Liberals will rue the day they lurched right
|
At each stage over the past week of the Liberal leadership saga, the Liberals have found new ways, wholly unexpected ways, to make things ever worse for themselves. Today, they have trumped all their previous efforts. The election of Tony Abbott is a disaster of epic proportions for a party that was already up against it in the race to remain competitive at the next election. They have now taken a major step to the Right, towards their base, and away from mainstream voters. The sight of Abbott being clapped into and out his first press conference by grinning troglodytes such as Bronwyn Bishop, Sophie Mirabella and Dennis Jensen must fill the hearts of Liberal moderates with deep anguish about the fate of the party when it goes up against the Rudd machine next year. Abbott is, by his own admission, a deeply divisive figure. He is disliked by female voters for his aggressive attempts to use the Howard government to impose his brand of Catholicism. He is strongly associated with the Howard years, having been the former Prime Minister’s most prominent acolyte. In his first press conference, he refused to rule out a return to Workchoices, only indicating that that name was dead. And while he has a commendable reputation for straight-speaking, he has none of the rhetorical power of Malcolm Turnbull or the warm media image of Joe Hockey. Abbott has developed his thinking post-Howard, and offered some intriguing and creative policy analysis in his book Battlelines earlier this year, but he remains a figure of solidly right-wing thinking. He also leads a party almost perfectly divided, which has been the Liberals’ problem right from the outset. He immediately committed to reaching out to party moderates, promising to include all shades of opinion on his frontbench. Hockey has indicated a willingness to continue serving and Abbott indicated he wanted him to remain shadow treasurer. How other moderates, especially environment spokesman Greg Hunt who strongly supports an ETS, will be treated, remains to be seen. And any reflexive loyalty to the leader on the part of party moderates will likely have been dissolved by the antics of the party’s right wing last week, in effect overturning the will of the party room and shadow cabinet with a campaign of outright defiance, a string of resignations and two spill motions. Having ignored party rules and conventions, the conservatives will have no recourse if moderates choose the same approach. The first test will be whether moderate senators toe the party line and vote down the CPRS package in the Senate or whether the likes of Judith Troeth and about 8-10 other moderates cross the floor to vote along the lines the party agreed last week, thereby passing the package. Malcolm Turnbull in his press conference in effect encouraged them to do so, saying they should stand up for their beliefs. The fate of the Bill will be decided this week, especially as Steve Fielding has ruled out supporting a motion to defer consideration of the Bill in favour of his own lunatic suggestion that there be a Royal Commission into climate change. If they don’t support it, they and their colleagues will hand Kevin Rudd a double-dissolution trigger that he may now be much more inclined to use than previously, given the patent disarray within coalition ranks. Labor remains concerned about its susceptibility to an anti-tax campaign by the coalition on the CPRS and a xenophobic appeal to its blue-collar demographic from climate denialists. Even so, it is the coalition that is likely to continue to have problems with the climate-change issue. So get used to a more right-wing Opposition, deeply conservative, one that rejects climate change, one in which hardliners who languished under the progressive Turnbull will have their day in the sun. But a reckoning awaits at polling day. And sadly for the moderates, they will pay the price every bit as heavily as their conservative colleagues. |
|
|
|
75 Comments
Surely without consulting among themselves the anti-Abbott voters split the vote between Hockey and Turnbull in the first ballot, thus handing victory to him in the second.
Bring it on I say, Bernard! I can see me turning my telly off quite a bit in future. There’s only one way a misogynist can change his ways - by admitting that he is one first, then working really hard to change his language, demeanour etc. I think Abbott is too old to even acknowledge that he’s an arsehole to women and their democracy/autonomy/equality in the community. Minchin and others are too! Yuk!
Rudd needs to start engaging now with the community re this Legislation - he hasn’t done so enough up to this time, as many have observed. I’d like to see the policy that the Libs took to the ‘07 election. Judith Moylan referred to it in her interview on The World Today, ABC radio. So, if they took one to the election, how can they vote against it now, after they agreed to seek ammendments from the govt, and have credibility. Of course, our so-called journalists in the mainstream media won’t call them to account. Most frustrating!
The silly season has clearly started early this year.
The move to put Abbott in as leader will give the Liberals someone with backbone - a leader doesn’t always have to be liked as long as he knows where he is going. As he said in his first speech as leader - almost 80% of Australians don’t understand the CPRS / ETS.
Why vote for something that is going to burden the Australian taxpayer with an addittional $ 120 BILLION while no-one knows if other countries will reduce their emmissions.
While there is much information that it is man-made, there is just as much information available be very credible scientists to contradict these claims.
Which is true - the leftists and greenies want to label anyone who question the claims of the Global Warmists as holocaust deniers etc
About twelve months ago Steve Biddulph wrote an opinion piece in the SMH which argued that the traditional political lines of worker (Labour) vs employer (Liberal) were no longer the battlefield of politics and would be soon superseded.
What would replace our historical political divide was a new era where the two major parties would represent an environmentally progressive view and the alternative a ‘pro-business’ view.
It is ironic that the ETS legislation has been the catalyst for what I believe will be the beginning of the end for the Liberal Party in Australia. We can only hope now that we see the rise of a political force that supports the environment - because its definitely not PM Rudd and the gang!
Totally agree ~ the analogy with the 1950’s Labor Left/Right or liberal/conservative split is just too true
COMMONSENSE - Even Arnie, the governor of California announced a few yrs ago now, that the ‘debate is over’ re climate change - it’s time for action. You’d hardly call him a moderate let alone a leftie. He put in place some rules re cars of the future for example; that if manufacturers didn’t change the gas guzzlers, there’d be big fines. Now, he just got on with it.
Do you whinge about the $9billion per year to the fossil fuel industries? Did you whinge when Howard and Costello changed the tax system that discriminated adversely for women in a hetrosexual relationship with kids? Did you whinge about the many increases in current taxes & charges etc, under Costello in his first 1+ govts? Did you whinge about the horrific debts run up by Howard and Costello in their almost 12 yrs?We all knew, that there were going to be costs re a CPRS - that’s plain to anyone with a low IQ, let alone anyone who thinks they’re smart. I don’t mind making sacrifices for the future of my grand kids(and I’m surviving on a pension) but I object to those who’ve been reaping billions by ripping resources out of this country and getting so many lerks and perks, and huge profits. I find THAT offensive!
I don’t like Abbott, and he isn’t liked by a large number of women in the electorate. He’s a misogynist of the worst kind. He might be OK for white males with a good income, but that’s it! I can’t even stand to look at him - listening to him is a chore for me - I’ll be turning him off, in more ways than one! Those who voted for him will rue the day, and those who didn’t must be feeling awful. I’m no supporter of the Libs, never have been, but they’ve allowed Minchin & his ilk to bastardise their party. On their own heads I say!
The corporate entryist strategy has won — just like in the GOP.
Commonsense - you are correct a political leader doesn’t always have to be liked. But when half the electorate is pretty sure you’re the sort of person who would, given the opportunity, take away your rights to control your own reproductive organs then not being liked is hardly the problem.
How have church attendances been trending over the last couple of decades?
PHIL - Church attendances have been going down quite markedly over the last decades, in fact, I’ve heard that due to less men becoming priests for example, the powers that be may have to change their rules re marriage. I don’t know of any schools in my area (2 cities) that have all nuns in their schools. In fact, the girls catholic college I went to, where there were only about 3 non-religious teachers, has reversed completely. I also understand, that in the last Census, the number of people who put, ‘no religion’ on their form increased markedly from even the one before? Interesting!
The majority of people believe in a woman’s right to choose abortion in this country, and even in countries like Ireland & Italy, the majority support this view. In fact, women(I know I do) really resent men telling them what to do in this area. I believe it’s been used by the cc to indoctrinate people, oppress women, and then manipulate males and females to conform. I woke up as a young woman with 2 babies under 1 - not twins! I took my doctor’s advice, took the pill, and decided (with my then husband) when to have my 3rd son - 4 yrs later. It’s nobody else’s business in my view. I then decided, and medical conditions supported this view, not to have any more kids, and to have a tubal ligation with other essential/maybe life savingl surgery! The priests can go to hell, and so can Abbott and his ilk!
That first vote went 49-35 against Abbott.
Watching Annabel Crabb and Barry Cassidy outside parliament (are they married? the way he was so distracted while she was talking to him), she wondered if Rudd, whom she says so deftly handles the despatch box now, might have trouble with Abbott’s manner? There is the corollary, each time Abbott gets up to speak, there’s enough recorded history of his to rip into him like grape-shot. We all have history, and by that we’re judged. That he wants to be judged “from today” - does he really think he’s been “reborn”, that this is THE second coming?
This bloke was an active “Howard Disciple” - with all their “intentions” pre-election, they never let you know what they intended til after they actually won an election, when they and their media mates would call “mandate” for something that hardly looked like what they took to the electorate and asked to be elected on - and could never get 45+% of the primary vote anyway.
How will this herd of cats be any different?
And don’t you like “animated Michael Johnson” - a couple of days ago inanimate, then “his tax payer paid car” gets taken out of the garage by ABC(?) news, so Murdoch has to get in on it up here, and suddenly he’s “hard working Michael - worried about how this ETS tax is going to affect the battlers”, with his new best friend Tony - and, no doubt, looking for a job?
Looks like Liberal Party strategy will now be run out of St Mary’s Cathedral.
Liz there are a hellava number of Catholics who wouldn’t give Abbott the time of day. He is Pius X11 thinking, pre Vatican 1. Stuck in a time warp. This man is inflexible and he is not about to change his attitudes and beliefs for the sake of liberation of thought and actions.
Will be a great mate for Sen Fielding.
I don’t think Abbott’s really going to be running the show, anyway.
Bernard, what we really need you to find out is … what does Nick Minchin’s 12 year old daughter think of all this, and what was the good senator’s explanation to her?
Once again young Bernard, our Gulag correspondent, proffers us with his untainted opinion to the Liberal Part and how they should do business. Don’t you understand Bernie that the more you complain, the surer they are of their decision?
42 verses 41 isn’t a startling endorsement of the Mad Monk. All Turnbull has to do is sit tight and wait until the Monk crashes and burns. Then Turnbull can take over again just before the election.
The Libs are so hopeless they couldn’t even plan their voting tactics this morning to get the bloke they wanted into the leader’s job. Abbott will probably be known from now on as the ‘inadvertent leader’ following this stuff up. Hockey must be relieved because he now has a chance at becoming PM sometime in the future, a possiblity that would have been denied to him if he had won today. Rudd will have to be sucking lemon wedges for next 3 months to get the smile off his face. What luck, another 2 terms at least gifted to him by the incompetent rabble that the Libs are at present and unlikely to improve anytime soon.
RAYMOND - Yes, and I heard today, that another Brother has been arrested re the alleged sexual assaults on students at TWO colleges/schools at Bathurst years ago. Apparently, the parents of one young male student were told yrs ago, that this person would not be working near children ever again - he was just transferred, and today HAS BEEN STOOD DOWN from his teaching position?? So, like the bastards in Ireland, as reported this week, the bastards in Australia have been ‘business as usual’? Even some members of my original family still go to mass etc? (Can’t blame the church for the few etc? Oh really? I can!) I won’t believe that Pell doesn’t know about this lot. Not one peep from him either! What a pack of bastards? I didn’t give them the chance to get their hands on my boys!
I also noticed that Abbott wasn’t wearing a white ribbon last Wednesday! I took particular notice. Now why doesn’t that surprise me? Wasn’t he the shadow for indigenous affairs? Indigenous women are victims of DV too - higher stats than the rest of the community, sadly! Not a word from Abbott!
Margaret, I think you’ve got it:
“Surely without consulting among themselves the anti-Abbott voters split the vote between Hockey and Turnbull in the first ballot, thus handing victory to him in the second.”
I feel like I am going to die. Poor Malcolm.
JILLIAN - Feel sorry for the poor workers if Abbot got himself elected as PM? God, what a horrible thought! He’d bring on WorstChoices even worse than Howard’s and the people most adversely affected would be low income earners, and women in particular - they were the worst affected last time. I haven’t even started on RU486 or embryonic stem cell research! Wind back the clocks on equal pay or some decent & fair tax policies for women re-entering the work force with a couple of kids?
Liz, I agree with you, especially in relation to RU486 & embryonic stem cell research. I don’t think there is any realistic chance of Abbott becoming PM though. I have been actively committed to the Liberal Party for 15 years but I cannot imagine voting for or supporting Abbott.
As Venise & Liz45 point out re the MM’s misogynism, has his wife ever featured in any puff pieces?
I predict, like Janette Howard, Abbott’s wife won’t be allowed to say or do much - if anything! She’ll be around as a ‘decoration’ for him! If I’m wrong, I’ll apologize in advance, but he’s not into equality anywhere for women, and I think he’d start that policy at home!!!!!!Like serving a life sentence in Long Bay I’d suggest! Perhaps she likes it that way?
Liz45, “I don’t like Abbott, and he isn’t liked by a large number of women in the electorate. He’s a misogynist of the worst kind. He might be OK for white males with a good income, but that’s it! “
I am of said group of white males earning a good income and he makes my skin crawl. As my partner (who interestingly is called Liz and is 45) says, “the closest to red you can get these days is green”.
Yes, there is a risk that the LP will position themselves too far to the right of the political spectrum. Howard was able to track more to the right after he managed to establish dominance over his opponents. Much more difficult to do this from opposition.
On the other hand, they also have a need to differentiate themselves from the government in some clear way, and the GFC has weakened support for emissions trading schemes, particularly if it has adverse effects like increasing your power bill. Accelerated CC is a hypothetical scenario derived from theory, whereas losing your job or having negative equity in your home is an immediate worry in the here and now for many people.
I don’t think it is smart to underestimate Abbott. He has been their most effective hard-hitter in opposition. His experience shows in his ability to navigate down the best line that will target the weak point of the other side.
He said in his press conference that he couldn’t promise to win the next election, but he would take the fight up to the government. I suspect he will deliver on that, provided that he can bring them all back together, which is going to be a non-trivial challenge after all of this.
At the end of the day, his mastery of some of the black arts of politics could be more important than left-right positioning.
Put your Freakonomics hat on and you can see all sorts of rationality that doesn’t immediately strike you. In Abbott’s case it could be that he would really like a turn at being leader of the alternative government for a time. Being in Opposition is tedious and being Leader is said to be the worst job in politics but it would have to be a buzz for an adrenalin junky which I suspect Abbott is. If you know that you and any alternative is going to lose then you can have a dash at it with a reasonably clear conscience.
MUCH MORE IMPORTANT: Why Bernard to you dismiss Sen Fielding’s idea for a Royal Commission as idiotic? On the contrary I suggest, it would be very much in the public interest if one or both major party leaders promised to set up a standing Royal Commission (I have this idea from someone who has been advocating it to MPs, especially Opposition) on the science and economics of AGW. That way people who are inclined to think they are being treated like mugs or taken for granted and harbour deep suspicions about various aspects of AGW and an ETS might be brought along with the politicians who are making and legislating for very expensive policies to, ultimately, reduce CO2 emissions.
TOM - That makes me feel better! What a coincidence re your wife’s name!
MICHAELT - I don’t think Abbott has the finesse - he’ll show himself up for what he is - an overgrown catholic private school boy, who is immature and lacks any insight let alone sensitivity. He’s not good in parliament; he’s rude and obnoxious! There’s no excuse for that sort of behaviour in a teenage boy, in a supposed man of over 50, it’s diabolical. Like TOM, he makes my skin crawl.
I remember a smart woman told me of a bloke in a managerial position - she said, ‘be carpeted but never cornered’? The same could be said of Abbott! He’s either scathing and sexist, or rude and obnoxious!
If he wants to take ‘anything’ up to the govt, he might start with explaining, why he’s done a 180 at least on (the need to tackle) climate change. From his first real interview of the day, the 7.30 Report, he changed tack. Didn’t ring true with me at all! I applaud the Labor Party for attacking him on WorstChoices. Good stuff! Looks like I’ll have to get busy again!
Liz45, “wife” NO, I’m a committed commitment sceptic!!
Liz, I agree he would certainly dig himself in a hole if he tried to go back to the Workchoices territory. It caused them grief at the last election. I can’t see how it could ever be a vote-winner for them. It appeals only to the base.
So he will certainly have difficulties selling his own preferred agenda. And I think he will struggle with women.
But don’t understimate his abilities as an attack-dog-in-chief. Rude and obnoxious is par for the course in our parliaments unfortunately. But some do it better than others.
Julius, it’s not the sort of thing Royal Commissions are for. An RC is for judicial matters, it’s done by judges and has special powers to compel witnesses to speak. Economic policy challenges are more for House Select Committees. You and I might not know that, but for Fielding not to understand the difference after years in the Senate shows he’s an idiot.
TOM - Sorry, presumptious of me!
JULIUS - There’s already been about 3 or 4 Senate inquiries already. I heard Penny Wong say the other day, that she asked her people to do the research, and they said, that all up, there’s been 13 inquiries. I haven’t even heard of them. Where are they? Can we download them? How much did they cost? This is just ridiculous arguing for another inquiry - they’re only interested in stalling that’s all, and buy them time in case Rudd calls a DD.
I don’t want a bloody inquiry; I want explanations, scrutiny etc. I want action! The Coalition dithered around for nearly 12 yrs over this. I was aware of the need to change to renewable energy, stop tearing down old growth forests; stop creating even more electrical gadgets etc thirty yrs ago. I’m sick of the discussion - it’s too serious to stuff around with! Let’s just get on with it!
JULIUS - I forgot! There was a major article in the SMH a couple of years ago, re all the different inquiries in recent years under Howard. It was an appalling number; appalling, as nothing ever came from them. In fact, some took months and months to write reports, and I think some didn’t even report to the relevant place - either the Senate or the House. The pollies and all had expenses paid, nice lunches, dinners etc, and the poor little buggars who gave submissions were treated pretty shabbily - particularly when, for example, people were giving submissions on poverty! I still have it somewhere. It was almost as shocking as the indepth inquiry into deaths and injuries in the workplace, also in the SMH - which would escallate under another WorstChoices!
they’re going to discuss Abbott on Nightlife tonight, ABC radio, after the Challenge, which starts at midnight. Not for me, I’m ‘Abbotted out’? Sleep seems like a good idea at this point!
G’night all! Take care!
James McDonald et al. I’ll come to James McDonald’s point but it is quite clear that the rise of scepticism, concern about corrupt motives and conspiracy (on all sides - as to which I’ll say more below) means that all the inquiries have been pretty well irrelevant to persuading people that there are clear and valid answers honestly arrived at on the question whether CO2 emissions are, if not seriously abated, going to produce catastrophic climate changes over much of the world.
Any sensible government would want people to be brought along with it when it is imposing a huge de facto tax which can also be represented as an imposition on business which will make Australia uncompetitive and poorer. How to get at the truth and make sure the public (and your average MP) can see it and accept it, and, above all, respect the processes by which the conclusions are arrived at is a very big and important problem.
As it happens I have had a lot to do with parliamentary committee inquiries and I am very much in favour of them in many circumstances. I even have some sympathy for Andrew Bolt’s view that Royal Commissions are more easily rigged than, say, Senate committee inquiries (which have their weaknesses however, such as competing priorities for the members’ time and, sometimes, inadequate staffing both in terms of numbers and expertise). A joint parliamentary committee might be best if properly staffed but I have in mind the advantages of a standing (that is a permanent in the sense of having an indefinite term) Royal Commission like the UK Royal Commission on the Heritage (which had existed for more than 60 years when I visited its offices in the 80s) because MPs and Senators may be thrown out in mid-inquiry and anyway easily distracted by matters more immediately important to them.
On the different characters of the two forms of inquiry I say, with respect, James McDonald that you are not correct in a couple of matters you treat as material. In fact Senator Fielding has not been a member of the Senate for many years, but, possibly just long enough to see the weaknesses of Senate committees, particularly from the point of view of an independent or a minor party which has trouble manning (or womaning) all the committees it might be entitled to have members appointed to. That aside, there is nothing necessarily judicial about the proceedings or purposes of a Royal Commission: it’s commission is just what it’s constituent document, Order in Council or whatever, commissions it to do.
Remember that the Victorian bushfire RC is reported as much as anything else for the practical recommendations it is expected to come up with rather than any apportionment of liability or responsibility, though that may figure in it too - just as one might expect an AGW Royal Commission in some circumstances to come up with a finding that there has been gross mismanagement of measuring equipment and record keeping by some important climate research agency. Inquiries in the past have been above all attempts to discover the true complex facts when this is likely to be difficult and contestable versions given, whether on why a bridge fell down or what the Communist Party was getting up to.
I think a properly constituted Royal Commission could be at least as good as a parliamentary committee inquiry at both finding the truth and conveying it so the public believed it - in fact probably a good deal better. As cross-examination of scientists is necessary I would rather trust the questioning from an experienced QC who had cross-examined many expert witnesses and the questions of well qualified commissioners than I would MPs and Senators out to generate publicity for themselves (as some would, if only because they really didn’t have any other contribution to make by way of having put in heavy homework). However…..
My main point was the modest one of asking Bernard why he thought Fielding’s idea was idiotic. I know some very distinguished retired public servants who advocate a serious inquiry into the science (and I would add the economics) where the experts were properly cross-examined. So I think Fielding has a case.
I said I would say more below about corrupt motives and conspiracy etc. but forgot. I don’t think these are the problems despite the strong incentive for most climate researchers to look to the UN, governments etc. for funds when these are already sold on the idea of AGW.
In my opinion the principle problem is the vastness and complexity of the problem, of any attempt to capture the whole global climate dynamics in a model to put it another way. Compare that other great non-linear, chaotic, deterministic system: the world economy which repeatedly comes up with surprises which defeat the most highly motivated experts who really seriously want to get it right and make money rather than losing it!
So it is all beyond anyone’s grasp and a whole lot of different bits and pieces have to be patched together to give an approximation that then has to be pushed as much more comprehensive and reliable than is justified. In turn the great and good of the scientific, and, more broadly, the academic and professional and public service communities (with a volunteer chorus of charities and worthy institutions) have to rely on trusting people they know who are a bit or a lot closer to the real research than they are and who are friends or respected colleagues or former colleagues or colleagues of colleagues. However, you will find that the same class of people, when once they are not busy at being President of this or that society or engrossed in the finishing of one more magnum opus but more or less retired will often use their freedom from pressure to raise serious questions about the details of the scientific case which has been pieced together in a patchwork by IPCC panels. But the busy don’t do this so much but take the “consensus” on trust.
Liz,
Malcolm Turnbull said some people just do not want to act on the issue of climate change and he sounded quite frustrated in one interview several days ago. I have been expressing my anger and people keep telling me to calm down, but I am not going to sit back and do nothing. It’s an appalling state of affairs at the moment.
I am sick of people pompously telling me how undemocratic the management of the ETS has been. For heavens sake, it was election policy for both major parties at the last federal election. If people didn’t pay attention then, it’s their own fault.
JILIAN - I’m with you! I’m so damned sick of the nonsense put on by the sceptics or those supporting corporate wealth(mining companies etc - how many lobbyists in Canberra - 7 or more for each division?30? 40? Truly?) putting forward any schemes or inquiries or via Libs nonsense, to put off the inevitable point - decision and action.
I was involved with Friends of the Earth in the 1970’s - there were strong views then for stopping emissions - we were either treated as loonies or communists or ???In the meantime, those in the nuclear fuel industry, like Phillips and Westinghouse(building reactors then and supplying uranium to the US) were churning out more energy guzzling products. I remember the frustration of the media not being interested in covering the stories. Why was that? The same reason as now. They’re ‘in bed’ with big business, big polluters and the Coalition parties. Incidently, Labor is sadly, not much better. I’m very disappointed and disgusted with politics in this country for some time, but particularly the last 12 years. The Libs stuffed around for that time, wasting valuable time - I don’t believe they’re fair dinkum, not one bit! The only ones I have real respect for are The Greens. I want more of them, and less of the other lot/s. I want a better world for my grandkids, and they’re running out of time. We’re using their fresh air etc now!
There was much concern and positive policies before the people in 2007 and before. The Greens via in particular, Bob Brown canvassing solutions for years. If the people are whingeing about not enough discussion, I tell them to stop watching crap on TV, read some books and go and find out via their computers. I’m always dumbfounded by the innate laziness of some people. Some people front up at a polling booth on election day, and ask who they’re supposed to be there for? (this used to happen when I was on polling booths for ALP - I left, when Bob Hawke went back on ALP policy re uranium mining - that was it for me; he gave us the middle finger?)If people are too damned lazy to stop watching Australian Idol or some other brainstorming bit of rubbish, and not educate themselves, they don’t care! Like you, I’m SICK TO DEATH OF THE TALK TALK TALK!
This may not be the perfect solution, but at least it’s a start, and will give everyone the strong message, that global warming is a real serious problem, and we’re serious about stopping awful damage. A Royal Commission takes ages to organise, costs millions, is a big plus to the lawyers etc, and usually gives the govt the answer they want(take AWB for example? what a farce?).
As I said earlier, Penny Wong said her people researched, that there’s been 13 inquiries to date. How bloody stupid? I feel like elbowing these blokes out of the way, rolling up my sleeves and saying ‘let us(women) get on with it’? It is so frustrating! These greedy bastards, only interested in protecting the huge profits they’ve enjoyed for years, should be brought into line, or told to piss off - and I include politicians in this! They’ve been ripping resources out of this land for decades, rarely put anything back; the people whose land it is(aboriginals mostly)get next to nothing, and the govt gives back any taxes they receive, back to these greedy mongrels each yr, to the tune of at least $10 billion!
END OF RANT!
I’m off to take my friend out for a $6 lunch at the local club. She’s a survivor of DV with an aquired brain injury caused via an assault by the father of her kids. I’m an advocate for her. She’s awesome, intelligent and sharp as a tack. I’ll channel my attention into something more positive than this nonsense going on - enjoying her company!
Julius, you make a strong argument. Maybe you’re right; what seems obvious to many (AGW obviously real to believers, obviously a fraud to dissenters) remains divisive and a serious block to the community and parliament moving forward one way or another. The majority of big businesses have stated they believe the warnings and need to take action, but who’s to say if that’s just political expediency at odds with privately held views of directors and executives?
Malcolm Turnbull described the question of reality or otherwise as an “essentially theological question”, comparing it to questions like whether God exists. It’s true, by now most people are set in their beliefs one way or another with very little opportunity to convince each other, and very little open-mindedness in between. (That’s why the word “skeptic”, which means open-minded doubter, is being abused by dissenters, and to vilify them as “deniers” is not helpful.)
Maybe a Royal Commission, by choosing the most authoritative expert witnesses and cutting through the war of rhetoric, could settle the question with a credibility most people would accept, allowing us to state certain things as “accepted fact” and move on.
Liz45,
I am a bloke. Middle income. Comfortable. Left-leaning. Educated. Sometimes bookish. Been active re environmental and social matters for 3 plus decades. Active in my local community, supporting those in need of a bit of good luck. Perhaps we agree on many things.
However, your continual raving about how mean and violent men are makes it very difficult to sympathise with your writings. Fair enough that you have a crack at the Mad Monk re his religious superstitions, sexist and reactionary views, but leave off the generalisations about the remainder of the male half of Australia’s population!
Please, tone down your anti-male BS and stay on topic. It would help both you and me if you were to do so.
I agree, John.
Liz, it’s clear certain men have done things for which they have no claim on any forgiveness from you. Fair enough. But to confuse them with all men and to vilify men in general is going too far. There’s a word for it: “misandry”. Similar to misogyny but the other way.
Hey, hang on a minute you two. So sorry if the reality of too many offends your sensibilities! In your world it’s obviously not part of your reality. In mine it is! There’s also a woman murdered every 10 days in this country - that’s hardly a small number. Men who are not part of the 25-30% don’t have a problem - if they’re sympathetic, they wouldn’t be so jumpy. I’ve worked with and counselled many women, you obviously haven’t or don’t. When all other crimes have gone down in this country, these crimes have escallated - each year!
As for Tony Abbott? He’s part of the cc that preaches and acts in a sexist, discriminatory and oppressive manner - he doesn’t come out and speak against this, so until he does, I’ll continue to show him none or little respect or consideration. He didn’t speak out on WRD did he? Nor have I heard any strong words from him on this topic. So why don’t or didn’t you take him to task!
If I’d been injured as a result of a drunk driver(male or female) would I be justified in having a ‘sore point’ re drunken drivers? You need to ask yourselves why you’re so jumpy re my views? What if I was angry about my car being violently broken into? Probably OK! I only mentioned in passing of what I was doing today - I’ve known several women in this position. How many people do you know whov’e been damaged via violent assaults of other people? I suggest none!
“claim on any forgiveness from you” Funny thing, abusers like this don’t even say ‘sorry’ so why should they be forgiven? Some, like mine, thought that even after over 20 yrs, he could threaten me and get away with it! Makes ‘getting over it’ a trifle difficult while under threat?
Funny how it was two women only who crossed the floor in the Senate, to, as one said, ‘pass the legislation that was Coalition policy only 24 hours or so ago’?
None of the blokes had the guts - even those who voted for it in Cabinet or in their party room!
Liz, you’re right that men should stand up to any male leader who expresses misogynist views.
I’ll also stand up to anyone who expresses misandrystic views. There’s a common pattern here.
As for this … “If I’d been injured as a result of a drunk driver(male or female) would I be justified in having a ‘sore point’ re drunken drivers?”
Yes of course you would be justified, because drunk driving is a behaviour. But what if the drunk driver was a woman, would I be justified in having a sore point re ‘woman drivers’? What if the driver was Irish … ‘Irish drivers’?
JAMES - I criticized Abbott on his past form - that others here have also raised, and some were males. I criticized his hypocrisy of supposedly being a christian, but espousing views and behaviours that are far from this. I’ve alluded to his behaviours and demeanour to issues covering those that most women believe in. I’ve reached the obvious conclusion re Abbott - that he’s misogynist of the worst kind, because he professes to be ‘a good bloke’? I’ve reached this conclusion by hearing to many of his views over the years. If he advocated policies towards men that caused as much misery as those he advocates for women, the men would probably whinge too, or be very vocal in their dissent. I also criticize many others in the parliament, on both sides, when and if they advocate oppressive legislation that will negatively impact on anyone, not just women - war, nuclear power etc!
You can’t escape from the fact, that on a daily basis, your life and JOHN BENNETS are quite different to that of mine, just because of the difference in our sex. If you can’t admit to this fact, then you’re either deliberately obtuse, or keep your ears and eyes closed! The most obvious one is, that it’s far safer for you to walk along the street at night than it is for me! It bugs me that I have to plan to not put myself in a potentially dangerous position, you don’t necessarily or automatically have the same fears. I didn’t create that environment? Whether it’s shopping or doing a TAFE course, or walking to the corner shop after dark, I have to think about the dangers, you don’t! And, if in the event you’re assaulted, you don’t have to worry about some judge blaming you for either wearing the ‘wrong’ clothes, or even being on the street after dark. In short, your whole life up until this point, has a totally different set of references than I have, or women older or younger than I! It’s like a parallel universe - yours and mine, or hers and yours - totally different! Sad but true! Men don’t have the need to rally each yr and urge for the right to Reclaim the Night, for our safe use? If those who committed acts of violence and oppression on women, were either male or female, then you could accuse me of being discriminatory, unjust and unfair to only refer to male assailants; but the fact is, that it’s overwhelmingly men who are the perpetrators, not women! That doesn’t make me a man hater, it means that I’m just referring to fact! Our whole society is dominated by men and their alleged superiority is paramount in many spheres of life - war, the home, the workplace, the parliaments, the street etc. I don’t hate men, I object to a culture of ingrained oppression, and I object to those who ‘go along to get along’? Appeasers!
All this commentary on ‘misandry’ seemed to follow Liz’s comment: “I feel like elbowing these blokes out of the way, rolling up my sleeves and saying ‘let us(women) get on with it’?” and the reference to a woman who has experienced a very bad case of domestic violence.
I don’t think those comments from Liz are unreasonable. I agree that there should be more women in parliament. It should be close to 50/50. Good on Judith Troeth & Sue Boyce for crossing the floor.
Jillian - a liberal advocating Affirmative Action? Now I’ve heard everything. How many women are stupid enough, or hate their private lives enough, to want to enter the dogfight of federal parliament?
As for the elbowing comment, yes I did jump a bit on a fairly innocuous statement this time because it reminded me of much more strident comments made at other times. I beg pardon for that.
Liz, maybe we should be calling for the right to bear arms! You’d have to act a bit sanguine when you go to pick up your license, but then you really could Reclaim The Night!
James, I have not called for affirmative action. I referred to the desirable outcome of there being a 50/50 gender balance, but I did not say how it should be achieved.
In relation to Liz’s comments, strident comments add a bit of spice to the page. They are in support of an entirely valid cause.
James, I note that your comment “How many women are stupid enough, or hate their private lives enough, to want to enter the dogfight of federal parliament?” is quite gender stereotypical.
Jillian, yes it is. In my blinkered, overgeneralising way, from experience I’ve formed the view that women are smarter about things like work-life balance. The fact that I am only now leaving the office and going home to dinner, while most of my female workmates left hours ago, is a case in point.
James, I think that is a bit unfair. The hours people work depend on a combination of the requirements of their job and on the demands of their families. Women who have children may not be able to stay back in the office after 5 or 6 pm. You must know that. You normally seem very reasonable.
Note also James: the fact that you are able to use crikey in the office indicates a certain amount of flexibility - unless it is directly related to your job. I do not know what type of work you do.
Jillian, I also confess to being a bit of a philogynist. And I was embarrassed for the men in the senate being so discombobulated by Sarah Hansen-Young’s baby in da house.
That sounds good James, although I think maybe the baby in the Senate was one step too far. Don’t forget my facebook invitation. There is no shortage of drama there, especially at the moment.
If the Senate behaved like a Senate, maybe there would be a valid argument against bringing a baby in. I’d still say, what of it? But the baby was probably one of the most sensible people ever to occupy one of the red chairs in that hall of buffoons.
Jillian, do you remember the scene in the Fountainhead when Dominique Francon walks into a meeting of some cultural geek club where Peter Keating and his mates are crapping on about what it all means. She just sits there and crosses her legs and listens, doesn’t say a word, then some minutes later she walks out again. Keating and the others try to pick up the rhythm again but the moment’s ruined. “It was as if they had been standing naked and unashamed and someone had walked in fully clothed” (from memory). I always think of that scene when I hear calls for more women in parliament. Most of the women I know would be smart enough to just walk right out again.
Good point James. I don’t remember that scene because it’s about 10 years since I read the book, but it’s always good to burst the balloon of pompousness.
JAMES - “The fact that I am only now leaving the office and going home to dinner, while most of my female workmates left hours ago, is a case in point.”
And who was looking after the kids while you were working back? Somebody has to pick up or be home with the kids! Why don’t men go home and the woman work back? Because, that’s ‘not how it’s supposed to be’? Who made that rule James, men????Who does over 80% of the housework(unpaid) is the primary carer fof kids, who also attends to aged parents(sometimes of both partners) and does these things unpaid and usually ignored(as you did by your comment/s) and their commitment demeaned as ‘not real work’?
JAMES - “Liz, maybe we should be calling for the right to bear arms! You’d have to act a bit sanguine when you go to pick up your license, but then you really could Reclaim The Night!”
See, this type of response shows your true feelings re the issues I raised. Ask yourself, would you mock this comment if I was referring to the fact, that every 7-10 days, a middle aged man was being killed on a street at night? Don’t you think that a trite comment like this would at best show, gross insensitivity? Whilst ever men respond in this manner, they’ll continue to only contribute to the horrific stats re abuse of women. You’ve shown your true colours James. Shame on you!
Jillian - Thanks for the support!
JAMES - Go through the names of those who’ve contributed here - add up the names of men, and divide that number by 4. That’s the number of men, who, statistically are abusing their wives/partners! Then show me comparable stats of a serious crime, where the overwhelming offenders are women?
I rest my case! When those stats are markedly reduced, and all men participate in stopping these crimes(and the attitudes that precede them) then have a go at me!
Boys and men aren’t born violent. they’re man made! The attitudes of only 1 person can create an abuser.
Incidently, those wonderful women who fought, chained themselves to buildings, railings etc who were strident in their intent for the right to vote, didn’t give up when a couple of blokes told them, to ‘go home and be nice - cook hubbies favourite meal and mind their ‘motherless’ kiddies’? Those women also went on ‘strike’ re their sexual favours to their husbands! I’m not giving up either!
Incidently, I’ve been asked on a few occasions why I didn’t go into politics? My response, is that I couldn’t stand the BS and sucking up to this or that person. Women like me are usually too busy being involved in the govt sector, or not for profit organizations, or voluntarily fighting for women’s refuges, or taking up the myriad of causes on behalf of women and kids, and therefore for the whole community! I don’t know of one occasion, where the decision makers woke up one morning, and were struck down with the need to change the laws or court proceeding of sexual assault cases for example, or child abuse victims. Sadly, it’s taken too many years!
We didn’t get the right to become doctors, lawyers etc or in my case, to have a credit account in my name(instead of their requirement, that my husband give his approval via his signature - even though I was working outside the home) by being silent or quitting when abused by the appeasers etc. That argument with a well known major retail store(still in operation) lasted for months. My local state member brought it up in the NSW parliament. It’s on the public record!
Guess what? - I won!
You’re not reading the right books James and John!
(incidently, 2 of my brothers are called James(Jim) and John).
Liz45,
Your crap about males in general is totally beyond the pale. You need help and are unlikely to get it on this site.
A thousand words so far today, and none of them reasonable, fair or even on topic, yet you ask us to wade through your poor, broken life in search of our particular truths.
I care not a whit what your past holds, what your brothers’ names are and whether you see any link between these disconnected factoids. You are a sick puppy, a really spiteful,broken and pitiful old lady with a chip on your shoulder and a history of being some kind of activist about half a century ago. Bravo for you! Now grow up and get with the topic.
Lady, you have no right to pin your problems on me or on males in general. Wake up to yourself, get a life and spend your old age pension of which you are so proud well. Devote your hours, days and weeks remaining to you in your deluded life trying to understand people and you might, just might, make a difference for the good of man- and woman-kind.
I, for one, find your opinions offensive and unwarranted. I consider myself to be a contributer to society and hope that I spread a little joy as I move through life. You, on the other hand, seem willing to denigrate males at every turn and to view your problems as being some kind of construct of the male half of the population. You are not only sick, but you attempt to spread this sickness amongst the rest of us.
If you do counsel women who have fallen upon poor times, as you so frequently say that you do, then you must take systematically from them their faith in the innate goodness of humankind, sucking the optimism from their lives and filling them with the same acidic nonsense that rules your own withered life.
Lady, you need help and fast.
Now, where were we? Oh, yes, I remember. “Liberals will rue the day when they lurched right”. Nothing much of relevance from you, today. Perhaps better luck tomorrow. Don’t forget to keep taking your medicine.
John, I really think that is uncalled for.
Want something of relevance to the Liberal Party? Look at this.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/group.php?gid=203867237528
John you went too far this time.
Liz, I know how far women have come and I know it wasnt easy. Feminists won the war for women’s rights, and so they should have. I’m glad, and more power to you.
You won the war, but can you now win the peace?
JOHN - If you can’t see the relevance of women’s rights going backwards under the policies of Tony Abbott, then you must have trouble comprehending anything. I answered comments pertaining to “Liberals will rue the day they lurched right” as most thinking people in the country, particularly women, won’t vote for a party with him as leader. I think my comments are relevant and pertinent. If you have a problem with reality, do some more reading, or remove the blinkers! I’ve had rude experts speak to me worse than you, I’m not fazed at all!
What is it about some men, who go on a super defensive tack?
JAMES - I don’t think the “war” is over. With 1 in 4 women being abused at this time, what makes you think the job’s done? Women still only receive about 80% of male earnings; they’re still being treated appallingly by the military etc, nothing’s changed there except the language - hot air only! There’s still sexual harrassment in the workplace(sometimes men too); older women are also being abused by either partners or family members; and under the conservatives, the working conditions and incomes of women, particularly women with children will go backwards - it did under WorstChoices! Women and young people suffered the most under Howard’s industrial relations laws, and working women with kids suffered under his and Costello’s tax laws! Women still don’t have autonomy or integrity over their bodies - there’s lots more areas!
Crikey yesterday!
“Business Spectator’s Lena Bell writes:
Commentators were falling over themselves yesterday to predict “20 years of Labor” after the Liberals chose Tony Abbott over the more marketable Malcolm Turnbull or Joe Hockey. Those predictions are in no small part based on Abbott’s checkered relationship with the female vote.
The average coalition primary vote for the past four quarterly Newspolls paints a lop-sided picture, with coalition support from women aged 18-24 at a measly 28.3%. For women 25-34 it’s 30.9%; for women 35-49, 34.3%; and for women 50-plus, 42.6%.
In contrast, Labor polls above 40 in each category.”
They didn’t ask me!!!!!!!
******************************************
I’m not sure what the population mix is at the moment, but not that long ago, women were the majority - not by much though!
Liz, Abbot’s problems with women seem to have been exaggerated. He’s equally unpopular with women and men, unlike Turnbull who’s seen as a bit of a man’s man.
I won’t debate the 1-in-4 abuse figure, except to say I think social researchers who try to promote a problem politically by expanding their definitions of “abuse” do their cause more harm than good. Suffice it to say partner abuse is higher than it should be. It’s also no longer socially acceptable and no longer overlooked by the law.
I hope you realise that current NSW Police policy on domestic violence is a wholesale adoption of feminist policy: upon attending a DV incident, officers must either lay charges or justify why they did not do so; this takes the decision to charge out of the hands of the victim, sparing a lot of reprisals. Serious offenders go to jail. The system’s not perfect but it’s being improved year by year.
As for the 80 per cent of male pay thing, see above, I believe I’ve already addressed the fact that women ofen have broader priorities than work work work. It would be unfair on them to force them to imitate some of the stupider choices men and and often come to regret in later life.
The remaining discrimination against “women with children” that you cite is more complex than the misogyny it’s often mislabeled as. It’s a problem for “parents with children”. It also affects single fathers, and it also affects the rising class of double-income families who want to have it all and want employers and taxpayers to be responsible for covering the strain this puts on their time.
Feminism is a broad church. A feminist friend of mine during the 90s recession suggested that a lot of desperately needed jobs were being held by rich mens’ wives who didn’t need the money, just for something to fill their days. Times change and these days they do need the money, to cover the payments on their third McMansion.
JAMES - The 1 in 4 stat is the one used by state govts, ABS, the Police in most states, and has also been my experience. I’ve found, over 30 yrs and more, that wherever there’s 4 women in a group, where they feel comfortable with each other, trust each other; at least 1 has been physically and or sexually abused as either children, adults or both. It’s been my experience in the approximately 9 yrs of being a co-ordinator for women with work injuries (starting about 26 yrs ago)That’s been my personal experience in my family too, and the same applied to sexual abuse of boys - one brother out of 4 was abused by Brothers at his school! I believe, that this is about equal to the stat re the horrific sexual abuse of boys.
My view of feminism is quite simple. It’s to strive for equality and justice for women and girls. ‘Peace is not the absence of war, it’s the presence of justice’? More experienced and famous people than I believe in this principle, whether it’s for women or humanity as a whole. “Racism and sexism are the twin towers of evil” someone said not that long ago - I agree with that, and that’s why indigenous women have such a hard time - double whammy!
I believe that any woman who wants to work should be able to. I don’t agree with blaming ‘rich women’ for taking jobs etc. I find this offensive and unjust? Nobody would suggest that James Packer should give up his job for his wife, or the CEO of QANTAS or the local bank manager, or any male on a good income for that matter. I’m surprised that a feminist would even suggest this as so. Money is not the only reason women go outside the home to work, and it’s interesting to note, that the incidence of DV towards so-called rich women on the North Shore has risen in recent years - maybe they are motivated because of that - to escape or the need for personal fulfillment - nobody questions the many legitimate reasons wealthy men work, so?? I don’t go along with the so-called complex nature of equal pay - there are those who use this explanation, when what they really mean is, ‘you’re too stupid to really understand the issue’ or ‘there’s no genuine reason for this, but we have no intention of adopting equal pay as a policy’! So there! They can just glibly make this comment, and due to our hopeless journalists, they’re allowed to get away with that as an answer!
There were some studies done re the affects of WorstChoices on women, and it clearly showed, that women experienced more disadvantages and discrimination, and harassment and lower wages than men. These should be on the net somewhere. I’ve probably saved them! They were undertaken by the ACTU or people at a University - several though!
As for the changes to DV laws; they’re not universal around the country which is just plain stupid. For example, if a woman has an AVO in one state and moves, she has to re-register in that new state. It’s only this year, where some state govts have said, that they’ll examine all homicides of women, and investigate their occurences etc - they’ll also include cold cases - just last week in fact. They hope that they’ll find a pattern or warning signs etc - this is what women’s advocates have been striving for, for some time now. At last!!!!
The laws re police laying charges have been in operation for some time - and if chn are present during a suspected abuse(even if they’re not physically abused - just being present is considered dangerous to their development, and is classified as child abuse - I agree with this.) police must either remove the perpetrator or the children. As for police laying charges, regardless of the victim’s wishes -this was because, in the past, after collecting evidence etc, the women would frequently withdraw their allegations(frequently due to being threatened with injury or death) and charges would need to be dropped - most frustrating for police, after many hours of hard work. It’s also chilling to realise, that of the women murdered by a partner/husband, most were killed after they left. An example of this, is Phil Cleary, footballer, NSW, whose sister was murdered after she left the relationship. It’s clearly set out in the book he wrote, ‘Just another little murder’. I’ve just started to read it - got it from my local library!
These days too, there is a growing awareness, to train police to know the difference between defensive and offensive wounds. This is due to the fact, that there’s been cases where several women have been arrested, charged, and taken to the police station in their night attire; appeared in court the next morning in same attire, only to have charges against them dropped, as the magistrate didn’t believe the man’s evidence, and/or the bruises on the woman were caused by her defending herself. There’s also been situations, particularly among aboriginal women, where they’d seek police help re abuse, but wind up being charged for outstanding debts re traffic fines etc. Many women are forced to stay with abusers for economic reasons; housing, support for kids etc. The recent funds for womens’ emergency housing will hopefully help this, plus the change in laws, where the perpetrator is the one who’s forced to leave. Part of the over $13 billion in costs re DV (economy across the country)are due to women having to make a new home for herself and her kids - furniture etc no to mention time off work, medical, legal etc.
Howard and Costello changed the tax laws, where a couple with 2 kids paid a higher tax, depending on the woman’s income. Some women stated, that it was not worth their while working, when they had to pay child care etc.
Combine this with the harsh penalties placed on women, once their youngest child turned 8 (originally it was 6, but due to public anger - they raised it) their pension would be removed for up to 8 weeks for refusing a job - regardless of the reason. In my area (2 cities) there’s no state govt transport, so if a woman doesn’t have access to long day care, she has to leave her children alone, both before or after school, or refuse the job. At the same time, the Howard govt removed funding for a large charitable organisation, that was providing just that - before & after school, and long day care - in an area where transport was particularly poor.
Also, regardless of whether women are working full or part time, they’re still doing the majority of the housework, primary care giver for kids, and also having to care for aged parents as well - that was also my experience! Racing to & from hospitals, to my sister and I digging our heels in so his name’s put on a list at a Nursing Home etc, and then years later taking up the struggle for our little Mum - plus going to work, shopping, cleaning etc for 2 or 3 kids! Two of my sisters ended up collapsing at work and being taken to hospital. I don’t think this has changed in 20 0r so yrs - in fact, it’s probably worse.
These are just some of the myriad of realities that faced women in the past, and still ongoing today. Tanya Plebersek, in her speech on White Ribbon Day(on her website I’d say)announced many policies that will hopefully assist in reversing the horrific stats re the abuse of women. In my area, the numbers of emergency housing haven’t increased for many years, and there are not enough psychologists to provide the necessary counselling for both women and kids. Those who do work out of a Women’s Centre or Women’s Health Centre, are overworked, and the waiting list is long. Not good enough! Sadly, days like WRD often give women the courage to speak out, only to find, that there’s nowhere for her to go, and she has to wait to seek counselling - she’s forced to stay with her abuser, and the violence can escallate if he knows she’s ‘gone public’ in any way????I do have my ‘finger on the pulse’ on this problem!
JAMES - Sorry, I meant “and/or the bruises on the MAN were caused by her defending herself”. There was even one case, where the man used a weapon on himself to implicate his wife - those who are trained can tell the difference, upon inspecting stab wounds for example - how they were inflicted?
Liz, this is all valid stuff. The assistance you give to survivors is commendable. But sometimes there’s a tendency for every subject to be explained in terms of men and their abuse of women. And I also think that while telling frequent stories of wife abuse and child abuse is cathartic, it can also reinforce a victim mentality which actually makes things easier for the abusers. How about telling some happy stories once in a while about women who refused to put up with abuse and still managed to find themselves a decent partner?
JAMES - Perhaps so, but in the context of the subject at the time, for instance, Abbott’s and/or the conservatives attitude to women and women’s issues, it is relevant to the discussion. To be honest, I haven’t met too many women who’ve left really awful relationships and found a lifelong partner - it does happen, of course, but I think the secret may be in women receiving the proper counselling after one disaster, otherwise, it’s too easy to make the same misjudgement call. That’s why it’s so good this important topic being out in the open.
Years ago, you’d think you had to cop it, for one reason or another; it was very secret, the woman felt shame, guilt and embarrassment, couldn’t get out for a variety of reasons, and due to no-one to even confide in let alone ‘debrief’ her she remained alone, made another poor choice, or found the love of her life. In fact, even her kids can think of it as ‘her dirty laundry’ years later? When women are in a controlling relationship a couple of times, they lose confidence for the future - and some choose to remain living alone - with or without a new partner. There’s a really good book that I’d like all women to read, called ‘But he says he loves me’ and it’s written by a female psychologist, who’s counselled both survivors and perpetrators. One side of the page is from his perspective (the type of woman he’s looking to ‘groom’)and the other side is to pre-warn women re what type to be wary of. Wished I’d read it when I was 17? Rose coloured glasses may have got in the way? A parent or close friend is good to have around - for advice!
I prefer ‘survivor’ to victim - I think victims are those who were killed or died!
I think it’s difficult for people to imagine the conflicts involved. At first, all women want is for the violence to stop - they love him, sometimes greatly, I did. It’s the confusion of living with Jekyll and Hyde that causes so much conflict, and the inability to find relief or resolution. It’s very damaging to have someone say they love you, but then act as though you’re not just a stranger, but THE enemy - like in a war zone - it’s horrific! That’s why awareness now is so good. If couples could be counselled early on, more relationships would probably survive. I’m a strong supporter of the syllabus now in some schools via the WRD organisation. We must teach both boys and girls about non-violent and equal relationships, early - think about it before their birth even! When we think of the sex of our child before birth, we often have pre-conceived ideas of how we’ll relate to them - we need to ‘change the wiring’ perhaps. Get rid of the mindset re aggressive traits that have been OK or acceptable for boys, and concentrate on caring, nurturing and non-violent conflict resolution. Conversely, we must ensure, that girls are not treated as ‘pretty little things’ with no rights or need for education, equality etc, and of course, to teach them by example, both in the home and in the general community.
Kids have pretty good BS radars, and they see a lot of it in the community, and some of the worst offenders are politicians. eg. Be a good person, don’t trash public property, don’t use violence etc, and then they see what’s going on in Iraq; and the language used to describe the horrific scenes? We’re winning or not? That sort of violence is OK because the politicians say so, but they’re before the magistrate for knocking over some garbage bins or breaking windows? Hypocrisy! All leads to ‘bad wiring’ kids for adulthood! Or a 12 yr old aboriginal is before the court over a 70c freddo! What message does this send?
I believe that my ex-husband used violence so he didn’t have to deal with the issue, let alone use compromise or conversation to sort it out - when violence is used, the ‘conversation’ is centred around that - the original issue disappears off the radar. Perhaps, never to be mentioned again - she knows what to expect in future if she doesn’t comply with his wishes/demands etc. It works, through fear! so it’s used again next time! He always has his way, because she’s too scared to either bring it up again, or complain - this leads to resentment etc, and so the merry go round continues - no circut breaker.
The number of times I heard, ‘it’s your fault, you know how I am, or you know how such and such makes me angry’ etc - they never have to take responsibility for their behaviour. It has little or nothing to do with the obvious faults and failings the other partner has, because I realised, that even if I was god, I’d never do it? anything right! I realised that after I left - it’s often impossible when you’re in the thick of it!
When we read that 2nd, 3rd and successive marriages/relationships fail, maybe it’s because we don’t get rid of the ‘old baggage’ before starting afresh! It’s complex isn’t it?
It’s been my experience, that the 20-30+yr old marriages of people I know, the man is similar to yourself - kind, compassionate and not a sexist bone in his body - I can think of 6 such relationships like that in my age group - built on respect and equality - that’s what I thought I’d have - forever!Not to be! I also feel, that I could trust these men too - they’re not threatening at all!
I shall keep in mind what you’ve said! Thanks James.
Victims are not just the dead, they are those who let themselves become the product of what’s been done to them. ‘Survivor’ is not just a designation of still being above ground. It’s a title that has to be earned. I’ve known victims of abuse who used it as an excuse for everything they did after. And I’ve known survivors who at some point made a decision (not gradually; there is always a particular time when the decision is reached) that they’re not going to be the product of what happened to them, they are going to be what they choose to be. It is the great third factor left out of the nature vs nurture debate. Free choice and identity. I had a dear friend years ago (lost contact now) who suffered stuff that was the stuff of nightmares from a very early age, yet was one of the most generous warm people I ever met. Not only by nature; by decision. That’s a true survivor.
@liz45 you don’t do your arguments any favours with “There’s also a woman murdered every 10 days in this country - that’s hardly a small number.” right up front in one of your posts. As my youngest daughter observed “oh, dear, you’ll be tempted to begin believing those gender stereotypes of women being innumerate” (actually I think most people are regrettably innumerate). “small” is a relative term and, in the context of about 260 people murdered in Australia each year (itself a very small number in comparison with most countries with which we might want to compare ourselves and v. small compared with road deaths) the 36 or 37 women murdered each year is minuscule.
From older female members of my family I am however well aware of the fear that many women feel today, particularly in large cities, about walking through parks or dark alleys at night. But I would avoid dark alleys at night too, and, these days it seems we all have to worry about groups of feral young females as muggers. 60 years ago when the mobility afforded by the motor car was so much less and because people actually believed, rightly or wrongly (it could depend very much on the media that inform or misinform us) that stranger-danger was not great, there was not the same degree of apprehension.
The reason I walk confidently through my quite well-lit local park at night is partly that, if I keep an eye out I could make sure that any potential mugger could see I was about to use a mobile phone so he would decide not to take a risk, but, much more, because I am tall enough so that, looking younger, stronger and fitter than I am, I know that I am not a likely prime target. (Famous last words?? I am reminded of a 6ft 3” 35 year old who came to lunch with me many years ago sporting a black eye and other bruises. He had been mugged but I think the fact that he was gay may have had something to do with it). So, blame Nature for reality if you must, but women are going to go on being a lot smaller and weaker than men on average; people will go on using their relative advantages in the inevitable contest that people have over their competing priorities and some won’t use them very intelligently. Women will often misuse their verbal skills (themselves not necessarily well honed for the particular task in question) which tend to be greater than men’s for reasonably obvious reasons of both nature and nurture just as men will, with more obviously damaging results, misuse their physical strength.
Two points:
1. Government can’t do much about it, though I have always supported campaigns to reduce tobacco smoking and to increase the use of sunscreens and I trust that current anti-violence campaigns are having some success. Mothers and fathers are still, surely, the major determinants of the behavour that you Liz45 express so much anger about. Isn’t it notorious that where there is Muslim oppression of or restrictions on women, and, not least, where there is tribal tradition added by way of female genital mutilation, it is the women of the family who keep it all going? At least they share a large part of the responsibility.
2. 1 out of 4 abused? It has always occurred to me that all such figures are suspect, partly for reasons of tendentious definition. I thought there was no experience of anything in my extended family or amongst close friends that could conceivably be branded as abuse. Then I heard twenty or thirty years after the event that one male member of the family had been groped by a young football coach when he was about nine years old.
The evidence is equivocal however. Did he bring it up only to make a point about how little his father knew about various things? Did it upset him much even at the time? The overwhelming evidence is that it counted for nothing in the medium and long term as he became, and remains, extremely popular with both males and females of all ages, indeed quite charismatic and rightly confident in his relations with people as well as a champion sportsman.
So, if one wants to show how important the problem is I wouldn’t be inclined to accept the raw figure of one in four people claiming some sort of abuse as being of decisive value.
*****************************************
I will grant you this Liz45. Just as the churches are gradually waking up to unsavoury past realities (and no doubt all past) we are learning more generally about abuses that used to be ignored or not known about. It is partly a function of media self-interest (which means the self-interest of a lot of individuals) but also a function of our becoming richer and more able, as a community and as individuals acting individually or by way of charities, to turn over stones and to deal with abuses that once would have been regarded as just too hard. The pretty hopeless task of bringing non-urban Aborigines into modern Australia on decent terms is a case in point.
JULIUS - I’m not interested in modifying my assertions to add weight or otherwise to the facts, or to fit in with your prejudices. I’ve told you what my experience has been over 30+ yrs, and it’s backed up by many different organizations or police etc. What sort of research have you done? May I suggest, that you put Domestic Violence into your search engine, and do some research of your own. The 1 in 4 is that of most state police reports, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the National Crime Authority, White Ribbon organisation, Australian Domestic & Family Violence organisation(ADFV) - don’t take my word for it, check it out! You don’t agree with my stats, but you didn’t produce anyfacts to prove your own assertions. Go to Kevin Rudd’s website, and Tanya Plebersek, and take a look at their figures (in the speeches they made on Nov25). Go to the NSW Government website, and then Health or Women’s Health and check it out - these are just a few of the many millions of listings when you google DV? While you’re there, check out Britain and the US too!
You can also put a speech by Nicola Roxon in 2005? or later. She speaks of the stats re sexual assault of women. In her speech, she gives the figure of 180,000 and says this is probably only 10% of the reality. Only about 10% are charged, of that figure less than that are convicted. It’s also been asserted, that there’s at least one pack rape in each state every weekend. Show me comparable stats re males in this country!
Now, you can quibble over the stats as much as you wish, but the facts have and will eventuate regardless of your level of denialism. Do you also question the stats on break and enters; robbery with violence; kidnapping; shop lifting? Don’t you think it shows a certain presumptious bias when you question the DV stats or the murder stats of women by a present or past partner, but obviously accept the stats on other crimes? In fact, the sad fact in NSW in recent years past, that while most other crimes have decreased, crimes of violence against women & kids have increased.
You don’t think one in 4 is that significant? Are you serious? I’ve read, that the figure of murdered women Australia wide is somewhere between 70-80, and dozens of chn are also murdered. With the recent commitment to re- examine all homicides of women(including cold cases) with more scrutiny, the figure could be higher.
It matters not why your relative brought up the subject of his alleged abuse, and it doesn’t matter a zot, whether you speculate on the reasons ad nauseum, because, regardless of what you think or thought of him, or his motives, if it happened, that’s the reality - his reality. In NSW at the moment, there’s been at least 7 men arrested(some religious, some lay teachers etc) who allegedly abused students in the 1970’s -80’s at 2 schools at Bathurst - they’re being taken seriously by the police - after almost 30 yrs! I’ve always maintained in the many different roles I played, that I never queried or labelled any person who alleged they’d been abused, because, they probably had enough people in their lives like you, who added to their pain by questioning their motives and truthfulness. If a person is confronted by this, it may take them years to ‘come out’ again.
How would you feel if you had your car stolen, and those you told brushed off your distress by blaming you, or attributing some blame on you, or just didn’t believe you!
You’re using your suppositions over one abused male member of your extended family, to colour the legitimacy of the quoted statistics? Well, I certainly hope that you’re not a solicitor or barrister, and certainly not a judge, because with your biased and unjust assertions, with no evidence to support them, you’re at best unfair and certainly unjust and arrogant. You use arguments, with no basis in fact, to argue about my life’s experiences, but more importantly, the experiences of too many people in the community.
If you read some info on suicide numbers in the country, you’d find that in too many cases, family members had no idea of the state of mind of their loved one, or that they were in a state of depression or anguish. Too often it’s found, that they’d been abused as a kid, and seemed to be coping OK! Perhaps because their stories fell on deaf ears! Champion sports people sadly, have committed suicide.
I’m not just talking about dark alleys. I’m talking about walking around at night on a street that may even be well lit. I can count the times on one hand that I’ve entertained the idea, let alone done it - it’s just not safe for women to do it, and that’s it! I don’t go out without my mobile phone, and at night the car doors are locked.
I’m off to bed, as I’m going with my mate(early train - dawn service??) to check out how much his asbestos related disease has progressed, since his last X-ray - a year or two! Work related exposure! Life’s a ‘beach’ at times??
Liz, you misread Julius. Another example. Suppose a survey asks me was I a child abuse victim? No, definitely not. Suppose another survey shows me a long list of things done to children, any of these ever done to me? Actually, now you jog my memory, I was groped once or twice by adults. Random opportune acts which I did not really understand at the time, but easily removed myself from the situation, and suffered no psychological damage. That’s a world away from real abuse, being singled out for attention with power over you, having your childhood stolen away. No comparison. To lump these together into a simple number is brutishly simplistic and cheapens the enormity of real child abuse crimes. To tell someone scarred for life by horrific acts that they’re one in four of the population is like saying, “oh yeah, another one, 25 per cent of people suffered it, they deal with it, so can you.”
These hysterical statistics, which lump together both real abuse and minor things that are less than ideal, are used to justify some very harmful government interventions, particularly in the child abuse area. The “child at risk” catchcry has been used uniformly by NSW DOCS for years to treat kids who don’t have baths or who get sunburned, in the same category as kids being bashed and r-ped by those responsible for protecting them. The result: kids at real risk abandoned to violent torture, death and s-xual slavery, while decent families are forcibly broken up by the child-protection na-zis. Check out some of those stats. In short, a disaster, fuelled by hysterical statistics. Justice James Wood recently completed a review of child protection in NSW, and it makes very depressing reading. Nathan Rees, a the ex-premier who loves children and commissioned the review, now won’t get the chance to implement most of the recommendations.
Well said James McDonald. Actually reading carefully what people say who are being careful about what they say is so important. Somehow I doubt that Liz45 will learn how to do that.
A small correction to my last post: it was Iemma, not Rees, who commissioned the Wood inquiry. Rees took it very seriously and has been implementing the recommendations as much as he could.
Look, I’m getting really pissed off with the 2 of you! By your own admission/s neither of you have been abused during your lives. And yet, both of you (males) are castigating me for a)the way I express myself b) that I’ve spoken about my abuse, the stats that are easy to find and absorb from many & varyied areas of many professions and sources, and c) neither of you can see, that by offering your interpretation, you’re both exhibiting ‘parental’ or paternalistic mannerisms??? I don’t believe it!
Why can’t you accept the realities of someone else, without telling me how I should react, what I should do, the language I should use describing those situations, and how I should behave in future? That being a ‘victim’ is negative; in fact, even saying people are survivors is also wrong. Would you tell a person who’s had their car stolen, or their business defrauded, or physically assaulted in the street, that they should’nt use these words? How do you think that would go down with your mate who’s distressed? You’d look like a real bastard, if, faced with his/her anguish, you tell them how they should react, and how they should conduct themselves in a manner that is socially acceptable - by whom? You? The rest of the planet?
And if I say, you’re being patronising etc, I’m immediately told that I’m a man hater, or have a victim mentality or something? Amazing? Do you think that you have the skills to counsel someone who’s had their house broken into, or someone who’s lost their job, a family member? No? Why is that? Not equipped to judge or give advice? Have you not listened to anything? It’s like talking another language. And if I say, you blokes are so predictable, I’m the one who has the problem - with men!!!!!!AAAAAAAARRRRRRRHHHHHHH!!!!You have to be in control. You have to ‘beat’ me down to an acceptable level - that fits in with your denialism!
When people confide in me, I don’t set about telling them, that their use of the language was wrong; or ask what could appear to be a plausible question, or proceed to tell them how they should sort through the issues, and what parts of it they should either discard, or seek another interpretation of their ‘problem’ - one that suits my set of references? Those behaviours are the epitome of arrogance, and may I say, the actions of people who think, that their interpretation is so superior! I listen, and on many occasions, the fact that people annunciate ‘out loud’ often helps them gain clarity, and frequently they can see what they could/should do next! If, there’s a few of us, they might ask us what we think, or feel, or if we’ve had the same or similar experience. I never tell them how they should feel, or what part of their explanation is a threat to me - because it’s not!
The fact is, that there’s too many horrific and varied forms of physical, sexual and oppressive forms of abuse, and the stats show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the overwhelming number of perpetrators are men. If you don’t want to accept that, OK, but have the courage to say so, or produce evidence that I’m wrong. I abhor all forms of abuse and arrogance, and I abhor any acts of violence against men by women, but a visit to your local court/s or perusing the newspapers for a week, or reading about the torture etc being used as another weapon of war, the overwhelming number of perpetrators are men. The thing you can do about it, in a constructive sense, is not to ‘pick the eyes out of my reality’ but to make a commitment to reject all forms of violence spoken or acted that you’re aware of - and pledge to be pro-active to stamp it out! Take the pledge on the WRD website; make a vow to be tuned in to sexist, racist or other forms of discrimination and hurt - don’t do it by nitpicking the facts!
Liz,
I agree - the way John Bennetts in particular addressed you earlier was very patronising (although I know he is not the one we’re writing about now).
For what it’s worth, Malcolm Turnbull took the pledge on the WRD website. I was proud of him for doing that.
JILLIAN - Thank goodness someone gets it! I saw Malcom Turnbull’s photo on WRD website, and I should have mentioned him - perhaps somewhere I did, but if not I did him a dis-service by not. He’s a decent man I believe; he also spoke well in Parliament, saying that the men have a big responsibility re rearing and giving good example to their sons.
I learnt a very good lesson while I was co-ordinating a support group for women with occupational injuries - I was one too, so I recognise that it helped. We were in awful, intractable pain, with loss of use of our upper limbs, upper body in fact, including our spine etc.
A woman who was older than I (1980’s) was most distressed, as it was her eldest son’s birthday, and for the first time in his life(he was an adult by this stage) she couldn’t prepare his favourite meal. Now to many(including my youngest sister) it shouldn’t be an issue - go out, have a bbq at home, get the men to do the cooking etc. But, that wasn’t the issue - she was grieving for the body that she ‘used’ to show her son how much she loved him - I think he was about 30 or so - it was this role that identified part of who she was - who she loved the most and why - her position in her family - she wasn’t just another person, she was his mother? To blithely suggest alternatives, or joke about it, make smart arse comments, or even change the subject would’ve invalidated her pain. We let her talk, someone made coffee, we gave her hugs and showed empathy. By the time we’d gone out for our sandwich and coffee at the local cafe, had some laughs about our plight(some could tell the sickest jokes, on themselves, usually) she’d reached an alternative herself. She was an intelligent, capable and competent woman, but she was grieving over the loss of her ‘past body’ where she could do things, and also earn her own money. (We believed, that the dollar we earnt ourselves, was worth two that we might get from our husbands!) Too true!
It wasn’t about us -It was about her! She trusted us not to reject her, we didn’t. None of us had qualifications for professional counselling - all we had to do was really LISTEN! Naturally, we were able to empathasize more easily as we were also grieving about loss and also in awful pain, of which there’s no cure, and the disability only worsens with time, and we were also mothers - that helped. The next week, it was probably someone else’s turn!
She taught me how to relate; to not be a smart arse when someone is telling their story, but mostly, how important it is to human beings, of all ages, for someone to validate their pain or anguish or point of view! Her son’s birthday was a happy occasion, with him doing something really nice for his Mum!