• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Gillard labels Abbott a misogynist

Compromise and giving within a successful marriage - who'd have thought? :rolleyes:

Please now explain why and how that makes him a misogynist.
It seems he thinks that women shouldn't have the absolute right to decline having sex. It seems you agree.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
Tony Abbott said:
I think there does need to be give and take on both sides, and this idea that sex is kind of a woman’s right to absolutely withhold, just as the idea that sex is a man’s right to demand I think they are both they both need to be moderated, so to speak.
Compromise and giving within a successful marriage - who'd have thought? :rolleyes:

Please now explain why and how that makes him a misogynist.

If that wasn't the impression you wanted to give, I suggest responding differently.

And on what basis do you think that Tony Abbott didn't say that women shouldn't have an absolute right to decline having sex?
 
Last edited:
Answer the question. It is relevant.

What for. We are dealing in facts here, not hypotheticals. Provide the context of the statement that was made with your argument as to why and how it constitutes misogyny and I will argue it if I disagree.

The OP and the cheering in this thread say Abbott is a misogynist. All that needs to happen is for someone to actually prove/confirm it with evidence, context and a supporting argument.
 
If that wasn't the impression you wanted to give, I suggest responding differently.

And on what basis do you think that Tony Abbott didn't say that women shouldn't have an absolute right to decline having sex?

TONY ABBOTT: Look, this is an extraordinarily difficult area and, you know, I just I'm just trying to write an obituary of Ron Conway the psychologist and social critic who's just died, and Ron said, in his autobiography, that, you know, after thousands and thousands of counselling sessions with people, the two subjects which seemed to most concern people, and I suppose most trouble their psyches are basically sex and god - religion, and intimate relationships, and they carry so much weight, and I think there does need to be give and take on both sides, and this idea that sex is kind of a woman's right to absolutely withhold, just as the idea that sex is a man's right to demand I think they are both they both need to be moderated, so to speak.

Hmmm. Context is interesting isn't it; your abridged quote looks rather dishonest when given the entire quote - not to mention the discussion that was taking place. In fact, the way it reads it sounds a lot like he was paraphrasing someone else.

So, back to step one:
- the actual quote
- the context
- the argument that he is a misogynist and
- how his comments damn him as one.
 
Last edited:
The OP and the cheering in this thread say Abbott is a misogynist.


No, his own words say it.



All that needs to happen is for someone to actually prove/confirm it with evidence, context and a supporting argument.


Well, since that's already been done numerous times there's in fact nothing left to be done at all, other than to wonder why you keep asking over and over again for answers to the same already-answered questions.
 
Hmmm. Context is interesting isn't it; your abridged quote looks rather dishonest when given the entire quote - not to mention the discussion that was taking place. In fact, the way it reads it sounds a lot like he was paraphrasing someone else.

So, back to step one:
- the actual quote
- the context
- the argument that he is a misogynist and
- how his comments damn him as one.
It should be clear to any reasonable person that he brought up Ron Conway in order to advocate that position himself. And that you seemed to agree with the position.

They were talking about their views on what somebody with a low sex drive should do if they have a partner. That's what Tony Abbott contributed. Others said similar things. He didn't disagree with them. He agreed. That is the context.
 
Last edited:
- the actual quote
- the context
- the argument that he is a misogynist and
- how his comments damn him as one.

Thanks in advance
 
Ooh! devatstating. :)

Fail.

- actual quotes
- context
- a structured argument/explanation as to why he is a misogynist and
- how his comments damn him as one.

Thanks in advance
 
Again, I doubt any of Abbott's comments show anything more than some values that some deem old fashioned. Hardly a hanging offense and certainly not evidence of misogyny.
But I look forward to seeing some actual evidence that does.

And this is the point I guess.
Please show us comments attributable to Abbott, in context that are "much much worse" than Slipper's. From there you could explain to us why they damn him as a misogynist.

Thanks in anticipation.

You seem to be very interested in finding out the validity of the comments attributed to Abbot in Gillard's speech and elsewhere.

All the more reason to support an investigation to look into just that.


There would be a number of benefits to the opposition party by participating in the investigation.

  • If, as you have alluded to, that the comments attributed to Abbot from Gillard and elsewhere are false, than what better way to clear Mr. Abbots 'good name' than an official investigation into the validity of his comments? Without an official investigation, the questions into his ability to hold office would always linger, and the rest of Abbot's career would be tainted with what you consider to be false allegations.

  • However, if any of the comments are found to be true, than it would be much more serious than the comments from Slipper, because instead of just being vile or rude, they would represent a complete inability of the man to represent around half of his own constituents. Which would be extremely detrimental to the credibility of his party. If the comments were found to be true, his party would be able to move on from the ongoing scandal and fallout, and replace Abbot with someone who is more qualified and capable of holding office.

It is understandable for the opposition party to hold off on calling for the resignation of Abbot now until there is more thorough and official examination of them. Which is exactly the same reason Gillard waited. It is the just and appropriate route instead of relying on newspaper reports, or the claims of one person (even if that person is the Prime Minister). But it would be much better to have the investigation now and put the issue to rest one way or another.



By the way, if you have any confusion about what the specific remarks are that are contributed to Abbot, you could always watch the speech from Gillard linked to at the beginning of the thread.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom