish a Coast Guard”
“Today I announce an East Timor solution”
“Grocerywatch will produce more competition and cheaper prices”
“There was no rorting of the School Building scheme”
What about cash for clunkers, or all the GP Superclinics?
“Craig Thomson has done nothing untoward”

And the list goes on. You may say some of these were under Kevin Rudd’s reign but remember, Julia was one of the four members of the Kitchen Cabinet that devised and implemented everything Rudd did. Are you trying to defend her lies as “non-core promises” - is that intimating that because Howard did it Julia should be allowed too? Piss-poor argument there. I disliked Howard because of his “non-core promise” stand and I dislike Julia for the same reason. The big difference is that, although Howard was a liar when it came to election promises at least his Government had some semblence of competency. The current Labor Government has none. Led by the nose by the Greens and Independents the Government has proven to have no backbone, no integrity and no honesty. That is the reason that Gillard is the brunt of so much ridicule and outright disdain - not because she is a woman but because she is incompetent, untruthful and spineless.

MadKat of Melbourne says:

11:03am | 22/09/11

I’m telling you - I’m sure acotrel in Gillard’s screen name - she’s sitting in her office on the hill now tapping away on the computer -

Sarah says:

10:32am | 22/09/11

What do her clothes have to do with her being a good Prime Minister? If Tony Abbott was wearing an ugly suit would you say the same thing?

Funnily enough she probably does have more than one “face” because she probably *not* a one-dimensional person. Imagine a woman with depth and layers and emotional intelligence. *horror*

Bris Jack says:

11:55am | 22/09/11

You used the word ugly, not me.

Budz says:

12:01pm | 22/09/11

@Sarah: Tony got plenty of coverage about his speedos.
And most of the criticising about Julia’s clothes from from women and gay guys.

Erick says:

12:30pm | 22/09/11

@Sarah - “What do her clothes have to do with her being a good Prime Minister?”

About as much as Tony Abbott’s swimwear.

“If Tony Abbott was wearing an ugly suit would you say the same thing?”

Does the term “budgie smugglers” ring any bells?

GOLD says:

10:34am | 22/09/11

believe me ray, women have no respect for you either.

suck it up princess.

Ray says:

11:18am | 22/09/11

Goldie. I’ll try and give a *uck.

Cynicised says:

02:11pm | 22/09/11

Beg to differ. Misanthropy is hatred of all humankind, misandry is most definitely exclusive hatred of men.

Some people look at the world based on their particular prejudices. Some men despise and disrespect women, and vice versa. We see plenty of examples on this site on a regular basis. Ms Gillard undoubtedly cops extra loathing from those in the former category, whilst others merely dislike her deeds, in her unfortunate, yet chosen,poisoned chalice role as leader of a minority government.

Ray says:

02:36pm | 22/09/11

Cynicised
Misandry - hatred of men, not hatred of men by women. So the ‘Oxford’ is sexist by not having an antonym.

GOLD says:

02:37pm | 22/09/11

@Paul Horn - I think the problem might be that white western men “allow” access to clean water etc….

Like some great overpowering warlord you throw the “bitch” a bone and then expect those lesser than you (in your eyes) to be oh so grateful.

Can you not see how that might be a little grating? of course you cant. what experience do you have with inequality? obviously none if you are complaining about your lot in life.

Cynicised says:

02:59pm | 22/09/11

@ ray. Many dictionaries don’t specify which sex is doing the “hating” in their definitions of both misogyny and a misandry, therefore it could be either. I suggest the sexism is in your head.It’s merely language.

Ray says:

05:49pm | 22/09/11

Wrong Cinicised, all dictionariews i have read show misogyny as men who hate women. You are done pal.

marley says:

07:13pm | 22/09/11

@Ray - No, pal, you’re done. You said that “misandry is hatred of mankind not men.”  Quote unquote.  That’s incorrect in any dictionary anywhere. . Misanthropy, not misandry,  is the hatred of mankind.

So yes, misandry is the hatred of men, not mankind. 

If you’re going to argue, at least get your terminology straight.

Erick says:

08:29am | 22/09/11

@RobertB - I take it you must have slept through the 12 years of the Howard Government. Howard copped more personal abuse in a single year than Gillard will collect in a lifetime.

Wake me up when protesters start throwing their shoes at Julia.

Markus says:

09:34am | 22/09/11

I’ll take your ‘witch’ sign and raise you ‘child murderer’.
I’ll even take your ‘bitch’ sign and raise you an effigy of the PM with a noose around their neck.

The only reason you didn’t notice that previous PMs copped just as much flak (and in some cases much more) is because the media never felt the need to publicly defend the PM everytime somebody said a bad thing about them. Until now…

JC says:

01:19pm | 22/09/11

Ever wondered if all this hate against our prime ministers, no matter the government, is by the same people?

Markus says:

01:41pm | 22/09/11

“Ever wondered if all this hate against our prime ministers, no matter the government, is by the same people?”

No, because it isn’t. The people who spent a decade demanding Howard get publicly drawn and hanged are the same ones who are now saying that the word ‘witch’ was going too far.

Erick says:

08:58am | 22/09/11

@Babs - You’re probably too young to recall the infamous nude male political calendar made by Larry Pickering. Plenty of intrusion into “privates” there.

The privileged position of women is demonstrated by the fact that some people consider personal attacks of the sort that are routinely made against male politicians as being unacceptable when the target is female.

Women are not discriminated against in politics. In fact, it is men who are the main targets of sexism.

Greg says:

10:16am | 22/09/11

Seriously Erick, grow a pair. Your whining is pathetic.

iansand says:

10:40am | 22/09/11

Greg - He lost them in the divorce settlement.  It is no wonder he is so bitter.

what greg said says:

11:14am | 22/09/11

Erick mate, after all the comments i have read of yours over all the months I have been reading this sight, I gotta get your number mate, because i think you need a big man cuddly you poor fella

Erick says:

12:44pm | 22/09/11

Feminist debating tactic #1 - If you can’t argue on the facts, use mindless personal insults.

Bev says:

12:51pm | 22/09/11

what greg said says:11:14am | 22/09/11

Erick mate, after all the comments i have read of yours over all the months I have been reading this sight, I gotta get your number mate, because i think you need a big man cuddly you poor fella

Ever thought that Eric has seen through the feminist BS and is seeing the world as it really not as feminists would have you believe. There has been and is an ongoing a dramatically increasing number of people (men and women)  who see feminism for the propaganda that it is. Believe what you want but don’t complain when the feminist system kicks you in the head as it eventually does to most men and a great many women.

marley says:

01:17pm | 22/09/11

@Erick “Feminist debating tactic #1 - If you can’t argue on the facts, use mindless personal insults. “

Does this mean Ray is a feminist?  (Sorry, couldn’t resist).

Babs says:

01:49pm | 22/09/11

Hi Erick I remember that calendar and you’re right, an equivalent version depicting female politicians would outrage everyone.  Were the men distressed by it?  Some of them, if I recall, quite liked the ‘endowment’ they were given.  But I think caricature and political cartooning has a kind of licence to offend that the show under discussion doesn’t.  It’s also usually much cleverer. Most of the humour in ‘At home with Julia’ relies on tired sight gags that frankly just seem lame.

Steve says:

02:18pm | 22/09/11

Grow a pair? Why dont you Greg. He has a right to his opinion. At least he is standing up for something, and not resorting to cheap one liners.

Ray says:

02:25pm | 22/09/11

Marley, you’ve just been awarded ‘runner up’. Well done.

Cat in the Hat says:

05:23pm | 22/09/11

Bev - did you read Erick’s women’s privileges lists on his first post - I’m no feminist - I can’t stand them - but the list was utter crap and was in no way a list of privileges or a repression of men - it’s just natural biological and psychological differences between the sexes - criticise feminism fair enough - but Erick just criticises everything about women in general - I think it says something when other men on the blog are telling him to pull his head in -

Oh please Steve - he’s whinging that men are repressed - do you feel repressed - are you also a spineless idiot who can’t make his way in the world like a real man so have to resort to whinging excuses - “ohh nooo it’s all women’s fault, I’m sooo repressed, my d*ck is sooo small, it’s all women’s fault ...”

fairsfair says:

08:57am | 22/09/11

Well said. This is the most rediculous article I think I have ever read on this site.

wakeuppls says:

08:54am | 22/09/11

You’ll notice the resources tax went ahead under Gillard (and relatively under the radar in mainstream media) even though it was alleged that it was the reason for Rudds political knifing. It is a war on the coal industry to remove it as competition for cheap uncontrolled energy against the heavily regulated and controlled oil industry. The carbon tax is just a way to limit the general publics access to cheap energy. Socialism 101.

Direct says:

08:54am | 22/09/11

It was Julia who watered down the RSPT to the weaker MRRT. She and the Labor party clearly buckled under to corporate interests. She has runs on the board.

Al says:

08:59am | 22/09/11

Thats right Gillard doesn’t pander to the corporate interests, just panders to the interests of the Greens and Independants that enable her to be in power rather than sticking with the policies that she went to the election with….............which translates to ‘not able to run government without abandoning the promisses and policies that she took to the election’, not realy what she was elected for is it?

Michael N says:

09:10am | 22/09/11

I must conclude, therefore, that you are either Tony Abbott or one of his followers?

Al says:

12:14pm | 22/09/11

Michael N,
I am assuming that that is aimed at me.
I will gladly say that I am not a supporter of ANY political party.
When an election occurs I look over the policies being taken to the election and vote based on what policies best represent my own views, which is becoming increasingly difficult as they almost always contain something I can’t stomach.
I just wish we had one other option on our ballots:
NONE of these people are suitable to represent me.
I have voted Labour, I have voted Liberal, I have even voted Greens once or twice.

KH says:

11:29am | 22/09/11

Thats right.  Let’s ask Malcolm Turnbull what he thinks.  Or Tony ‘don’t believe anything I say’ Abbott.

Its called politics.  It has always been that way, and always will be.  It isn’t some special preserve of female politicians.

Nick42 says:

12:36pm | 22/09/11

Roddy of course people do we kept voting Howard in and you only have to look at the eighties when Peacock and him were fighting for control of the Liberals to know he was one as well. Also he was re-elected after his lying to the people so much that his own party called him a lying rodent. Just about all politicians lie and distort information to get elected and to stay in power and as people keep electing them it makes your statement incorrect and possibly a little bit niave, mind you I wish your statement was true but sadly it is not.

If you are going to write off Julia at least do it for a real reason, like she is an incompetent idiot who is only interested in staying in power not helping the Australian people and about to introduce a tax that will not fix the problem it is meant to and probably stuff up large chunks of Australia economically. The trouble is the other side of parliment is no better, nor are the independants or green.

A POX ON ALL POLITICANS - Federal, State and Local

Bev says:

09:27am | 22/09/11

A feminism 101 rant. To address a couple of points.
Nobody holds women responsible for rape, what they do question is the situation where the rape is questionable.
The majority of DV is against women but runs 2 to 1 (33% of DV is against men) not the 90% against women feminists claim.

Tim says:

10:03am | 22/09/11

Ah of course the old:
“If you argue against what I’ve said then it’s only because i’m right” argument.
Feminist Logic let loose (out of the kitchen).

Giraffe says:

10:24am | 22/09/11

Typical pathetic rant, trying to shame others into taking your ridiculous view seriously.

Misogyny, racism, homophobia, sexist. It seems you can’t be a white male and have have a view these days without being accused of one of these things.

So what does make a liberated ‘freewoman’ these days? How many sexual partners does a ‘freewoman’ have in a week? How many men’s lives does a ‘freewoman’ ruin with false rape allegations? How many men’s past and future income does a ‘freewoman’ steal because its her right? How many less hours does a ‘freewoman’ get to work for the same pay as a man?

AdamC says:

10:42am | 22/09/11

Your second paragraph reads as paranoid and deluded.

For one, society quite obviously does not ‘leap to the defence’ of men accused of rape. The DSK incident, where everyone effectively assumed guilt immediately - until the case spectacularly collapsed - is an example of how the opposite occurs. An equivalent, local example is that of Andrew Lovett, who was tried and convicted by in the eyes of society, despite the fact that there was little evidence of guilt. (He was ultimately acquitted in Court, but he now has to rebuild a shattered life.) 

For two, do you have any basis for claiming that society doesn’t ‘accept’ that women comprise the vast majority of victims of domestic violence?

For three,  twenty-four year old men who make use of ‘sexually available’ twelve year olds typically find themselves in prison, on the sex offenders register for life and part of the most reviled group in society. So I think your concern is misplaced.

Your horrorified feelings towards both men and women’s sexuality, evidenced by your fear of porn and extreme opposition to prostitution are also concerning. You seem to be rehypothecating personal feelings or issues into an unsubstantiated and incoherent ideology.

On another note, what will the women do when they ‘wake from their slumber’ exactly, Freewoman?

adam says:

12:55pm | 22/09/11

@AdamC, when a freewoman awakens what she’ll inevitably do is look around at how alienated she is from the actual flesh and blood world she resides in, and live a sad lonely life surrounded by feminist tracts and painfull longings.

And she’ll deserve it too

freewoman says:

01:41pm | 22/09/11

What will society look like? Well, it will involve women who are no longer constrained by socially constructed, patriarchal controls that currently serve to lessen their choices and freedoms.

Rape, prostitution and porn, for eg, won’t be much of a problem, because men will have finally been taught that they don’t have the right to use and abuse women for their own gratification.

As for women…well, women will be free to present how they want, will not have to subject themselves to practices that harm them to please men, will be free to choose whether or not they engage in men’s preferred sexual practice (penetration is currently compulsory for straight women, even though only 30% of them get pleasure from being penetrated and they have to take on all sorts of risks to do so - it’s only men who love it but women who risk all to please men with it) - many women will probably choose each other for sex, actually, or at least be empowered to tell men that penetration is only for procreation and they’ll have to be satisfied with other activities in the bedroom.

The danger of all this is precisely why men try to control women the way they do - fear of women realising their full potential. It’s why so many men fight tooth and nail….Sadly women do too, because they’re taught from birth to love their oppressor.

AdamC says:

02:17pm | 22/09/11

Freewoman, as I suspected, you have incredible hang-ups about sex. Nothing is ‘compulsory’ in the bedroom, and pretending to be a lesbian is not a healthy response to difficulties in negotiating heterosexual relationships. The fact you think it is tends to support my assumption that you are afraid of men’s sexuality and are trying to intellectualise it rather than get over it.

As well as this imagined ‘compulsion’ in relation to sex, your post is replete to references to things that aren’t really there. For example, have you ever observed these ‘socially constructed, patriarchal controls’ that you claim secretly restrict women’s choices? Likewise, how are women ‘taught to love their oppressor’ - another entity which doesn’t appear to actually exist?

I contend you have simply theorised these things into (non-)existence to support a preconceived world-view.

Adam, sadly, I think people like Freewoman live in constructed worlds very different to those inhabited by most people.

Bev says:

02:41pm | 22/09/11

AdamC says:02:17pm | 22/09/11
I contend you have simply theorised these things into (non-)existence to support a preconceived world-view.

Spot on the rubbish spouted by Marilyn French, Andra Dworkin, Catherine McKinnon and others is still taught in gender studies. Freewoman has sucked it up like a sponge to become a mindless drone regurgitating pap whenever she gets the chance. I doubt she has an original thought in her head.

freewoman says:

02:42pm | 22/09/11

ah yes, AdamC, the old “if women don’t love everything men want them to do in bed, they have hang ups” routine…Let me guess, women should do whatever men want, and that’s sexual liberation for them…..they’re only a vessel, after all.

Of course it’s compulsory - everywhere women turn in society, from childhood onwards, they’re taught what “sex” is (ie: men penetrate women until they ejaculate). Sure, that is reproductive sex, but it should only be seen as one option. I can’t believe you think a straight woman has any option other than to participate in this - no, there is no choice. She’d be single forever if she dared tell a man that she’d prefer to focus on oral sex (for eg). We’d be back to your accusations of ‘hang ups’. I think this is actually why married men constantly whinge that they don’t get enough - women are put off by years of men’s version of what constittues sex - if men would be a little less selfishly demanding, they might find their wives are more keen….

As for pretending to be a lesbian, I suppose lesbians are a problem too? They should “get over” men’s sexuality and learn to love it themselves?

Tim says:

03:11pm | 22/09/11

Freewoman’s idea of freedom is every woman choosing to do exactly as she does.
Any other “choice” will be crushed because they are obviously being forced to do something through some sort of patriarchal mind control.

Markus says:

03:54pm | 22/09/11

freewoman, I notice you have made the statement “no, there is no choice”, then immediately followed it up with a potential outcome of a woman making said choice. How embarrassing for you.

A choice does not have to be more desirable than the current one for it to be defined as a choice.
Unfortunate, I know, but this is what grown-ups refer to as taking responsibility for one’s actions.

freewoman says:

04:06pm | 22/09/11

@ Markus - so, your argument is that everything’s fine because women can “choose” to submit to men’s sexual demands, or “choose” to be alone. Hmmm, thanks for demonstrating your inherent selfishness and complete lack of concern for women except as sex aids. How embarrassing for you.

AdamC says:

04:35pm | 22/09/11

Freewoman, I accused you of having hang ups about sex because of what you wrote. I hope you aren’t doing the “I am a woman and therefore speak for all women and if you criticise me you are a sexist, misogynistic male chauvinist” routine. For the record, I don’t think women should have to do anything sexually that they don’t want to do.

On the other hand, I don’t think anyone (woman or man) should expect to be able to dictate her or his preferences without concern for the other party. That is what you seem to want.

And, as a gay man, I don’t claim to have any particular expertise when it comes to straight people’s sex lives but, in my experience, most straight people prefer penetrative sex to, say, oral sex. I don’t think old-fashioned sex, as it were, is necessarily men’s version of sex. Again, you seem to think it must be a male conspiracy simply because it doesn’t float your boat.

And I made the point about lesbianism because of your comment about women deciding they might prefer sleeping with women in preference to men. That is a disordered attitude to sexuality. I am not a gay man because I had a couple of bad sexual experiences with women (maybe they wanted to emphasise the oral!) and gave up on the thing. I am a gay man because I am a man who likes men.

freewoman says:

04:54pm | 22/09/11

@ AdamC - no, it’s not just my view. On the odd occasions women are surveyed or whatever, they do indeed admit that penetrative sex is not high on their agenda at all (and around 70% rarely if ever orgasm through penetration alone - most women need the clitoris involved) - even Bettina Arndt of all people admitted that….google it…. I’m not saying no women like it, I’m saying no woman is ever really given a choice in the matter. That’s the crux of the problem - women’s sexuality remains to be unthethered and given the attention men’s sexuality has always been given.

As for a gay man lecturing a woman on what women prefer in bed…..a bit of assumed masculine privilege shining through there….

Tim says:

04:56pm | 22/09/11

Freewoman,
are you serious?
Here I fixed your comment for you (perhaps you can see where you went wrong?):

“so, your argument is that everything’s fine because men can “choose” to submit to women’s financial demands, or “choose” to be alone. Hmmm, thanks for demonstrating your inherent selfishness and complete lack of concern for men except as financial aids. How embarrassing for you. “

Why do you think that men’s sexual needs are insignificant or unimportant?
Why do you think that people making free choices and taking responsibility for them is wrong?

Tim says:

05:02pm | 22/09/11

freewoman,
in response to your latest, firstly provide links to this “research” that shows that women don’t like penetrative sex.
Secondly,  why do you think that all men want penetrative sex?
I know that there are lots of men who would prefer oral instead.

And as for a woman lecturing men on what men prefer in bed…..a bit of assumed feminine privilege shining through there….

freewoman says:

05:03pm | 22/09/11

@ AdamC - also, I take your point about sexual orientation, but there is actually a history of women choosing to devote their energies (including sexual) to other women despite not considering themselves lesbian from birth - a recent example being the more radical elements of second-wave feminism (and even non-radical feminists sometimes gave it a go in the ‘70s). Another example would be women who are happily married for years and then at 50 “switch teams”. And an awful lot of straight women “experiment” with other girls too.

Maybe women’s sexuality is more changeable than men’s?

AdamC says:

06:20pm | 22/09/11

So, let’s summarize the Freewoman thesis. Based on some out-of-the-air figures (allegedly endorsed by Bettina Arndt) a majority of women dislike vaginal sex. However, due to mysterious, unseen patriarchal control mechanisms, they do it anyway. Furthermore, these control mechanisms are bolstered by invisible educational institutions which indoctrinate girls into loving an unseen, yet doubtless male, oppressor?

That, and a certain number of women may or may not be a couple of dud roots away from deserting their families and husbands in favour of some saucy experimentation with the butch biker girl they met at the left-wing poetry reading. Hey, some women did it in the seventies!

You’ll have to forgive me if the freewoman thesis doesn’t exactly provoke a damascene conversion on the issue, except of the sarcastic variety.

baal says:

07:48pm | 22/09/11

@If your vision is correct that 30 perfect that do will be very popular

Dan says:

01:41pm | 22/09/11

But Anna, it’s a totally different level of abuse Ms Gillard is copping.

Alan Jones would never have suggested Mr Rudd be drowned at sea. Towards the end, his popularity was plummeting, but he never copped a similar level of personal abuse.

And it’s exactly the same with Howard. No male leader has ever been hated on such a personal level. And I feel it’s because a part of the public don’t feel the need to respect a female leader, the way they do a male.

There are legitimate questions to be asked of her performance as Prime Minister. But most are lost in a tirade of abuse, about a “lying, backstabbing, commie bitch, that’s destroying our democracy and nation.”

(That’s not an actual quote, but it won’t be hard to find all those descriptions in a quick browse of Punch comments alone).

Adam Diver says:

02:46pm | 22/09/11

@ Dan,

There are other circumstances besides the fact she is a women.

The no carbon tax lie has no precedent.

The replacing of a leader in the first term, and then doing a worse job has no precedent.

The current independent/green/alp alliance fiasco has no precedent.

And the overall incompetence of the leader has no precedence at least in modern times.

But alas, it must be the fact she is a women that generates such vitriol.

Rose says:

10:28am | 22/09/11

Actually my respect for Gillard is starting to grow. My only real problem with her performance is the Malaysian solution, which is not in any way, shape or form acceptable. I think Julia is showing herself to be quite focussed on what she thinks is right for the nation and is rising above the criticisms being thrown her way. Whether she is right or wrong only time will tell, but I don’t think she is any worse a PM than Howard, who wasted pretty much every opportunity he had by succumbing to the USA war machine and middle class welfare handouts. I don’t have a problem with the carbon tax (although its more of a trading scheme than a tax), it was always inevitable, I don’t have a problem with the mining tax (and I have a lot of relatives working in the mines, most of whom don’t seem at all worried about it either) and I can’t think of anything that is so bad in this country that is a direct result of her performance. I did have a problem with Rudd’s axing, but that was a while ago, time to move on, politics always has been a dirty game.
I wish there was a third party that I could vote for but there’s not (a Turnbull/Rudd combination would probably tick the right boxes for me) so I need to choose from what’s available and quite frankly, nothing is more scary than the idea of an Abbott led government. I think it’s time everyone just layed off the criticism for just a few minutes to stop and smell the roses, Australia is still going great, there hasn’t been any catastrophes with our economy or anything else and most Australians still enjoy a standard of living that is the envy of most of the world.Gillard will never be a great PM but she is an OK one.

Sam says:

02:15pm | 22/09/11

Men get breast cancer too.

Ray says:

05:43pm | 22/09/11

Sam, is that why it is pink ribbon day. Get real

Fiona says:

06:22pm | 22/09/11

Are you representative of the male of the species ray? If you are, then pity the men.

Ray says:

07:47pm | 22/09/11

Yes I am Fiona. Is the message getting through?

Ray says:

09:27am | 22/09/11

Babes - ‘most of us like men’. Well women need to be retrained because they do an excellent job in concealing their love of men.

It’s more of love one man (well for a while, until the Family Law Act is induced) and ridicule the rest.

Your ‘When women do it normally nothing is said’, reflects the truth, in that women continue in this manner on a daily basis and somehow reinterperate that to convince themselves that ‘most of us like men’.

Well old Babes life don’t work like that. Just as this author Marea, would attempt to convince herself and someone else that she likes men.

Come all ye faithful with the usual denials. You just can’t be a party of the ongoing culturally embedded ridicule of men and then say you love ‘em.

Babe in the Woods says:

09:52am | 22/09/11

@Ray, you having a bad morning?  Read what I posted.  Firstly, I like men - as I said - as well as most of my friends.  I like women.  Basically, I quite like many people.  Nothing there about love.  And the whole Family Law thing is irrelevant to my post (never been that path).  My statement ‘When women do it normally nothing is said’ was directed at the writer.  My point being these self-appointed hypocrites feel free to lambast men but remain quite mute when the reverse occurs.  In essence, I was having a go at her.  You are not a woman so you would not know that to most of my friends this behaviour is not acceptable.  As to your last sentence, I have never posted anything that is ridicule of men as a gender, nor would I.  I would post about individuals, but not a gender.  You sound like you have been on the receiving end of some nasty stuff, and that is sad.  But it is not my fault.  So please re-read my post and actuallyl see where it was intended and what was written.  Cheers!

Babe in the Woods says:

10:09am | 22/09/11

@Ray, actually I just read your above post where you finish off by saying that women do not have your respect.  Your response to what I wrote is obviously a result of your jaundiced views.  Here is a thought, if you can make a sweeping statement that women do not deserve respect (at least from you) how can you then expect them to give your respect?  My response to you earlier has not been posted yet, which is good, as I realised I am wasting my time.  As I said, I like men (and women) I never said Love, However, in your case you do not have my respect whatsoever and I shall now chose to treat you with the contempt you so undoubtedly deserve.

Ray says:

10:46am | 22/09/11

Hey Babes Whoa! What I am simply saying is that all women are complicet and will avail or do avail themselves, to castrate men whenever the occasion or a relationship breakdown occurs. Work environment, education, priveleges. Women line up to screw the system in their favour.

You talk of the writer. Well I’m talking of the female population.

Your second post, Respect? It’s the chicken and the egg. Which came first?

Well women drew the line in the sand with a hell bent vengeance. and intent, and never the twain shall meet. I’ll never forgive them. Particularly as being a gentleman I naturally fall back to my upbringing when the genders respected each other. Then when being respectful, it only gets you disdain and contempt in return.

Babes, if the cap fits, wear it.

But please do not come up with this crap about liking or loving men. Doesn’t cut it. It’s not what you do to anything you love or like.

i’ve seen the best turn like a viper. Then came to realise they didn’t change their spots. Just like a terminal cancer that needs activating.

Babe in the Woods says:

11:08am | 22/09/11

@Ray, as I said, you should be treated with complete contempt. You continue to generalise without realising how narrow minded and bigoted that makes you. I have no doubt you have had a bad run as you seem to be a bitter and jaundiced person.  Anyway, this is my last reply to you as you are really just a sad little person who is wallowing in self pity.  Pretty pathetic really.  Anyway, that is the place you have chosen to be.  My world is much happier and the people I choose to associate with are adult enough not to presume 50% of the world are not worth respecting.  One day you might find that too, but from your posts I doubt it.

Ray says:

11:32am | 22/09/11

Babe you fool - ‘50% of the world are not worth respecting?. Exactly my contention.

I thought you were claiming respect of men and women (ie 100%). There you go. Women and their logic.

Don’t feel sorry for me Babe. I see things as plain as day and call ‘em that way as well.

Why the call of sweeping statements or generalisation? I haven’t met one woman that would preclude an exception. Don’t go down the pity path please, because with women it’s all used up. You even have sons and then continue with your stacked deck mentality to favour women.

When do these boys grow into the men subject of women’s contempt. It’s a putrid concept.

No matter what is said women will never take it on board.

Babe in the Woods says:

11:49am | 22/09/11

I know I said I wouldn’t respond, however, it is a bit like poking a sore tooth.  Can’t help it but do it anyway.  Ray, read what I have written.  Are you seriously this stupid?  You couldn’t possibly be.  Once more for the dummy…...At no point do I claim I don’t respect people by gender, you are the one claiming no woman (roughly 50% of the pop) don’t deserve respect.  Hence, this is your claim, not mine.  Two, I do feel sorry for you.  I feel sorry for anything that has been so badly hurt it ends up as damaged as you.  That does not mean I like you.  Just that you are pitiful.  This line is a classic “Why the call of sweeping statements or generalisation? I haven’t met one woman that would preclude an exception. ”  Can you not see that what you are saying is a generalisation?  Really?  The pity path.  Eh?  The only thing I pity is your lack of mental or emotional stability.I have sons, but there is no stacked deck (see above).  No matter what is said, you will never take it onboard.  So, hopefully I can stop poking this annoying tooth.  I must resist the urge.  Seriously, you have major problems and your life must be so sad and depressing.

Zac says:

12:11pm | 22/09/11

Ray,

I have read your comment and Babe’s in detail. And this from a guy who has zero tolerance or respect for feminists (ideology) but has great respect for real feminine women (I live with one), you make the huge mistake of generalising millions of women with some of the experiences you or your friends may have come across with one or more women. That is extremely sad and does no favours in building a common platform of love, respect and understanding with women like Babe. We need more women like Babe on our side if we have to win the men hating feminists. I wish your experiences will not cloud your thoughts. You may try to win the argument and lose good women like Babe.

Ray says:

12:43pm | 22/09/11

Zac- ‘common platform of love’

Ya got a sense of humour I’ll give you that.

Ray says:

01:01pm | 22/09/11

On the contrary Babes. No stacked deck?. That’s what your sons face and whether you like it or not ALL women are complicit.

In education girls out perform boys after a gender driven leg up. But that’s OK. Why would a male get married? Why should a male get greater sentences for like crimes. Why does DV assume proven until disproven. Why is planned ‘battered wife’ syndrome a given get out of jail free pass. Why are boys numbers at UNI poor, Why is unemployment worse for males The list goes on . Let your sons know.
And above all why does articles like Maria’s get air play when none of the above is addressed.

Above all complicity is not a defence above guilt. So women desert their sons while feigning equality.

I predict the anarchy of London is below the surface here and will be played out by the boys of today when their absolute disconnect is materialised

Oh, and I am being specific by saying all women. No wishy washy ‘some women’. The forgoing track record is the litmus for that.

Rose says:

01:07pm | 22/09/11

Ray, you are a fool, everything you have written makes you look stupid. You have no respect for any woman, that’s your problem, respect from you is hardly something people would line up for. Here’s news for you though, relationship breakdowns are often (but not always) ugly, with both party’s trying to screw over the other. Weapons of choice are almost always the kids and the cash, neither sex is more or less guilty than the other and both should be ashamed of their behaviour when this occurs. The breakdown of a relationship is a time when kids need all the support they can get but often all they hear is stuff about mum being a bitch and dad a bastard, not helpful at all.
If you don’t know any woman deserving of respect it says more about your inadequacies than that of women, the huge majority of all people regardless of gender, religion, culture, race etc are worthy of respect (except maybe Collingwood supporters, but that’s a whole other ball game…). Most people are decent human beings just wanting what’s best for themselves and the people they love. Most don’t have any intention of hurting others, and even during relationship breakdowns their bad behaviour usually stems from hurt, anger and revenge rather than a concerted, premeditated attempt to screw the other party ( there are exceptions, but what I often hear is “that bitch/bastard hurt me so I’ll hurt them back” or “I deserve this after the years of hell….”).
By dismissing an entire gender you are the one missing out, not them. You miss out on the extra-ordinary joy that you get from friendship and from the love of others. You are possibly headed toward life as a bitter and twisted old man and that would be a shame, although it woud be a choice made entirely by you.

Babe in the Woods says:

01:37pm | 22/09/11

@Zac, I appreciate your comments.  I was getting a little worried I was not expressing myself.  Anyway, just wanted to say that.  As for Ray’s reply, well, it has gone from silly to weird. 
@Ray, don’t worry.  I will agree with you.  We all know that this is all a secret conspiracy cooked up on the Secret Nazi Moonbases and then perfected in the underground caverns of the Denver International Airport.  Yes, we women are seeking to destroy all men, saving only the sperm so we can breed the super race.  You are right.  You are onto us!  And of course I will desert my son.  After all, he is a mere inferior male. 
So congratulations Ray, you win the fight.  All hail the conquering warrior.

Ray says:

02:19pm | 22/09/11

On the contrary Rose, it doesn’t make me look stupid, it just means you cannot face the truth. I once used to enjoy women and their company, but a life time of the feminist mantra having penetrated our society leaves no self respecting person to any option than to reject the perpetrators. I do have the love and joy of others. But I suffer severely from the strong male trait that I will not bow to lying, deceitful, self centred usurpers of society offering some olive branch to atone their collective appalling behaviour, without any measureable contribution.. Women are guilty on all counts.

No concerted premeditated attempt to screw the other party? You suffer from clinical delusion.

If women are worthy of respect let them earn it. It is not a given regardless of your agenda. Don’t know any woman deserving of my respect?. Well I know full well that below the surface they subscribe to the feminist mantra that suits them, despite any superficial platitudes towards men.

As far as screwing over on relationship breakdown women have perfected an artform aided and abetted y the Family Law Act. A man (with exceptions) will normally act with integrity and honour. I know that’s my downfall.

Note I have not found it necessary to call you a fool. I’ll leave it to you to do your own self portrait..

If you like most women wish to delude yourself into believing the female enduced position or view towards men in society is appropriate, or is a recipe for respect towards women then I cannot help you. You can help your sons though by explaining the social errors that they need to accommodate. Suc h as the ‘stolen generation’ under the auspices of the Family Court. You know stolen from their fathers but we motor on regardless. History will judge us poorly

Kassandra says:

04:58pm | 22/09/11

@ Babe in the Woods

Well said. Don’t take any notice of him - he’s a troll.

Fona says:

06:30pm | 22/09/11

Thank god he finished!

Ray says:

07:43pm | 22/09/11

Finished Fiona? Are you kiddn me?

Tails says:

10:46am | 22/09/11

If the opposition’s only policy is no, how do you explain the number of bills that have been passed into legislation in the past year? You can’t have it both ways.

Bernie says:

11:19am | 22/09/11

Sorry tails
Remind me which opposition policies have been passed into legislation in the past year?

Tails says:

10:13pm | 22/09/11

Hurr durrr

Anna C says:

11:41am | 22/09/11

People that I know who usually dislike Julia Gillard have started showing some compassion for her because of the TV show. The show is working in her favour in galvanising support for her. Now if I was a conspiracy theorist I’d wonder whether this was the ABC’s true agenda all along.

acotrel says:

11:15am | 22/09/11

Abbott certainly fixed up Pete Reith when he tried to make a comeback !  Perhaps he was nervous about the LNP image over Workchoices ?

RyaN says:

04:24pm | 22/09/11

“Some of the comments seem almost to amount to incitement to more than just verbal assaults. ” which ones amount to incitement Richard?

Nick42 says:

01:01pm | 22/09/11

Sorry Zac that is a load of garbage. If criminal charges were brought it should be against the people who installed the bats i.e. the people who actually broke laws. Just because the government have created situation where it easier to brake the law doesn’t mean the installers had to break the law, they could still have followed the legal saftey requirements that did exist they chose not to.

To break it down most of responsibility for these deaths should go on the companies that installed the bats that caused fires or deaths. The rest can be split between the idiots who hired these companies without looking into who they were hiring just beacuse they could get it free or cheap and Julia and Peter Garrett who wrote bad legislation and should have resigned or been sacked.

Tell me Zac if you get a speeding ticket would you blame the people who wrote the laws or actually take personal responsibility for it.

Ray says:

11:20am | 22/09/11

With Julia, the hope that sex had something to do with it would be the epitomy of optimism.

nossy says:

12:47pm | 22/09/11

@Zeta - well said Zeta - you have a way with words indeed - yes shes history to all but the Party Oistriches who think she can turn this mess around - good grief if your plane is on fire, the engines stopped midair and there are no parachutes we all no what is going to happen next dont we! My guess is that they will redraft the Ruddster and get a bounce in the polls - then everyone will start to remember why he got shafted in the first place -  hahah Labors 2PP is now at an all time low of 26% only 6 points off reaching an unheard of level in the teens - the only question for Labor is how low can the Limbo Queen go! Bloody exciting.

AdamC says:

01:06pm | 22/09/11

Good points, well said. It is funny how some immediately leap to, for want of a better name, the ‘vagina theory’ for Gillard’s on-the-noseness, when there are so many better explanations!

Ray says:

05:37pm | 22/09/11

Adam C - for insatance

Babe in the Woods says:

01:43pm | 22/09/11

Yep, got me.  Dammit, need to look under the bridge before crossing

Bev says:

04:01pm | 22/09/11

Babe in the Woods says:01:43pm | 22/09/11

Yep, got me.  Dammit, need to look under the bridge before crossing

No criticism intended but in Norse Mythology trolls actually didn’t get such a bad press.  They were individuals who lived outside society and were mistrusted as such.  A reading of the epic poem Bewulf and Grendel would show you that.  Don’t go by the horrible cartoon version (which I walked out on).  The Gerard Butler version is much better and closer to the poem. Other epic Norse poems are similar. Then again reading through a novel sized poem is not for everbody as it employs a verse form of short stanzas embodying the exacting allitrerative rythms of the poems of the Edda.

Ray says:

01:52pm | 22/09/11

Friggin hell Dan, Julie Bishop, Anna Bligh Penny Wong and Kristina Keneally successful . Well Dan you’ve succumbed to lowering the bar. Can become habitual so watch it. Bligh in particular was saved by an act of God on a worse scale than the Maradona act of God.

Markus says:

02:22pm | 22/09/11

Of course it has become personal. When valid criticisms of both her own failings and her party’s failings are met with ridiculous accusations about people’s personal beliefs like we see in this article (and these articles have been almost a weekly occurrence since she took power), it is unsurprising that some have started to take it personally.

“We have a number of very successful, senior female leaders. Julie Bishop, Penny Wong, Anna Bligh and Kristina Keneally are current examples, just to name a few.”
I never knew being voted out in the biggest landslide in NSW history constituted success.
And exactly which higher-ranked men did the two State Premiers answer to? Gillard?

Craig of North Brisbane says:

01:58pm | 22/09/11

The only deputy leader to get to the big time by backstabbing?

...

A-hahaha!

Suggested reading material: Biographies of Keating and McMahon, just for starters.

Bev says:

03:00pm | 22/09/11

Care to elaborate?  Since when is criticism of a person seen as incompetent sexist?  I am critical of the show because it goes to the personal rather than the political not because she is a woman.  I would say the same if it was a man.

Greg says:

03:02pm | 22/09/11

I know how you feel Sally but don’t despair. Punchers are certainly not representative of the broader Australian population… thank god!

marley says:

03:49pm | 22/09/11

@Bev - forget the show, and look at the comments above, to which Sally is referring.  How exactly are we to take a comment like: “That’s why all women are arseholes and will remain so. No pity. “

If that’s not sexist, misogynist and down-right ugly, I don’t know what is.

Markus says:

04:02pm | 22/09/11

Even if Ray is being genuine in his assertions (it is hard to tell sometimes), when exactly did his views become representative of Australia?

Bev says:

04:26pm | 22/09/11

marley says:03:49pm | 22/09/11
Some comments yes.  The general thrust of comments however is not.
Many didn’t like the idea of lampooning a persons private life regardless of gender. Others said she was disliked because of what she has done not because of her gender. Then again @Freewoman’s comments were bound to attract adverse comment.

Erick says:

04:33pm | 22/09/11

@Sally - Yes, Australia is obviously sexist. The comments here demonstrate that men are heavily discriminated against.

freewoman says:

04:40pm | 22/09/11

@ Marley - Bev doesn’t see that as misogyny, because she’s a woman who shares those views about women…(either that or Bev is just Erick’s drag name!)

Bev says:

06:17pm | 22/09/11

freewoman says:04:40pm | 22/09/11

@ Marley - Bev doesn’t see that as misogyny, because she’s a woman who shares those views about women

No I share those views about feminists not women.  Since I have 2 sons 1 daughter and 8 grandchildren (6 boys,2 girls) I have been around long enough to see the havoc feminism has wrought.  Yes I do worry about my grandsons and the feminist BS they are and will be subject to.  Examine one of the White Ribbon school kits and tell me it is not a practical example of feminist hate and propoganda projected again quite young boys designed to destroy their self esteem and brand them as potential wife bashers in front of the girls in their class.
Yes I will along with my daughter and many other mothers work to ban this nasty hateful garbage from schools and I make no apologies for being anti feminist..

marley says:

06:58pm | 22/09/11

@Bev and Freewoman - look, I don’t agree with either of you on a lot of things.  That’s fine. What I object to is everyone, male or female, being labelled as though gender determined their worth and their values.  I frankly don’t give a stuff how Freewoman feels about sexual relations or how Bev regards feminism.  I think you’re both wrong.  That’s your prerogative, and mine.  But what I do object to is the pair of you being assumed to be part of an homogeneous “group”.  Just as much as I object to men being regarded as part of an homogeneous group.

Robert Smissen Of rural SA says:

03:02pm | 24/09/11

Australians aren’t particularly sexist, we just hate liars & opprtunists, Julia wears both labels, she hates pensioners kids & is not that keen on other women either, to her it is Julia #1, #2 & #3. The only reason that she is PM of Oz & Robert Mugabe is president of Zimbabwe is that the Zimbabweans got first choice!

DocBud says:

11:20pm | 22/09/11

“We Australians are far too casual about upholding those in authority, and the office that they fill.  Regardless of the person occupying the office of PM we need to show respect and honour to our leader, otherwise we only have ourselves to blame when that office becomes powerless and inconsequential.”

You say all that as if you think it is a bad thing. People earn respect, and merely being the factionally elected leader of a party in a two party democracy is of itself not a reason to be accorded respect. Julia Gillard has done nothing, in my opinion, to earn my respect and she does not have it. I see no reason to show her respect and certainly not honour, on the contrary, I utterly despise her but it has nothing to do with her being a woman and everything to do with her dishonesty and incompetence.

Australia has a parliamentary democracy so the PM is a leader of the governing party, not an elected president. She showed her disdain for this democracy when she pressed on with the Malaysia asylum seeker deal despite it being rejected by parliament, i.e. the majority of the elected representatives of the people of Australia voted against the deal but, in presidential style, Julia Gillard showed contempt for the will of the people and persevered with the Malaysia deal.

Fiona says:

06:41pm | 22/09/11

Ray, just knock it off. Your opinion of Marley’s views as bent is quite ironic considering that your own ideas are so virulent, putting most people on here in the shade and that’s saying something. You’re jaded views can be quite nauseating. Oh btw stop blaming women for everything that’s wrong with the world. We’re both (genders) to blame.

DocBud says:

10:52pm | 22/09/11

@ Fiona

“We’re both (genders) to blame.”

I’m not and neither’s my wife.

Fiona says:

07:17am | 23/09/11

DocBud, personally our family isn’t either, but I did mean in general. I have seen good and bad in both genders

RyaN says:

12:13pm | 25/09/11

@Foss: because its ok to make fun of everyone else, you know making paper mache models of Howard as a dog at Bush bum, but lo and behold you make fun of a lying, backstabbing, incompetent dropkick lefty.

RyaN says:

12:14pm | 25/09/11

I know, particularly those that want to curb free speech like commies do.

QuestionTime says:

11:49am | 26/09/11

It’s vitriolic. Why is that necessary. Why be a smart arse Ryan? If you’ve got a point to make why all this childish aggro. It’s sick.