Women help give Labor breast chance of victory

Old Clive says:

07:30am | 14/09/09

Any one with a bit of nouse knows that women are smarter than men, men always have been manipulated by women, that is real men. Also bearing in mind the fact that there are more women than men, therefore they hold the balance of power and life in their hand. Give them what they want and you get what you want. power corrupts and corrupts totally!! Who said that. Will someone please define corruption for me.

Jim says:

08:10am | 14/09/09

The funniest line in this piece?

“Rudd’s relationships with female colleagues arguably make him the most woman-friendly Prime Minister since Bob Hawke—although for different reasons.”

Margaret Gray says:

09:41am | 14/09/09

“...the only women amid a line of suits and ties…”

You sound like an affirmative action flunkie.

Since when did what you have between your legs (or on your chest, Malcolm) drive your job suitability, skill or ability?

Is childless Julia Gillard more qualified to speak on child-rearing and education than four-time father Christopher Pyne because she is a woman…with breasts?

Jon says:

10:12am | 14/09/09

You guys are missing the point with roxon. She is a terrible health minister. The general public only sees the selected issues that are highlighted, the people (like me) who work in health see things from a different perspective. What are you going to say about roxon in 5 to 7 years when you can’t see a doctor about your health, unemployed/untrained doctors, worsening of the nursing shortage, watch public hospital sink further down the spiral and of course when the money runs out to fund above because the dear minister was too short sighted to see the forest for the trees? Look at health care in america, that is where we are heading.

pete says:

10:14am | 14/09/09

On the other hand, is Cristopher Pyne more qualified to speak on child rearing and education because he has 4 children and no breasts?  I hardly think so, because if we are to believe the spin from parliamentarians regardless of gender, parental status or marital status,  they are never home to raise their families and to spend time with them for the important moments anyway, so I suspect the partner is the expert on education and child rearing.  Sort of cancels out that argument Margaret.

Steve says:

10:54am | 14/09/09

Will be interesting to see if the fawning sycophants who so quickly embraced the policies of Messrs Rudd and Obama, are still as supportive of them when their initial terms expire.  At least it does appear that Obama has not been gelded and is prepared to at least try make some substantial health reforms and seemingly make those who can afford to pay for their own health care, cough up.  That is the best policy the Rudd government could contemplate embracing.  Particularly in NSW, we are seeing substantial health budgets urinated up against deteriorating hospital walls, where week after week we are hearing of patients being turned away when clearly they shouldn’t have been, Doctors not being paid, stationery items unable to be purchased due to insufficient funds, rural areas unable to attract necessary specialists etc.  It would help enormously if Ms Roxon could be remembered for making some substantial health reforms such as making private health compulsory for all households where combined income exceeds say $100k (single say $70k) and prevent the current scenario where patients with private health insurance but fail to disclose it when they’re operated on in public hospitals etc.  The other option would be to completely get rid of health insurance and have all the money that is currently spent there, re-funnelled into the public health system.  Either way something has to be done before the system becomes irreparable.

Zeta says:

11:13am | 14/09/09

Graham Richardson also had great breasts. So did Kim Beazely. Latham’s man boobs were legendary in Parliamentary circles (and also did circles while running down the cricket pitch).

Male or female, Labor has a reputation for always putting a great set of jugs up front.

Ray says:

12:06pm | 14/09/09

These type of articles really irritate. All of my adult life of about 40 years I have had to listen to one sided presentation of women’s issues. Its as though men do not exist in present society. I suggest most of the females mentioned in this article are in real terms light weight. Society is held to ransom by women’s issues. Our women expect and receive privelege. Meanwhile men wither on the vine. Through affirmative action like those women in parliament, I am still coming to terms with the affirmative action men like me were, and still are, subject to in Federal Government employment. We are a very divisive society that blatently leans towards women without reservation, or explanation for actions that are profoundly and culpably, sexist and discriminatory. I think this is the most significant factor for male disrespect towards society, and towards women in particular. History will make harsh judgement on this path.

Daniel says:

12:30pm | 14/09/09

I think Roxon isnt doing a bad job and she is a very down to earth type woman that is getting on with the job and holding the Liberal Party to account for there decade or so of failings. She could be doing more progressive things but overall is ok.

Richard says:

01:08pm | 14/09/09

Seems to me that we should be getting past ‘womens issues’ and ‘mens issues’ and just talking about human issues. Gender analysis is like counting bodies in a war, peace would be better.

Chris R says:

02:00pm | 14/09/09

Not really sure what the point of this article is apart from possibly offending everyone who read it. Apart from someone who is specifically responsible for Women’s Affairs, I’m not sure it matters what gender does what, just how good they are their job. What about this quote:

“It is quite likely—I don’t know of any polling on the issue—that the Government’s female front row is impressing women voters to a degree which at least counters any policy points scored against them.”

The implication is that women are so silly that they’re impressed by the number of women in the Government rather than the substance of their policy.

Formersnag says:

02:48pm | 14/09/09

In my humble opinion, labour while lose the next federal election, precisely because, men of all classes and incomes are sick of seeing, feminism, abusing their children. That and an ETS will bring labour down for decades.

Julian Thomas says:

03:58pm | 14/09/09

get rid of the medicare levies etc, I will not pay private insurance whilst this is in effect, the amount I pay in taxes (medicare levy) would cover me for private insurance, the bum who earns nothing and the family with 10 children should not expect me to bail them out!!

Al says:

04:08pm | 14/09/09

This article is grossly sexist. It implies women are too shallow to vote on policy and are only equipped to vote on gender.

It is also the sort of barrow pushing we could only expect to see from an emasculated out of touch member of our commentariat.

When are people going to get over gender issues and look at merit instead?

Does Gillard deserve to be in her position, probably, while I would never vote for her she seems competent and capable. Do Roxon and Macklin deserve their positions, I doubt it, from what I have seen they are entirely incompetent.

Appointing a woman to a position over a better qualified man is not only unfair to the man but also patronising not only to the woman involved but to all the women it is meant to influence - kind of like this article really.

Keith says:

07:18pm | 14/09/09

Shame on you Malcolm, although I did have a muffled chuckle, in the name of proprietry piousness, and I challenge you to precis your piece on Insiders, minus the Roxon Rack of course, next time (gadget!). The rest of your entertaining piece has some credulity, and I’m sorry not to be giving serious comment, dwelling here on the of the recent showing of the PM at the Lions footy challenge, and the fact that the PM preferred? his deputy for company. Given his recent adoptive stance on footy of all codes, and his history of non involvement or lack of interest, could he not muster one of his mates, or are we to assume he has a deficet in this regard. There’s an old axiom that I just made up, a man who regards other men as enemies, rather than protagonists, preferring to argue the point in terms of political gain, with the support of the fem ministers, he will have to answer to the electorate in the long term. The question is, is the PM really Sir Percy of The Scarlett Pimpernel, or a cardboard replica.

Phil2 says:

07:19pm | 14/09/09

I agree with Jon, people only notice the issues that are brought up on TV, people who work in health can see the catastrophe that will hit us in a few years and there will only be 2 options - Live with poor quality heath care or get ready to take a hit in the tax rise department.

Daniel says:

07:35pm | 14/09/09

I think the key to success with these deadwood politicians is always the boffins/leeches around them. These highly paid staffers.

James says:

11:22pm | 15/09/09

Yeah, right, just more spin by Rudd. When he beats up a young stewardess on an official flight you know that employing female ministers is what he is supposed to do to gain electorate support. The guys a spinner fool anyone who refuses to see it. It fits in perfectly with the party image.

Trevor says:

10:48am | 18/09/09

There is still a sizeable proportion of the feminist lobby that believes women are superior and that men who are afraid of them suppress their rise to the top. Thank god for the likes of Gillard, Roxon and Plibersek who utterly dispel the notion that women in politics bring anything more than gender diversity to the table. They have proven that in the traditional negative male ‘strength’ areas of arrogance, egotism, self-righteousness and aggression, they are the equals of men. Truly they have shown that female politicians are no better than the best males and no worse than the worst males.

papabear says:

01:10pm | 18/11/09

Today you can get a side of a beef and a skillfill plastic surgeon can turn it in to a “wanking” material.
I would preffer our politicians to be selected according to their brain capacity rather then their external attributes.
If I , as a computer novice can ferret out the following information, how come those who leading this nation are are to dumb to do so?
It’s pointles to spend millions on fixing the aftermath of heroin usage, when it just keep comming.
I would rather have a minister with small boobs and a bran big enough to say to our “porcelain doll”, “listen here Ruddy baby, when you get you thongue out, coul you ask your mate Obama to stop the heroin production and export of it from Afghanistan”
The following info is available on UN.com -then Afghanistan-heroin productionThe military planers are planing to be in Afghanistan in ten years time.

What’s in Afghanistan?
HEROIN !
Before the US led invasion the Taliban eliminated some 90% of popy fields in areas under their control.
Since the occupation, the heroin production has more than doubled, to some 7 thousand tons per year,which represent 90% of the total world production.
To grow enough poppies to produce that amount, you need some 500 000 hectares of land.
You could see those bright purple flowers from the moon if you look the right direction, so how come that all the US spy satellites and drone planes cant find them?
During the whole of the “war” not a single missile hit the heroin labs, where the heroin is being refined.
These labs need vast amounts of “catalyst” which is being shipped in by tanker after tanker from abroad.
There’s no dual purpose for this chemical, so how come the US military is allowing the importation of it?
Not even a mouse gets in or out of Afghanistan without someone from US military let it, so how come some 300 truckloads of heroin a year is getting out.
This heroin would be worth billions of dollars, who is getting all the money?
All this information being so easily available on the UN website how come our leaders are ignorant about it?
How come that we as a nation don’t have a massive debate about our involvement in this scam.
Obama has his job cut out trying to get out of Afghanistan, because whoever is making billions out of heroin trade must be high ranking official, whatever position he (they) is in.
Can Obama wipe out corruption ?