Wednesday, December 30, 2015

If feminists think Jamie Briggs is trash what do they think of Shorten?

Even though we're in the midst of the silly season, with Canberra battles far from most people's minds, a pretty big political story has broken. That's the removal of Mal Brough and Jamie Briggs from their current positions. This prompted more than one keen eyed observer to invoke Oscar Wilde:
In this vein these developments could be seen as the latest plot twist in the ongoing political farce that is the Impotence of Being Malcolm. (Though on second thoughts "impotence" might be the wrong word. Could actually be a sign of his power. Briggs was a supporter of Turnbull's nemesis Abbott, after all. So, losing his gig could have been as much to do with payback as anything else.)

Speaking of whom: It does seem way OTT for Briggs to have to fall on his sword because he said a female staffer had piercing eyes, put his arm around her and pecked her on the cheek. Inappropriate, sure, but did it deserve this result? Briggs' own wife reckons it's all a huge over-reaction. And from what I've read I'd have to agree.

Not surprisingly the handbag hit squad and their allies in the meeja (mainstream and social) are having a field day with this. But as is so often the case with such sex-scandal beat ups, their vindictive and opportunistic reaction reflects more on their collective character (or lack thereof) than on that of the so-called perpetrator.

Take that world class sob sister Tanya Plibersek. In between her trademark smug chuckles, exaggerated eye-rolls and exasperated sneers she has likened the removal of Briggs (and Brough) to "taking out the trash". In typical bullying social justice warrior fashion, barking bolshie bimbos (and bimbeaus) in Plibbers' Twitter trollective have piled on with great gusto.
Pretty clear that this characterization of Briggs as trash is motivated in major part by their "feminism". They're striking a brave blow against the patriarchy for their silenced sisters, natch. They're immediately siding with the alleged victim in this case, totally trusting her claims. I mean, that's what feminists are supposed to do, right?
Given this feature of their ideology, what of those rape allegations against her own party's leader? Plibersek, model feminist that she is, must've thought those claims true, right -- even while keeping mum (or is that "sis"?). Her private view of the Labor leader must be very dim indeed. Since she reckons Briggs is trash for what he was accused of, surely she secretly sees her own leader as a putrid sack of toxic muck. (Though you'd never guess it from the way she supports him publicly, of course.)

The alternative is that she does honestly believe Shorten is completely innocent. In that case Plibersek has no integrity as a feminist, and only uses it for personal and political advancement (the personal being political as we all know). And she just couldn't possibly be that cynical now could she?

Either way, it's not such a great look, to say the least.

1 comment:

  1. Kind of figured there was more to this than just the events in a Hong Kong bar. Searched mainstream media in vain for dissonant voices in contravention of the prevailing narrative. And I hear from the Courier mail that previously, he used a Commonwealth allowance to pay rent in Canberra? The transgression in the eyes of the Left allegedly being that the rent went to Hockey's "millionaire" wife. Yawn. This whole procedure was obviously a coldly calculated political hit with little or nothing to do with the bar scenario. Now someone please explain why Briggs proffered the bizarre mea culpa and fell on his sword? Is it because the ridiculousness of the alleged transgression (a kiss) offered Briggs a perfect opportunity to send up the whole scalp-taking process, by agreeing with it?