-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
Grundle is amazing.
That's okay. I signed up for (another) free account anyway
Probably paywall moderation not as strict
That's something awful. Get it.
http://www.news.com.au/national/jul...lame-tony-abbott/story-fncynjr2-1227152406755
Wow, trying to deflect as much comments away from Peta credlin as possible.
But the entire argument fails when you look at one thing -
Yeah, , considered the co-prime minister for a reason.
Wow, trying to deflect as much comments away from Peta credlin as possible.
But the entire argument fails when you look at one thing -
Yeah, , considered the co-prime minister for a reason.
I don't think you're making a very strong argument here. What exactly are you blaming Credlin for?
Yeah. One of the few voices of sanity and integrity out there these days.
Being a control freak- and an unelected one at that. And now causing a breakdown of communication with the Foreign Minister? Abbott has to choose between one or the other - I dunno if he will though.
Abbott was quoted this morning as saying "do you really think that my chief of staff would be under this kind of criticism if her name was P-E-T-E-R as opposed to P-E-T-A?"
On the face of it, I agree with him.
Edit: And yeah I'm aware of how hypocritical that is of him.
Abbott suggests sexism behind attacks on Credlin
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/abbott-credlin-pm-takes-swipe-at-coalition-colleagues/5962338
Abbott suggests sexism behind attacks on Credlin
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/abbott-credlin-pm-takes-swipe-at-coalition-colleagues/5962338
Abbott suggests sexism behind attacks on Credlin
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/abbott-credlin-pm-takes-swipe-at-coalition-colleagues/5962338
Abbott suggests sexism behind attacks on Credlin
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/abbott-credlin-pm-takes-swipe-at-coalition-colleagues/5962338
Abbott suggests sexism behind attacks on Credlin
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/abbott-credlin-pm-takes-swipe-at-coalition-colleagues/5962338
Abbott suggests sexism behind attacks on Credlin
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/abbott-credlin-pm-takes-swipe-at-coalition-colleagues/5962338
Abbott suggests sexism behind attacks on Credlin
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/abbott-credlin-pm-takes-swipe-at-coalition-colleagues/5962338
Abbott suggests sexism behind attacks on Credlin
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/abbott-credlin-pm-takes-swipe-at-coalition-colleagues/5962338
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/abbott-credlin-pm-takes-swipe-at-coalition-colleagues/5962338
Abbott suggests sexism behind attacks on Credlin
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/abbott-credlin-pm-takes-swipe-at-coalition-colleagues/5962338
Abbott suggests sexism behind attacks on Credlin
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/abbott-credlin-pm-takes-swipe-at-coalition-colleagues/5962338
Abbott suggests sexism behind attacks on Credlin
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/abbott-credlin-pm-takes-swipe-at-coalition-colleagues/5962338
Abbott suggests sexism behind attacks on Credlin
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/abbott-credlin-pm-takes-swipe-at-coalition-colleagues/5962338
Abbott suggests sexism behind attacks on Credlin
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/abbott-credlin-pm-takes-swipe-at-coalition-colleagues/5962338
Abbott suggests sexism behind attacks on Credlin
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/abbott-credlin-pm-takes-swipe-at-coalition-colleagues/5962338
Abbott suggests sexism behind attacks on Credlin
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-12/abbott-credlin-pm-takes-swipe-at-coalition-colleagues/5962338
Wow, he made it about sex. I'm struggling to find where he points at any evidence anyone else made it about sex.
My tentative position is that he's not wrong that she gets more negative attention because she's a woman. I haven't seen much to convince me otherwise. Of course this means he's been hilariously wrong so many times in the past.
ConstructMe
Banned
She only has the job cos shes married to a liberal party donor or party member i heard.
Elaugaufein
Member
I don't think he's completely wrong: both major political parties have had control freaks at the helm before and at best they've been highly regarded (It took incredibly blatant police and government corruption to get the Bjolke-Petersen government removed) and at worst there was some muttering before a mutiny (ala Rudd).
I will say that she has been the victim of sexist attacks in the past, the 'rumours' of an affair with Abbott.
But this seems to be entirely down to her performance and style, exacerbated by low polling numbers.
These attacks are coming from within the party too. People are worried, so the control freak that seemed to be an asset to Abbot during his climb to power is now seen as a liability.
But this seems to be entirely down to her performance and style, exacerbated by low polling numbers.
These attacks are coming from within the party too. People are worried, so the control freak that seemed to be an asset to Abbot during his climb to power is now seen as a liability.
Correct.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Loughnane
Federal Director of the Liberal Party of Australia since February 2003.
And caught blowing over email alcohol limit? No problem...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-10/credlin-avoids-punishment-on-drink-driving-charge/4947944
He's not wrong at all. Go back to 2013 when the cabinet was announced and the headlines were full of accusations of sexism. The whole 'merit' bullshit conservatives were spouting at the time now sounds hilarious.
It's gobsmacking to watch him accuse the cabinet, he chose under accusations of sexism, of sexism.
It's gobsmacking to watch him accuse the cabinet, he chose under accusations of sexism, of sexism.
So she "only" got the job because of a man? What horse shit.
His term has been defined by hypocrisy at this point
Umm... It's more to do with family than anything. Look at the Clintons or Kennedys for more info.
It's not about sexism at all - the only bit relating to gender is that bishop and her aren't communicating any more after breakdown (I'm assuming that for bishop to become pm credlin and her husband have to be taken care of, and credlin is a bigger threat than the husband).
Elaugaufein
Member
I can't actually see a leadership change happening anytime soon. The Coalition still has Labors bloody demise as an example, so I can't see them rolling a sitting PM and changing leaders right before an election would seem chaotic so that's out too. Basically I don't see anyone making a challenge unless the Coalition lose government, at which point blood will flow in the traditional political fashion.
These people aren't actually stupid, highly authoritarian yes, stupid no.
These people aren't actually stupid, highly authoritarian yes, stupid no.
Highly authoritarian is a form of stupid.
There are family connections everywhere in politics and not in politics, so suggesting she is "only" where she is because of them is singling her out specifically.
Not really. It is quite possible to say she is there only because of family while still believing it happens a lot with other people too. She is the topic of the moment, just because nobody randomly pipes up with 'Well Ted Kennedy only got elected because of family' doesn't mean they are singling her out specifically for that attribution of success.
Why though? Why even say it? No further evidence has been presented other than the fact that she has a partner working for the same broad organisation. It really feels like the same old sexist attitude of not believing a woman could get anywhere under her own steam and must only be there because she screwed a man.
ConstructMe
Banned
I'm not saying it. :/ I'm just saying your chain of reasoning is flawed. A person could have a multitude of reasons for saying it.
I'm not asking you why you said it, I'm asking why it was said. A person could have all sorts of reasons for saying it, but no reasons have been provided.
I really am struggling to understand your question now.
I'm asking for a reasonable defense of this statement:
And this one defending it:
Because from where I'm sitting, it seems like typically sexist reasoning. There are no arguments here beyond "she screwed a man and therefore...".
Have to say though, I'm getting pretty sick of defending a liberal party member.
There is nothing inherently sexist about that, people say that shit all the time about all sorts of people who are married to or related to other people in the same power structure. It could be sexist, it could not be. It is raised in her case I think for a couple simple reasons. She is in the news at the moment, and she is not afraid to use her influence in corrupt ways (the drink driving thing) which doesn't speak well of her character.
Ok. I'm going with "is".
I'm not defending her character, and she was involved in Abbott being in power so she's pretty much scum. I just think questioning the means with which she got her job with flimsy reasoning is a personal attack which should be off limits if you want to appear reasonable.
ConstructMe
Banned
Woah no need to call out my post, all id say is you would be naive to think that wouldnt of largely increased her standing among the candidates.
I dunno, they've been making a lot of the same mistakes so far. Might as well go for bingo.
Trust me it really isn't sexist. It's like saying that girl who got released from the drug charges was because she's a women - and not the fact that she was a senior cop's child.
Heck, it was on a need to know basis - so this cop clearly knows a lot of secrets...
http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw...-to-julie-bishop/story-fnj3rq0y-1227151129823
Heck, it was on a need to know basis - so this cop clearly knows a lot of secrets...
http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw...-to-julie-bishop/story-fnj3rq0y-1227151129823
ConstructMe
Banned
Thats bullshit she deserves what ever the punishment is in China if she did it (likely), tho how does anyone get their hands on 80mil of a drug or think its smart to take back home in one go?
There's no doubt that knowing someone on the inside helps you get a job since it's basically a personal reference. (As an aside, this is a great argument for affirmative action and the like). She already worked for the organisation before she married him though. Beyond that, we're not going to get any real evidence as to how she rose in the ranks that's any better than rumour .
The other side of it is that women have their competency questioned far more often than men. There's a quote that I wish I could remember exactly, that goes something like you have to be an exceptional woman to be considered a peer of average men. Between seeing the treatment of Gillard and the targets of Gamergate, I'm fairly loathe to accept flimsy reasoning for criticism of a woman's competence in whatever field. Individual examples of unreasonable criticism might not seem like sexism, but it comes from a sexist structure and is something we should try to be more aware of on a personal level.
I wish to express my appreciation for this post.
It is a personal attack, it is not necessarily a sexist one. I really think you are reaching when you say that is has to be a sexist motivation.
I tried to explain further in my next post. It's a bit like climate change. Individual extreme weather events might not be caused by climate change, but climate change means you get more of them. Individual examples of unreasonable criticism of the competence of women might not be caused by sexism, but there is more of it due to sexism. If you want to criticise the competence of a woman your reasoning better be sound, or, yes, it's probably sexism, even if that wasn't your conscious intent.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked