Feminism Debate - Julia Gillard

Would The Real Julia Gillard Please Stand Up?

Well, it's been an interesting week in Australian politics? Our Prime Minister Julia Gillard gave the opposition leader, Tony Abbott a serious verbal beating and called him a misogynist. Just to be clear, a definition is below:

Misogyny is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. According to feminist theory, misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.

If you're interested, you may want to read what the PM actually said. Click Here to read the official Australian Government transcript or Hansard from the session of parliament. Since coming to office, the PM has been berated by many about almost every aspect of who she is.

Miranda Devine

As far as I'm concerned if it's about her job, that's one thing and is open to as much interrogation as possible. However, derogatory comments based on gender have no place in a civilised society.

There was an article in the Sunday Telegraph newspaper today from the journalist Miranda Devine. While the paper has a right leaning agenda, it's no where near as far to the right as the US Republican voter.

I'm not sure what this discourse really did for the average Australian, schools still need work done, hospitals needs additional funding and the bush needs doctors more than ever before. However, the PM managed to berate the opposition leader and make it clear to him and the world she feels insulted by his comments. I just don't think this was the best possible use of tax payer funded time. There are other ways for the PM to have her say on this topic.

I think Devine made some very pertinent points, however her closing comment I thought was the best:

"But to what end?

With unemployment rising, the non-resources economy flatlining, the mining industry having peaked, carbon tax biting and superannuation under threat, the electorate views dimly the people who are supposed to be running the country running around playing gender politics instead. Especially on the 10th anniversary of the first Bali bombing.

We don't care if the prime minister is a woman or a man. We just want rational, prudent, even boring government. We want to be "relaxed and comfortable" again."

Don't get me wrong, good on the PM for saying what she said. It just seems like a "storm in a teacup" that probably really won't go anywhere and I'm not sure what electoral benefits there is for her.

My Letter to Australian Prime Minister - Julia Gillard

Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia

This morning as I sat at my local cafe, wearing my A&F hoodie and with a blue wool scarf wrapped around my neck because it was so cold, I decided to write an email to Prime Minister Gillard in relation to an article in today's Sun-Herald newspaper. 

For my readers outside Australia, Prime Minister (PM) Gillard is Australia's first female PM. She's living in a defacto relationship and has no children, she's a lawyer and politician. A common mix. That background will help in relation to my comments below.

Good Morning PM,

It seems Major General Angus Houston is far ahead of your government in his acceptance of the gay community. I'm at a point where I simply don't understand why you do and say the things you do. While I absolutely respect your opinion as a private citizen on the matter of same sex marriage, I absolutely don't support your view as my PM.

Your stand against me, my friends and those I love is nothing more than bigotry and a denial of what I believe is my right that you and the opposition seem adamant to enforce. If the ADF, the bastion of all things macho can, for the past 20 years, be accepting of the gay community, why on earth is it such a struggle for you.

The hypocrisy of your own living arrangements makes your stand even more of a joke. Let me be clear, I personally don't care who you live with and the circumstances under which you live - that's your right afforded by law. But, in part, to align your views with those of the conservative Church community while "living in sin" is unfathomable to me.

I'm not 100% clear on what moral ground you base your opinions about same sex marriage. The media tell us you're an atheist, that's cool. But any humanist view would typically be open to same sex marriage. But are you a humanist? I don't know!

You're now in a minority more aligned with leaders of backward African and Middle Eastern countries on the subject of same sex marriage. Please don't defend your position by espousing the changes to legislation that gave gay folks many of the rights as straight folk, personally I thought that legislation was a joke. It missed the key point of providing equality for all Australians.

Well, that's my thoughts for the day. Like so much of what your government has done, your stance seems to be about clinging to power and not being the leader of a great democracy where the citizens of this nation are heard and their voices are respected.

Sincerely

Derek

For US readers, you may enjoy this "tongue in cheek" editorial from one of Australia's journalists - Annabel Crabb. "Time we call came out of the closet" in response to President Obama's recent comments about gay marriage. 

Australian Federal Election

And so the day begins with millions of Australians heading to the polls to vote. The media suggest that only 20% of voters know who they're going to vote for. I was amongst the 80% who for the first time in my life made the choice literally standing in the booth.


What has caused this confusion in my mind? I think there are a number of things. For the first time I'm voting as an openly gay man - does this really factor into who I vote for? Well, it seems to be largely irrelevant. Both of the major parties won't allow gay "marriage", so there's no benefit there for me on that issue regardless which party I vote for.


Should I vote on a single issue? I don't think so. Our election process has become very American in the way people think and the way the media present it. Australian's don't vote for the PM, the PM is appointed by the party who win with the majority of seats in the House of Representatives. 


With the ousting of Kevin Rudd, this should be very clear to people, the PM is a party decision not a decision for the people. However, people still say "I voted for Julia" or "I voted for Tony". Well, actually no, you didn't. You vote for your local member who belongs to a party and the party appoints the PM.


My own mother having voted Liberal her entire life, voted for "Julia" this time round because she can't stand "Tony". Voting is a personal thing and I applaud her for participating in the process and I'm in not place to appose her motivations, but I do disagree with that thought process.


Regardless of the outcome, same-sex couples will still be second class citizens as their relationships are seen as offering no value to the community. Until our relationships are on an equal footing with all Australians, there is work to do.


Is "Marriage" necessarily the right act or word to create such equality - I'm not sure. Does changing 80 Australian federal laws that almost bring equality for same-sex couples? I don't think so, it's a mockery, "almost equality" is not equality.