Gillard labels Abbott a misogynist

[Legend]

He he. At least I'm not copying off the dumb kids.

That's because... dw.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So....
Links (and)
Quotes (and)
Context (and)
Arguments.

Anyone?

I have also addressed the post I missed, as requested. No one wishes to argue the contents of that either.

As LK would say.... pathetic.

 

[lionking]

You didn't miss that post, you ignored it, and you failed to address it. My daughter is a Primary School teacher. She would fail you.

 

[lionking]

Okay, let's just change the thrust of this thread.

Just assume for the sake of argument that Abbott is not misgynist.

He's sexist, right? This is beyond dispute, right?

 

[Akhenaten]

I have also addressed the post I missed, as requested. No one wishes to argue the contents of that either.

I should think there's little to no interest in arguing anything at all with you, and even less need to waste the effort trying. Your continuing performance here is helping to increase the Prime Minister's standing and undermine Abbott's with every word you post.

 

[Wildy]

Okay, let's just change the thrust of this thread.

Just assume for the sake of argument that Abbott is not misgynist.

He's sexist, right? This is beyond dispute, right?

I dunno, he's got three daughters. That means he can't be sexist because *mumbles*

 

[Akhenaten]

Okay, let's just change the thrust of this thread.

Just assume for the sake of argument that Abbott is not misgynist.

Well, no mate. That Abbott is a misogynist is the topic of the thread, and derailing it has been Alfie's intent from the start.

He's sexist, right? This is beyond dispute, right?

Yes, but it will do you no good to try and argue on that basis because Alfie will just tell you that sexism can be a good thing and completely ignore that when it manifests itself as misogyny as it does in Abbott's case that it's a very, very bad thing.

 

[lionking]

I bow to your superior wisdom Pharoah.

Over and out.

 

[Akhenaten]

I bow to your superior wisdom Pharoah.

Over and out.

I think our work here is done anyway, mate. Julia managed an epic drubbing of the Mad Monk and this thread has delivered the same to his local fan base.

And as you pointed out, even people who had barely heard of Ms Gillard before now have voiced their support for her, and their contempt for Mr Misogyny.

It's all good.

 

[lionking]

This sort of debate would not occur if we didn't have a female PM. A number of people participating in this thread should have a good look at themselves.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Well, no mate. That Abbott is a misogynist is the topic of the thread, and derailing it has been Alfie's intent from the start.

On the contrary, I have been trying hard to keep it on thread. I am pretty certain too - as our resident dobber - you would have been pretty quick on the report button had we strayed.

This sort of debate would not occur if we didn't have a female PM. A number of people participating in this thread should have a good look at themselves.

Correct. An honest and decent prime minister would throw around disgraceful lies. She would stand up and be judged on her actions, she would not hide behind hollow and untrue wails of misogyny. A decent PM would unite, not divide and would stand for some values and principles. She fails again and displays her famous poor judgement.

I agree, there are many in this thread that should take a good look at themselves.

In the meantime, the accusation of misogynist remains totally unproven and unsupported as we all knew it would.

Perhaps someone would like to try and formulate an argument that will actually hold water. I won't hold my breath.

 

[bit_pattern]

This sort of debate would not occur if we didn't have a female PM. A number of people participating in this thread should have a good look at themselves.

I'm thinking that number is 1. Amirite?

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm thinking that number is 1. Amirite?

You are indeed.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Alright, I'll deal with your half-reply, shockingly inadequate and once again remarkably lazy as it is.

Sure. When someone has a value that is pro life. That does not mean the individual hates women (which is what a misogynous is) but one who holds a value that overrides (by a little or a lot) another.


This is not mysogynistic from what I can see, but I will let you show me otherwise if you wish.

Err...no. No see, I don't think it's possible to be pro-life and not be at least a little bit misogynistic (le gasp) because of the way the pro-life side treats women. Now, I'm not saying it isn't possible to dislike abortion. I dislike abortion myself, but I am in full suport of the right to choose and won't hold it against any woman who chooses to abort. I am not pro life because I concede that a. I have no real place to argue against what a grown woman does with her own body and b. I do not consider the life of the fœtus to override the rights of the mother.

In order to be pro-life, you must assume that all abortion is wrong and there should therefore be no choice for the mother. There are the pro-life lite people who mumble something about rape and incest but aside from being slightly less douchey douchebags they are otherwise exactly the same.

If you believe that the pregnant woman does not have the right to terminate her own pregnancy, you are reducing her to the status of living incubator. Whether you call her a murderer or not, whether you claim to be doing it for the life of the "child" or not, you are out and out stripping a woman of the right to free choice over her own body and are relegating her to the level of autonomy you normally associate with a toaster. She has zero say about what she can and can't do because she is now a baby making machine. You could have lauded her significant medical career prior to her pregnancy and applauded her shattering the glass ceiling, but once you remove her right to say "no I don't want this child or to have to put up with 9 months of my life being dictated by the thing growing inside me" you turn her into a human factory.

The very concept of being pro life is misogynistic, merely disliking abortions is not.

Further to that statement, even if we assume he is NOT pro life as you have declared him to be, he is taking what is an absolutely horrifying and agonising decision and claiming it's the "easy" way out. Really? No, no it isn't. It certainly takes 9 months of pregnancy out of the equation, but that desn't make it any easier. It can be mentally scarring for a woman. It can be physically scarring too, because if it is done badly or there is a complicatin it can remove the ability of the woman to ever get pregnant. The woman may feel like she is killing a person and it can drive her to despair. There are a great many possible negatives from getting an abortion that are that much worse than the possible negatives of giving up a child for adoption for example, and casually dismissing all of them as being "easy" is cruel. It also displays a remarked lack of empathy for the women in this position and further certainly makes Abbot look like he doesn't care about the women who have to go through this. Is it misogyny? I'd say that casual unthinking dismissal of multitudes of mental, societal and potentially physical problems as being "easy" demonstrates contempt for women, yes.

As previously stated, sexism is a different beast altogether and this thread is about misogyny (hatred of women).

Not all drugs are medicines either, but sexist attitudes towards women is about the only indicator for misogyny I can think of without actively coming out and saying that he hates women.

And I would still like to hear the full argument as to why it is misogynistic (hating women). So far you have proven nothing.

I will ask you then to provide me with a statement that you believe is misogynistic without actively containing the phrase "I hate women" or variations of it. Show me a statement, can be entirely made up, that is what you would consider misogynistic.

I didn't read anywhere that he said they were of lesser abilities - he did say different - your post appears dishonest.

Only if you have no grasp of subtlety or nuance. Which seems to be the case so I an see why you may have missed it.

"Women have different abilities, so they won't be able to compete with men in political representation" seems to be a pretty valid summary of what he said. If you can't see why "different abilities" is obviously a negative, how about we run the words with a different slant?

"Blacks have different abilities so they obviously won't be able to get equal representation"

Make it clear to you? No? How about...

"Muslims have different attitudes and abilities, so Muslim countries can't expect to be rated highly for human rights"

Of course he isn't going to come out and say "Men are better suck it up ladies", that you expect every misogynist to do so says more to me about your childlike naivety than the attitudes of Abbot. However, by using a vague neutral statement "different" he implies that they are inferior in some way to men in the abilities required for leadership roles and representation. If the difference is not one of levels of ability, how would differences in ability restrict women from doing something?

I am good at science but not as good at building things. Some people are not good at science but are great at putting up shelves. These are different skill sets, and neither of them is a bad thing in and of itself, but when it comes to building shelves, my personal skills mean I will be less able to perform the DIY task because I am inferior in that respect and similarly when he claims a woman's different skills mean she is less able to do something it is because he is implicitly saying her skills in the areas needed are less than that of a man. This isn't hard.

Is he wrong?

Unless he's talking about general physical strength or height, then yes I'd say so. Women and men are generally equal in all but a handful of physiological differences. I don't think that height, body mass or strength are required to get any kind of representation in parliament. What is required is a certain level of intelligence and speaking ability, and an ability to spout pleasantries and platitudes. None of these things are areas where women and men are generally different. If you like, although I know you will refuse because you are phenomenally lazy but expect us to do a ton of work for you, you can come up with skills needed to get elected that women are deficient in.

By the way, that was written by him what? some 35 years ago. If you have to trawl back that far you are struggling.

Has he ever said anything to apologise? Has he ever contradicted what he said later in his life? Issued any kind of mea culpa? Talked about how he used to have so many different opinions? If he has retracted the statement in whole or in part then I concede it is unfair to use it against him, because we have all said things we regret saying, or changed our minds, and I certainly think 35 years is more than enough time to change your views.

However if he has not, and if he has continued to spout similar claims, or made other claims about the abilities of women, that he said it long ago means nothing. If I say something now and in 35 years I do not change my mind, you can absolutely use my quote from now 35 years into the future. Time doesn't diminish a quotation unless the quoted person rejects their views.



Interestingly, I note that you completely snipped my thought experiment. Why was that Alfie?

 

[Morrigan]

It's really not that difficult, Alfie.

Thinking that women are less skilled or suited to leadership = thinking women are inherently inferior people to men = misogyny. Even if you don't claim to "hate women" and hey you have a wife and three daughters!

Just like thinking that black people are less skilled or suited to leadership = thinking blacks are inherently inferior people to non-blacks = racism. Even if you really really like black folks and hey some of your best friends are black!

It's fairly straightforward, really.

It's not being "old-fashioned". Old-fashioned means tipping your hat to the ladies or holding the door for women only, or serving the women first at dinner. Being "merely old-fashioned" is not thinking that women are inferior to men for leadership, nor thinking a woman should get married to make "a honest woman of herself", or thinking that a girl's virginity is the most precious thing about her, or that woman should not have full control over whether or not they have sex with their husbands.

Perhaps you were unaware of that. If so, welcome to the 1970's, where most of the Western world has figured those things out.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Err...no. No see, I don't think it's possible to be pro-life and not be at least a little bit misogynistic (le gasp) because of the way the pro-life side treats women.

So all pro life = hatred of women.
All those anti abortionists are misogynists - all those women.
Interesting.

BTW, you asked for an example where the comment you posted could not be considered misogynistic. I have done so and you disagree.

For fullness, here is a larger slice of the context

Aborting a first trimester fetus is not morally identical to deliberately killing a living human being, but it’s not just removing a wart or a cyst either. Even those who think that abortion is a woman’s right should be troubled by the fact that 100,000 Australian women choose to destroy their unborn babies every year. What does it say about the state of our relationships and our values that so many women (and their husbands, lovers and families) feel incapable of coping with a pregnancy or a child? To a pregnant 14-year-old struggling to grasp what’s happening, for example, example, a senior student with a whole life mapped out or a mother already failing to cope under difficult circumstances, abortion is the easy way out.

The assertions you and others were making implied an under considered blanket response to a difficult choice. I would suggest those assertions were rather dishonest (not unusual) given the full context and consideration he gave the matter.

Now, I'm not saying it isn't possible to dislike abortion. I dislike abortion myself, but I am in full suport of the right to choose and won't hold it against any woman who chooses to abort.

Me too. But I truly dislike late term abortions, generally speaking.

In order to be pro-life, you must assume that all abortion is wrong and there should therefore be no choice for the mother. There are the pro-life lite people who mumble something about rape and incest but aside from being slightly less douchey douchebags they are otherwise exactly the same.

If you say so.

The very concept of being pro life is misogynistic,

Abject nonsense. While it would be completely possible for a pro lifer to be a woman hater, it does not mean that all those pro life are. It would simply mean (on balance) they place one value higher than another. If a person has to agonise over the decision of an abortion it is clearly evident that they are wrestling with at least two opposing values. If not, the choice would be an easy one wouldn't it?

Not all drugs are medicines either, but sexist attitudes towards women is about the only indicator for misogyny I can think of without actively coming out and saying that he hates women.

LOL.

I will ask you then to provide me with a statement that you believe is misogynistic without actively containing the phrase "I hate women" or variations of it. Show me a statement, can be entirely made up, that is what you would consider misogynistic.

At the risk of inflaming a race war you might look at the way some of the more extreme Islam nations treat women with regard to education, property and rights as a truer example.

Only if you have no grasp of subtlety or nuance. Which seems to be the case so I an see why you may have missed it.

Got it. We will discuss what you think he is saying, not what he actually said.

"Women have different abilities, so they won't be able to compete with men in political representation" seems to be a pretty valid summary of what he said. If you can't see why "different abilities" is obviously a negative, how about we run the words with a different slant?

"Blacks have different abilities so they obviously won't be able to get equal representation"

Make it clear to you? No? How about...

"Muslims have different attitudes and abilities, so Muslim countries can't expect to be rated highly for human rights"

There's a lot of straw in there but I see what you are trying to say. Sadly it doesn't wash. Simply speaking he is talking about different abilities and competing ambitions. Some women can 'have it all'; family and career. Many choose one or the other (Gillard is an example of one side - another would be another who has chosen to be a full time mum, foregoing their career). Believe it or men and woman have different aptitudes and our brains work slightly differently in many ways.

I am good at science but not as good at building things. Some people are not good at science but are great at putting up shelves. These are different skill sets, and neither of them is a bad thing in and of itself, but when it comes to building shelves, my personal skills mean I will be less able to perform the DIY task because I am inferior in that respect

Excellent

and similarly when he claims a woman's different skills mean she is less able to do something it is because he is implicitly saying her skills in the areas needed are less than that of a man. This isn't hard.

Ohh, I'm disappointed: You got all the way through the math only to conclude two plus two equaling five.

Unless he's talking about general physical strength or height, then yes I'd say so. Women and men are generally equal in all but a handful of physiological differences. I don't think that height, body mass or strength are required to get any kind of representation in parliament. What is required is a certain level of intelligence and speaking ability, and an ability to spout pleasantries and platitudes. None of these things are areas where women and men are generally different. If you like, although I know you will refuse because you are phenomenally lazy but expect us to do a ton of work for you, you can come up with skills needed to get elected that women are deficient in.

So men and women are differently physically, but not emotionally, instinctively or in any other way? Really?

Has he ever said anything to apologise?

35 years ago? You are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

However if he has not, and if he has continued to spout similar claims, or made other claims about the abilities of women, that he said it long ago means nothing. If I say something now and in 35 years I do not change my mind, you can absolutely use my quote from now 35 years into the future. Time doesn't diminish a quotation unless the quoted person rejects their views.

In fact he has commented on this, and just a tiny weeny itty bit of research would have located same.

rubbish snipped.

It's fairly straightforward, really.

snip

Perhaps you were unaware of that. If so, welcome to the 1970's, where most of the Western world has figured those things out.

And guess what? The 1970s were exactly when he wrote that.

 

[Shiner]

Alfie, who's being dishonest here?. The speech you just quoted was made in 2004 in Adelaide. Not nearly or close to 35 years, but 8 years ago. It says so on Tonyabbott.com. The Gospel Truth.
Do you believe he used a speech that was written in the 1970's or not?

You didn't provide a link to your quote. Is that because you actually believe people don't read the links in the same way you don't? How dishonest (in a completely childish way) can you get ?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

No. The abortion stuff was 2004 and the leadership back in the 70s, I was addressing the latter which took up the bulk of you post.


If you wish to bring the virginity issue in, please provide:
- full quotes
- context
- link
- argument as evidence of misgyny.
That way we could discuss it properly.

Thanks in advance.

 

[lionking]

No. The abortion stuff was 2004 and the leadership back in the 70s. Or am I misunderstanding something?

Has Abbott ever withdrawn, restated or apologised for his earlier, clearly misogynist, comments? The answer is no.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

??
I think the ball park you want is over there somewhere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Even if he hasn't - does he need to? Some people I know won't even apologise for their stupid of just a few short weeks ago.