Thank you very much Deputy Speaker and I rise to oppose the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition [little shit Abbott]. And in so doing I say to the Leader of the Opposition I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. I will not. And the Government will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. Not now, not ever.

The Leader of the Opposition says that people who hold sexist views and who are misogynists are not appropriate for high office. Well I hope the Leader of the Opposition has got a piece of paper and he is writing out his resignation. Because if he wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia, he doesn't need a motion in the House of Representatives, he needs a mirror. That's what he needs.

Let's go through the Opposition Leader's repulsive double standards, repulsive double standards when it comes to misogyny and sexism. We are now supposed to take seriously that the Leader of the Opposition is offended by Mr Slipper's text messages, when this is the Leader of the Opposition who has said, and this was when he was a minister under the last government – not when he was a student, not when he was in high school – when he was a minister under the last government.

He has said, and I quote, in a discussion about women being under-represented in institutions of power in Australia, the interviewer was a man called Stavros. The Leader of the Opposition says “If it's true, Stavros, that men have more power generally speaking than women, is that a bad thing?”

And then a discussion ensues, and another person says “I want my daughter to have as much opportunity as my son.” To which the Leader of the Opposition says “Yeah, I completely agree, but what if men are by physiology or temperament, more adapted to exercise authority or to issue command?”

Then ensues another discussion about women's role in modern society, and the other person participating in the discussion says “I think it's very hard to deny that there is an underrepresentation of women,” to which the Leader of the Opposition says, “But now, there's an assumption that this is a bad thing.”

This is the man from whom we're supposed to take lectures about sexism. And then of course it goes on. I was very offended personally when the Leader of the Opposition, as Minister of Health, said, and I quote, “Abortion is the easy way out.” I was very personally offended by those comments. You said that in March 2004, I suggest you check the records.

I was also very offended on behalf of the women of Australia when in the course of this carbon pricing campaign, the Leader of the Opposition said “What the housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing…” Thank you for that painting of women's roles in modern Australia.

And then of course, I was offended too by the sexism, by the misogyny of the Leader of the Opposition catcalling across this table at me as I sit here as Prime Minister, “If the Prime Minister wants to, politically speaking, make an honest woman of herself…”, something that would never have been said to any man sitting in this chair. I was offended when the Leader of the Opposition went outside in the front of Parliament and stood next to a sign that said “Ditch the witch.”

I was offended when the Leader of the Opposition stood next to a sign that described me as a man's bitch. I was offended by those things. Misogyny, sexism, every day from this Leader of the Opposition. Every day in every way, across the time the Leader of the Opposition has sat in that chair and I've sat in this chair, that is all we have heard from him.

And now, the Leader of the Opposition wants to be taken seriously, apparently he's woken up after this track record and all of these statements, and he's woken up and he's gone “Oh dear, there's this thing called sexism, oh my lords, there's this thing called misogyny. Now who's one of them? Oh, the Speaker must be because that suits my political purpose.”

Doesn't turn a hair about any of his past statements, doesn't walk into this Parliament and apologise to the women of Australia. Doesn't walk into this Parliament and apologise to me for the things that have come out of his mouth. But now seeks to use this as a battering ram against someone else.

Well this kind of hypocrisy must not be tolerated, which is why this motion from the Leader of the Opposition should not be taken seriously.

And then second, the Leader of the Opposition is always wonderful about walking into this Parliament and giving me and others a lecture about what they should take responsibility for.

Always wonderful about that – everything that I should take responsibility for, now apparently including the text messages of the Member for Fisher. Always keen to say how others should assume responsibility, particularly me.

Well can anybody remind me if the Leader of the Opposition has taken any responsibility for the conduct of the Sydney Young Liberals and the attendance at this event of members of his frontbench?

Has he taken any responsibility for the conduct of members of his political party and members of his frontbench who apparently when the most vile things were being said about my family, raised no voice of objection? Nobody walked out of the room; no-one walked up to Mr Jones and said that this was not acceptable.

Instead of course, it was all viewed as good fun until it was run in a Sunday newspaper and then the Leader of the Opposition and others started ducking for cover.

Big on lectures of responsibility, very light on accepting responsibility himself for the vile conduct of members of his political party.

Third, Deputy Speaker, why the Leader of the Opposition should not be taken seriously on this motion.

The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have come into this place and have talked about the Member for Fisher. Well, let me remind the Opposition and the Leader of the opposition party about their track record and association with the Member for Fisher.

I remind them that the National Party preselected the Member for Fisher for the 1984 election, that the National Party preselected the Member for Fisher for the 1987 election, that the Liberals preselected Mr Slipper for the 1993 election, then the 1996 election, then the 1998 election, then for the 2001 election, then for the 2004 election, then for the 2007 election and then for the 2010 election.

And across these elections, Mr Slipper enjoyed the personal support of the Leader of the Opposition. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that on 28 September 2010, following the last election campaign, when Mr Slipper was elected as Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition at that stage said this, and I quote.

He referred to the Member for Maranoa, who was also elected to a position at the same time, and then went on as follows: “And the Member for Fisher will serve as a fine complement to the Member for Scullin in the chair. I believe that the Parliament will be well-served by the team which will occupy the chair in this chamber. I congratulate the Member for Fisher, who has been a friend of mine for a very long time, who has served this Parliament in many capacities with distinction.”

The words of the Leader of the Opposition on record, about his personal friendship with Mr [Slipper], and on record about his view about Mr Slipper's qualities and attributes to be the Speaker.

No walking away from those words, they were the statement of the Leader of the Opposition then. I remind the Leader of the Opposition, who now comes in here and speaks about apparently his inability to work with or talk to Mr Slipper. I remind the Leader of the Opposition he attended Mr Slipper's wedding.

Did he walk up to Mr Slipper in the middle of the service and say he was disgusted to be there? Was that the attitude he took? No, he attended that wedding as a friend.

The Leader of the Opposition keen to lecture others about what they ought to know or did know about Mr Slipper. Well with respect, I'd say to the Leader of the Opposition after a long personal association including attending Mr Slipper's wedding, it would be interesting to know whether the Leader of the Opposition was surprised by these text messages.

He's certainly in a position to speak more intimately about Mr Slipper than I am, and many other people in this Parliament, given this long personal association.

Then of course the Leader of the Opposition comes into this place and says, and I quote, “Every day the Prime Minister stands in this Parliament to defend this Speaker will be another day of shame for this Parliament, another day of shame for a government which should already have died of shame.”

Well can I indicate to the Leader of the Opposition the Government is not dying of shame, my father did not die of shame, what the Leader of the Opposition should be ashamed of is his performance in this Parliament and the sexism he brings with it. Now about the text messages that are on the public record or reported in the – that's a direct quote from the Leader of the Opposition so I suggest those groaning have a word with him.

On the conduct of Mr Slipper, and on the text messages that are in the public domain, I have seen the press reports of those text messages. I am offended by their content. I am offended by their content because I am always offended by sexism. I am offended by their content because I am always offended by statements that are anti-women.

I am offended by those things in the same way that I have been offended by things that the Leader of the Opposition has said, and no doubt will continue to say in the future. Because if this today was an exhibition of his new feminine side, well I don't think we've got much to look forward to in terms of changed conduct.

I am offended by those text messages. But I also believe, in terms of this Parliament making a decision about the speakership, that this Parliament should recognise that there is a court case in progress. That the judge has reserved his decision, that having waited for a number of months for the legal matters surrounding Mr Slipper to come to a conclusion, that this Parliament should see that conclusion.

I believe that is the appropriate path forward, and that people will then have an opportunity to make up their minds with the fullest information available to them.

But whenever people make up their minds about those questions, what I won't stand for, what I will never stand for is the Leader of the Opposition coming into this place and peddling a double standard. Peddling a standard for Mr Slipper he would not set for himself. Peddling a standard for Mr Slipper he has not set for other members of his frontbench.

Peddling a standard for Mr Slipper that has not been acquitted by the people who have been sent out to say the vilest and most revolting things like his former Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Senator Bernardi.

I will not ever see the Leader of the Opposition seek to impose his double standard on this Parliament. Sexism should always be unacceptable. We should conduct ourselves as it should always be unacceptable. The Leader of the Opposition says do something; well he could do something himself if he wants to deal with sexism in this Parliament.

He could change his behaviour, he could apologise for all his past statements, he could apologise for standing next to signs describing me as a witch and a bitch, terminology that is now objected to by the frontbench of the Opposition.

He could change a standard himself if he sought to do so. But we will see none of that from the Leader of the Opposition because on these questions he is incapable of change. Capable of double standards, but incapable of change. His double standards should not rule this Parliament.

Good sense, common sense, proper process is what should rule this Parliament. That's what I believe is the path forward for this Parliament, not the kind of double standards and political game-playing imposed by the Leader of the Opposition now looking at his watch because apparently a woman's spoken too long.

've had him yell at me to shut up in the past, but I will take the remaining seconds of my speaking time to say to the Leader of the Opposition I think the best course for him is to reflect on the standards he's exhibited in public life, on the responsibility he should take for his public statements; on his close personal connection with Peter Slipper, on the hypocrisy he has displayed in this House today.

And on that basis, because of the Leader of the Opposition's motivations, this Parliament today should reject this motion and the Leader of the Opposition should think seriously about the role of women in public life and in Australian society because we are entitled to a better standard than this.

 

Julia Gillard

 

----------------------

 

We (Gus anyway) approve... So why did the SMH muck it up with a male opinion? :

 

JULIA GILLARD confronted a stark choice yesterday - the political defence of her parliamentary numbers, or the defence of the principle of respect for women.

She chose to defend her numbers. She chose power over principle. It was the wrong choice. It was an unprincipled decision and turned out not to be pragmatic either. The Prime Minister gained nothing and lost a great deal.

                                 Peter Hartcher

 

 

Did I miss something, Peter? Bugger! The top posting was about godot on the internet and I ended up rabbiting on about women... may be women are gods? I did not mean anything bad... Just observations that women tends to keep us on the straight and narrow of reality, while we're bolting like a silly horny bull in a paddock full of cows. And yes, we, men, end up at the abattoirs sooner...

 

 

Series 2020 The War On Afghan Women

 

war on women

After years of war the US government and the Taliban are making a 'peace deal'. But what does the Taliban's return to power mean for Afghan women? Will migrant Afghani workers returning home from Iran spread COVID-19?

 

See: https://iview.abc.net.au/show/foreign-correspondent

 

 

From: Ivanhoe (Sir Walter Scott, 1771–1832):

[...prevented him from putting his foot into the stirrup.] This, however, was a slight inconvenience to the gallant Abbot, who, perhaps, even rejoicing in the opportunity to display his accomplished horsemanship before so many spectators, especially of the fair sex, dispensed with the use of these supports to a timid rider.

-------------------

From Christine Caine (Faith Gateway)

February 20, 2018

Confronting Your “Frogs”

Moses said to Pharaoh, “I leave to you the honor of setting the time for me to pray for you and your officials and your people that you and your houses may be rid of the frogs, except for those that remain in the Nile.” “Tomorrow,” Pharaoh said. — Exodus 8:9-10

The frog invasion in the book of Exodus must have been a pretty miserable experience for all concerned, so Pharaoh reacted swiftly to summon Moses and ask him to get rid of them.

But look closely at what happened next. Pharaoh told Moses, “Okay, I give in; I don’t want these frogs anymore. Please speak to your God.” Moses replied, “Okay, I will go and speak to God about it.” Then he asked Pharaoh, “By the way, when would you like the frogs to go?” and Pharaoh replied, “Tomorrow.”

Weird! Why, given the choice, would anyone want to spend one more night with the frogs? What was Pharaoh thinking? Some theologians argue that the reason he said this was because he hoped the frogs would disappear overnight, so he wouldn’t have to give God the credit. Whatever his rationale, I just cannot imagine what would compel anyone to spend one more night with a frog infestation if he or she did not have to.

This story serves as a picture of our lives. What “frogs” are we living with that God has offered to remove yet we are still hanging onto for “one more night”?

Everyone has “frogs.” We may not like to acknowledge it or think about it, but we have frogs. What frogs have invaded your life that you have learned to live with? Real frogs are, by nature, noisy creatures. They don’t just sit quietly; they hop around randomly and they croak incessantly. Just like them, the “frogs” in our lives are croaking and making a nuisance of themselves, but so often we choose to ignore the noise and put up with them. But God wants to help us get rid of those frogs so that we can clearly hear His voice and not have it drowned out by their racket.

 

https://www.faithgateway.com/in-praise-of-women/#.XppH2K17FmM

--------------------------

Argentinian health official Dr. José Barletta said during a Friday briefing that it was important to avoid having sexual intercourse with strangers during the pandemic, and suggested that “virtual sex” and masturbation could be a suitable alternative for those not spending the quarantine with their regular partners, the Buenos Aires Times reported.

https://sputniknews.com/latam/202004191079017802-wash-hands--sanitise-se...

—————————

The subject of women has been complexed by simplistic religious beliefs, conflicting secular social codes trying to pander to religious beliefs, women’s own desires and men’s various emotions from lust to possession. On this site, we have not shied of tackling the vexing issues on this subject, using satire and straight views. The relationships between men and women is important in a democratic world. The relationships between men and women have been rather messy through history and glossed over with Princesses fairly tales and the dramatisation of Cleopatra’s affairs… with the Lion King story being the ultimate distort of human equality.

From Islamic strict enslaving of women (let’s not call this rubbish a code, a religion or a faith) to the NOW more liberal emancipated views of some of the Christian churches, we have to free the concept of being man and woman from any sense of superiority — though the superiority of men is still instilled in Catholic weddings, despite claims to the contrary.

Attraction, respect, commitment and acceptance of sexuality in equality are ingredients of proper “love” in which we feel happy to share our life with a mate of the opposite sex (let’s leave the concept of homosexuality away from here for a while). It’s not always ideal. Many disagreements, different hopes, viewpoint differences, pitfalls, natural cycles, influences of the “greater” world out there, temptation of the greener grass on the other side of our original commitment, there are many “frogs”, that could make a relationship fail. 

As well, finding a mate is a fluid process which most religious formats bypass by making unilateral decision about who should marry whom — love or no love. Underage marriages are the pits and kill the free spirit of women early. In regard to finding love, at which level are we going to commit? 70 per cent, 99 per cent of compatibility? Money? Dowry? Fun of being together? In need of help?

There are elements of seduction, which to a religion would appear bordering on the devil’s work, and of the chosen need to help one another. Sometimes, the union of a man and a women ends up in the doldrums, divorce, etc — and the woman often finds herself with a raw deal. Dealing with babies, children and adolescents can be stressful. When blame starts to enter the relationship, the end is often near, sometimes with violence against women. 

Governments never do enough because, no matter what, they often are men-o-centric. Between 2014 and 2016 there were 264,028 domestic violence incidents reported and recorded in Australia. However, Australian Bureau of Statistics's released data revealed that 80% of women and 95% of men who had experienced violence from a current partner never contacted the police. The most common reason for not reporting was cited as fear of revenge or further violence from the current partner. Between 2014 and 2015, 2,800 women and 560 men were hospitalised after being assaulted by a spouse or partner. On average, one woman a week is murdered by her current or former partner. 1 in 4 women have experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner since the age of 15. Most men who get hurt in such incidents have abused their partner who had enough of being victimised and fought back. Some males think they are not treated well by the family courts, and often seek refuge in the Bettina Arndt haven. Things can get ugly. The original sentiments of love have gone through the window. Sometimes love and hate live in the same hearts. It’s not helped by failing health and men could end up being a pain in the arse, like that fellow in “one Foot in the Grave"...

The religious gurus would say that having faith would prevent falling into this crap, because of the blessed submissive attitude of women. As well faith can prevent you listening to the devil of lust bitting you on the side. Religious codes are very fierce on this subject with the ninth commandment “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife.” (it’s very male, isn’t it) and the sixth commandment “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Transgressed, these commands are deemed to deserve punishment. In Islam, this punishment is physical, like flogging and even death. In most cases, the women will bear the brunt of the punishment, like naughty Jezebels. 

Jezebel, along with her husband, Ahab, instituted the worship of Baal and Asherah in Israel. She eliminated Yahweh’s prophets, damaging the standing of her Omride dynasty in the process says the bible. The Omride Dynasty was annihilated by Jehu’s troops, restoring the beliefs in Yahweh (yahoo!), while Jezebel suffered the gruesome death of defenestration. Plenty of this defenestration after this… including one night of horrors during the religious war in Europe...

In the Christian religion, adultery was also punished by physical punishment (including stoning) which is abuse, but now it’s more like a bit of shaming and a bit of counselling which is another form of abuse, while most of it stays hidden — like priests having it off with minors — under the cone of silence, the secrecy of confession. Priests act like church-appointed psychologists of godots...

The sixth and ninth commandments honor human sexuality. This commandment forbids the actual, physical act of having immoral sexual activity, specifically adultery, which is sex with someone else’s spouse or a spouse cheating on their partner. This commandment also includes fornication, which is sex between unmarried people, prostitution, pornography, homosexual activity, masturbation, group sex, rape, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia. 

Condoms, pills and sex for fun are out… In this list, there are some similar secular restrictions, but none so many with consenting live adults, violence excepted… 

—————————

The two religious samples above are telling on how some men (Sir Walter Scott) view women as fair things to be impress with a feat (like being beaten to a pulp gloriously in a boxing match can be attractive to some women looking for a strong or brave man) and how some women (Christine Caine) view “problems" (frogs). What does this mean? I have to interpret, possibly wrongly to what she means. There is a hierarchy of relationships between men and women, some of which has been equalised and some of which are still under religious domination. Most religions view women as subservient to men and teach women to be happy or cope with this non-negotiable arrangement. Here again religious sex mutilation, including circumcision, are aberrant. 

Even in sexual relations, most women can be treated as sex objects, sometimes replaced by sex-dolls by men who don’t like the “back chat” or the difficulties of a relationship with obligations and sharing (equally or not) — or the men are not up the task of treating women with respect. There might come a time when abusing a robot, becomes a sin.

Caine* seems to be happy with her relationship with god, and this is fair enough, but does not really sort out her relationships with men. Such views do not not transcribe from the ideal to the earthly. God is faultless. Men are stupid. There is a certain delusion in the idealisation of what should be and  — between you, me and a glass of red ned — there is no perfect relationship. Relationships have to be maintained with commitment and valuing each others contribution equally — and be helpful in times of need. This can fall into the routine of habit and there is nothing wrong with this, though from time to time a new “frog” will come along. Not a full plague, hopefully not, though.

Abrahamic religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) consider women as second fiddles, if not in spirit, but as practical necessities go. They claim they respect women, but they don’t. Christianity has worked somewhat to abandon this tenet, not because it revalued the role of women but let’s be frank, it was losing bums on seat — as most secular laws were equalising the genders. 

The Taliban is an extreme Islamic application of the Q’ran, though most of the Islamic world is inclined to subjugate women into specific subservient roles. The man owns his woman and she has to do as he pleases. The women learn this role and nothing else. And this is the crunch. This is optimum control with a sledgehammer: the text of the Q’ran. Men have their role as well, but it’s a piece of cake — they have to take care of their possession, like providing food and shelter, but the whole system is perverse in its inequality — through dress codes, abuses and punishments.

The Americans in their insanity never understood the psychology of freedom, especially when applied to other nations. They have been in Afghanistan for 19 years and so far there has been no REAL progress in changing the attitudes of most men towards women. As the Americans are about to leave the place, most women who have managed some emancipation are fearful of a return to slavery under Islamic sharia law. How come? The Taliban has not been defeated. The Islamic rule has not been toned down, unlike the Christians who were toned by secular laws in the West. Mind you in the West, especially America, secularity about abortion and other difficult so-called moral subjects are still under the grasps of evangelicals, who, to say boo to democracy, tend to rule the American psyche. 

And this is where the Yanks muffed it. In the 1980s, the socialists/communists in Afghanistan took power of the government. This would have eventually morphed into a more equal society. Progress would have been made. This situation was of a similar kind to the “French revolution” which to some extend was a socialistic revolution, contrarily to the “American revolution” which was seeking freedom for the rich in the new land by declaring everyone equal under god (except women, slaves, the poor and the downtrodden, in practice, as the dollar became god). 

Christianity precedes islam by about 700 years, while who knows about Judaism. None of these religious beliefs deserve any respect, as they do not reflect the human condition but idealise a control of women by sadistic deluded men. In this, the Taliban are the worst, but they have had good neighbours (or teachers) in the hypocritical Saudis. Since their defeat at Poitiers, since their expulsion from Spain in the 15th century, the Islamic world has fought to reconquer the West, while the West has been wishy-washy about this all religious embracing, even written in constitutions — as it has not been able to deal yet with the true value of its own secularity — thus its own democracy. Democracy can only exist in secularity. Think about it. 

With this new plague of frogs (the coronavirus), we could come to term with eradicating religion out of our psyche. The Chinese have worked hard at it, but the illusion of god does not die. It’s like a Hydra with a continuing fiery vengeance. Humans can do better than submit to this rubbish, but guns in the hands of religious fanatics do not help the human species. This is why the Yanks failed in Afghanistan: too much respect for the Islamic rubbish because of the respect of their own Christian rubbish while carrying the biggest guns in hand. The secularity of socialism would have served Afghanistan better in the long run but the Yanks hate socialism more than anything else — because it shows that their own revolution was a fraud. Successful fraud to a point, mind you... 

Can the women stage the next stage of secularity and freedom? I’m afraid not, if they still believe in religious dictums… Men have been too secretly conspiratorial so far… Women won’t be equal until religions created by men  — all religions — are thrown onto the rubbish tip. And women are the one to do it, but will they?



Read from top.

Further reading:
https://yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/21714
http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/35936
http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/18453
http://yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/32297



*note: (Caine) When I first became a Christian, I had no concept of my value as a woman. 



GL.

A rabid atheist and secularist.

Barack Obama’s team watched Julia Gillard’s misogyny speech whenever they were “really annoyed” with Tony Abbott, one of the president’s senior advisers has revealed.

Ben Rhodes, the former deputy national security adviser, has also described how Obama “went way off the script” to blast the Abbott government for climate inaction during a visit to Brisbane for the G20 summit in 2014.

For his part, Rhodes described Abbott as being “tone deaf” on the climate issue in the lead-up to the Paris agreement and recalled the former prime minister as being “upset” about the US president’s forceful intervention on protecting the Great Barrier Reef.

The behind-the-scenes tension between Obama and Abbott is laid bare in the latest episode of A Rational Fear, a news and politics comedy podcast.

In an interview, Rhodes said he and others at the White House had regularly watched the 2012 video of Gillard declaring she would “not be lectured about sexism and misogyny” by Abbott.

“I will tell you that whenever we were really annoyed with Tony Abbott, we would watch the video of that speech by Julia Gillard,” Rhodes said.

“That speech got watched a lot in the Obama White House, let me just put it that way,” he added with a smile, but did not specify whether the president was one of the viewers.

Rhodes said while Obama had been able to work positively with centre-right leaders including Germany’s Angela Merkel and Britain’s David Cameron, it was no secret that Abbott was “far from his favourite leader to begin with”.

“What was frustrating with Abbott, you know, is he was kind of very sure of himself without really knowing what he was talking about,” Rhodes told the podcast hosts, Dan Ilic and Lewis Hobba.

Obama had been “trying to get Australia to do some minimal stuff”, such as setting a target to reduce emissions by 2030 or providing funding for developing countries.

 

Read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/30/obama-white-house...

 

Of course, read the speech above (praise the fairer sex...).

 

 

Read from top.