Prev
Next

Julia Gillard and the problem with women

Tracey Spicer

by Tracey Spicer

04 Aug 05:40am

Must Reads

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it - this is a caption

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

180

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment - this is a caption

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

27

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest - this is a caption

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

3

Filed under: Discrimination, Julia Gillard, Politics, Women

91 comments

It’s like waking up after a one-night stand and wanting to chew your arm off. Twice.

Snakes Alive: Julia Gillard has a sugar hit on the campaign bus. Photo: Gary Ramage

Our flirtations with Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard have been wildly passionate but short-lived. The reasons have been well canvassed: Policy backflips and spin over substance.

But La Gillard will find it harder than her predecessor to win back one important sector of the community – women. We expect more of our female leaders. Rational or not, we expect those who break through the glass ceiling to make it easier for the rest of us.

Around 60 percent of women support the Prime Minister, compared with 51 percent of men.

While producing internet news bulletins for AAP yesterday, I listened to hundreds of vox pops from young women saying they would vote for Julia Gillard “because she’s a woman”. But there’s an implied condition: That such a woman would effect real change for the ‘sisterhood’.

There is evidence of cause-and-effect.

More women in government means more female-friendly social policy.

The first female leader of a Muslim state, Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto, planned to set up women’s police stations, courts and development banks before her assassination in 2008.

Iceland’s Prime Minister, Johanna Sigurdardottir, has banned strip clubs and criminalised the use of prostitutes.

During question time in the House of Commons, acting Labor leader Harriet Harman raised the issue of anonymity of rape defendants.

Even on the right, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has increased the time and pay for parental leave.

“There is no doubt in my mind that the women in the House and the Senate make a difference,” Julia Gillard told a newspaper conference in 2006.

Female politicians have the ability to “know and talk and write about things which are and will always be uniquely part of a woman’s life”, she said. Since then, her roar has become barely a whimper.

Instead of joining Australian women celebrating the elevation of our first female Prime Minister, Gillard played it down by joking about being the “first redhead”.

But the mother-of-all betrayals became clear with the leak of cabinet discussions, indicating she initially opposed paid parental leave.

Suddenly, many of us wondered who we’d hopped into bed with.

Then there was the promise of a more consultation – a promise broken with the announcement of a citizen’s assembly on climate change which, according to the Australian Financial Review, didn’t go to cabinet.

A close look at this week’s Newspoll reveals a telling disconnect.

Julia Gillard is perceived as being vastly more “decisive and strong, in touch with voters, visionary and likeable” than Tony Abbott.

But she’s only marginally ahead in the category of “caring for people”.

“I thought we were going to see some straight talking, and a woman’s compassion on issues of mental health and health in general,” wrote Terese Corkish on the website Vibewire. “But she’s just become the new face to make fancy political backflips on the same issues that brought down Rudd”.

This theme of discompassion is echoed in her tough stance on boat people, her bid to block the pension increase, and the Machievallian manner in which she snatched the top job.

For those considering voting on gender alone, consider this.

A male leader (Kevin Rudd) delivered paid parental leave, while a female leader (Anna Bligh) refused to intervene in the case of a teenager facing seven years’ jail for allegedly procuring her own abortion.

And this, from a woman who claims that she would support a bill to decriminalise abortion.

Then there’s Margaret Thatcher, who seemed to go out of her way not to help women.

According to University of Queensland political science expert Rae Wear, “Many women leaders worked their way up through tough, male dominated political parties and do not suddenly break with party line, or personality, to advocate gender issues”.

Time will tell whether Julia Gillard has the balls (pun intended) to snip the marionette’s strings and implement social policy she can be truly proud of.

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who murdered the Arts degree?
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
223The world puzzles over Australia's Prime Minister

91 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • dead to me says:

      06:52am | 04/08/10

      Julia isn’t going to create more female friendly policy. The faceless men that control her will create more union friendly policy. Julia can’t get rid of the fact she was part of the reason Rudd isn’t PM. As long as everyone keeps chanting ‘Where is Rudd? Why isn’t he the PM?’ the issue will not only haunt Julia during this campaign but for the rest of her life. Where is Rudd? Why isn’t he PM?............

      Reply

    • T.Chong says:

      07:26am | 04/08/10

      Deadtome “faceless men ” - tell me DTM, who has elected Forrest or Palmer , or any of the other back room boys and girls of the LNP?
      The LNP is union controlled - the union of mining execs dictate LNP policy, much the same as in many 3rd world countries where one single industry controls the politics.
      Try to find the docos of ” America in the ‘50s” series. One episode featured the remarkable story of how a US fruit canning company based in the US overthrew an elected govt of Honduras( thru financing dissent), replaced it with one that was compliant with the company wishes.
      Thats the type of democracy that Twiggy and pals have in mind for Australia.
      LNP= doormat for corporate investors.

    • Denny Crane says:

      08:13am | 04/08/10

      So T.Chong, the labor party doesnt have faceless men who decide who will be leader, did you not hear Rudd when he said would take on the factions, answer the question, instead of trying to spin more fluff

    • T.Chong says:

      08:28am | 04/08/10

      Denny, we are continually told about Labors “faceless men “, so thats why I ask, who elected Forrest and Pamer as the policy directors for the LNP?
      If the LNP wins , do you really believe Twiggy et al , wont want bang for their buck ? much the same as unions and Labor.?
      At least, the unions have a ballott system for its representatives ( even if the system is far from perfect)
      What type of system was used to install Palmer as policy director for the LNP ?- answer: big bucks.

    • Macca says:

      08:42am | 04/08/10

      @T.Chong, if the Coalition was the doormat for Corporations I’d suggest they’d have any of the following policies;
      1. High Skilled Immigration
      2. No Paid Parental Leave (especially not a levy)
      3. Flexible Workplace relations Laws

      None of these demands from business exist. The only one who is a puppet for the party here is you

    • MarK says:

      08:57am | 04/08/10

      Hahahahaha Chong.

      Keep trying.

      Twiggy is a Labor mate and is so far to the left he is out of sight to most things Liberal.

      Honestly comparing Australia to Honduras? In the 50’s?

      Please.

    • bella starkey says:

      09:03am | 04/08/10

      I’m pretty sure they actually do have faces.

    • Joan says:

      09:13am | 04/08/10

      TChong, Forrest, Palmer and all mining provide thousands of well paid jobs and financial spin off to small businesses. How many real new jobs are created by the likes of Howes who went on Lateline 23 June in support of Gillard.- said he would do anything to prevent Abbott become PM. I have not heard anyone from mining talk like that.

    • Macca says:

      10:25am | 04/08/10

      @Bella Starkey, you’d think so, but in fact, an ancient technique was developed by the Amalgamated Shearers Union of Australia whereby their Organisers could completely remove their faces in order to facilitate unbecoming conduct and not be caught.

      This technique has now been fine tuned, and education of it has become an art, regularly practiced at the Sydney headquarters of the AWU in Sussex St, and the CFMEU on Parramatta Rd

    • BK says:

      10:37am | 04/08/10

      Dead to me; The ALP is the political wing of the labour movement. They should have more union control. Its the parliamentarians that haven’t had a union background that I worry about.

      Bella; brilliant!

    • Ted says:

      10:41am | 04/08/10

      Forrest was a “Rudd” mate….......now he is gone, Forrest has only one loyalty ....himself.

      Chong - your arguments are ridiculous (or is it Penny Wong blogging?)

      How about your pathetic rollover on gay marriage?

    • C1 says:

      11:34am | 04/08/10

      T Chong,

      My question is to you. For all the supposed power and influence of the ‘big end of town’, could a bunch of CEO’s gone into Rudd’s office that fateful eveing and tap him on the shoulder and say - off you go?
      No - they couldn’t. Yet we have a bunch of faction leaders and ‘enelected’ stakeholders (Howes) doing exactly that. Please explain.
      There is Howes spruiking the achievement on the night it occurred justifying the action as ‘The party has decided”. Do you see the CEO of BHP or Rio or any other executive doing the same?

    • Frank says:

      12:34pm | 04/08/10

      Gillard is just a figure head, she makes no desicions without the approval of her ‘bosses’. We saw what happened to Rudd.

    • Kate says:

      02:50pm | 04/08/10

      She was taken apart by Kerry O’Brien on the 7:30 Report last night. Her eyes had the look of a loser all throughout the interview as Kerry exposed her as an impostor. She has set back the cause for women in power for years in just a few weeks at the top. All spin and no substance.

    • Brad Coward says:

      05:41pm | 04/08/10

      T. Chong….you’re a ding-dong !  Maybe I’ve missed something, but you might have to refresh my memory here.  Exactly which LNP leader did Forrest and Palmer assist in assassinating ?  I know who Paul Howes and friends did a number on.  Have you forgotten already ?

    • Lorraine says:

      05:55pm | 04/08/10

      Where’s Eric? i thought he’d have an opinion on this one.
      Remember “I’m with Kevin”? Well, nothing has changed. We’ve got a redhead instead of a blonde. Same old L:abor Policies, Same old spin, same old putdowns.
      There Eric I’ve fixed it for you.

    • Brad Coward says:

      08:52pm | 04/08/10

      Where’s Eric ?  Where’s persephone ?  Where are those faceless Labor acolytes that we “punchers” have come to know and love….or despise….as the case may be.

    • acotrel says:

      11:02pm | 04/08/10

      It doesn’t matter what policies Julia comes up with, she will never be popular with women.  The simple fact is that she is unmarried, politically competent and she runs rings around Tony Abbott who is sweens as the underdog, by her sisters.  The recent harassment action by KIrsty against McInnes of David Jones & Co, highlights another aspect of our ladies’ femininity.  Many women have criticised the claim for $37M as being over the top.  The case is the first real instance where an Australiam woman has stood up to be counted in the workplace!  Interestingly, we find the same jealous bitchy mindset in both situations.

    • Richard says:

      07:21am | 04/08/10

      Yes Tracy, you are right. Gillard gives hope to women and is able to represent yet transcend her sex to become a symbol of power; deep feminine power. But with power comes hubris. With hubris comes callousness, which corrupts the natural nurturing nature that most regular women possess.

      These regular women now have a choice. Do they vote for an ideology, for the cause of sisterhood? Or will they vote for what is in their general financial interest. The Liberal’s maternity leave scheme is very generous and tempting for working women who may yet decide to betray their feelings of loyalty to Gillard in order to benefit from the better deal that Abbott offers to them.

      Reply

    • John C says:

      08:08am | 04/08/10

      Some observations.

      First, to choose to vote for Gillard because she is a woman is just as sexist as refusing to vote for her because she is a woman - no difference in principle.

      Second, she has not exactly shown the traits sterotypically attrributed to women - she is a hard, very hard, ruthlerss politician,  just like Thatcher If you watched Kerry O’Brien last night, you would have heard her lame excuses as to why she has not rung Rudd either before or after his surgery to wish him well. I suspect that, in her place, the much despised John Howard would have.

      Third, she has espoused policies, whether for political purposes or out of belief, that one would have thought to be of the hard hearted type generally attributed to men. Refugees for one.

      She is a politician and should be judged on that, not on gender.

    • Against the Man says:

      03:40pm | 04/08/10

      Gillard is an awful politician, the fact that she is female is incidental.

    • Jason says:

      05:20pm | 04/08/10

      @John - women voting for Gillard due to her sex is not sexist.  Only MEN can be sexist in the same way that only WHITE PEOPLE can be racist.  You see if you position yourself as a victim or minority (neither of which applies to modern women) then you can say and do whatever you like.  This is great for Australia, as 90% of the population seems to consider themselves a victim.

    • T.Chong says:

      07:56am | 04/08/10

      The good ol reliance of gender politics in order to realise hopes , or fears.
      Many , many properly conducted surveys ( double blind, etc), as opposed to biggotted anecdotes , have consistantly shown that ;
      women and men of similar socio / economic / educational /professional status share the same values, hopes, dreams and fears.
      The feminism 101 fantasy that all women , rich and poor, are some how locked in battle , together, against the “patriarchal ” oppressors, is just that, a fantasy.
      Well off women, like their well off men, dont give a rats about their poorer sisters.
      Women are no more united then men.
      Many women run small businesses. Thats the same sector where the largely female workforce has the lowest pay, and under Abbotts Worchice 2 , will have the least protection from their (yes, you guessed it !) female employer, just the same as under Howard, Abbott, and Hockey (the chief salesman ) of Workchoice 1.
      Thats why attempts at womens electoral parties have always failed.
      Women are as diverse, good and bad, as men.

      Reply

    • Labor Ruined NSW says:

      06:51pm | 04/08/10

      is work choices 2 the name given to the dishonest campaign being waged by the union movement that represents less than 5% of the work force? It must be. Work Choices 1 was the scare campaign used to remove John Howard and Work choices 2 is the union campaign to get Gillard elected. Work Choices 2 seems only to exist in the minds of the union movement which is so out of touch with the average Australian worker.

      And as for you T.Chong, are you glad now Kevs gone? I bet you are because he was becoming a bit of a liability. Better to replace him with a comrade that helped him bungle all those policies. For the likes of yourself and your comrades, it’s all about the packaging because the Labor product has become so dettached from those it is meant to represent the only way to sell it is to keep changing the faces. I should know because I’ve suffered over a decade of Labor spin and BS in NSW and after the next state election, nobody will even remember who the ALP was in NSW.

    • w says:

      08:12am | 04/08/10

      Anyone who votes for someone because of that person’s sex should not be allowed to vote

      Reply

    • Alice Max says:

      11:55am | 04/08/10

      hear hear, finally someone talks sense.

    • Adam Diver says:

      01:04pm | 04/08/10

      I would like to add, that anyone who writes an opinion piece with huge assumptions of an entire genders opinions is probably the most sexist thing I have seen. (To be fair I agree with most of it, being a sexist who likes to stereotype people) but the sisterhoods absent outrage is surprising. Some great quotes in this article (just imagine if Tony Abbott had said this):

      “women. We expect more of our female leaders. Rational or not, we expect those who break through the glass ceiling to make it easier for the rest of us.”

      “But the mother-of-all betrayals became clear with the leak of cabinet discussions, indicating she initially opposed paid parental leave.”

      “while a female leader (Anna Bligh) refused to intervene in the case of a teenager facing seven years’ jail for allegedly procuring her own abortion.”

    • Billy B says:

      05:39pm | 04/08/10

      W - I agree wholeheartedly

    • dwgw says:

      09:27pm | 06/08/10

      Yes once upon a time I used to vote for all the women, but now I’ve grown up.

    • Ray Graham says:

      08:30am | 04/08/10

      Tracey you’ll have to expand on what you mean by one night stands and wanting to chew your arm off. Many of us mortals have not had the pleasure.

      With Gillard and the female vote it is imature to expect Gillard to be female friendly policy driven. We need a person to lead the country for all. I’m afraid you’ve exposed the shallow side of our female population where some inbuilt paranoia of ‘the victim’ guides their thoughts into believing they deserve special treatment all the time. Sad really.

      All political parties tap into this misguided mentality.

      Reply

    • Mother of Two. says:

      08:49am | 04/08/10

      I am hearing women say they do not warm to Gillard and much of their logic is based on what they perceive as opportunistic “scheming”  compounded by her recent “tactical” adjustment in reverting to the person she was before the person she recently decided to become.
      Close examination of last night’s Kerry O’Brien 7.30 Report interview with Julia Gillard revealed an astounding adjustment to her verbal style.
      Her speech was entirely uncharacteristic with disconcerting rapid flight of ideas.  O’Brien slowed her down, appearing amused. Some would suggest last evening’s style as desperation (she has much to lose in credibility and future career prospects having deposed a serving Prime Minister).  Others might think more along along lines of instability.  The Australian’s Matt Price described J. Gillard as an incredibly divisive person.  As we see more of Julia Gillard, we learn more, and she is looking increasingly like a very risky proposition.
      Watching Gillard last night, I even felt she was a heart beat from totally losing it.

      Reply

    • Sherekahn says:

      09:51am | 04/08/10

      Oh mother of two!  How I would like to hear descriptions of you from all the people in you neighbourhood.  Anyone can pick up remarks from newspaper articles to paint anyone black.  The Australian Newspaper allegedly spent nine continuous days bad mouthing Kevin Rudd.
      As for Kerry O’Brien he is uxhimsxxf with his self-imaging on ABC TV at present preparing for retirement soon.
      And wasn’t he also guilty of disrespect for your dear Kevin Rudd on his program?  Julia Gillard is a match to handle the present attitudes of the aging Kerry O’Brien.

    • Mother of Two. says:

      10:38am | 04/08/10

      Sorry to cross your angry path and with the greatest of respect Sherekahn, (did I hit a raw nerve)  the women I hear turning their noses up at Julia are intelligent work colleagues who responsibly hold down high-level positions.
      Your assumption on “people in you neighbourhood” and “newspaper articles” is entirely incorrect.
      There’s heaps of professional mothers working full-time and part-time while raising children.  We are part of the two groups that Julia didn’t care much for, according to one of her own.

    • Sirro says:

      02:20pm | 04/08/10

      Well said Mother of Two.
      Woman are turning away from Gillard for the same reasons men and everyone else are. Shes a lying, sneaky, backstabbing, power hungry, two faced hardarse.
      While most of these traits appear in most of our politicians its unusual to see all of them at once, and all of them in a woman.
      Generally the men who exhibit these traits dont dolly themselves up to appear as something they are not in the Aust. Woman’s Weekly. Nor do they soften their voices and speak in condescending school teacher tones in national debates and at press conferences.
      So ..its no wonder women are turning away from her. She doesnt really behave like many of them, She fakes it when she tries to and they’ve worked her out. They may not like Abbott that much but they can see that at least he tells it like it is whether its good or bad.

    • Diamantina Dick says:

      04:13pm | 04/08/10

      ...and there was nothing in the fruit bowl. Lest we forget.

    • Phil says:

      08:55am | 04/08/10

      Tracey congratulations for at least displaying your political colours in the piece.
      Knowing that you are a labor voter, one can look at your writings, and see it from that perspective. It is refreshing to see that. I respect your decisions at least you wear this as a badge of honour.
      Personally I think you will be disappointed in Queen Julia who got her job by knifing an elected Prime Minister. She got her job placed in my the same backroom ALP men who installed KK in NSW.
      Women Premiers have done so well for this country NOT, this is an emprical fact. Think Kirner, Bligh, Keneally, Lawrence. Each will leave their state worse than they found it, without furthering the sisterhood one bit, other than to show that some of these women are elected muppets unfit to govern.
      Why would M/S Gillard be different. She as you state reniged on the sisterhood in cabinet on the PPL scheme. She has hardly gone out of her way on mental health, an issue facing many women, whether by reason of bad men in their lives, post natal depression or general wellbeing. For both sides in politics, this area does not go far enough, given that they say 1 in 8 suffer in some way from mental health. The problem is that so much money got wasted by the current lot that the wallet is empty.
      As for T Chong above, not all women are as you say. Most I know are beautiful, maybe not externally but internally, who help others. Many I know go on overseas trips to third world countries helping set up micro businesses, thus a hand up not a hand out helping to establish self reliance and dignity on these people. Perhaps given the posts you do place in the site and the general opinion of others you need to look outside the square. They say its hard to soar like an eagle when you are surrounded by turkeys.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      11:43am | 04/08/10

      Technically, Ms Gillard is also an elected Prime Minister, at least insofar as it is possible to be so in a Westminster parliamentary democracy.  That is, she was elected, and she is Prime Minister.

    • Phil says:

      12:32pm | 04/08/10

      James isnt it good to know that you so clearly agreed with the facts I stated that all you could do was utter some BS about the Westminster System.

      I didnt know all the campaign posters last time said Julia 07?

      I do remember some bloke called Kevin being rather prominent during the last campaign.

      It would be interesting for Julia to answer the following questions which we all know will not happen.

      In what ways did the good government (oxymoron there) lose its ways, and what have you dont to redress these issues?

    • James1 says:

      01:38pm | 04/08/10

      That is not BS at all.  It is how our system works.  I can not be held responsible for so many members of the public being too stupid or uneducated to understand how our electoral system works, and thus falling for the ALP’s 2007 campaign slogan.

    • James1 says:

      01:42pm | 04/08/10

      Just to clarify, I don’t particularly support Ms Gillard, I just think it helps to be honest about the nature of our political system.  If we perpetuate these myths about voting for Prime Ministers (I assume you must live in Griffith, if you voted for or against Rudd) etc, it will just act to make the public more stupid and less educated on the nature of our political system, which is something I am very much against.

      To reiterate, it is not BS, it is fact.  I am not muddying the waters here, I was simply attempting to inject a modicum of accuracy into your claims about our political system.  If you want to vote for the head of government, join the republican movement.

    • Kate says:

      02:21pm | 04/08/10

      @ Phil: “Women Premiers have done so well for this country NOT, this is an emprical fact. Think Kirner, Bligh, Keneally, Lawrence.”...all women who were promoted to the top job when a succession of male leaders had mucked it up badly and their parties had nothing left to lose. Coincidence? Hmmm. Women are thrown to the lions as leaders of failing governments.

    • Graham The Great says:

      08:57am | 04/08/10

      Isn’t the Prime Minister supposed to be for all the people?  I’ve lost something here, forget anything about faceless men, just look at the picture to this article that’s what you are going to get whether its Julia Gillard or Julia Gillard or Julia Gillard which ever one decided to stroll along to where ever on any day.  Julia Gillard is certainly a role model for all those two faced women out there who make deceit and lying part of their very existence.  I doubt even she, Julia Gillard or Julia Gillard knows who the ‘real’ Julia Gillard is anymore!  Wake up people before you get Julia Gillard or Julia Gillard or maybe even Julia Gillard back as Prime Minister, the one crowing she the ‘real’ Julia Gillard was elected by the people.

      Reply

    • Helen says:

      09:06am | 04/08/10

      What, no first comment by “Eric”?? Oh dear! He must be sick!

      And Tracy, please, enough with the media spin. As a rusted-on advocate of parental leave, I too would have opposed a PL scheme behind closed doors if I thought that particular scheme was poorly designed. I oppose the Lib PL scheme which will pay a rich woman her full income and a poor one the basic wage. Just because she opposed *A* PL scheme doesn’t mean she opposes it per se. Why are you doing the Liberal party’s work for them?

      Also, discompassion? ?? I do not find this word in any dictionary. You are supposed to be a professional writer, aren’t you?

      Totally agree about Anna Bligh, though.

      Reply

    • Brad Price says:

      10:15am | 04/08/10

      @Helen. Are you for real? The Libs PPL has nothing to do with whether your rich or poor. It has everything to do with relieving the economic pressures of having a child.

      We all know that people will make commitments for housing and lifestyle based around the level of income that the family brings in. This scheme allows women in a wider range of jobs and professions to leave and re-enter the workforce after having a child. This is achieved by paying them their wage equivalent. It does not target paying women the minimum wage. Where do you get ths crap!

      Your beloved Julia Gillard and her “Kitchen Cabinet” want to pay all women the minimum wage for 18 weeks.

    • James1 says:

      11:49am | 04/08/10

      Subsidising the lifestyle choices of the middle and upper classes is bad policy regardless of which party it comes from.  I would much prefer the minimum wage option for all.  Taxing business to subsidise the lifestyle choices of the middle and upper classes is simply ridiculous policy.  The sooner the Liberals dump this policy, the better.  This type of me-tooism is the last thing we need - please don’t put us through that two elections in a row.

      Ask yourself this Brad - if the ALP had this policy, would you still support it?

    • Adam Diver says:

      01:09pm | 04/08/10

      @ James1 - I agree there are some issues with the policy, but as far as social engineering goes I am sick of supporting the lowest common denominator to have children. We keep encouraging (or subsidising) the stupid, the lazy, the dysfunctional etc to have children and our next generation will be one to look out for. Although I concede that we don’t really want neglected children either (parents putting careers first)but I stil believe this is a better solution.

    • James1 says:

      01:46pm | 04/08/10

      Adam,

      I think that the educated would still tend towards not having children under this kind of policy - they are so intelligent that they would think about it and find other reasons why children are not the best option for them.  Also, keep in mind the number of cashed up bogans these days - wealth and income is not the measure of intelligence it once was.

    • Brad Price says:

      02:06pm | 04/08/10

      @James1. This policy will not benefit me or my Wife directly. It will be a great opportunity for my kids in the future and i do support the idea of PPL.
      I don’t support the idea of minmum wage as i noted above that financial commitments of families, generally, are based around their income. Obviously middle income earners have higher levels of financial commitment so i don’t see why it should be even more difficut for those families to have more children simply because they have a higher income.
      You ask whether i would support the policy if the ALP proposed it. Well i thought about that and yes i would. I support the current ALP proposal in principle but i believe the main flaw is the limited amount of money it provides. The ALP proposal is obviously socialist in it’s nature, which is focussed on low and no income families, disadvantaging middle and higher income families. The Liberal policy will benefit all tax paying mothers (low, middle and high income earners) in recognition of their contribution to the economy of Australia. Surely that is a win win for us all.

    • Sirro says:

      02:41pm | 04/08/10

      I find it incredible that the ALP or any woman would want to oppose the LIbs version of the PL scheme. In fact I am astounded that it is a Lib policy and not an ALP policy.

      It is generous and encourages all women, regardless of their income to equally take 6 months off and have a kid.

      Yes women on higher pay get a larger part of the pool than those on the lower income but why shouldn’t they in this circumstance. They are in effect giving up more money to have the child. Why should they have to give up extra simply to take up what should be the right of every woman ....to have a child without risking their career or disadvantage their family.

      When these women are in the workforce they pay a greater amount of tax than those on lower incomes. If its only ok for us to accept a PL scheme that is at a flat minimum wage rate then why not also institute a policy where all women only pay tax at the rate of the minimum wage?
      Then all those women who earn more than this can use the tax saved over many years to fund their time off?

      Im sure all the leftys who are trying to put everyone into the same basket will howl with all sorts of fairness arguments against that suggestion.

    • James1 says:

      02:53pm | 04/08/10

      It is a win for everyone except business, which will be taxed to provide it.  Thus, everyone will actually lose, as everyone will be paying higher prices when business increase prices in line with their increased tax burden.  Those financial commitments you mention can always be scaled down, if one really wants a child.  If having less money makes you not want to have children, should you really be having children to begin with? 

      As you can probably tell, I think this is fundamentally bad, populist policy, and to me it looks like the Coalition is trying to be more Labor than Labor by spreading the welfare around to even less deserving groups.

    • Mumofmany says:

      06:04pm | 04/08/10

      @ James1: Some educated people do indeed sacrifice and have children.  Both my husband and myself are tertiary educated, however I am no longer in my profession as I am staying at home to raise our 6 - yes, 6! - children.  We do this without any government support as my husband earns just over that barrier (150K) that the Labor government introduced, meaning we have ‘missed out’ on just under 18K since they took office (granted much of this was stimulus which would not have been available under the Liberals, or at least not as much).  This is not a complaint, just stating facts.  We also homeschool our children as, due to our high level of education, we want our children to be educated at a higher standard than what is available at our dumbed-down educational institutions.  Considering my oldest 3 children started reading at 3, 3 and 4 with child #4 soon to start learning after her 4th birthday in a couple of months I’d say we’re doing a pretty good job - and NAPLAN results concur! 

      PPL may be popular and a vote winner in some demographics, but you can’t beat a mother/father raising a child at home in the early years.  Research and experts agree (ask Steve Biddulph), it’s just not politically correct to say.  I wonder, though, how many women would gladly drop out of the workforce if they were paid to care for their own children rather than outsourcing to day care centres.  Just a thought… grin

    • Brad Price says:

      07:23pm | 04/08/10

      James1 says:02:53pm
      I think it’s offensive to suggest that it’s more suitable for lower or no income mothers to be provided for under a PPL simply because their babies would be in effect cheaper. That’s a very sorry point of view James.

    • emmgee says:

      09:13am | 04/08/10

      Tracey, she will need to be quick, she might only have 2 1/2 week.s.

      Reply

    • With eyes wide open... says:

      09:23am | 04/08/10

      Tracey, your quote,
      “we expect those who break through the glass ceiling to make it easier for the rest of us”.
      is in my opinion what is wrong with your view on most things. You keep admitting that you can’t do it on your own? You are saying that if you are female and you are fortunate enough to be good at what you do, and you get to the top then it is your responsibility to provide an easy run for the rest of the sister hood.  You have to be prepared to put the effort in yourself. Not every man makes it to the top…it’s all about put in and get back. You yourself have shown a reluctance to do the necessary research before going to print in most of your articles hence you will always be a so so journalist.  Don’t wait for a man to hold the door open for you as that is now apparently a sexist thing to do..

      Reply

    • Nic Karandonis says:

      09:27am | 04/08/10

      Tracey you raise some good points, if not many biased ones.  The Prime Minister’s own quip about being the “first redhead” was a typically Australian self-deprecating remark. She was, to use the Aussie vernacular, ‘taking the piss’ and it was a completely understandable comment under the circumstances.
      I am 41 years old and can not recall an election campaign where the media’s coverage generally, has been so biased, so you are in the safe majority in this regard.  This election will tell us more about the power of the media - or lack of influence it actually wields politically- than it will about issues and platforms.  Why must the media continue to be fixated by personal issues of the PM rather than policy?  How is it for example, that Tony Abbott can make such a monumental and offensive gaffe yesterday about ‘no, not meaning “no” ’  in reference to Ms Gillard and not be punished!  That is one of the most offensive statements heard in political history and I put it to you, that even women disenfranchised with Julia and supportive of Tony, would have changed their collective mind yesterday.  Finally, and again both typical of, and highlighting the hypocrisy of the media’s “balanced coverage” ; why do you, like so many of your peers, feel the need to make comment of the manner in which Julia came to office?  How quickly you choose to forget/ignore the fact that Tony Abbott called a leadership spill because he didn’t like Malcolm Turnbull’s environmental stance.  He won by only one vote, so it is clear that his own political aspirations got the better of him.  There is no difference to the manner in which Tony and Julia claimed their respective leadership positions and this is politics for Gods sake…....we all know, without the need to be told, that its a mug’s game; just make sure you objectively identify all the mugs and don’t attempt to portray one as tea cup!

      Reply

    • Yvonne Smith says:

      10:22am | 04/08/10

      I am 44 years old and can remember an election where the media were just as biased as you say (Nic). In fact it was the last federal election. Basically the media are not there to report the facts, merely to raise interest in news in the community and sell papers or television/radio time. The ABC have a different stance, but if there news is boring then they have no relevance. So media manipulation of elections is nothing new.
      The actual bias of the reporting is only relevant to the reader, who may be a labor, liberal, or some other voter. Comments such as yours appear biased to me as you are clearly a labor voter and I am definitely, unashamedly a Liberal voter. Whichever we vote for does not mean we always agree with everything our side says, but we certainly read the media reports the way we want to.
      eg Frankly I cannot believe the hubbub over the “no means no” comment. And as a woman, I contradict your comment of women changing their views over the comment. The actual content of the issue in question was that Julia had said no numerous times to another debate. Which means no. No disrespect except from people trying to find fault where there is none. Anyone offended, sorry, some may be justifiable, some far too precious.
      As for how Julia came to office, she disposed an elected, and one thought popular PM (well it appeared so from the results of the recent election, or are we just stupid to have elected him- I think so,or at least the people that voted for him are- thank goodness or brains that I was not one of them) whereas Tony Abbott merely tried to stabilise a party that really needed to get their act together after being decimated by the lies of the labor party at the last election. Basically though, who cares.
      By all means vote for Julia, you cant change the minds of some people, I only hope they are in the minority.

    • Theresa says:

      01:25pm | 04/08/10

      1.  I am a woman and took absolutely no offence to Mr. Abbott’s ‘no not meaning no’ comment.  It is unforgiveable of the media to so blatantly report this in a context they know full well he did not intend.

      2.  Malcolm Turnbull was not a Prime Minister and he was challenged because of a disagreement on a major issue of policy, not because of a couple of poor poll results.

    • artemis rex says:

      04:28pm | 04/08/10

      I am another woman who took no offence at that remark.  I have been wondering if we would have heard the same hullabaloo if this remark had been directed at a male opponent?

    • Christian Real says:

      04:01am | 05/08/10

      Former Liberal Prime Minister John Gorton was replaced by William McMahon in a party room spill ,happens in all political parties at times,not just the Labor party.
      The Liberal Opposition party has had thee Leaders in thee years, I wonder who wil be their new Leader next year in 2011.

    • Kaz says:

      02:56pm | 05/08/10

      No means No means apparently anything you want it to mean when it’s the hook for your article..I tell my kids no means no and they know I know that they know it means NO..I told the cat No means No and it was fine until I repeated it another 3 times and then Peno published an article about it online and called me an Ailurophobe. I just wanted it to stop miaowing for more of my time. Sheez

    • Joe Blow says:

      09:33am | 04/08/10

      It’s fortunate forJulia that she has multiple personalities - becasue a single person woudln’t have a hope of keeping track of her back-flips.  When asked by Kerry O’Brien why she didn’t talk to Cabinet about the ‘Citizens Assembly’ (her only ‘real Julia’ idea so far!! - can’t wait for the next)  she responded that anything relating to Cabinet is confidential (obviously forgetting that last week she’d told us what she’d said in Cabinet about pensions and parental leave).  She then went on to say that the Cabinet had discussed climate change at length. 

      Oh, and she couldn’t find time to ring the ‘honoured former-Labor leader’ to see if he was ok after surgery - either she is completely callous or else she is still be advised by the faceless Rudd-haters..

      Reply

    • Joan says:

      09:34am | 04/08/10

      When I vote for a party it is all about whats best for Australia and people as a whole and not just my personal needs- . Today on RN Gillard was promising money for ovens for small business - what nonsense. Women who want to get to the top do, Gillard is a classic case even if it meant knifing the peoples PM Rudd.  Most women just aren`t as goal orientated,  and don’t see themsleves as leading the world / company as men - by nature they are not as ambitious. I don’t expect any special deal from a woman leader just because I am a woman.

      Reply

    • Harriet says:

      10:24am | 04/08/10

      Gee Joan I must tell my daughters they are not as goal orientated as their brother, that should get a laugh!

    • Joan says:

      11:39am | 04/08/10

      Well Harriet your girls may be all go, but most women work for men bosses… women are tops in class and universities but when it comes to career the’majority choose not to struggle to the top of the work pile. Women who are confident and assured don’t need special deals or woman`s touch from women politicians. Not even all men are interested in reaching to Everest heights in a career for that matter.  Where your daughters are now and where they are when they are 60 is a story yet to unfold.

    • Dash says:

      09:37am | 04/08/10

      It doesn’t matter what Gillard doesn’t have in her trousers. Labor is a shambles that has lied too us and failed to deliver. They have us at record levels of foreign debt, they’ve burnt the surplus, the budget is in defecit to the tume of $40.4 billion. They made a mess of the insulation scheme, allowed rorting of taxpayers money under the schools scheme, the green loans are a fiasco, they backflipped on the mining tax, stabbed Rudd and are leaking damaging information to the media. They have a leader who lied about her membership to the Socialist Forum which she only left in 2002. She’s telling us that we have only seen the fake Joolya and now expects us to believe the real one is talking to us. She’s said no to the three debates agreed by the parties when Labor was in opposition and now wants one so long as she can set the agenda. And I doubt women would want to vote for the other woman anyway. Ask Craig Emerson’s wife if she’ll vote for Jools! Dont let JOOLIYA FOOLIYA!

      Reply

    • Yvonne says:

      10:25am | 04/08/10

      Dash - you’re right. Enough said

    • Rowan says:

      09:52am | 04/08/10

      Is that Jeff Janz on the laptop? Thats the only thing I noticed from that picture.

      Reply

    • Carl Palmer says:

      10:04am | 04/08/10

      At the end of the day, it is the performance of the leader of the country to deliver – whatever that may be. Previous ALP PM’s did as did Howard. This PM must articulate her values and her vision for the future of the country and deliver. Nothing else matters.  Personally, I don’t care if the PM is male or female – is she able to successfully do the job, if it is yes, then get on with it, if no, get out and give the job to someone who can. The community wants to see and hear substance and every time there is the mere suspicion of “spin” it discredits everything that she does. If the Pm believes that there are sections of the community that need extra attention eg “..more women in the House and the Senate , then articulate your position and make it happen. Talk is cheap. The community will then judge for itself whether this is a good thing or not.

      If Julia has a vision then it ain’t getting thru probably because of the nonsensical “moving forward” for “working families” dribble. As a PM, she must lead and it doesn’t matter whether you are black or white, male or female, there is a job to be done and the question is, is she up to it. Based on her track record I very much doubt it.

      Reply

    • tracey says:

      10:13am | 04/08/10

      come off it Tracey….you are just falling in line with NewsLtd’s agenda to wipe the ALP out. There has been a systematic campaign run by this ‘news’ agency since the day she called the election. How about a bit of focus on Abbott? What about the faceless men of the big tobacco companies? How about some real news? Dig a little bit deeper on Abbott and that will give you something to be scared about. He is economically illiterate and making big promises we know he will not keep.
      Typical of a female writer I guess….women are always harder on other women….just look at the stay at home mum v the working mum or the breastfeeding mum v bottle feeding…..you are perpetuating the garbage. But at least we know which side your bread is buttered.

      Reply

    • Kaz says:

      03:22pm | 05/08/10

      @Tracey are you kidding comrade sister? have your ALP lenses become so permanently welded to your eyeballs that you are not able to read by yourself anymore?  interpretting the media 101 for the diehard labor facist, any scruntinisation of the beloved leader is prepetrated by the conspiracy of the capitalists.  Yeah right. Haven’t you read any of the other articles by this esteemed publication? Try getting the bread to read it to you, it might help.

    • Ted says:

      10:43am | 04/08/10

      ALP is all about power…...they dont care about people.

      Reply

    • jb says:

      10:44am | 04/08/10

      I’m starting to not even care about Foolyas policies, I just can’t listen to her for the next 3 years, it’s worse than scratching your finger nails down a blackboard…
      By the way word is Swan is the one doing the leaks.
      He has the most to lose, if Foolya gets in he will never rule the party or be PM.

      Reply

    • Do I Have To Vote? says:

      10:51am | 04/08/10

      I find it completely illogical that a woman PM is expected to do more for women.  Their policies should be good for the whole country & its citizens.  Or for the greater good when looking at world issues.  As a woman, I find it condescending & depressing that some of us have not matured beyond looking at the gender of the candidates.  Certainly I felt a bit of “history in the making” interest when Gillard became PM.  Since then I have been disappointed in the spin of the mining tax “resolution”, the embarrassment of the East Timor thought bubble & as for the Citizens’ Assembly on an ETS…
      On the subject of young girls who will vote for someone “because she is a woman”...please, please can we do away with compulsory voting?

      Reply

    • DB says:

      11:25am | 04/08/10

      Voting for a woman just because she’s a women, how irrational can you get?  It’s a pity that we have compulsory voting in Australia; in a voluntary system many of these fools would not bother to turn out.

      Reply

    • Nic Karandonis says:

      11:35am | 04/08/10

      Note to Yvonne Smith - I am in fact a Liberal voter, and always have been - to date - but I am an Australian before I am tethered to a political party and in this country we champion a person’s right to a fair go.  The news media exists principally to report relevant “goings ons”, not colour them with subjective commentaries.  There is very little balance to this election coverage as far as I can see and that is what I am commenting on.  Certain sections of the media are playing the man - pardon the gender specific reference - rather than the ball where Ms Gillard is concerned and that is un-Australian.  I am disappointed by the campaign run by my party and at this stage, neither the Libs nor Labor will get my vote, but that doesn’t change the fact that I will always support a level playing field and encourage the voters to make informed decisions on policy rather than colourful and often misleading rhetoric from journalists under instruction or with an agenda.

      Reply

    • Ellis says:

      12:32pm | 04/08/10

      I, too, am a Liberal voter - this time - because, like you, I am an Australian before being tethered to any political party. The only party I could never vote for would be the Greens, simply because I have read their policies very carefully and they’re not only much further left than Labor, but they honestly frighten me. I too, champion a person’s right to “a fair go”, but I believe Gillard has had more than a fair go when she was a member of the gang of four which produced the disastrous policies about which web are all aware.
      Now she has the effrontery to try another - pink batts on wheels - with the “Cash for Clunkers” programme. This is simply an open invitation to rort the syatem even more than was done under the B.E.R. or Insulation or Solar schemes and has the potential to put hundreds of millions more of my money (the government has no money - it’s all “ours” by tax) straight up against the wall when I’m already paying over $100 million per day in interest on the money they borrowed for all the other hair brained schemes.
      Finally, Nic, I do seriously question your bona fides !!

    • Vicki PS says:

      04:12pm | 04/08/10

      Enough of the stereotyping and spin-doctoring, Tracey Spicer.  Why would you characterise paid parental leave as a policy for women?  Personally, I’m not in favour of it because it’s yet another expensive votecatcher aimed squarely at the young married professional middle class.  It does bugger-all for the most disadvantaged and struggling end of the family spectrum.
      If I were to consider voting on gender alone (which I wouldn’t), your other dishonest examples wouldn’t sway me.  Anna Bligh quite properly did not intervene in the case of the woman charged with procuring her own abortion simply because the Premier has no business at all telling law enforcement and the judiciary what to do in individual cases.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      04:27am | 05/08/10

      Abbott is now acting as a glove puppet for the spin doctors, in the same way his mentor used to behave.  He sits around waiting to be told the name of the next rabbit to pull out of the hat - what happened to ‘law & order’?  Oh, that was last week’s rabbit!

    • B.Andersons says:

      04:28pm | 04/08/10

      So if women are going to vote for Gillard because she’s a woman and of the Lady Macbeth type, which must be why women identify with her, I think men should vote for Abbott because he’s a man.

      Reply

    • Lisa says:

      05:00pm | 04/08/10

      Julia Gillard quipped about being the first red head PM as a way to make people more at ease with change, not to downplay the first woman PM role she was filling. The image of Gillard with the first female GG highlighted the significance of her achievement.
      She has proved her leadership skills as Deputy and Acting PM and is able to engage with people, more so when the media is not being saturated with speculation on her private life, presentation and life choices. Under Rudd, she had to make the best of the regime he imposed until she was convinced her attempts be more inclusive would only succeed with a change in leadership, not because she blindly wanted to be PM. She has promised a more consultative approach, not because she is a woman, but because it’s the right thing to do.
      Tony Abbott, on the other hand, claims to respect and support women with his policies, but repeatedly denigrates women and seeks to restrict our right to make choices about issues of most concern to ourselves, especially in the areas of cervical cancer vaccinations and abortion law reform. 
      After years of supporting and promoting paid parental leave with the Labor Party, Gillard questioned in cabinet the ability to fund paid parental leave scheme and increased payments for pensioners not as a betrayal to women but because it’s her job to critically analyse all policy initiatives, especially those requiring many billions of dollars of the public’s money. She has delivered on fairer work and industrial relations reform and brought in the biggest investment in education ever seen in Australia. She has announced further huge funding initiatives for mental health and disability services, not because she is a woman and might be a more caring pollie, but because she sees a genuine need and is prepared to meet these challenges. I don’t want or expect caring, feel good policies from any women members of parlaiment because they are women. I do expect women members of parliament to promote issues which reflect their life experiences and those of people in their electorates. This should mean that issues which are important to the daily lives of women measures to promote the a more equitable society should be the concern of all pollies, not just those likely to have experienced disadvantage. I expect open government, strong leadership, thoroughly prepared, supported and funded policies to assist Australia and Australians. In Julia Gillard, I believe we are being offered such a leader.
      Why is it that women are subjected to such scrutiny when they put themselves forward as representatives? Julia should be judged as a future PM for this election, to make decisions or all of Australia, not as someone expected to carry the hopes for gerations of women. Gillard is obviously highly intelligent and accomplished, prepared to face and take on tough challenges and deliver on promises - and, yes, deliver social policy we can all be proud of.

      Reply

    • Wok says:

      10:46pm | 04/08/10

      “...repeatedly denigrates women and seeks to restrict our right to make choices…”.  There is a place in ALP heaven for you.  Please go back to the hairdressers and wash out the new red rinse and stop calling your boyfriend “Craig”

    • Donny says:

      05:04pm | 04/08/10

      I would personally find it very disappointing if voters voted on gender and not on policies in any election, state or federal.  As a passionate South Australian I am amazed and perplexed to hear very little if nothing on Water and Jobs.  What are the major parties going to do to create wealth in Australia and ensure we have adequate water supplies for this and future generations?  Has anyone heard of our national icon - the Coorong?  Its dying!  There wouldn’t be another country in the world that would let this fantastic national park die if it was theirs!  I heard this morning that focus groups are conducted to determine national policy issues - come on.. we can do better than that!  Speak to leadership groups who canvass the views of many and are very willing to share their information and debate real issues and opportunities.  DW Behind Closed Doors would love to hear from politicians.

      Reply

    • amused says:

      10:11pm | 04/08/10

      Females go into politics with the best intentions. But then they have to work there backsides off to compete with the men. After awhile they start to think like men. They finally make into a top position and the last thing they want to face are female issues. I am a female and I am tired of hearing about female issues. I don’t want her to do stuff for me because she is a woman, I want things done because that is what is needed. And don’t male Politicians deal with women all the time, like mothers and wives and sisters etc…..They are not Cavemen. Stop expecting women in Politics to stand up for you. Do it yourself.

      Reply

    • Joe says:

      11:18pm | 04/08/10

      Maybe some would like to have a female pm but after the inital buzz it has worn off now that we realise she isnt the type of woman we want as pm. Most women aspire to marriage and children, but Gillard has rejected this so is out of touch with what women want and they now realise this.

      Reply

    • Pip says:

      11:57pm | 04/08/10

      Thanks to the media’s obvious bias over the last 2 years, yes the Rudd / Gillard Government was only in favour until the 2020 summit, we now have an election campaign by both parties, that is pandering to the small minded, racist, greedy, lazy, red necks of NSW, OLD and WA.
      This wonderful big brown land of ours, is suffering from decades of misuse by governments state and federal, who only care about being in power. The people of Australia should be asking why, but as I said above most of the electorate is lazy they don’t care, I just wish the community showed some real passion about the issues that effect us all, Climate, Health, Education, saving our precious Rivers, Forests and Fauna. I live in a safe seat, so my vote does not carry much weight, but I am so very sad,  that we have no real visionaries any more,  that the system crushes them, and I see very little chance of it getting better. I hope with all my heart that the Greens get the balance of power in the Senate and force the next Government if its Labor or Liberal, to rectify all the damage they have inflicted on us over the last 60 odd years, by taking responsibility for the mess this country is in, and to start to think about the future generation’s. Its tragic that the Prime Minister is being judged by the Media and others for her hair color, dress sense, marital status, and who might be controlling her, about leaks from Cabinet, and what Kevin Rudd, might have said. The Government saved us from a recession, they have made mistakes, that they are up front about, and have been good not perfect, but I believe that they have tried,  and its not easy with a hostile senate. To the victorious on August 21, I wish you luck, because the honeymoon will be very short, and your friends today could be your enemies tomorrow, power is very seductive but it come with a double edge sword.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      04:33am | 05/08/10

      Julia Gillard must accept some blame for the $37M harassment law suit against David Jones.  She’s given Australian women the idea they shouldn’t be shoved into the background, that they can make it to the top without accepting crap!

      Reply

    • Rose says:

      08:01am | 05/08/10

      Part of the reason popularity for women is maybe to do with women. People comment on work place sexual harassment. Department of Child safety many times for many people did not protect sexual assaults mostly run by women. So how can any other than a cynical view. When pleas are ignored to the children of such assaults and worse for Forgotten Australians all the years over did not protect them. That is 500000 that you think you know about that is.
      Women in work places similarly. I say what sisterhood and is valid reasoning.
      Men also do not do any better in this as it is about power for them but reasoning is better? Women always had the power. Foolishly turned it over to false power by the so called academics such as the Germaine Greer’s, a female and some believed her and others along the way. Of course religion also took the power. All who abuse power both side of the spectrum. Is it about one or the other male or female I wonder or is it about power that corrupts or the decision to wield power. When it comes to decisions made over others life pervading the areas that are family, work or more generally decisions made making life miserable time indeed. So many lose out and on the increase more than ever. No one is protected of their rights if ever were. Policing these by gov seems like another ism is here or is needed as a paradigm shift takes place. But what does it look like so far? Disturbing mostly.

      Reply

    • Rose says:

      09:18am | 05/08/10

      To add insult to insult to misery women also played such a parting stealing babies from the young as well now refusing to run a Royal Commission clearly known but not validated for the women still suffering. Gota love that power. Seems misplaced to me on either side of the spectrum.

      Reply

    • Kate says:

      09:53am | 05/08/10

      “Iceland’s Prime Minister ...has criminalised the use of prostitutes.” I think prostitutes perform a very valuable community service. I was once a reporter in Asia and had the great pleasure of meeting an American prostitute who was part of COYOTE (“Call Off Your Tired Ethics”) protecting the rights of sex workers and lobbying to have prostitution decriminalised so more women could work for themselves instead of for pimps who beat and robbed them.  I was only about 22 at the time and had never met a prostitute before. It forever changed my views.

      Reply

    • masealake says:

      09:52pm | 11/09/10

      What are time bombs of Australia democratic society? 

      The historical hung parliament demonstrated the big gap inequality society between the groups get highest pay by talk fest used mouth work, the groups get lowest pay by hands work?

      Voters’ voices do not hear?
      Voters’ pains do not ease?
      Voters’ cries do not care?

      1.  Poverty will not be phase out if no fairer resources to share;
      2.  Illness will not be reducing if no preventive measurement in real action;
      3.  Agriculture will not be revitalize if urbanization continuing its path;
      4.  Housing affordability will not be reach for young generation if government continues cashing from young generation debt by eating out the whole cake of education export revenue without plough back;
      5.  Manufacture industry will shrink smaller and smaller if no new elements there to power up to survive;
      6.  Employability will not in the sustainable mode for so long as manufacture and agriculture not going to boost.

      Ma kee wai
      (Member of Inventor Association Queensland since 1993)

      Reply

    • Hated says:

      10:05am | 26/05/11

      Why should the the house of politics and democracy be about gender at all? They represent Australia as a working whole not on how to only benefit one gender over the other. Thanks to the women’s movements a mans voice or boy, in my case can not be heard over the endless jab on womens issues. In this generation where both genders should benefit equally, boys are made to feel guilty about who they are and girls are made to feel empowered which gives them an advantage in competitive fields such business and education. So i’m confused as to why women continue to need “special” attention. If you’re not going to address gender issues on equal grounds then don’t even start with equality.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 28 May 12 12:01AM

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 27 May 12 10:49PM

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 10:12PM

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 27 May 12 10:03PM

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

by David Penberthy

180

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

by Paul Toohey

27

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

by Angela Mollard

3

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed