Prev
Next

Women really do react to politics differently to men

Carrie Miller

by Carrie Miller

26 Jul 05:55am

Must Reads

ICB:  If I could offer you only one tip for the future… - this is a caption

ICB:  If I could offer you only one tip for the future…

74

Six prominent Aussies with a case of the dreaded “yips” - this is a caption

Six prominent Aussies with a case of the dreaded “yips”

47

The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou - this is a caption

The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou

186

Filed under: Election 2010, Great Debate, Media, Politics, Satire, Society, Voting, Women

88 comments

They had the decency to give them a turn, but after thousands of years of patriarchy working so well they should have known better. They brought home the bacon; we cooked it. They fought off the lions and tigers so we could raise our offspring in safety.

So Kathy, what did you think of Julia's hair last night?

But a little while ago, following years of nagging by those insufferable suffragettes, they caved – men finally gave women the vote.

After watching the gendered worm on Nine’s coverage of the debate however, I have to say: what the hell were men thinking? It looks like giving the ladies a few democratic rights was a mistake on par with offering an honest answer to the question, “Does my bum look big in this?”

I know that in the post-debate analysis – by one of Australia’s leading political commentators and some chick from the Woman’s Weekly – they said that there was no real gender difference in what did and didn’t get traction.

In fact, the final stats suggested that women preferred Gillard over Abbott to the tune of five points more than the blokes.

What this picture fails to capture though is that the devil was in the details.

From where I was sitting, the female operators of the worm machine seemed less immune to emotional appeals about the ‘threat’ of ‘boat people’, and the men more cynical when spin was used to avoid answering questions by the panel.

The men also flatlined in indifference more often and for longer periods than their flighty female counterparts – a sure sign of them having a better grip on what’s going on.

I’m beginning to think that Stan Smith, the head of the household in the cartoon sitcom American Dad, was right when he proclaimed: “Son, only women have emotions – they come from their ovaries”.

And, yes, I know last week’s poll showed that if an election was on a whopping 58 per cent of women would vote for the current PM, but maybe that’s just because there’ll be more talk about hairstyles and clothes – you know, girlie things - if she gets in.

We might just have to accept that there is something after all in the much maligned patriarchal view about gender difference: that women are aligned with emotion and concern themselves more with private sphere issues such as parental leave (which seemed to score the highest points with chicks) and men more connected to their reasoning powers and big, important issues that shape the public one.

Men should use those special, God-given powers of reason and rescind the female vote. We should just all accept that it was an honourable social experiment that failed and that the whole affording women equal rights thing wasn’t such a great idea after all.

Damn it. I was going to suggest that women should just get back in the kitchen where they belong but I’ve switched over to Masterchef to discover that the two best amateur chefs in Australia are men.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

Most commented

343Is it sexist? We've got nothing to compare it to
306It takes selective memory to call Howard era a golden age
249Gillard's mapping a route but will probably still be routed
228La dole cheque vita is not so sweet on $16 a day
216Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012
201The sun is shining but storms lie ahead for the surplus
186The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou
153What happens to us if we collide with GFC 2.0?

88 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Vicki PS says:

      07:16am | 26/07/10

      Satire. Ur doin it rong.

      Reply

    • Harry says:

      11:35am | 27/07/10

      Vicki: couldn’t have said it better myself.

    • Peter says:

      12:51pm | 27/07/10

      Carrie could be on to something here. I was watching 2 female reporters on SBS last night denoucing Tony Abbott child care policy as an attack on Gillard’s childless status.. What disgusting reporting that was….

    • Eric says:

      07:25am | 26/07/10

      In practice it doesn’t make much difference. Men will pander to what they think women want.

      The whole “patriarchy” thing was about protecting and privileging the women. Some of the brighter females have begun to realise that demolishing it (or rather, persuading the men to dismantle it) may not have been such a bright idea in the long run.

      Reply

    • Dale says:

      10:32am | 26/07/10

      I think you’ll find politicians will pander to the voters in marginal seats who ultimately elect them. As for your second point, technology, a change in job structures and economic considerations changed the patriarchy (if you consider the hierarchy of power to have really changed) rather than what some fringe intellectuals banged on about in the 60s.

    • Aye, Aye, Claudius! says:

      03:29pm | 26/07/10

      You might want to have a look at ancient Roman society to see where the ‘whole “patriachy” thing’ actually came from, in the unlikely event you’re interested in betraying your ignorance less, in public. The ‘Patricians’ (hence patriarchs) were an elite social class not a gender group. The masculine gender priviledge was implied in the social mores of the day. ‘Patriarchal society’ evolved from a perceived ‘need’, not as you sugggest, to protect and priviledge ‘the women’, but to protect the elite patricians from the common plebians. Sounds a bit like the ‘Liberal’ party, don’t you think?

    • Eric says:

      07:22pm | 26/07/10

      Dale, those “fringe intellectuals” of the sixties are now the people in charge.

      Claudius, you mistake the name for the thing itself. Patriarchy, in its modern usage, refers to male-dominated society with male-dominated families. I think a little reading of the works of Hammurabi, Homer, Abraham and various Egyptians would help you realise that this was the norm long before the Romans appeared on the scene.

    • Chris L says:

      06:49pm | 28/07/10

      Claudius I believe the word Patriarch came from Pater Familiaris (Male head of the family). After all, there is a word for female authority, which is Matriarch, not Plebiarch.

      BTW my mother says she’ll never vote for another female politician. She reckons she’s “over them”. Sadly I can’t say much for the current herd of male politicians myself.

    • T.Chong says:

      08:20am | 26/07/10

      “Oh woe is me “, the sad chorus of neglected voice of women.
      Carrie; At the risk of spoiling another dose of self imposed martyrdom, I reckon the pink and blue worm were indicative of the of those particular people, and can hardly be considered applicable in general .
      Last nights gimmick   of faux gender division is proof once that we are dumbing down, to a level thats embarrassing. -
      A sad attempt to portray ALL men as Abbott supporters because Tonys a man , so ALL men are dismissive about women, while ALL women were supposed to be supporting Gillard because she is a women, and therefore is a fellow martyr in the patriarchal conspiracy.
      Good old gender politics- the last resort of lazy or uninformed journalists , and TV network marketers with no other insight to offer.

      Reply

    • Jason CR says:

      12:01pm | 26/07/10

      @Chong,
      50/50 male split in relation to Abbott.  58/42 split on females with Gillard.  Not sure that backs up your statement pal.
      All the cameras had to do was put Gillard’s face on the screen and the female worm reacted like it had swallowed a box of viagra.  That’s even before she opened her mouth.  Need I say more.

    • Fred says:

      12:35pm | 26/07/10

      @ Jason

      Did you see the drop in the men’s line when it went to Gillard as well?  That surprised me.

    • Julie Coker-Godson says:

      06:14pm | 26/07/10

      @JasonCR:  That was truly scarey and I say that as a female voter!  I can’t believe they could demean themselves like that.

    • DD Ball says:

      08:47am | 26/07/10

      I noticed that the perception that women don’t like Mr Abbott was punctured by the debate worm. I guess that perception is something generated by Get Up to promote Gillard and obscure the fact she is a policy free zone with nothing to add to debate. She spoke well and used her hands well, partly because she didn’t need to consult notes .. nothing for her to say.
      My mother supports the ALP, and supported the Democrats when we lived in the USA. She refuses to accept the Liberals as a political party, and hates their leaders. But then she suffers from depression .. I have known a few women who weren’t so gung ho ALP, and who supported the Libs .. and who weren’t mentally ill.

      Reply

    • Isabel says:

      09:37am | 26/07/10

      DD, I am bipolar and swing from one extreme to the other, but on polling day it seems - with one exception - I support the ALP on the day. The swings are between hope and despair. For me, the only hope the Coalition offers is the scope for more despair.

    • Ryan says:

      12:07pm | 26/07/10

      @Isabel: I don’t think you were supposed to confirm the point DD Ball was making.

    • DD Ball says:

      03:23pm | 26/07/10

      Isabel, thank you for sharing. I know of bipolar, having seen its effect on the lives of others. I am sorry I wasn’t able to help my mum. What I write may not be much comfort for you, but there is something I must say. I get how appealing ALP policy is. I must point out that bipolar, and particularly depression, lends itself to negative tactics. My mother could see a weakness with 20/20 clarity, but nothing let her see need. Liberal policy is aspirational, and if you aren’t in the mood, may sometimes seem silly when the negative ALP policy seems so brightly appealing.

    • Ziggy Freud says:

      03:59pm | 26/07/10

      Hi DD,

      I have clinical depression and have had, all my adult life. Your ‘argument’ seems to amount to ‘My mother had depression and voted Democrat/Labor, therefore depressed people are succeptible to (left-wing?) ‘negative tactics’. How does your model account for… Oh, I don’t know… Andrew Robb… or Winston Churchill? Both conservatives, both depressives. Also, as you are obviously professionally qualified to theorise on this issue, can you explain how you managed to extrapolate from your experiences that your mother is precisely representative of all depressives? And as for the ‘aspirational’ quality of ‘Liberal’ policy: are you aware just how much crippling personal indebtedness was created under the last ‘aspirational’ Liberal government? Record-breaking, that’s sure something to ‘aspire’ to! Can you even explain how ‘Liberal’ policy, is, in any way, even remotely ‘liberal’?

    • DD Ball says:

      06:43pm | 26/07/10

      Freud, wow, I’m arguing Depression with Freud. You are projecting my observation to argument. I did not make that link. I similarly have not linked smoking to cancer. As for the specious statement about debt, I note that the ALP have spent that mountain of Debt and are still promising big .. how do you account for that?
      I note that you ‘saw’ weaknesses in my post, but none of the strengths, just as I wrote. You make light of aspirational without appreciating what it means. Depression does that. I don’t think you were supposed to confirm the point I was making.

    • Ziggy Freud says:

      01:21pm | 27/07/10

      ‘I must point out that bipolar, and particularly depression, lends itself to negative tactics. My mother could see a weakness with 20/20 clarity, but nothing let her see need.’  That’s not an argument? I didn’t see the ‘strengths’ in your post, because, like ‘arguments’ (apparently) there are none. So, you’re not making any arguments, or any sense. The ‘debt’ you refer to is how any responsible western capitalist government wards off economic downturn - spending your way out of recession - sound familiar? Despite a couple of decades of ‘Liberal’ mantra, national economies aren’t run like household economies. Oh, and you might like to investigate the incidence of mental illness on ‘your side’ of politcs: start with Dubbya and work your way back, via his grandfather, to the Nazis.

    • adam@yahoo.com.au says:

      08:56am | 26/07/10

      I was fascinated by the sex differences of the worm. I couldn’t belive it when the editor of the womans weekly said there were no real differences. The differences I saw were;
      A) women more positve overall
      B) woman more responsive, and therefore better able to engage in the debate
      C) woman were more likely to get pissed off by negative attacks on the other
      D) women were as inteRested in finance as they were health and eductation.

      Loved it.

      Reply

    • T.Chong says:

      09:39am | 26/07/10

      adam- numerous research over many decades shows in properly conducted ( double blind etc ) tests / analysis that:
      there is no difference at all between the way women and men of similar demographic, education, background etc think on issues - repeat ,NO difference .
      Group dynamics are a lot more influential in such a setting

    • Fred says:

      12:39pm | 26/07/10

      @ Adam - I think T Chong is missing your point - he may be correct but that’s not the point you’re making.

      I agree, I came to the same conclusions you did last night

    • DG says:

      01:32pm | 26/07/10

      “A) women more positve overall”

      This is a true statement. But should also be considered in the light that the female participants showed that they responded at the extreme ends for both sides of the spectrum (positive and negative) - Males were positive for the majority of the debate as were women - just not as enthusiastically positive. Keeping in mind this is intended to be a response to the debate - lack of enthusiastic reaction is (perhaps)  more indicative of the politicians inability to engage with that sector of the audience, than of the audience’s interest in the debate.

      It would be interesting to see the % of time that each group spent either on or above the “average” (the affirmative or or neutral position) . 

      “B) woman more responsive, and therefore better able to engage in the debate”

      That’s a non-sequitur. Responding (in this context it is more accurately considered reacting)  to someone’s comments neither confirms not denies a persons ability to engage in a debate. Responsiveness (in this context) is not a guide to comprehension or understanding, or even the capacity to participate in a debate about the topic. It is simply a measure of how far they were seduced by the words of the speaker. it neither confirms, not denies, any assumption about a parties ability to engage in the debate.

      “C) woman were more likely to get pissed off by negative attacks on the other”

      Not really - it simply showed that women responded more aggressively (at the extreme ends of the scale) to both positive and negative comments, while the men were less likely to follow to extremes (both in terms of their support for positive comments, and rejection of negative comments).

      “D) women were as inteRested in finance as they were health and eductation. “

      The reaction to the statements is not a measure of their interest in the topic being mentioned - it is a measure of persuasiveness of arguments that were posed in respect of the topic. Assuming that a person, or group of persons, was interested in a topic because they participated in a paid adjudicator role in a debate about many things is seriously flawed. This neither confirms, nor rejects, the presumption that women are equally interested in all topics.

    • KH says:

      08:56am | 26/07/10

      This article is a load of rubbish.  I am a woman, and have no interest in hair, make up and shoes, and I am fully capable of looking at political issues without getting all emotional about it.  Its women like you that make all women look air headed.

      Reply

    • HK says:

      11:25am | 26/07/10

      Oh and forgot to mention no sense of humour (esp sarcasm)

    • KH says:

      02:06pm | 26/07/10

      If this was supposed to be funny, then it failed….....

    • HK says:

      02:11pm | 26/07/10

      Case rests.

    • A Name says:

      05:47am | 27/07/10

      Hahaha! Love it HK!

    • Rosie says:

      09:00am | 26/07/10

      Thank you Channel 2 and Sky News for leaving the worm in its enviroment where it belongs consuming every bit of rubbish it can find and giving back to the planet nutrients for the healthy plants that absorbs the dreaded carbon emission. Having the worm only caused more confusion for what the media tells us is a “no nothing election.” For this reason I watched the Debate without the worm and like the commentators would have to say with all the constraint Tony Abbott could muster from avoiding to treat Gillard like a “bloke” Tony Abbott blitz her in a gentleman manner. She really lost it for me when she was not only cheeky but turned nasty when she repeated a few times that Tony Abbott was “naive”

      As for our dear men folk I like being adored and pampered by my soul mate! In my 40 years of marriage I am delighted and very proud with our achievements, two different bodies but working together in unison. Today I am still my own person and he his. Personally as a woman I have no problems feeling comfortable amongst the men because I have one rule and that is respect begets respect with any gender.

      For those female commentators that keep bringing up the “virginity remarks” by Tony Abbott I say to them that in a promiscuous society it showed how much a father cared about his 3 daughters. Tony Abbott having 3 sisters was brought up in a household of females, then when he married had three daughters so all his life has had all these very close females that naturally and simply adored him. We would have had all the pampering from the family females It maybe the reason he is seen to be abrupt to overpowering females.

      It was lovely to see that Tony Abbott has his adorable wife and 3 daughters at the Debate last night! Where the bloody hell was Julia Gillard’s boyfriend??????????????????

      Reply

    • Nicole says:

      10:25am | 26/07/10

      Rosie, I find it amazing how the virginity question is still such a big issue too. Abbott was asked a question about what he’d like for his daughters, not about women in general. But once again, it’s been blown out of proportion. I have two daughters and if I was asked the same question, I too would have the same answer. But hey, anything to try and bring the man down.

    • Dale says:

      10:33am | 26/07/10

      It was lovely to see that Tony Abbott has his adorable wife and 3 daughters at the Debate last night! Where the bloody hell was Julia Gillard’s boyfriend??????????????????

      Sorry remind me what seats are they all running in?

    • Jason CR says:

      12:09pm | 26/07/10

      @ Rosie
      Tony Abbott is a family man but ‘working families’ is so 2007.  We’re moving forward now remember.
      Good to see that Tony hasn’t left his wife and kids to run off with a colleague, unlike some.  He’s no homewrecker that’s for sure.

    • Ryan says:

      12:10pm | 26/07/10

      @Rosie: “Where the bloody hell was Julia Gillard’s boyfriend?????????????????? ” - Lets be honest here for one second, does anyone really believe that the hair dresser is really Gillard’s boyfriend? When last did you meet a straight male hairdresser?

    • PaulB says:

      05:15pm | 26/07/10

      What’s the old saying?  “Touch of lavender about those two”?

      Funny how the BF just morphed into public life on cue.  I recall a friend of mine years ago on Sale of the Century.  He was the third handsome young single man to come along and start winning everything within a short few weeks, so after about four nights they manufactured a girlfriend for him, who obviously couldn’t make it to the studio.  It was a complete crock, but that’s showbiz..  If they’ve created a fake boyfriend (FB) for our Julia then we have a PM and Government that is actually open to compromise to protect their secret.  It would be a stupid thing to do if they have, and anyway, these days its just not necessary.

    • Angela Vithoulkas says:

      09:21am | 26/07/10

      I love shoes, clothes, girly days and am generally considered a high maintenance woman. But I run several businesses, care deeply about the financial future of my country and feel that we do no where near enough for our community. I will not vote for Julia because I do not feel she or her party will be better for Australia. Its that simple. I am annoyed that some may consider that I would vote based only on the fact that she is a woman and therefore she should win because it would be great for women. No. I have other concerns besides that. Although I do believe that she was elevated to this position because of her gender. I believe that she is part of a political strategy, but I hope ALL of us are smarter than that. As for Abbott, I am looking at the policies, at the parties performance and where to from here. Its crunch time people.

      Reply

    • Christine says:

      11:57am | 26/07/10

      Voice of reason good for you Angela my sentiments entirely

    • Rob G says:

      12:06pm | 26/07/10

      Yes but you are thinking about Australia as a whole, the others are thinking about themselves!

    • Grant says:

      04:32pm | 26/07/10

      Angela..not all of Australia has your common sense and pragmatic approaches. Don’t forget the public bought ALP’s pin last election.

    • BobM says:

      09:32am | 26/07/10

      If the worm is correct on the voting intentions of women, then those women in your headline picture were wasting their time. My daughter works with a lot of Gen Y women who said they would vote for Julia because she is female - my daughter said to them “do you know what her policies are.”  All she got was a blank look.

      Reply

    • WayneT says:

      12:18pm | 26/07/10

      I have found the same thing with my extended family.  All the young women said they would vote for Gillard because she was a women and we have our first female PM.  But when I asked them how each parties policies affected them they were absolutely lost.  With all the time they spend on the Internet they haven’t even bothered to spend 15 minutes at each of the parties websites to read their policy statements.  Is it any wonder the parties spend all their time on spin and smoke and mirrors when dealing with the next generation of voters, and why the Kevin07 strategy was so successful?  Why would they want an old fuddy duddy like Howard when they can get a younger more vibrant guy that promises amongst other things to fix the greatest moral challenge of our time?

    • Peter says:

      09:40am | 26/07/10

      When Abbott spoke about the Liberals paid parental leave scheme the pink worm was at it’s highest and when Gillard was bagging Abbott for planning to increase company tax the pink worm also went into positive territory. Do females understand that it is the increase in Company tax that is going to pay their parental leave?
      It’s a bit like the Simpson’s episode where the mayor implements a Bear Patrol but nobody wants to pay the Bear Patrol Tax.

      Reply

    • Markus says:

      06:35pm | 26/07/10

      Or the episode Skinner and Krabbapel arguing over more funding for teachers at the PTA.
      “Oh right, the taxes! That finger thing means the taxes!”

      Gotta love the Simpsons and it’s fantastic summation of all that is wrong with the vocal voters.

    • Delphic Oracle says:

      09:44am | 26/07/10

      Women negotiate - men negate.  They must find the middle ground and Julia and
      Tony must find more bi-partisan approaches for Australia to benifit.

      Reply

    • Sinden says:

      10:04am | 26/07/10

      All a worm shows is that most people are stupid. Most people don’t have the mental capacity to understand the issues presented to them and thus have to have things dumbed down with a few issues thrown at them to distract them (asylum seekers).

      However I am reminded of this old saying which I have always believed to be true:

      “A man will look out of a window and see the wonder of the world around him and marvel at the intricate nature of it and how it came to be. A woman will look out of a window and wonder how it all relates to her.”

      Reply

    • Hermano says:

      11:48am | 26/07/10

      That’s an interesting saying.  As far as platitudes go, it’s as relevant as any.

    • Nathan says:

      11:50am | 26/07/10

      I think this quote represents the Australian voting public a bit better “The best case against compulsary voting is to have a conversation with the average Australian voter.”

    • Sinden says:

      12:45pm | 26/07/10

      The best quote that sums up election campaigns over the last 20 years comes from The Simpsons (already referenced above)

      Quimby: “Are these morons getting louder or just stupider?”
      Aide: “Both, sir”
      Quimby: “Dodging this issue requires real leadership. [To crowd gathered] Your taxes are high because of illegal immigrants”

      And we’re back to boat people…........

      To claim this is a gender thing is wrong. To claim it’s an Australian thing or a Labor thing or a Liberal thing is also wrong. People are getting stupider, more selfish and more myopic all over the world.

      I often wonder what would happen if JFK said now “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”. He’d be howled down as spineless, incompetent and unable to give the people what they think they deserve.

    • AdamC says:

      10:18am | 26/07/10

      The problem with your piece here, Carrie - aside fro being rather humourless - is that Nine’s worm indeed was a slithering stereotype. I consoled myself by imagining Nine must have selected a bunch of gals limited in their outlook. However, everytime Wilhemina, as Laurie Oakes dubbed it, went into the stratosphere when Gillard mouthed some silly platitude or Abbott started talking about his parental leave scheme my faith was sorely tested.

      The most disturbing thing about this election is that a material (if not huge) proportion of women seem like they are going to vote for Gillard because of her sex alone - and nobody seems to think this is at all strange. Just as much as Cleo and Cosmo magazines, this demonstrates the residual low intellectual expectations society places on women compared to men. If a man said he was voting for Abbott out of gender solidarity, he would be regarded as a moron, or a sexist, or both. 

      I don’t buy into these low expectations, of course, but why do so many people?

      Reply

    • Lisa says:

      07:20pm | 26/07/10

      I agree it WAS a shock to see the ‘gender divide’ and how in many ways the worm seemed to show that the women polled had less interest in ‘big picture’ politics, or possibly a shallower grasp of the historical political landscape.
      I fear many women will do as my mother will, and vote simply to keep a woman in the post.
      It has been exciting to see a woman PM, and Julia Gillard has performed with dignity and gravitas in the role. She has done herself proud.
      However, her policies, the spin and the waste from her government - not to mention the memory of those unfortunate youths who died in the debacle of the pink batts nightmare - means that I will be looking elsewhere come election day.

    • HK says:

      09:57am | 27/07/10

      Well put AdamC but I don’t agree that it is humourless but rather I think that Carrie did us the honour of not telling us when to laugh.

    • Reg says:

      10:23am | 26/07/10

      Actually Carrie, women were given the vote only 40 years after the men were given it. And WHO gave it? Don’t blame the men, it was the elevated society of the British Houses of Parliament in a belated adoption of principles of equality.
      1880 and 1920 if my memory serves me. 141 years after the French.

      Reply

    • Ray Graham says:

      11:05am | 26/07/10

      Well said Carrie, satire with a touch of humour and inescapable truth. What the bloody hell were men doing giving women the vote.

      What it means is that women can be bought and sold by gender based policies and handouts. ie maternity leave, baby bonus, childcare rebates, affirmative action, education, Family Law Act, Discrimination(Against Women) Act, Domestic Violence Act (used as a weapon as much as the defence of women), Family Court, Child Support Agency, Ministries for Women, Emily’s List (or lust? I don’t know). Bundled up in total as discrimination against men.

      We live in the land of the Wickerman (Nicholas Cage). So even if we do see Gillard decintegrate (ie fade away as in The Who’s My Generation) in the debate, which Abbott won convinvcingly, men will live to rue the day they gave women anything including the vote, as the retribution will be unforgiving. This is amply demonstrated on a daily (Telegraph) basis by the female deva journos including those at The Punch.

      Fact is, in the debate Gillard was comprehensively beaten and exposed as high on rhetoric, low on substance and policy, and memory fade in complicity in policy formulation that leads the Government to where it is now. Despite being a dominent component in the party of four responsible for the embryo (for those unmarried PMs that means conception) that is Labor’s present legacy

      Reply

    • Reg says:

      11:34am | 26/07/10

      I am led to ask what men are sold on if not ultimately gender based. Power? Money? Job satisfaction? No doubt there are women sold to the same goals. But then high rhetoric is not the sole prerogative of Labor politicians either, I’ve watched Alexander Downer at work on his image. Actually it seems to be the first requirement of a Liberal aspirant so how did Tony slip by? Part of the new chastened post-Howard image?

    • Rob G says:

      12:18pm | 26/07/10

      Our PM, Governor General, State governor, Premier, Head of State (Queen) are all female; mostly put there by men. In some cases it is because they are smaller targets and cannot be abused by the media.
      With equality comes responsibility! I would like to see a few strips being ripped off these females when they screw up.
      We are still carrying the vestiges of Victorian behaviour. So stop opening doors or lifting heavy weights or doffing the hat ........let these women look after themselves and the consequences of equality.
      Equality for all - especially female politicians!

    • Rob D says:

      11:15am | 27/07/10

      Rob G you can add in Victoria the ex Police Commish and ex Head of the Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery Authority.  To quote from a John Silvester article
      “But for those who saw her appointment as a gender breakthrough, the real job of policing - emergency responses, public order and criminal investigations remained the domain of the old guard. Middle-aged, white career policemen”.
      The evidence of tokenism is no more clearly exposed than in Christine Nixon’s submissions to the Bushfires Royal Commission

    • HK says:

      12:10pm | 27/07/10

      Getting her hair done wasn’t it?

    • Saskia says:

      11:23am | 26/07/10

      Spot on Carrie!

      Was embarrassing to see the female worm ‘cheer’ almost anything Gillard said and ‘boo’ almost everything Abbott said.  Didn’t say much for the intelligence of the average female ‘swinging’ voter.

      If we are to have a female PM she could at least be pretty if she is not going to be competent.  Gillard fails utterly on every level and will be a laughing stock internationally.

      Reply

    • thatmosis says:

      11:58am | 26/07/10

      In looking at the worms and the reaction og the “women’s” worm it occured to me that they like Gillrudd like they like shoes. They pass a shoe shop, see a pair of shoes, buy said pair then put them in their cupboard and forget about them. Doesnt matter if they dont fit or the things fall apart they “look nice”. This may be okay for shoes as they dont control your lives and the lives of your children but pollies do and I think that people should put a lot more thought into picking their next PM than picking a pair of shoes. Its not the person but the fit and how long they will last that is more important than how they look or their colour.

      Reply

    • Reg says:

      12:22pm | 26/07/10

      Is there no end to these female bashing Liberals? Now we have Thrombosis reducing them to the level of bower-birds. Careful of the image you might attract for yourself mate. By the way, have you stopped beating your wife? smile

    • Mark says:

      12:10pm | 26/07/10

      i dont necessarily think it’s a bad thing for women to play politics/vote the way they do. It’s different. Not necessarily better or worse. Maybe introduce a more woman dominated parliament? Make the male way of doing things irregular.

      I wholeheartedly agree that we’d probably live in a much better world if women ran it. No wars, more social inclusion, better education etc. Men don’t get to fuss over their economies as much, nor do we get to play the ‘power game’ either. But come now, is that really that important?

      Reply

    • Zac says:

      01:11pm | 26/07/10

      I wholeheartedly agree that we’d probably live in a much better world if women ran it. No wars, more social inclusion, better education etc.

      Mark,

      But I am not sure how this gels well with her knifing of Kevin and declaration of loyalty even while she was knifing him. Mind you she was the main member in the kitchen cabinet that created all the misery in the first place and the 1 billion BER waste was her own baby. Unfortuantely facts tell me your views belong to the category of some feel good gender based theory.

    • Matt says:

      01:52pm | 26/07/10

      A couple of your points are a little Naïve. You really think there would be no wars?

    • Fred says:

      02:48pm | 26/07/10

      @ Zac - Get over the knifing.  I’m sick of people still talking about it already, like they’ve only just been introduced to politics or something!

    • HK says:

      12:18pm | 27/07/10

      Matt
      “No Wars but minor skirmishes every 28 days”
      to quote Robin Williams? (I think?)

    • Mick says:

      12:29pm | 26/07/10

      Carrie, I for one thoroughly enjoyed your article. Thank you for some nice prose and some light-hearted entertainment to kick the week off.

      Reply

    • Gerry Sinclair says:

      12:53pm | 26/07/10

      I will give you another platitude, actually its more of an anaylitical insight given to me decades ago when I asked “why arent there more females in middle and top management?”
      They will tell you its because of a glass curtain, was the reply, but the reality is this “its because they are terffific schemers but terrible planners”

      Subsequently found this to be generally true when controlling staff of both sexes- so at one level i.e the immediate they left the men for dead, but the minute a yearly budget or in some cases even a monthly one was required they struggled and the men came to the fore.

      Aftre all these decades the worm simply verified that statement rewarding the vacuous, generalised, feel good statements made by a fellow female and switching off rational, future action proposals made by a male.
      You can get that same result at 99% of dinner parties or gatherings with mixed guests, it is a rare female indeed who engages in thinking conversation about where Australia should be headed and what strategy is required to get the country there as their focus is usually on the immediate.

      I remember saying when my daughter was born, well we had better start looking for a bigger house. Why she asked? Because we now have another human being in the household I replied. Yes but she is only tiny. They grow sweetheart, they grow!
      Female focusing on the immediate again, male immediately assessing changed circumstances and what should be done in the future to accommodate them,  and this women is articulate, intelligent, independent and holds down a very responsible job as a high flying accountant.

      A cursory look at history will show you that so far, aside from a couple of notable exceptions it has always been thus.
      How big do you think retail stores would be if there was not half the population shopping to feel good and satisfy the immediate desire?

      Bottom line for Australia? We could be heading for left wing, feminine controlled society - great for the Germain Greer cheer squad, but past & present experience with examples from Lawrence. Kirner, Bligh, Kenneally and the GG fills one with trepidation.
      One thing at this stage is certain Gillard is no Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir.

      Fact is after blowing the war chest Australia’s next leader & political party should be focusing on effective management to get us through the next inevitable world economic hiccup, and that needs stringent prioritising, cost control and effective detailed planning & implementation, not feel good platitudes.
      I havent seen anyone on the Labor side of politics with those qualities, male or female, present PM or the most recent past PM.

      Reply

    • haggis says:

      04:07pm | 26/07/10

      To Mesdames Thatcher and Meir add Ghandi and Bandaranaike . . . . then see how the no-wars-or-violence-with-women-leaders theme is blown to smithereens.

    • HK says:

      02:00pm | 27/07/10

      Gerry I think you will find it is called a ‘glass ceiling’ and now that our PM has managed to rise above it, things are looking up.

      and she has a better policy on virgins!

    • Jackie says:

      12:54pm | 26/07/10

      Women certainly do react differently. I wouldn’t trust the Gillard woman with the education and future of our children.  It’s the Labor/Union factions that are running Gillard and the Labor party.  Yes, she said she didn’t like the demise of Simon Crean, but she didn’t hesitate to deploy similar methods on her senior colleague, PM Rudd.

      Why doesn’t the press insist and pursue that she share with we voters (before the election) exactly what occurred between her, the factions, and Rudd at the time of his demise?  We are all entitled to know the truth - before election day.  There’s no national secrecy Act restrictions.  It’s sinister, and her closed book refusals are suspiciously self-preserving.

      2006 JULIA GILLARD: ” I’m not Doris Day who’s, you know, just somehow parachuted into Canberra. I had to…I had to fight hard to get pre-selected, I had to play a factional game to do that.  I’d do all of that again tomorrow, but in that 2001-2004 period, the destabilisation of Simon Crean’s leadership, I saw things happen that I hadn’t seen happen before and I’m never going to forget that they did happen.”

      The woman is not to be trusted.

      Reply

    • Terry says:

      02:57pm | 26/07/10

      What a provocative article! I know you’re hoping for men to come out and agree with you. Sorry, I personally cannot and will not help you with that, because I disagree with this nonsense. Why? Yes there are foolish women voters who’ll vote for Gillard because she’s female. Her presence will certainly fuels the topics of trashy journalism that stuffs their unproductive minds with the same “cotton, hay and rags”. And yes, there are men out there who will vote for Gillard because she’s a woman, and a red-head. There are just as many men out there that crave the same tripe rubbish spewed out by the tabloid gutter press. Why did ‘Big Brother’ become so successful for so long?

      Whilst I will vote Liberal at this coming election, it is not because of Gillard being a girl. If she were any good, more sincere and had something to show for the last 3 years, I would consider voting for her government. I voted Krudd in 2007, and ask myself what the hell I was thinking of. KRudd/Gillard Labor make the Whitlam administration look like a crowd of spend-thrifts. This government, dominated by men might I add, has failed on everything it set out to do. The only achievement is the apology to the stolen generation, and that’s something any of us could have done. As far as rescuing this country from a deep recession, if government waste was responsible for this, yes Labor can take the credit.

      I’ll favour Abbott because he has beliefs and a refreshing sense of honesty. That’s why a lot of his remarks are perceived as being “foot in mouth”.

      Plus, Abbott has a lifelong history of doing good and being a high acheiver. For one thing, he’s a Rhodes Scholar. Not any old person can become one of these. You need to be exceptionally bright, achieved highly at school and in particular sport. You need proven leadership qualities punctuated by achievement. Plus, honesty, justice, truth, generosity and care and nourishment of the weak and vulnerable are also necessary traits that must be demonstrated. Let me also make the point that since women were admitted, many are being accepted as Rhodes Scholars.

      Most women and men will vote for whoever they feel is best. It’s only the “metro elites” that will vote on symbolism.

      Reply

    • Terry says:

      03:44pm | 26/07/10

      As far as voting either for the good of Australia or ourselves, personally it doesn’t matter who the government is as far my family’s livelihood is concerned. We have secure jobs and we are financially under no strain at all. We will still continue to pay taxes no matter’s who’s in power. In fact, we are a little better off under this government what with the low interest rates and the government stimulus hand out (singular).

      What I want to see is a government that will preserve our way of life, what’s left of it. Cutting immigration is the logical first step to keeping our population under control. Burdening the mining industry with more taxes will undermine one of our major sources of employment and economic growth. Taking a soft approach on illegal boats undermines border security. Hell, boats were turned around under Howard, why not do it again? Upsetting our regional neighbours with this silly nonsence about sending illegal immigrants to their country for processing, is not only arrogant but is not going to promote good working trade relations with these countries. This sort of sledge-hammer diplomacy from a piss-ant country like Australia doesn’t serve our interests well. As far as climate change is concerned, simple solution: cut pollution. Invest in green power, that’s one. Reduce our reliance on all fossil fuels (no nuclear). Invest heavily in education, science, R&D, and yes tax carbon emissions: something I know Gillard will never have the guts to do. Lastly, cut back dramatically on welfare. Let people work for their livelihoods, not make up excuses for passing the responsibility for the upkeep of their miserable existences onto honest taxpayers.

      So how does this weigh up agains the sex arguement? Gillards hasn’t delivered, Abbott can deliver on most of these things. I’d still vote for Liberal, no matter if it where led Abbott or Bishop.

      Reply

    • Harquebus says:

      04:44pm | 26/07/10

      Men and women do think differently. Men think strategically. A female leader may win a battle but, will never win a war.

      Reply

    • Lisa says:

      09:04pm | 26/07/10

      Reading this outrageous comment really, really makes me want to vote Labor.
      But, post-Krudd, with the Laborites reminding us ad nauseum that technically, we governed masses vote for a PARTY, not a leader, well, I probably won’t be doing that.

    • HK says:

      12:26pm | 27/07/10

      Great ‘Strategic’ reasoning Lisa.  It must be ‘explaining things’ that is your obvious weakness

    • Lisa says:

      03:28pm | 27/07/10

      Surely HK, my point is easy to understand.

      if the Westminster system has the leader as merely a mouthpiece of the party,  my voting for Julia Gillard is misplaced unless I live in her electorate.

      My voting Labor as a statement for female allegiance is actually completely misplaced. Regardless of how the party leaders are trussed up as presidential candidates, the marketing is misleading.

      I don’t get to make the ‘feminist statement’ of voting for Labor’s leader, that is Labor’s perogative.

      Methinks the Laborites like to have their cake (replacing the leader from within the party) and eat it too (rebrand the party via the personality of new mouthpiece, Julia Gillard).

      Labor defended the sacking of Rudd by reminding voters of the technicalities of the Westminster system.

      Now, these same ‘faceless men’, in conjunction with the media, are encouraging voters across the nation to identify with (and VOTE for) Julia Gillard on a personality, lifestyle or even gender basis.

      Seems rather hypocritical to me.

    • HK says:

      05:47pm | 27/07/10

      Bravo Lisa, no weakness in explaining things there, although I don’t see how it directly counters the implied claim that women don’t think strategically.  Whilst it is now obvious you are no fool, the first sentence of your initial response sort of proved his point (taking liberty here assuming Harquebus is male and you are female, and also that you did mean to oppose).  At the time I even wondered whether it was a stooge reply, given that it seemed so obviously a shallow (ie not strategic) reason to vote a particular way. 
      The rest of the response (not meaning to be rude this time) after working through it, hardly addressed let alone refuted the argument either.  But, as we now know, you had identified and exposed a ‘strategy’ of the Labor Party in this election. A bit too subtle for me but having you explain was worth it.  (no reference to Pauline Hansen catchphrases in a nasally voice here thank you)

      For what it is worth I too believe that Men and Women do think differently!  However my experience is that women are just as strategic as men. Their focus and priorities being naturally different, they put more effort into the detail.

    • Harquebus says:

      07:12am | 29/07/10

      There are always exceptions but, men can read map upside down, back trailers and other things that women find difficult. Women can hold two conversation at the same time, men can’t and women are better judges of character. A couple has all bases covered. No offense was intended Lisa.

    • Jaime says:

      06:32pm | 26/07/10

      If any of you women or men were a ltitle bit smart or media-savvy, commenters and writer of the article included, you would realise that the TV stations cherry picks their audience to get the results they want.

      Because let’s face it, for all the people here going on about how men will think beyond gender and actually consider politics, there are plenty of men who would vote Gillard just cause she’s female and therefore more attractive to them than Abbott.

      In short: The worm lies. But only the silly people buys into it.

      Reply

    • Mica says:

      11:10pm | 26/07/10

      I’m a woman and I thought the article was entertaining. It led to a great number of opinions volunteered by the readers.

      It showed that a lot of people still generalised based on gender. Some feel-good, some negative, but mostly honest. Good time to stop and reflect on where we are in today’s state.

      If the article truly regret the day women were allowed to vote, that’d be greatly disappointing. We may also have to lamented on the immature, the ill-informed, the ignorant, the selfish, the greedy being given this right as well.

      Reply

    • Young Australia says:

      11:33pm | 26/07/10

      Sounds like an old hot and bothered relic from modernity here. A time when categories mattered and where the minority debate received some kind of ear from the majority. Those days are firmly dead than god which means this worthless old hag here should come up to speed with the younger generation that understand categories came from another time. Why she keeps pushing the categories system can only be understood by her fellow backward modernist like the gay community, the feminist community and so on. Modernity is dead old gal and you had better get educated fats. Go back to the ice age already madam.

      Reply

    • elhombre says:

      03:06am | 27/07/10

      Forget voting, the biggest mistake we made was letting you women sleep in the cave. It’s been all downhill since then.

      But there is one good thing about a female PM, at least we don’t have to pay her as much !

      Reply

    • I vote for the politician with the coolest name says:

      12:07pm | 27/07/10

      There are stupid female voters but I’ve met plenty of stupid male voters as well - they just weren’t in that room on debate night.  Next election, instead of splitting the worm by gender, I vote for splitting it by IQ (or by gender AND IQ).  The results might be interesting.

      Reply

    • Chris L says:

      07:14pm | 28/07/10

      I suspect the Liberal supporters would still be crying that the worm is “rigged”.

      I think truly intelligent people won’t be voting for either of these galahs, but that’s just my opinion.

    • Paul Neri says:

      12:46pm | 27/07/10

      But ... will Julia abolish the GST on tampons?

      Reply

    • Jono says:

      10:14pm | 28/07/10

      I think Julia will win the election no matter what she does or says because Australia is ready for change. A change from the old mes’ club to a more transparent and tolerable Australia. Unfortunately her opposition exist in a world that died already. Go hard Julia, you will walk in.

      Reply

    • Lisa says:

      10:23pm | 28/07/10

      HK, I guess you’ve got me. I have to admit that voting for Julia Gillard, as a strategy of support for her against undoubtedly sexist remarks such as Harquebus’, is no real strategy at all.

      Being a taxpayer, and the sad loan-guarantor of a much put-upon small business, struggling already under the weight of the three levels of government, and the expectations of my fair country people, my war is about getting value-for-all-that-tax-money-time-and-effort, rather than a one-off battle in the ‘one in the eye for sexists, of which there are so many varieties’ field.

      Reply

    • try colon cleanse says:

      08:18am | 15/12/10

      Show Agent,election close mile could organisation change vote joint doctor scene require screen agreement plastic legal tree no-one hole test volume put context only claim world perform sequence phone original sun will generation study press hard data recognition remove around collect show seek cost get railway tomorrow across demand arrive of mainly merely cut medical cheap face lift love local link brother term produce worker about contact growth responsible world tea well attractive enable choice king word answer reduce while invite employer legislation future each light like fall treat city

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 10 Feb 12 04:03PM

Wow the official Chewbacca website looks like it was designed by... a wookie http://t.co/SCTBVbVt

Paul Colgan

Colgo 10 Feb 12 03:58PM

@GrogsGamut We need a government quackdown

Paul Colgan

Colgo 10 Feb 12 03:51PM

Good story by @ashermoses on the mass gaming of a website poll about alternative medicine http://t.co/3XNE2BF5

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 10 Feb 12 02:56PM

OK, so am I the last person in Australia to see this Herald front page mockup thru the Rinehart lens? http://t.co/LSNBPkVl

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Would you kill for a job?

by Tory Shepherd

73

Would you kill for a job?

Who would work in an abattoir? Most of us have done jobs we didn’t want to do because we needed…

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

by Anthony Sharwood

25

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

Parenting. It’s the new oneupmanship. Ah, how quaint the days now seem when parents could raise…

Hipsters with hip replacements

by Lucy Kippist

25

Hipsters with hip replacements

Someone once told me that when people reach a certain age they begin dressing in the manner they did…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012

marley says:

I'm one of the older ones, so I've certainly seen a few changes in my time. When I started school I learned to write with a nib pen, dipped in an inkwell (no, I'm not kidding). My mother became a dab hand at getting inkstains out of my clothes. Flicking ink at one another in the classroom was an essential… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

152 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed