Tagged: Julia Gillard

Julia Gillard – trial by gender. Verdict – exile!

It is as if the metaphorical media lens is a microscope, 1000 times more scrutinising of women.

It is as if the metaphorical media lens is a microscope, 1,000 times more scrutinising of women — indeed, less critical of men. If Julia Gillard had bat ears, it is unlikely she would have made it to the prime ministership in the first place.

A word of caution: If you happen to be a highly intelligent woman with deep philosophical convictions and passion for the future of Australia, and have aspirations to become prime minister, go for it. But only if you do not have any physical imperfections that make you lesser in appearance to Elle McPherson. But then again, if you are blond, the media will destroy you anyway.

As if looking back on the demise of Julia Gillard, Marilyn Lake wrote a piece for The Age, just one day before Australia’s first female prime minister was ousted by the Labor caucus, in favour of a … you guessed it … a male … who will, odds on, not be sexualised by Australia’s media and wider culture. By Bruce Keogh

An excerpt from Marilyn Lake’s article 25 June 2013:

How could we have foreseen what would befall her? The relentless persecution by senior male journalists, the vilification, the sexist mockery, the personal abuse and the contempt with which she would be treated. Between 2010 and 2013, the full force of Australia’s masculinist political culture would be brought to bear on this path-breaking woman.

It is now a truism that history will prove more sympathetic to Gillard’s prime ministership – and the policies she introduced – than contemporary commentators have been.

What will mostly attract historians’ attention, however, will be how she was treated, the rabid misogyny, the hysteria of men who could not abide the spectacle of a woman in power, who labelled her a bitch, a witch, a liar, a usurper, an illegitimate claimant who refused to bow down before her male rivals.

She has been sexualised in a way no previous prime minister has been sexualised.

In the past three years, obscenity has become a favourite mode of prime ministerial denigration.

Full column by Marilyn Lake who is Professor in History at the University of Melbourne researching the international history of Australian democracy.

Julia Gillard’s ‘misogyny speech’ – that famous spray


In retrospect: Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s famous ‘misogyny speech’ directed at Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

That was 9 October 2012 and within a day it has gone viral around the world!

ABC News report with video


Anna Burke … the class of 2012


Order! The Member for Transylvania will withdraw
Order! The Member for Transylvania will withdraw

29 November 2012

On and on it went, question time after question time during the final week of Federal Parliament for 2012. Julie Bishop rising to her feet countless times to say, “My question is to the Prime Minister”, followed by a plethora of accusations and claims about Prime Minister Gillard’s past as a lawyer with Slater & Gordon, her involvement with then boyfriend Bruce Wilson and that infamous slush fund.

I was there in the public gallery each day and it really did become painful to listen to. Not just with Bishop’s dog-with-a-bone antics, but with Gillard’s return fire – she must have said “sleaze and smear” at least 100 times.

Julie Bishop was determined to draw blood but Gillard was as stone-like as ever, and Bishop failed – testament to the old adage: you can’t get blood out of stone.

Painful as it was, it was pure theatre and for that I loved being there. As good theatre as you will find anywhere and what’s more, it was free!

But the star of the show was undoubtedly Speaker Anna Burke. I was not alone as I giggled every time she said “The member for (such and such) will withdraw” or “The member for (such and such) will resume his (or her) seat”.

Making the likes of Christopher Pyne, Joe Hockey, Bronwyn Bishop (and Julie Bishop herself) look so helpless after rising  to object to the speaker’s directives, was done so masterfully that it became humorous. They looked like naughty little school children being ticked off by their teacher.

On the other side, Anthony Albanese – who must have been a circus clown in a past life – pushed the boundaries and was given short shrift by Burke, whilst Gillard was brought into line unceremoniously when she stepped out of line.

All done with aplomb, that innate subliminal humour and that cut-through voice that would put razor blades to shame.

Anna Burke and the class of 2012 … Anna Burke was the class of 2012!

Related Sydney Morning Herald column

Gillard, Gonski, Garrett – the 3 G’s of education

Midnight oil glosses over the nitty gritty
Midnight oil glosses over the nitty gritty

28 November 2012

Let’s get this legislation through before the end of the year. A great way to end 2012, with me taking the high moral ground on education. Imagine that – me – moral! Suits me, don’t you think?

No-one would possibly disagree with Gonski’s proposal that federal and state governments should collaborate to fund schools according to their needs – not even Abbott or Pyne. They wouldn’t dare. Everyone would agree that education reform, with better and more equitable funding, is worthwhile. The states can’t disagree – it’s the Gonski way or no way. They know that.

It’s a gimme! We’ll call it the ‘3 G’s of Education’ – Gillard, Gonski and Garrett. But who thought of the whole thing in the first place? Me!

Sure! This bill has glaring shortcomings – it’s wafer thin, has no substance and is legislation that doesn’t legislate. There are no funds allocated, no new agency, no new requirements or regulations.

But we’re going to get away with it!

We’re even going to take another audacious step and call it “the most important bill of 2012″. What genius thought of that? Me!

I don’t even know how it will be funded, if it ever will be. We’ll just say that it will depend on negotiations with the states as they proceed. That’s our tactic to avoid the nitty gritty – not that there is any nitty gritty.

This is political perfection. Big promises, no-strings-attached-funding and huge electoral appeal.

Thanks to Tony Abbott, God bless his soul, his ‘Dr No’ image has played right into our hands. If the Coalition-led states try to block Gonski, they are seen to be negative naysayers, just like him. He has already tainted his and other coalitions, and they are in damage-control mode.

And even better –  if they agree – they are seen as disowning him. Tony hates it when anyone agrees with us.

It’s win-win for us, lose-lose for them.

Now Peter, take this copy home and study it. It won’t take long. Get out there tomorrow strut your stuff.

Before you go, could you please sing a few bars of Power and the Passion?

Who is the queen of opportunism standing on high moral ground? Me!

Imagine that – me – Queen Julia! Suits me don’t you think?

Related article and source

Rudd’s ruses for return as Prime Minister

Drop me off at The Lodge for my new incarnation ... please!
Drop me off at The Lodge for my new incarnation … please!

1 November 2012

Stork: So you want to go to The Lodge. Didn’t I drop you off there in 2007?

Baby: That was my last incarnation. I want to go there again. I am a new person as you might have noticed on my recent TV appearances. I’ve been making quite a splash.

Stork: But the nice couple who live there don’t want kids. Besides, the lady of the house helped you get there in the first place and she doesn’t want you back. She is staying put and not moving out for a baby-faced upstart like you.

Baby: I had so much faith in her, but she dumped me and then she moved in.

Stork: But you were very badly behaved weren’t you? All those tantrums!

Baby: Just a minute. Now I know who you are – you are her in disguise.

Stork: Gotcha! You thought you were pulling a swiftie on me. A sneaky way to get to The Lodge. Get ready for your second dumping – from a great height. It won’t be on TV but you will make quite a splash.

Baby: But you are supposed to be a giver of life, not a taker.

Stork: Look! I am just a mythical being disguising the truth about how prime ministers are really born. I also disguise the truth about how they are killed off. As you well know, I am an expert at both.

Baby: I am the rightful Prime Minister and I intend to be re-incarnated no matter what it takes. Could you drop me off in a cabbage patch?

Stork: You are delusional.

 The Drum – Robert Macklin: Can you forgive and forget, Kevin Rudd?

Alan Jones: Gillard’s father died of shame

Free speech, in the form of poisonous deranged rantings, can come at a price
Free speech, in the form of poisonous deranged rantings, can come at a price

1 October 2012

How ironic that John Gillard was a psychiatric nurse.

Described as a humble, good-hearted man who spent his life improving the lives of others, he no doubt cared for his all patients with respect and kindness – including the deranged, insulting him with cruel and abusive comments, unaware of what they were saying.

Enter Alan Jones who must surely fit into the ‘deranged’ category.

While paying tribute to her father in parliament on September 19, Prime Minister Julia Gillard said her father “felt more deeply than me, in many ways, some of the personal attacks that we face in the business of politics”.

Sadly – but not surprisingly – after his death, neither John Gillard nor his beloved, now grieving daughter Julia were afforded respect and kindness from Alan Jones.

Jones’ now infamous comment can surely, only be attributable to derangement: “The old man recently died a few weeks ago of shame. To think he has a daughter who told lies every time she stood for parliament.”

Jones went on to suggest Ms Gillard’s tears of grief, for a man she publicly said she “will miss for the rest of my life”, were what sparked a sudden leap in political polling for her.

Deranged? Well ~

No-one in their right mind, especially such a publicly influential person, could make comments such as:

  • I’m putting her in a chaff bag and hoisting her into the Tasman Sea.
  • Yeah, that’s it. (in reference to Ms Gillard) Bring back the guillotine.

Jones has repeatedly labelled Julia Gillard as a liar. He is pretty loose with the truth himself. Delusional?

  •  Everyone in Labor Caucus knows she’s a liar. Has he spoken to each and every member? Has there been a vote in this issue?
  • (In relation to his infamous ‘died of shame’ speech) I spoke without notes for 58 minutes, I’ve no idea of the material I covered. Does that mean he is actually denying saying it? But it was recorded and has been reported. Surely that would prompt his memory. Guess his condition of convenient amnesia is serious. Conversely, his memory of convenience managed to recall that he spoke for 58 minutes – as a cop out for ‘forgetting’? What extraordinary coincidences of convenience!

His capacity for gross exaggeration also raises serious questions:

  • No, no look, hang on, this is where we are weak. This is where we are weak. Can you believe that they have gone, the federal (Liberal) party, because they’ve been brainwashed by the media to “oh back off, she’s a woman, go easy”. There is little evidence that the Coalition has softened. Julie Bishop, who happens to be a woman, has been as tough as any of her male counterparts. Effectively, this comment suggests that the Coalition should stoop to Jones’ low standards. God help the parliament then!

Or maybe, just maybe, the man is just plain stupid, which could explain all of the above. How’s this one:

  • (Referring to the “died of shame” comment.) It was a throw away line at a private function – I thought it was a private function. But, Alan, you are after all, Alan Jones. Whenever you make comments at any gathering, you are bound to be commented on, repeated or God forbid, recorded. What else would you expect?

Or maybe he is very smart. Maybe he knows what his peculiar audiences wants to hear.

Ratings and profit before poisonous deranged rantings. Fancy that!

Long live freedom of speech – but in Alan Jones’ case, let’s confine it to his psychiatric ward. “Time for your tablets, Mr Jones. Better take them or you might suffer another nasty relapse. And that could be the end of you. We wouldn’t want that, would we?”

Or would we?