• 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

When you said something clearly offensive and misogynistic, even if it was a long time ago, and someone calls you on it, the nice thing to do would be to apologize for having been a dumbass at that time.

Unless, of course, you stand by what you said 35 years ago, in which case, the time elapsed is irrelevant.
 
Has Abbott ever withdrawn, restated or apologised for his earlier, clearly misogynist, comments? The answer is no.

I'd say no, not even when given the opportunity.

4 Corners 15/3/2010

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2010/s2846485.htm

And this was Abbott on feminism.
(On screen text: I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons).
LIZ JACKSON (to Tony Abbott): What do you think about those views now?
TONY ABBOTT: Well, I just don't want to go over old ground too much Liz.
Ah, I don't want to repudiate what was said, but I don't want people to think that what I thought as a 21 year old is necessarily what I think as a 52 year old.

My highlight.
 
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.

Thanks in advance.

My mistake. But you weren't addressing my post. One disconnect deserves another ? Sometimes I get you, but mostly....um, not.
 
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.

My name is bit_pattern & I endorse this message :thumbup:
 
I'd say no, not even when given the opportunity.
4 Corners 15/3/2010
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2010/s2846485.htm
My highlight.

To "repudiate" would mean to reject that he ever wrote it and he does not deny same.
Then he said:

"..but I don't want people to think that what I thought as a 21 year old is necessarily what I think as a 52 year old."

Attitudes change; 33 years is a long time.
I would agree that he could have modified or brought us up to date with his current thoughts.

This does show that his thoughts were (are) somewhat old fashioned - even offensive to the more precious or those wishing to take offense - however none of this proves misogyny.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I'll simplify that. Explain how contradict means utter denial. He was given opportunity to retract, and in his non-reply he only affirms it. That's how I read it. This was in the same week he was accused in parliament of "living in the dark ages".

Nobody expects a 52 y.o. to stand by what he said as a 21 y.o. Tony Abbott does not disassociate himself from it though.
 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/repudiate

If word games is all you've got, then explain how all of the synonyms fit your definition.

This still fits what I was saying. Ta.
He agrees he wrote it; he does not repudiate what was said (iow deny he said them).

I suspect you will see what you want and me the other. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt especially in light of the second part of the quote which would make far less sense reading it the way you are.

But ultimately whether you are right or not, it is still not proof of misogyny. It is proof that he wrote something 35 years ago and that his was thinking then was not out of step with many broader societal values at that time.
 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-behind-ones-sex/story-e6frgd0x-1226496603420
(paywall protected)

Senator Fiona Nash

I take offence at Julia Gillard’s phony “war on men”. It is a politically self-serving strategy that demeans all women…

The Prime Minister should be aware that widespread criticism of her has nothing to do with the fact she is a woman and everything to do with the fact she is doing a bad job. Hiding behind her sex is base hypocrisy. Under her new paradigm any criticism of any woman is off-limits…

Those same MPs call Tony Abbott sexist for occasionally referring to the Prime Minister as a “woman” or “she"… What reasonable woman could take offence at being called a woman? And if these are the new standards, how can the Prime Minister point at the Opposition Leader and say she won’t be lectured by “this man”?

Attorney-General Nicola Roxon ... concluded that Abbott was a misogynist because he didn’t say hello at social functions and sometimes turns his back on her in the chamber to consult his frontbench team behind him.

When you are at the dispatch box you will always have your back turned to someone.

So under the Roxon rule, it is impossible for a man not to be a misogynist. This is terribly convenient for the government when the leaders of Labor and the Greens are women, while the Coalition parties are led by men.

Correct, It does demean all women. Gillard is a misogynist too apparently.
 
Last edited:
The conversation has moved well on from where I was last, but I'd like to point out one thing here.

Words sometimes aren't used according to their strict dictionary definitions. For example, homophobia is not a phobia. A homophobe is not irrationally frightened of homosexuals, he is bigoted against them. Similarly, a misogynist doesn't necessarily hate women, but is bigoted against them. If the word we were using were "gynophobe" this would be clearer, but "misogynist" is the word we have. Blame the English language, which is not famous for its consistency, for that.

So when A. A. asks for evidence that Abbott "hates" women, I doubt he's going to get it. I don't think Abbot "hates" women. However, I do think that he's a sexist and a misogynist, because he expresses attitudes and opinions that would detrimentally affect the lives of women. He's a sexist, a misogynist, a bigot, and all those words revolve around the same core meaning. His attitudes (as expressed in speeches, interviews and so forth - I'm not going to link them again), if put into practice as public policy - would harm women and degrade the cause of womens' rights. Therefore he is a misogynist even if he does not physically experience the emotion of hatred towards them.

ETA: I just looked up "misogynist" on dictionary.com, and the first definition is "a person who hates, dislikes, mistrusts, or mistreats women." Saying that they are less suited to leadership and suggesting that abortion is the easy way out is mistreatment in my opinion, especially if those attitudes and opinions were put into practice.
 
Last edited:
The conversation has moved well on from where I was last, but I'd like to point out one thing here.

Words sometimes aren't used according to their strict dictionary definitions. For example, homophobia is not a phobia. A homophobe is not irrationally frightened of homosexuals, he is bigoted against them. Similarly, a misogynist doesn't necessarily hate women, but is bigoted against them. If the word we were using were "gynophobe" this would be clearer, but "misogynist" is the word we have. Blame the English language, which is not famous for its consistency, for that.

So when A. A. asks for evidence that Abbott "hates" women, I doubt he's going to get it. I don't think Abbot "hates" women. However, I do think that he's a sexist and a misogynist, because he expresses attitudes and opinions that would detrimentally affect the lives of women. He's a sexist, a misogynist, a bigot, and all those words revolve around the same core meaning. His attitudes (as expressed in speeches, interviews and so forth - I'm not going to link them again), if put into practice as public policy - would harm women and degrade the cause of womens' rights. Therefore he is a misogynist even if he does not physically experience the emotion of hatred towards them.

ETA: I just looked up "misogynist" on dictionary.com, and the first definition is "a person who hates, dislikes, mistrusts, or mistreats women." Saying that they are less suited to leadership and suggesting that abortion is the easy way out is mistreatment in my opinion, especially if those attitudes and opinions were put into practice.

Quoted for truth.
 
Similarly, a misogynist doesn't necessarily hate women, but is bigoted against them.

Maybe you can show how he is bigoted against women.

I also note another attempt of you to move the goalposts.

So when A. A. asks for evidence that Abbott "hates" women, I doubt he's going to get it.

I agree, I am on very solid ground methinks.

His attitudes (as expressed in speeches, interviews and so forth - I'm not going to link them again), if put into practice as public policy - would harm women and degrade the cause of womens' rights.

Under what coalition policy platform would I find this nonsense?
Do you seriously think that he would alienate 50% of the population, his own parties policies, his fellow MPs (male and female) not to mentionb his wife and kids etc. Just how could he manage this? Even if this was somehow remotely true (which is impossible) he would be out on his tush before he could blink.

bolded because we would love to know this. If it is true I will change my voting intentions immediately.
 
Last edited:
Arthwollipot said:
Words sometimes aren't used according to their strict dictionary definitions.

Thankyou for saying what I couldn't quite put into words. Not that it really needs to be as far as most people are concerned.
 
Not had opportunity to post for awhile, but a couple of things I'd like to comment on...

Excellent post, very interesting, thanks for the info.

+1. It actually made me care a little.

Thank you. Much appreciated.


Interesting that the Catholic priest on that panel comes across as more socially progressive than Abbott!


A.A. Alfie said:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/misogynist

Definition of misogynist
noun
a person who hates women:

adjective
having or showing a hatred of women:


I have seen this narrow definition used elsewhere (eg. last night on Q&A) but the meaning of words changes:

Senator Hillary Clinton used a word recently that has been changing its meaning. In charging that she has been treated more harshly in the media because of her gender than Senator Barack Obama has been treated because of his race, she said, “It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by comments and reactions of people who are nothing but misogynists.”

The word misogyny has since its earliest recording in 1656 meant “hate or contempt for women.” The etymology of misogyny is straightforward: In Greek, miso means “hatred,” and gune means “woman.” A misogynist is a woman-hater. I thought Clinton’s choice of the word was in error, and that the word she meant was sexist, meaning “one who discriminates based on sex” — that she had been treated unfairly because she was a woman. When I looked up the word she chose in the Oxford English Dictionary online, however, I noted that the meaning of misogynist had changed slightly but significantly. In 1989, the definition was “hatred of women”; in the 2002 revision, the definition was broadened to “hatred or dislike of, or prejudice against women.”

Link


I don't think Abbott hates women in a rabid Taliban-like way. I do think he has some prejudices about women who are outside the bounds of his socially conservative worldview. He seems to have a problem with women on the left which goes back to his time with the SRC at Sydney Uni. Now, he is operating within a wider milieu of misogyny directed against the PM which Anne Summers has documented. Either he doesn't recognise the significance of this or he is happy to go along with it as long as he thinks it works to his advantage. He did himself no favours by standing in front of those "Ditch the witch" and "Bob Brown's Bitch" placards. I think he would have earned some respect if he had disassociated himself from the obvious sexism, whilst still criticising the government's policy.

Abbott seems to have some patronising and stereotypical views on gender roles which make for great foot-in-mouth moments. (Ironing! I mean really.) I don't think he is "a" misogynist, however he does hold views that are prejudicial to women. Despite Margie Abbott claiming that her husband is a feminist because they have three daughters, denying women choice over fertility is prejudicial to women's independence. And it's not just a private opinion he holds, but something that he was prepared to act on when he had the power to do so as we saw over the RU486 issue. Personally, I'm fed up with him lecturing us about abortion: "Easy way out!" "Too many abortions!". The proven way to reduce the number of abortions is *not* by making abortion more unpleasant, difficult and expensive to obtain. I haven't heard Abbott advocate for the Dutch approach. Instead he advocates abstinence, which I understand has worked so well in the US. That desire to control and restrict women is part of the misogyny at the core of religion.
 
A National Party senator? Seriously?

Tell me, when have the Nationals, or their predecessor, the Country Party, had a woman in a position of power?

To answer my own rhetorical question, the National Party, of which Senator Nash is a member, have never had a woman leader or deputy leader at federal or state level. In about 100 years (including their Country Party manifestation). To be lectured to by one of them about misogyny is beyond a joke.
 
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.

Maybe you can show how he is bigoted against women.

I agree, I am on very solid ground methinks.

If you are so sure, why not support an official investigation into the matter to put the issue at rest?

If you are hesitant, or afraid to do so, do you think that would be because an investigation could find merit in the comments that Gillard has attributed to Abbot?
 
"Under her new paradigm any criticism of any woman is off-limits… "

Under her new paradigm any criticism of any woman is off-limits…

Fiona Nash is completely wrong about this. Criticising a woman (or better still, her policies) is not sexism. Using gendered language and sexist epithets to criticise a woman is sexism. And it's not a problem of only one side of politics. The opposition have been running this false assertion a lot lately.


ETA I've put the statement I was disagreeing with in a quote box to avoid confusion. See posts # 260 & 261 below.
 
Last edited:
If you are so sure, why not support an official investigation into the matter to put the issue at rest?

If you are hesitant, or afraid to do so, do you think that would be because an investigation could find merit in the comments that Gillard has attributed to Abbot?

LOL
[laughing mode]Go ahead and show me where it is - I'll support it. No problem.[/laughing mode] :boggled:


I have noticed a softening in attitude here in recent posts, people seem to be moving away from the 'misogynist' label towards a softer "sexist"-type tag.

I would draw your attention to two things:
1/ The fact that Gillard called him a sexist AND a misogynist. I am fairly certain she knows the difference between one and another - she does throw them around a bit.
2/ The Op addresses the latter. Please keep on topic or our resident dobber might just get another thread closed down. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

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