Sunday, October 14, 2012

Julia Gillard's speech and the feminist Mike Tyson

I find it pretty funny -- but also very revealing -- that Gillard's fiery speech against misogyny and sexism was widely seen as being something deep, true and hugely empowering for women. Rather than it being a kind of "Once more unto the breach dear friends" for chickdom, it was actually just a bloody great victim-whinge.

As Brendan O'Neill noted, she spent most of it quacking on about how offended she was:

In what was essentially a gratuitously ostentatious display of Gillard’s own emotional sensitivity to certain words and ideas, the Aussie PM continually played the offence card. “I was very offended” by something Abbott said about abortion, she said. “I was very personally offended by those comments”, she said about something else. “I was also very offended on behalf of the women of Australia”, she said, in relation to a comment Abbott made about housewives. It goes on and on. “I was offended too by the sexism… I was offended by those things… I am offended by their content… I am always offended by sexism… I am always offended by statements that are anti-women… I am offended by those things… I am offended by things.”

Her speech and the many glowing references to it from the sisterhood say a lot about where feminism is at these days. It's just the opposite of what it's meant to be.

Gillard is so pathetically hypersensitive she actually believes that being called "she" is sexist and sees eeevil patriarchal motivation behind Abbott looking at his watch! That's so passive and piss-weak it makes the most demure and submissive of girly-girls seem Boadicea-like by comparison. It's the epitome of inertia, isn't it? Her job is to run the country, not endlessly bleat about how her delicate sensibilities have been egregiously offended by the most minor and irrelevant words and actions.

The fact that none other than Mike Tyson has heaped praise on the Prime Minister's childish rant says a lot too. Now, some people may be surprised at this reaction. But it seems remarkably consistent to me. Obviously, after being convicted and jailed for rape he has amended his perception of women somewhat. But his underlying assumptions about the female sex have remained the same, I believe. He's gone from thinking that women are weak and delicate beings who can be brutalized, to thinking that they are weak and delicate beings who must be protected from anything that they find remotely offensive. Obviously, that's an improvement. But it's hardly a game changer now is it? 

And isn't changing the gender "game" -- that is, the underlying attitudes of men towards women (and vice versa) -- what feminism is supposed to be all about? How can you possibly be genuinely empowered and independent if you think you're being oppressed by some bloke looking at his watch? On the contrary, you must see men as being practically bloody omnipotent.

"Badass mother----er!" my arse.


  1. Yay - sanity at last. My wife who is a well educated woman and who has retired from an executive position she gained on her own ability summed it up neatly when she viewed the never ending tv footage of the Ranga in full flight - "She's offended because of some piss ant [her actual words] action of an allegedly mysoginist man who is happily married with three daughters and who seems like a nice person - I'm offended by her inability to govern the country and setting back female efforts for equality by a decade" What more can you say. At least one woman doesn't buy the spin. There are probably a lot more.

    1. Yeah, playing gender politics is such a silly distraction. It's completely and utterly irrelevant to the big, serious job of governing.

      And yes, I'm sure there are many women who are unimpressed by Gillard's shameless tactics of late. About the only women who are impressed are die hard leftie feminists, and those who are just a big thick and don't read between the lines.

    2. I am a professional woman who does not want Julia Gillard's hypocritical ranting on my behalf.

  2. Jooolya just can't help attracting the major talent. First McTernan, whose tactics destroyed his own side in Scotland rather than their opponents. Now, Mike Tyson.
    She's probably lucky that Colonel Gaddafi's gone to his eternal reward. Imagine getting valentines from Mike AND Muammar...

    1. Yeah, the blokes who gravitate towards her (and whom she defends, for that matter) are not exactly appealing characters, that's for sure.