“Quite a bit of the criticism is sexist and unfair and unrelenting and the Prime Minister needs a bit of a break from that,” he told journalists in Canberra.
“I just think the degree of relentless criticism on this Prime Minister coming from male commentators, it’s probably all subconscious, but is sexist and quite ridiculous at times.”
And the other night:
BOB BROWN: It’s not across-the-board, of course it’s not, but it needed calling for what it is and I think that will do no harm at all to the level of political debate and to getting back onto issues of the day and the direction forward for this country, which is where the Greens want to see the debate going.
EMMA ALBERICI: But people have been criticising her, including yourself, on policy matters, not on account of her gender?
BOB BROWN: That’s right. And Emma, I’m not saying that the – and never have indicated, and nor would I, that all the attacks are sexist. I’m just saying there is an added component of sexism in the attack on this Prime Minister which I’ve never seen with any other prime minister.
How inconvenient for those who’d LOVE to run a vacuous beatup about his remarks that he kept pointing out that he wasn’t saying “all” the critical commentary was sexist, just that there was a sexist undertone to some of it. Unsurprising – since Bob Brown is obviously a regular critic of Julia Gillard himself – but inconvenient.
But who cares about reality? Who cares about what Bob Brown actually said? Commentators… commence pretending that he said that “all” criticism of Gillard was “sexist”. “All” of it!
Sabine Wolff at ABC’s The Drum:
By suggesting that a subconscious sexism pervades all criticism of Julia Gillard’s leadership, Brown has effectively denied that there is any legitimacy to claims that Gillard has been a less-than-effective prime minister.
Seriously, Senator Brown? Dissing the Prime Minister is sexist now?
Meanwhile, Andrew Bolt does acknowledge that Brown has indeed criticised Gillard himself – which you’d think would make it obvious that he never said that “all” criticism of the PM was “sexist”. But if your readers already think Brown is an insane liar, then maybe you can get them to believe that he’s enough of a “hypocrite” and “fraud” to damn exactly his own behaviour!
BOB Brown is trying everything to save his meal ticket – like making himself look stupid and deceitful… Now such accusations – which he himself once laid – are just “sexist”. Heaven spare us such frauds.
Love the “meal ticket” bit, too, a nice little shout-out for those stupid enough to think that Brown really is the “Deputy PM” with some kind of extra salary for working with JuLIAR.
That’s the stupidest ranting on the subject I’ve seen – but I’ve been having difficulty with my Internet access because Telstra apparently can’t provide reliable 3G coverage to the Melbourne CBD, so I might have missed your favourite. Feel free to share in the comments the silliest efforts you’ve seen.
UPDATE: Not particularly impressed by this effort from our own parent site:
But it doesn’t follow that Gillard is currently the victim of sexist criticism from male journalists (for one thing, last time we checked, there were plenty of female journalists in the press gallery giving Gillard a serve).
It’s not male commentators that caused Gillard’s poor performance at the Labor conference in December, nor did they have a hand in her inept reshuffle soon after. They didn’t compel her to abandon her agreement with Andrew Wilkie. They didn’t dispatch her media adviser to play political games on Australia Day.
Did anyone listen to what Brown actually said?
And while we’re on the subject – women can be sexist about women. If a female journalist writes guff about empty fruit bowls or lack of children or whatever, playing on nasty stereotypes about women – and they do – how is it not “sexist”?
75 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Not one for context are you Howie?, especially when you have that overwhelming feeling that your grotesque prejudices and extreme right wing ideology starts creeping out from under the word games you hide under…
The simple point is, you won’t find anyone who remembers John Howard being barraged with insults peculiar to his gender, or about his decisions to breed..
Your pals on the right wing benches make a fool of you…I doubt they even feel thankful you are so busy running interference for them on this blog..
Catsidhe
Catsy, maaaate, don’t be like that.
Now, I know it must have been a bit embarrasing for you, realising you’d gone off half-cocked and misdirected your linguistic methodological trivia at the wrong person in all your over-eagerness to lay the slipper into me. However, being the generous soul I am, I’m not one to dwell on such misteps. We are only human, after all and I forgive you.
Now, take the person you should have availed with the inherent meaninglessness of unqualified google hit numbers, Zoot. Look at him there, still clinging to a malapropism of mine from many treads ago, yet strangely unable to produce a point relevant to the discussion hand.
Luckily, for you Catsy, I won’t using your faux pas as a substitute for a counterpoint in threads to come.
Zoot
Still no point relevant discussion-wise, Zooty? Not to worry, cobber, you’ll get there one day.
This is the exception that proves the rule. When applied to men as an insult, ‘bitch’ derives its force from the attribution of an alleged female attributes — in this case the need to surrender sexual service to a powerful male figure and/or to seek advantage by being a supplicant to someone capable of giving it.
So even when hurled at a male, it’s an example of misogyny.
Fran
I admire your persistent attempt to engage Howard on an intellectual level but I think you are wasting your time.
His obsession with other readers’ educational qualifications and reference to ‘high school quadrangle’ indicate a mind still stuck in the playground and it’s associated taunts and macho posturing.
It’s a bit like trying to debate a creationist with the facts of evolution – no matter how patiently you create your argument and explain the science, you may as well be talking to a brick wall.
At least the brick wall doesn’t spew forth utter rubbish.
But I do have one thing to thank Howard for, and that would be his priceless line that
the term ‘bitch’ … is not in itself sexist but merely a gender specific insult.
Now that is comedy gold. I hear Stephen Colbert is always looking for writers well versed in satire and irony.
Cobber @52:
There’s been a plethora of relevant points Howie. They’ve sailed right over your head.
Just scroll the Troll , Ladies and gentlemen.
Jonesy
I’d like to think of my ‘grotesque prejudices and extreme right wing ideology’ as more goose-stepping over things than creeping out from under them. You know, crushing the oppressed and marginalized under jackboot and caterpillar track, and the such. Perhaps all backed by a stirring martial tune for effect.
Anywho, not to cede any of your points in this sidebar, Jonesy, but it appears you’ve led me down rabbit hole. Bobby Brown appears to be talking about media commentary of Joolz’s tenure as PM, thus your example of a few protestor’s writing ‘bitch’ on a placard or a lone senator’s comments of five years ago are null and void for the purposes of discussion thereof.
I’d like to think this digression occured by design on your part, Jonesy and I’ve been trolled. In which case, kudos.
Fran
Whilst it is true that the force of the insult of calling a man a ‘bitch’, ‘girl’, ‘sheila’ etc. lies in the allegation of female attributes, is it suggesting that female attributes in themselves are the offending issue or is it the fact a man is exhibiting them? Is this a hatred of female attributes, or just the belief that a man should not exhibit them? I’d suggest this is the ‘context’ you often cite, Fran and a subscription to traditional gender stereotypes doe not imply misogyny.
When a woman is disparaged as ‘butch’, would you call this misandry? I’d simply say the insult suggests the percieved male attributes are misplaced as opposed to implying a hatred of all things male.
They’re not even going to give him a cent of of their billions for all his self-abasement!
No you’re just wrong, as usual…you’ve undone yourself as you do in every single thread.
You either don’t get out much or don’t read much..but you’d be hard pressed to find a single thread of comments on any right wing blog that doesn’t use it or repeat that the PM lacks empathy because as a women she chooses not to breed.
As usual Howie, your attempts to diffuse are an utter failure. With apologists like you, the right is poorly serviced.
From the Poll Bludger blog.
Roy Orbison
Posted Sunday, October 16, 2011 at 12:42 pm
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2011/10/14/morgan-52-5-47-5-to-coalition/comment-page-31/#comment-1059376
Jonesy
The ol’ declare yourself the winner tactic, Jonesy? Beloved of poor-sport children across backyards eveywhere. Let’s hope you don’t end up taking your bat and ball and going home.
Suggesting that Gillard’s gender makes her unsuitable for the position of PM or the such is indeed an objectionable sexism. However outside some of the exceedingly marginal and unreconstructed elements of public opinion, I haven’t seen such a view expressed, let alone, as Brown claims, “…in media commentary…it’s there in the Opposition’s relentless attacks.” Now before you raise the case of boof-head Harradine, keep in mind his ill-considered attack was not suggesting unsuitability because of gender in itself, but because of a particular choice in life.
Alberici pressed Brown on Lateline to point to specific cases and the best he could do was wave vaguely at the media and opposition in general, whilst specifically citing online and protest vitriol. In relation to the latter, and putting aside the aforementioned unreconstructed demographic, calling the PM a ‘bitch’, whilst acknowledging her gender, is not in itself a suggestion that Gillard’s gender is the issue, and cannot be deconstructed any further than a juvenile and emotional reaction to her politics. Whether calling the PM a ‘bitch’ or John Howard a ‘rodent’, ‘toad’, etc., both are visceral reactions to their politics with one of the insults merely acknowledging the gender of its target. Qualitatively, there is no real difference between the two examples, and both reflect poorly on the utterer.
Yep the impenetrable right wing reality bubble, the Bizzaro world..
As usual, another thread comes wheezing to a tedious end, bloated full of flummery courtesy of Howie the Bore.
Your lips say ‘bore’, Jonesy, yet your eyes keep coming back for more.
Now, Jonesy, you know I’m ever amenable to reason. If you could just do what Sen. Brown would not and point to these presumably many examples in amongst ostensibly respectable media commentary suggesting that Gillard’s gender, in and of itself, is an issue, I’ll happily concede the point and you could consider my ‘right-wing reality bubble’ burst.
Until then, Brown’s attempt to conflate considered criticism with the visceral and vitriolic rantings of the crankosphere can be considered a red herring.
FTFY.
Guys, If you just ignored Blowhard,B. – or at most referred to him derisively in the third-person – he’d soon crawl off in search of a more receptive space to drop his castings.
Cuppa said:
It’s certainly possible Cuppa, but I feel sorry for him. He obviously has ‘issues’, and one suspects he doesn’t have a lot of reliable friends with whom to hang out.
I doubt he really believes much of what he* posts. Rather, these sound more like the kinds of mental exercise in which one used to engage as part of high school debating. He has worked out that agreeing with people doesn’t get him the attention that he craves and isn’t a sufficiently original thinker to build on what others have said. Accordingly, all he has is trolling disagreement. Behind these posts probably lies a person who feels marginalised and isolated. His antics are an attempt to salve his pain. We aren’t required to endorse his nonsense. Sometimes his reiteration of some right-of-centre trope does afford an opportunity to refute this for the benefit of others who may be wondering how best to do it. If this also contributes to the happiness of one lonely chap, perhaps making his life a little less wearisome, then perhaps having him here may be a win all round.
I should say, for the record, that I don’t dislike conservatives or even reactionaries on any personal level, and wish no harm to their life chances. Subject always to the demands of equity, I would wish them (along with everyone else) the happiest lives possible. There’s no upsoide for working people in large swathes of the population feeling miserable, even if they are largely the authors of their own misery. Misery, like happiness, is infectious. If we can spread the latter and cap the former, the chances of authentic human community draw nearer.
* I strongly suspect he is male. There’s a strong ‘mansplaining’ tone.
Fran,
But that’s state towards which right-wing policies ultimately force the working population. Working harder and longer for less and less, subject to instant dismissal (even if they’ve done nothing wrong), hostage to executive tyranny. Dignity spat upon, their unions vilified and ultimately destroyed. Kept anesthetised by consumerism and bread and circuses – tabloid right-wing gibberish across the media, appealing to double-digit IQs… kept toeing the line by scare campaigns and demonisation of minorities. With, at the top of the heap, a handful of the wealthiest persons and corporations on the planet, all below doing their bidding to one extent or another, consciously or unconsciously.
Fran
As much as I enjoy a spot of amateur psychology, it would have been nice if you’d engaged the points with which you disagreed. Or perhaps, given no one else here appears willing or able, helped Sen. Brown out a little and answered the question he couldn’t. Instead it appears you’ve opted for the ‘playing the man\woman, not the ball’ routine, although an admittedly sophisticated rendition thereof.
Anywho, after that thorough psychological deconstuction, I can only hope the bill will not be too excessive.
Sexist!
Cuppa
Whilst I have you hear, Cuppa, I’d like to commend you on your stirling effort in seeking to take out the Cut and Paste trophy.
Howard, B declared:
Been there, done that. You chose to ignore it, or else, as you subsequent remarks recommended, it went over your head.
“Mansplaining” is not a sexist term. Men are the empowered and privileged group, relative to women. Sexism is about the underpinning of male power over women, not mere gendering of language.
Now, now Fran, what is objectionable discrimination is not something we get to pick and choose on the basis of who we deem to be ‘empowered’ or not: it is a hard and fast rule that must be applied consistently and equally. After all, as Julia proves, not all women are ‘disempowered’.
But this is really the crux of our little back-and-forth here, and in general. Your politics involves citing imprecise victim groups who are deemed to be forever held hostage to some historical or cultural hangover. You seek to treat individuals differently according to membership status thereof regardless of all else, as oppossed to treating individuals as just that and applying the same standard consistently. Some may say this group-identity based commitment to equality is a little unequal
FWIW, I agree the gendering of language is not ‘sexist’, whilst suggesting one’s gender alone makes one unsuitable for certain roles is. However, unlike yourself, I apply these standards consistently, as we saw in the points raised @ 58 which you choose ignore.
Anywho, best not let this go on for much longer, Fran, else someone may tell us to get a room again. Or worse, Cuppa will plead with you to refrain from using a forum of online debate to actually debate.
Howard, B proposed as follows:
This needs unpacking. Which folk as a group requires no “deeming”. A simple look at income and asset distribution by sex, or numbers by sex at or above middle management tells us well enough about who is empowered and who isn’t. Throwing in the term “equally” is, again, an attempt to whin by equivication because it is not at all clear what is to be weighed equally. You want a straight trade between male and female, but since the two groups are not equally well-disposed that would be unequal in equity terms. What needs to be equal is the prospective gain or loss of both groups and the chance of each occurring.
That, rather than what you propose, would be consistent.
FTR, I am debating because there are worthwhile points to be made. That you are on the other side of it is neither here nor there, though following what I said above, if the exchange gives you pleasure, I consider that a bonus.
Given that you appear to be investing as much in this exchange as I am, Fran, I’d like to think of it as mutually beneficial. It takes two to tango, after all.
And this is to your credit, Fran. If only some of the other poor-sports here had your commitment to the cut-and-thrust.
This would all be very relevant if our society was a series of interactions between groups, as opposed to individuals, which, of course, it is more so the latter than the former. And so your cited statistics are, in this regard, null and void: the male wino who haunts my local park is not empowered and Gina Reinhardt is not disempowered.
No, what needs to be equal is the ‘group’ we all belong to for the purposes of interacting with each other, and that is the one group of ‘citizenry’. I believe we’ve had a similar discussion before.
Fap-and-fap is more like it
Another thread run into the ground with relentless blinkered pompous self-serving Howie BS.
What’s the point? You’ve spectacularly failed to convince anyone here…and made a bore of yourself in the process.
Is this the sound of you taking your bat and ball and going home, Jonesy?
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All