A Desperate Julia and the Gender Wars
Everyone in the country knows that Julia Gillard is dead meat, and that she and her party will be ferociously booted out of office at the next election in around 94 days. But Julia still thinks she is invincible. She refuses to budge, and she actually has embraced so much illusion that she still thinks she is the best person for the job.
But what we are really seeing is a really desperate Julia. You can tell when she is getting desperate: she runs back to the old card trick of the secular left and starts playing the gender card. She thinks this will somehow trump matters, and turn the election around. She is of course dreaming.
Her ugly and reprehensible remarks about Tony Abbott show just how out of touch and desperate she is. And the fact that she went to a Catholic school to attack Abbott on gender, and even raise the old abortion scare tactic is really quite amazing.
Running with the gender card and the abortion card is a shallow and empty ploy, and even some of her own party members think she needs to get real here. As a piece in today’s Australian said, “Earlier, Sydney MP Ed Husic became the second Labor backbencher to criticise Ms Gillard’s decision to raise the issue of abortion in attacking Mr Abbott.
“He said he echoed the comments of fellow backbencher Stephen Jones, who yesterday branded the comments unwise. ‘I think that there are other issues that do have an impact, particularly in terms of healthcare or superannuation, that … legitimately would have an impact on women and should definitely be discussed in the political arena,’ Mr Husic said. ‘But I’m not so sure about whether or not we talk about the issue of abortion’.”
Her idiocy about ‘men with blue ties’ was equally moronic and unhelpful. An article in the Brisbane Times put it this way: “An attempt by Julia Gillard to put gender at the centre of the election by suggesting women would be marginalised under an Abbott government has drawn fierce criticism from opponents and has even been questioned by her Labor MPs….
“Australia’s second-most powerful female politician, Julie Bishop, accused Ms Gillard of creating a distraction to save her job. Prominent feminist commentator Eva Cox also weighed in, saying it was an attempt to ‘insert an anti-Abbott element into her political message to women’ on an issue that was essentially one for state governments. Labor’s Left faction convener, NSW MP Stephen Jones, also expressed concerns about the abortion comments. ‘I fully support a woman’s right to choose, [but] feel a little bit uncomfortable about it being an election issue,’ he said.”
While Deputy Liberal Leader Julie Bishop said that Julia ought to apologise for her “offensive claims,” she said the Coalition had no plans to change abortion laws if it were to win government. And that is the real problem here. The Coalition is not going to get into silly gender games, but it is also too afraid to tackle the abortion issue.
Social commentator Mishka Gora weighed into this with a piece on “Cowards and Hypocrites”. She writes: “It is fairly self-evident that men are cowards when it comes to abortion. Most men either avoid the topic completely, sometimes claiming that they aren’t qualified to comment given that they’re the wrong sex, while others kowtow to women saying things like ‘I fully support a woman’s right to choose’ (MP Stephen Jones). Men have been relegated to rubber-stamping the views of women, hiding behind their skirts, meekly accepting the monstrous regimen.
“The hypocrisy of women is slightly more controversial, if only because of the cowardice of men. Women say they want to be treated as equals in one breath, but demand special privileges in the next. They say they ought to be accorded respect, but then disparage men as sexists who consider abortion a ‘plaything’.
“The Prime Minister, however, is an extreme example. Ordinary men and women play into her hands with their cowardice and hypocrisy. Julia Gillard is merely an embellished reflection of what goes on in everyday Australian life. When she lambasts men in parliament, she is representing what women do every day with snide self-serving remarks. When Julie Bishop responds by saying that the Coalition will not change abortion laws, she is merely parroting men who say abortion is none of their business.”
She continues, “At the end of the day, we collectively bear as much responsibility as those who lead us. In a democracy, we get the government we deserve. Unless there is a radical change to the sheep-like voting habits of the Australian public, we will find ourselves with either a female hypocrite or (come September) a male coward as Prime Minister. That said, cowardice may be overcome with encouragement. Courage is something we all lack at times, that can be cultivated. Hypocrisy, especially when it is grounded in the irrational ideology of feminism, is another matter. This is something that requires fundamental change in the way women speak and act all over the country. And it must start at the grass roots.
“We must all embrace responsibility once more. Women, in particular, must put an end to the double standard that absolves everyone of responsibility. When it comes to ‘women’s issues’ like abortion, women must stop telling men to butt out, that it’s none of their business. They need to accept that men have valid opinions, and that women cannot pick and choose when men are allowed to express that opinion. They need to recognise that the men they take into their beds remain the fathers of their children when they subsequently cast them out of their beds. Abortion isn’t about women; it’s about children.”
On a whole range of fronts, a Coalition government is to be preferred to another term of Labor. The latter would just about destroy this nation. While abortion on demand is official Labor policy, that is not the case with the Coalition. As Mishka writes, we must encourage some of these spineless wonders to get some backbone and start doing right by our children.
16 Replies to “A Desperate Julia and the Gender Wars”
This is dangerous gender apartheid. Equality is ok, but nothing more. If this keeps up, there will be no more men in the workforce.
I hope that the other political party gets in.
I wonder if Julia is going to make a few more cameo appearances with the real misogynist Sandilands, the hypocrite.
Abbott’s chief of staff is also a woman and he has three independent and ambitious daughters so they are a bunch of lying rats
I really like the comments by Mishka Gora.
Jeremy Hopwood, A.C.T
Thanks Jeremy. Yes she is very good indeed.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I wish in a way that Julia Gillard was right in being concerned as to what would happen to abortion according to her opinion under an Abbot government that it would be drastically reduced by being made illegal. But, as you said and as Julie Bishop sadly so proudly stated this morning that the aim of the Liberal Party is to “make abortion safe, legal and rare”. I have not heard of anything yet that is legal that is also rare. To make it legal is not to make it rare, though it could be if the conscience of every individual were to listen to what is legal in God’s kingdom rather than that of the world. How likely is that to happen without revival? But revival is possible and it won’t depend on the government making it legal.
I notice that most of the reporting on this issue is espoused predominantly by women on the channel nine News. Each to me seemed to be exhibiting some form of subliminal outrage in their body language. These weapons of discrimination are all that Julia Gillard has left and by using them she is discriminating unjustly against all men.
My personal opinion is that no one has a right to kill an unborn living human baby. However there may be some justification in saving the life of a mother in the first few weeks but that is not an excuse for wholesale murder.
There have been and still is so much evidence that abortion “clinics in the US are far worse than the supposedly back street methods they were supposed to avoid so abortion money making clinics and murder for profit is a false premise. My personal reasoning is, would any person seriously entrust their life and the hope of exceptional medical care and empathy into the hands of those prepared to murder and butcher children incessantly. Does a baby falsely entrust it’s safety into the hands of the Mother to be similarly betrayed on a choice.
Adoption is so readily available and would be parents are crying out for a child. Seriously why would anyone stoop to murder for the sake of a few months out of their lives unless they have been falsely indoctrinated to believe it is a woman’s right.
Is it right for a man to punch a women in the stomach to force an abortion or is it right to injure and maim a woman by a socalled abortionist by torturing and murdering a baby within her womb often causing extensive complications and regret for the rest of her life just to satisfy some weird feminist code.
We are what we are a man and a women jointly designed to be the guardians for our children. My Body My choice is the biggest falsehood ever perpetrated. Does the child not have a choice?
Maybe in a strange way this is good.
Women playing the sexist card as you say, got people talking about this issue which may do some good.
For me it is pointing or at least trying to, point to better debate.
Julia Gillard’s contempt for unborn children knows no limit, as she uses them to bolster her own political image. The audacity. And particularly so, considering she heads a government that axed 100,000 single parent payments last year, yet willingly pays out $5,000 in baby bonus to mothers who abort their babies 20 weeks and over. This, of course, is insanity. But what do we expect from fools who say in their heart “There is no God”. (Psalm 14:1)
Ps Yes, Mishka Gora’s piece and whole article is so true; and her last week’s (3rd June) piece as well The Abortion of Reason http://mishkagora.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/the-abortion-of-reason/ Oh, if only main stream media would print this and Bill’s columns.
Larry Pickering courageously posted a picture of a late term abortion and wrote, “I will apologise for showing it here but I believe words alone can never describe the horror of Gillard’s ideal world.
A late-term abortion shows an empyreal disrespect for life itself. Instruments are inserted to dismember the baby before extracting it in small pieces. It’s small limbs are easily torn from its underdeveloped torso.
The child has a functioning nervous system so pain is experienced during this horrific process but it can’t express it, it can’t breathe, it suffers, muted, without anaesthetic.”
It was too much for his readers and he changed the picture. The reality of what Julia Gillard and her band of Emily listers campaign for was just too horrendous for the readers of a secular blog.
The 21st-century counterparts of Hannibal’s Carthage may well yet overrun a post-Christian western culture which is every bit as egotistical and apathetic as the late Roman empire. Infant sacrifice to the gods Eros and Mammon is no substitute for walking humbly with the Maker of heaven and earth and dealing justly with our neighbours.
What is the sentence for an unwanted child conceived and alive through no choice of its own?
The Death Penalty.
What was the nature of its crime? Nothing.
Why was it sentenced to death by maiming and torture a sentence that would be banned instantly under any criminal law?
For being an Inconvenience.
When will we get some sense into what abortion really is?
When will we get some justice for these innocent children?
If one looks at the way society has been divided up into competing minority groups, it soon becomes evident which groups have a more privileged position over the others.
Babies in the womb have no rights. Christians, the elderly and white males probably have no rights either, neither do the short, ginger haired or overweight. But look and see how many are protected groups favour lesbians, feminists and homosexuals.
The protected attributes are as follows:
4 (a) age;
5 (b) breastfeeding;
6 (c) disability;
7 (d) family responsibilities;
8 (e) gender identity;
9 (f) immigrant status;
10 (g) industrial history;
11 (h) marital or relationship status;
12 (i) medical history;
13 (j) nationality or citizenship;
14 (k) political opinion;
15 (l) potential pregnancy;
16 (m) pregnancy;
17 (n) race;
18 (o) religion;
19 (p) sex;
20 (q) sexual orientation;
21 (r) social origin.
David Skinner, UK
Praise the Lord for Larry Pickering and his courage to graphically show the truth of late term abortion. But taking the picture down is not changing the reality of it. If it is too much for readers, that is good, it shows they have a functioning conscience, but now we need to change the reality behind those pictures. How on earth are we going to do that?
Trevor, that women who abort babies over 20 receive the baby bonus is shocking news to me, almost unbelievable.
I noticed that some of Labour’s backbenchers have criticised the Prime Minister for bringing up abortion as an election issue, stating that there are “larger policies” to consider, though I wonder if they are afraid that revisiting the abortion debate could be the final nail in labour’s coffin and in God’s economy and wisdom it may well be.
By the way, it is not just men saying these things. Consider Miranda Devine:
“Just when you think Julia Gillard and the Labor Party couldn’t stoop any lower, along comes Women For Gillard, the sexist campaign launched by the Prime Minister yesterday. We know she’s desperate to hang on to power in the face of deterioriating polls and Kevin Rudd’s “revenge jihad” but that old gender card stinks. It’s an insult to every woman in the country who has forged a career on merit – not as some quota queen patronised and secretly reviled by male rivals….
“The scolds and screeching harridans of Emily’s List have emasculated Labor’s men. This is the real cause of the paralysis in the Labor party. No man is willing to confront Gillard for fear of being branded a misogynist. A trade unionist from the good old days of Labor once told me Emily’s List was a cancer in the ALP, and now it’s terminal. They might as well hand the whole party over to Women for Gillard. PS: A man couldn’t have written this column.”
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
@Erik: I think claiming things like there will be no more men in the workplace is not only a naieve and scare mongering tactic that distracts from legitimate problems, but it is just plain silly. There are serious issues when it comes to women and the workplace and workplace relations. And there are serious misuses of the gender card in the works to over complicate a somewhat complicated issue. The last thing we need is for someone to misuse the ‘common sense’ card.
And @David: placing feminists in a negative basket with lesbians and gays (other undesirables in your opinion) is a bit of a stretch when feminism is such a broad church.
And @ Bill Muehlenberg:I dislike your statement about the now former PM’s behaviour being an embelished reflection of Australia, i think it is unfair to blame the actions of one woman on Australian women in general. I do however strongly agree with your views on abortion and found you point of view on this refreshing as many people do not think that it is a mans place to have an opinion however as it is not just a womens rights issue (this is an easily toppled fallacy) and is in fact an issue facing all people as a collective, men should have a say in the direction their country (and ultimatley, their world) is headed.