« profile & posts archive

This author has written 139 posts for Larvatus Prodeo.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

302 responses to “Overflow Thread of DOOOOOOOOMMMMM”

  1. Casey

    Julia Gillard has thrown a thinly veiled barb at Kevin Rudd for disloyalty and for destabilising her prime ministership, declaring the difference between her behaviour and his was that she always worked for the re-election of the Labor government.

    See, it is this sort of egregious reporting that reminds us of how Gillard fought an upward battle. There was no ‘thinly veiled’ anything, there was no ‘barb’. There was a direct statement in response to a direct question and it was about time she had the opportunity to directly state the stalking problem. It was a relief, in fact. Everybody clapped extra hard.

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/julia-gillard-defends-legacy-criticises-kevin-rudd-in-first-public-comments-since-her-defeat-20130930-2uosq.html

  2. tigtog

    Thanks for pre-emptively moving this point of discussion to Overflow, Casey, since it definitely retraces well-trodden ground here. It does seem somewhat odd that Mark Kenny makes a point of noting that when she talked about same sex marriage it was in response to a question from the audience, yet fails to mention it with respect to when Gillard talked about her public silence during the election campaign after being spilled by Kevin Rudd.

  3. Liz

    Yes. And I really wish that the men here who have been in total denial of Rudd’s actions would wake up to themselves. He caused a huge amount of damage to the government and is one of the reasons we have Abbott now.

  4. Katz

    I, for one, have never been “in denial” about the toxicity of Rudd’s white-anting.

    Neither have I attempted to mount the argument that Rudd would have behaved differently if his target was a man who had removed him from office.

  5. jules

    Katz the trouble with Rudd, and Abbott for that matter, is that even if they are not sexist bastards by nature, their lack of leadership, well not even lack, cos they showed a sort of leadership… The example they set, and the leadership they showed enables more sexism and more dodgy treatment of women. By not rejecting it outright they enabled it, and let it be seen as legitimate behaviour.

    Compare that to Keating in public responding to racist rubbish about blackfellas. He not only rejected the racist comments as unacceptable, he tore them down piece by piece and explained why they were unacceptable and why they were factually wrong. That is a different sort of example to set, and one of the reasons Keating is, imo, ok. Whatever other flaws he had and mistakes he made.

    Rudd would have behaved differently had a man been in Gillard’s position. He may have white-anted, leaked and the rest but in reality he also enabled (and prospered because of) the sexist attitudes he didn’t challenge. We’re talking about people in leadership roles here – we should expect more from them than they provided. If it had been Albanese or Shorten instead the issue of sexism wouldn’t be there so we wouldn’t have noticed Rudd fail to act appropriately wrt it.

  6. faustusnotes

    Katz, had the man in power been Aboriginal, and a campaign of subtle racist slurs been engaged in against him by the Liberals and the right wing press, do you think Rudd would have aided and abetted that campaign for his own ends?

    I doubt it.

  7. Katz

    Jules, “enabling” isn’t behaving. Every act that you and I commit “enables” an infinite number of acts by others over which I have no control and/or I’d be wasting my life trying to prevent.

    Victory, and that is what Rudd, Gillard and every other aspirant for leadership is trying to achieve, consists of exploiting perceived weaknesses of opponents. Each opponent has a different set of strengths and weaknesses. So the methods may be different, but the object remains constant.

  8. mindy

    But it went beyond exploiting perceived weaknesses of an opponent and into doing very real damage to his own party. As Liz says it is one of the reasons why we have Abbott now.

  9. Casey

    Katz, had the man in power been Aboriginal, and a campaign of subtle racist slurs been engaged in against him by the Liberals and the right wing press, do you think Rudd would have aided and abetted that campaign for his own ends?

    I doubt it.

    Excellent point, FN.

  10. Katz

    Your point being?

  11. zorronsky

    The thing is Katz that the real opponent is now PM.

  12. Val

    Casey @ 9
    Casey – while fully supporting FN, I would like to point out that I’m pretty sure I made a similar point a while back.

    Now let’s wait and see if FN gets called “haughty” and bigoted and told he is someone who just wants to prove that all men are sexist, etc

    As Jules said some time back, sometimes it seems men can say things about sexism and it’s taken seriously, but if a woman said the same thing she wouldn’t be.

    (You also told me not to take some of the stupid comments so seriously, but … well … what the hell – maybe I was right but maybe you were a bit right too. Win win!)

  13. Moz of Yarramulla

    Val: here’s a nice example from forn – a muslim bloke taking on forced marriage and FGM in the UK… because the sexist asshats don’t dismiss him the way they dismiss women who bring up those complaints.

    I have been tempted to change my nym here to “Moz the Manly Man from BlokeDom” so that certain commenters don’t forget that I’m a MAN and they should listen up. But that would be silly.

  14. Linda

    Val @12 “As Jules said some time back, sometimes it seems men can say things about sexism and it’s taken seriously, but if a woman said the same thing she wouldn’t be.”

    This is not limited to the topic of sexism.

  15. Casey

    Casey – while fully supporting FN, I would like to point out that I’m pretty sure I made a similar point a while back.

    Look, Val, whilst supporting you supporting FN who obviously supports you in his unconscious mind that’s why he repeated you, I’m pretty sure someone else made this point before you even showed up in LP’s nursing home years on the porch. Now treat the elderly with some respect and stop with the © on everybody’s work. If it’s one thing you get used to here it’s that people reframe what you say all the time, and unbeknownst to you, you reframe what someone else said sometime some place on this blog. This is because not everybody reads everything all the time. (Unless it’s work from your masters or your forthcoming PhD – then you can threaten to sue the crap out of them and after a lengthy swords at dawn stoush, settle for monetary compensation for the hurt, pain and ongoing psychological problems developed as a result of someone saying wot you said in your thesis which now sits in some forgotten corner of some forgotten library, get off my lawn, bastard.)

    Okay then.

  16. Casey

    Now let’s wait and see if FN gets called “haughty” and bigoted and told he is someone who just wants to prove that all men are sexist, etc

    Now see, I’ve made this point previously. Under the current rules of Val engagement

    ©, baby, ©

    No I don’t want money, I’m not like that. I just need certain goods but don’t ask me about that. I am not the murderous feminine at all. Just please purchase, and then smoke five rare Table Mountain Ghost Frogs and good luck with that. The LP Blog Gods will then forward them onto me as a courtesy for my years of service here, and we will forget the whole thing happened.

  17. jules

    Val I only said that cos I heard various women commenters make the point repeatedly and it kind of sunk in. Its a bit embarassing actually. Cos Liz, Su, Linda, Tigtog, Pav, Helen, Casey, you and others have all made that point repeatedly, including pointing out that they may something only to have it ignored while a male commentater can make the exact same point 30 seconds/2 posts later and have people respond to it.

    Katz @ 7 –

    Victory, and that is what Rudd, Gillard and every other aspirant for leadership is trying to achieve, consists of exploiting perceived weaknesses of opponents. Each opponent has a different set of strengths and weaknesses. So the methods may be different, but the object remains constant.

    Thats my point tho – how is being born female a “weakness”?

    Especially in politics, and even more especially in our society, now in the 21st century. Its only a weakness if you’re a small … minded … bigot who can’t compete on their own merits. Rudd is married to someone who proves that on their own being female is NOT a weakness in and of itself yet he was happy to play along with the sexism Gillard copped and not make a principled stand against it.

    You or I can play politics that way Katz, but not everyone does or has, nor do they (or we) have to. The best politicians don’t use peoples essential qualities like sex/gender, skin colour or sexual preference against them. Rudd clearly would have behaved differently if it’d been a man he’d been up against cos he wouldn’t have had an underlying creepy sexism to work with. If that man hadn’t been white tho I imagine he’d have played various race cards very carefully as well.

    That wouldn’t have made it alright tho. It’d still be fundamentally unright for a society like ours.

    I know enough about leadership to know that how you act when people are looking to you for leadership determines how those people will act themselves. I think a fundamental part of leading people well is bringing them together and bringing the best out of each of them. This is incompatible with your assessment of how to achieve “victory”.

  18. Val

    Hey Casey @ 15 etc. wrong end of the stick and all that, I wasn’t having a go at FN, I was having a go at you

    But in a very confused and ambiguous way so not surprising if you didn’t see it

    I’ve been disrupting sexism in left wing politics for about 20 years now, it’s one of my things. So I’ve seen this before – you get into a new group and start challenging some of the mores and the women in the group say, hey sister, great stuff and sometimes they even ask you to convene the women’s committe or whatever, and then they start saying but hey this group has its own rules babe and if you push them too much no-one (ie men) aren’t going to like you and you’ll get rejected. Which is right. And you know what I’m human and all that, and i like to be liked, but I just don’t care that much.

    Possibly strong sense of self etc, as Gillard said, and also because I think ( rightly or wrongly) that there is a core group of people who will love me and stand by me whatever I do.

    And I think you’re great and love what you do, so I don’t want to get into a stoush – hence the vagueness and ambiguity – but just thought I had to say it.

  19. jungney

    It appears to me that jules has summarized the main criticism of Rudd in relation to sexism in that:

    Rudd … was happy to play along with the sexism Gillard copped and not make a principled stand against it.

    So, I’m trying to come to an understanding of what is being said here by jules and ors and it appears to be that in not saying or doing anything to address the opposition and the media’s sexist conduct towards Gillard while she was PM, Rudd gained a benefit, a benefit of which he was aware, and that this enabling, by omission at least, identifies him as complicit in Australia’s tradition of virulent sexism.

    Would that be about right?

    In the only comment by Rudd that I could readily find on sexism he states:

    My policy’s pretty simple, that in modern Australia, neither sexism nor racism nor homophobia has any place whatsoever. I believe people look to our national leaders to set that sort of example.

    I’m wondering though, apart from complicity by omission, is there any other evidence by which to judge Rudd on this subject?

  20. Val

    Sorry above should read “no- one …. is “. Very poor grammar sorry.

    Anyway as you (Casey) may well point out, this isn’t meant to be all about me, and I’m happy to let it go, but the personal still is political.

  21. adrian

    Ok, as Neko Case would say and indeed does:

    All of you lie about something…

  22. Mindy

    By allowing that sexism to go on Rudd damaged not just Gillard but also the Labor party. Rudd also made Gillard look weak by continually talking up challenges, despite Gillard’s government getting on with the job and doing it well. Not just omission but commission. Rudd doesn’t get a free pass on this at all.

  23. Val

    Jungney @ 19
    Think you have just proved the point. It would have been really good, and respectful, if you had responded that thoughtfully to me and other women ( eg PavCat) who were arguing this stuff some time ago. Even if we didn’t end up agreeing, we could have had a conversation and all learnt something.
    But when you said to PavCat that it would be good to have a serious discussion about these issues – when I had been trying to do just that for some considerable time – what do you think that meant? That I may have had years of experience in politics, that I may be doing a PhD, but that I still, as a woman talking about sexism, can’t be taken seriously?

  24. Val

    Jungney @ 19 continued
    And of course, even if I hadn’t had experience in politics, even if I wasn’t doing a PhD, I would still be entitled to respect.

    I – and any other woman – should not have to have the experience of seeing a man take something seriously when it is said by another man, when he has treated our very similar opinions with contempt.

  25. paul burns

    Val, re your 18.
    So in internet jargon you would describe yourself as a troll?

  26. Casey

    I’ve been disrupting sexism in left wing politics for about 20 years now, it’s one of my things. So I’ve seen this before – you get into a new group and start challenging some of the mores and the women in the group say, hey sister, great stuff and sometimes they even ask you to convene the women’s committe or whatever, and then they start saying but hey this group has its own rules babe and if you push them too much no-one (ie men) aren’t going to like you and you’ll get rejected.

    I know you were having a go at me and I am not surprised you underestimated my capacity to see the bleeding fucken obvious. But that’s what happens when you are in your own universe, Val and when you think that everything you say is a new thing and when you think you are the only woman to have ever suffered misrepresentation on this blog.

    Now regarding the above quote, bully for you – you might like to know that other women have done much the same thing or maybe you may not, but exactly where did I say or infer that if you push men too much, they aren’t going to like you. No please, this will be interesting.

    And this thing!!

    So I’ve seen this before – you get into a new group and start challenging some of the mores and the women in the group say, hey sister, great stuff and sometimes they even ask you to convene the women’s committe or whatever, and then they start saying but hey this group has its own rules

    Fuck me, when did this happen?

  27. jungney

    Mindy: I’m not looking to excuse Rudd anything. Merely trying to grasp the nature of the criticism of him in relation to blatant sexism. His continued whiteanting was predictable, in my view, given his character and the circumstances surrounding his dismissal. I’m really trying to reformulate the criticism around sexism and Rudd in terms that I can understand.

    Val: I’m sorry you feel that way.

  28. Casey

    And I think you’re great and love what you do, so I don’t want to get into a stoush – hence the vagueness and ambiguity – but just thought I had to say it.

    And now this passive aggressive little flourish on which you finish aint quite true neither innit? You’ve just flamed me for two paras and now you tell me you love what I do?

    According to you, what I do is try not to push the men or they won’t like me. That’s a rather despicable sexist slur in which you essentialise me as some little lady who runs around joking with the blokes in order to stop their aggression.

  29. paul burns

    And Val, re what Casey says @ Casey @ 28, you, Val, are also wrong. Casey and I have had at least one or two almighty stoushes. Neither of us would probably want to fall out permanently, though I can’t speak for Casey. Last time we engaged I was pretty very rough on her, and I was probably aggressive. My comment could certainly be seen that way and I wouldn’t blame anyone for seeing it that way. But to sort of quote her she is certainly not

    some little lady who runs around joking with the blokes in order to stop their aggression

    She sticks up for herself full-on, boots-and-all.

    In fact, and maybe I’m really really thick, I can’t see WTF you are arguing with her about. And, please, please, don’t bother to try to explain it to me. My life is already too short.

    And to tell you the truth, though

  30. Mindy

    I think Jungney that Rudd not only excused sexism, he used it as a tool in his arsenal against Gillard. Hence commission not omission. He knew exactly what effect his whiteanting would have, having been successful at it before against male colleagues but this time he had the added bonus of sexism to use as well. That’s why he excused it because it played nicely into his hands.

  31. paul burns

    Don’t know what that last unfinished sentence in comment 29 was about. It dropped out somewhere.

  32. Mindy

    I’m with Paul B, I don’t know what this is about but can it stop now please?

  33. paul burns

    Mindy @ 30,
    I think Rudd was just out for revenge for getting stabbed in the back. She fucked him over, so come hell or high water he was going to fuck her over.
    In my thankfully very limited experience of vengeful people, they don’t care what weapons they use, so long as they win. Sexism may have been one of his weapons though it certainly wasn’t the main one. That, probably, was, over time to paint Gillard as a political loser. (Which she was, inevitably, because of how she came to power in June 2010. The electorate never accepted her, and ultimately, this made her easy pickings for Rudd and her more conventional enemies, all of whom on the right dis use sexism, probably without exception. Though, because they go so full on, they lose in the long run.
    Rudd, for example, has lost respect; lost an election; and, short of a miracle will never be Labor leader or PM again. Though he did finish Gillard’s political career, and that was probably enough for him.

  34. jules

    Jungney omission can be a big deal with stuff like this cos silence can be construed as consent. If I hear someone say something that is flat out wrong about any number of issues i can’t shut up about it cos I feel i’d be agreeing with them. This has caused me some trouble over the years.

    I think that standard applies to public comments that are basically bigotry.

    So anyway, I can’t find Rudd referring to Gillard’s Misogyny speech once on his website, twitter feed or in the Lateline interview he did a few days after it. Even when questioned directly about the speech he refused to acknowledge it, instead banging on about anti discrimination legislation being cool or something.

    To me that is telling, cos that speech clearly resonated for reasons that were about more than just politics. By refusing to acknowledge it, and the wider resonance it had he refused to take a stand against sexism. It wouldn’t have been that hard to show some graciousness there, even if he was still destabilising Gillard. The extent of his support for gender issues that week was two insignificant efforts. he retweeted in direct response to a request for support regarding international day of the girl child, and support for girls education. Retweeting ffs not even a separate comment in support.

    So, I’m trying to come to an understanding of what is being said here by jules and ors and it appears to be that in not saying or doing anything to address the opposition and the media’s sexist conduct towards Gillard while she was PM, Rudd gained a benefit, a benefit of which he was aware, and that this enabling, by omission at least, identifies him as complicit in Australia’s tradition of virulent sexism.

    Thats pretty much it, and if thats the only comment he made, weeks after he got the PMship back, following 3 years of sexist bullshit then it clearly isn’t enough. Its a token effort and doesn’t mean shit.

    Especially considering it was during the election campaign, straight after (and I presume in direct response to) Abbott’s “sex appeal” comment.

  35. Mindy

    I think that it will never be enough for him Paul, given that when the Gillard’s speaking engagements with Anne Summers were announced the internal Labor polling was leaked to try and make Gillard look bad again. Rudd will never accept that it was the party not just Gillard who rolled him. I think if he doesn’t like whoever gets up in the current ballot he will start whiteanting again – I would like to be wrong. Or if he decides that he can be PM again. His destabilisation and ‘I’m the only one who can save us’ worked once no reason not to try it again.

  36. Casey

    Paul, I wouldn’t ever fall out permanently with you because I like you and very much agree with almost all your views and would like to rewire your synapses regarding your other views I don’t agree with, as you know. Now I know you think I am saying that because I am quite aware you will reject me if I don’t, but it happens to be true. And so what if you make me want to go outside and hit my head with a brick sometimes? After seven years of talking to you, I can live with it. So should Val.

  37. paul burns

    @ 33. Corrections.
    Because vengeful people go so full on they lose in the long run.

    “On the right did use sexism ….”

  38. paul burns

    Now I know you think I am saying that because I am quite aware you will reject me if I don’t, but it happens to be true.

    No, Casey. I more or less gave up rejecting people years ago, probably before I came on LP. Used to be like that, Scorpio moon and all, but one advantage of a Scorpio moon and getting on in years is you get older and wiser and stop doing the foolish things of your yoof.

  39. Casey

    I, too, have a Scorpio moon.

    I fully understand.

  40. paul burns

    Mindy @ 35,
    When you put it that way Mindy, you are probably right, but how I’d love you to be wrong, for Labor’s sake if nothing else. I don’t think they’ll let him get away with it again. If he tried destabilising Shorten or Albanese I wouldn’t be surprised if he got expelled.

  41. Mindy

    I hope that whoever the leaker is gets found and expelled.

  42. paul burns

    Mindy,
    Na, they have to do more than that recent leak against Gillard. Everybody leaks in the Par.Labor Party. Have done for years. I think you have to do something really horrendous like Lang in 1930 or the Groupers in the 1950s to get expelled.
    Though I suppose Rudd could go and join the Greens. 🙂

  43. Jacques de Molay

    I don’t think Christine Milne is much of a fan of Rudd, Paul 😉

    I’ll never forget during the whole CPRS debate Rudd refused to even speak to then Greens leader Bob Brown for about six months despite BB’s attempts to speak with him.

  44. PavCat

    The (1) sexism, the (2) Rudd-driven white-anting, the (3) antics of the Opposition and the (4) Rupe-based and/or Rudd-urger media nasties were four different forces that often overlapped with each other. As Gillard said to Anne Summers the other night, these discrete elements combined to create a perfect storm. I would never argue that Rudd was part of the sexist attacks except, as has been said here, by omission.

    And if I see or hear the words ‘knifed in the back’ one more time, from anybody about anybody, I won’t be answerable for the consequences.

    And while I’m here: Val. Val, Val, Val. Can you not see how insulting you are being to the women and/or feminists who have been writing and commenting on this blog for up to nine years now? And given how insulting you are being, how on earth do you expect us to react?

    I would put quite a lot of money on this having already been politely and privately explained to you, probably more than once, but you don’t seem able to grasp the point that one does not barge into a room full of people one doesn’t know and most of whom have been there for quite a long time already, blithely ignore the wisdom of checking out the dynamics and history of the crowd, and start womansplaining to them as though their feathers were not yet dry. It’s just rude.

  45. Mindy

    Geez Jules how long does a woman have to be around here complaining about sexism etc etc before she gets to be named in your list? I’ve only been here since 2005. /sarcasm 😉

  46. jungney

    Thanks jules and PavCat for the considered response. International coverage of sexism in Oz pol has been unambiguously condemnatory. Hopefully, it won’t happen again, ever, like that ‘perfect storm’.

  47. Mindy

    At least not until the next female leader who is too much like a woman and not one of the blokes.

  48. Casey

    Yes, Jules. Quite frankly Mindy I feel for you. It’s just like when I was in Salem, and no one accused me of being a witch. Outrageous. I used to perform the sink or swim test on myself daily and go swimming with rocks tied to my ankles and everything, up and down, up and down the Salem River and still no one killed me.

    Jules apologise immediately.

  49. Mindy

    No no I’m fine. Really. No bugger it I’m outta here. *flounces*

  50. paul burns

    [Puts a paper bag over head and hides in corner.]

  51. tigtog

    JdM: I’ll never forget during the whole CPRS debate Rudd refused to even speak to then Greens leader Bob Brown for about six months despite BB’s attempts to speak with him.

    IMO he deserved spilling as PM for that bit of grandstanding delinquency alone.

    PavCat: And while I’m here: Val. Val, Val, Val. Can you not see how insulting you are being to the women and/or feminists who have been writing and commenting on this blog for up to nine years now? And given how insulting you are being, how on earth do you expect us to react?

    Yep. So many issues have been discussed, around and around and around, on LP over its nine years. After a while, when people’s views are well-known to each other, having the same argument over and over again becomes not just tedious but actively pointless. Impatience with revivals of the perennials is zero to do with YouCan’tHandleTheTruth and nearly everything to do with We’veGotAShelfFullOfTheseTshirtsAlready.

    Val, so long as everybody abides by the comment policy I generally don’t care who antagonises who. There are plenty of regulars on LP who have a history of stoushing on particular flashpoints and most of the time they try and discuss other things while avoiding those flashpoints, and every now and then they’ll fail in the flashpoint-avoiding and have a good old ding-dong where both they and the onlooking commentors know that not a single new thing will actually be said and most likely not a single mind will actually be changed. Then they’ll go back to discussing other things while tip-toeing around the flashpoints for a while again.

    It’s fine to point out ongoing examples of sexism etc around us in politics, in our personal lives, and on this blog. It’s arrogant to act as though you are bringing us tablets from the mountaintop when you do so.

  52. Casey

    Cos Liz, Su, Linda, Tigtog, Pav, Helen, Casey, you and others

    Now I come to think of it, why am I second last before Val? This makes me rather uncomfortable.

    I would much prefer to be first. Please move Liz somewhere else.

    Yrs, etc etc.

  53. Mindy

    *flounces back in* weeeellllll thank youuuuuu for not even noticing I had gone *flounces back out again*

  54. Liz

    Casey, how dare you demand I shoved around like an old sock at the back of a drawer. *FLOUNCE*.

  55. Val

    Casey, Paul, PavCat and anyone else to whom it’s relevant, I can understand that you’re angry but calling me a troll and putting words in my mouth doesn’t achieve anything. I could be wrong, this is just like a feeling that I have – somewhat random things I can point to
    I don’t think Casey has ever endorsed me quite as straightforwardly as she did FN above in the ‘excellent point’ comment above, even when I was saying similar things
    Casey has – even though jokingly – often suggested I’m a bit full of myself or something ( I actually don’t always know what she’s getting at)
    I’ve been publicly reprimanded by tigtog for saying things on this blog even when arguably men had said worse things (particularly Jungney)
    Various women – eg drsusan and PavCat – have done the val val val thing

    You know you can get angry and call me a troll and stuff but there also can be a tension for women between being a member of a group and calling out sexism. Like I honestly do think that some of the stuff Mark has said and done, without wanting to be personally hurtful, is evasive – but I’m sure to those of you who have been around longer and are members of the group, that there would be some tension between thinking that perhaps there might be something in that, and your – I don’t know what, loyalty, recognition that Mark has done a lot for the existence of the group, or whatever – there must be some tension there. I think because society is still patriarchal this is a really common tension that women face, and there isn’t anything wrong with admitting it.

    I’m sorry if I expressed it poorly or you thought I was womansplaining or being patronising or matronising or whatever, and I completely accept and commend the fact that you have fought against and called out sexism, but I still have to say that the way I have been treated on this blog is not quite right, and is also reminiscent of the way I was treated in Labor and The Greens ( convening the women’s committee was a reference to something that happened in the greens)

    And please before you jump in and say well that’s obviously because you’re a clumsy confrontationist, just reflect on whether your methods always work, because one thing is that in confronting or challenging ( which are probably the words I should have used rather than disrupting) sexism, I actually have had some success. There are different ways of achieving things and none of us probably know the exact right one.

    Btw Paul I think the comment about trolling was just off and also basing an argument on some words that were actually Casey’s not mine – it’s not a fair way of arguing

    I don’t really want to keep fighting about this, it’s unpleasant and there’s other things I should be doing, but this whole thing of yes, you say some good things but you’re very badly behaved and we’re going to tell you off – it just goes nowhere

  56. faustusnotes

    could we all maybe lay off a bit?

  57. Val

    Tigtog @ 51
    Because it took ages to write that screed I didn’t see your comment.

  58. tigtog

    could we all maybe lay off a bit?

    A cooling-off on this particular bout of stoush until tomorrow at least, I think.

  59. Liz

    Good idea.

  60. Patrickb

    @30
    “I think Jungney that Rudd not only excused sexism, he used it as a tool in his arsenal against Gillard. ”
    Do you have any evidence for this opinion? Can you point to any behaviour of the type that was on display from Jones, Hefferenen(?), Abbott, Pyne? All those men made comments or used language or carried out acts that, by today’s standards, are sexist. I don’t recall Rudd actively doing this. He may have orchestrated the downfall of Gillard, although there isn’t a smoking gun, and if he did that was in the normal course of political life and I believe was carried out without an appeal the sexist attitudes that remain a fairly serious problem for this country.

  61. Debbieanne

    What’s with all the ‘flouncing’? 🙂

  62. Casey

    I don’t think Casey has ever endorsed me quite as straightforwardly as she did FN above in the ‘excellent point’ comment above, even when I was saying similar things

    My stars, when did it become my job to acknowledge everything you write and give you a gold star for your efforts? I’m just a random from the internet who likes to do magic and shit – I don’t think I have any official role on this blog so please ask Tigtog or sommat if you want a high distinction. But if you want to know, until you started demanding wine and roses and a hotel upgrade, I loved all the stuff you did here, loved it. You were shaking up the place, sistah. You’ve been great. But like I said to you, people don’t read everything written on this blog and you may rest assured someone said it before you. Given the age of the blog, you are not the first, you will not be the last to have said something here.

    Casey has – even though jokingly – often suggested I’m a bit full of myself or something ( I actually don’t always know what she’s getting at)

    Look, please quote where and I will tell you what I meant even though your mind seems quite made up, so whatever.

    Like I honestly do think that some of the stuff Mark has said and done, without wanting to be personally hurtful, is evasive – but I’m sure to those of you who have been around longer and are members of the group, that there would be some tension between thinking that perhaps there might be something in that, and your – I don’t know what, loyalty, recognition that Mark has done a lot for the existence of the group, or whatever – there must be some tension there.

    It’s not up to you to interpret and impute and imagine what is going on. You are not the LP shrink so stop psychoanalysing. It’s none of your business what is in anyone’s head or not about Mark – this is really really invasive behaviour quite frankly and I absolutely resent it and I resent your imputations. This is a blog, people run it, they make their rules about how they want to run it and what they want to say and what they will allow us to say – it’s in the comments policy. Stop going on about it. You’ve been told a thousand times about how the blog works. What’s so hard about learning the rules to a blog?

    I’m sorry if I expressed it poorly or you thought I was womansplaining or being patronising or matronising or whatever,

    And if you feel you’ve had words put in your mouth then explain what you meant when you said:

    So I’ve seen this before – you get into a new group and start challenging some of the mores and the women in the group say, hey sister, great stuff and sometimes they even ask you to convene the women’s committe or whatever, and then they start saying but hey this group has its own rules babe and if you push them too much no-one (ie men) aren’t going to like you and you’ll get rejected.

    Who said this and when. This is not vague as far as I can see, Val, this is a distasteful accusation which I actually find offensive, so please make yourself clear on where and what you mean.

    but I still have to say that the way I have been treated on this blog is not quite right

    This too shall pass. Look it would be nice if everyone did the right thing all the time, but they don’t, it’s the internet and it’s the Wild West of a new frontier. A lot of people would understand your experience but this is not a socialist utopia. You need to take that into account, imo otherwise you.will.be.very.upset all the time.

    it’s not a fair way of arguing

    I know how you feel, you don’t need to tell ME about it. I don’t think your way of arguing by making imputations about what is in peoples’ heads due to group loyalty and making aspersions by suggesting women do not want to upset the men here for fear of rejection is a TERRIBLE way of arguing, but you know, I’ll live.

  63. jules

    Debbieanne, I was about to say how epic it all was. Mindy oops, sorry, that was flouncebait wasn’t it.

    There’s also this strange chant from the ether thats starting to disturb me.

    Kseesnumber one… KC’s numb er one… Case Es number one…

    Kind of wyrd really.

  64. Casey

    My dear Jules, in regards to your disturbing sensations regarding my interplanetary capacities to get inside your brain, you need to press here.

  65. Katz

    Mindy:

    I think Jungney that Rudd not only excused sexism, he used it as a tool in his arsenal against Gillard. Hence commission not omission.

    Can you support this assertion about Rudd’s acts of commission with evidence?

    What is that evidence?

  66. Val

    Casey @ 62
    I don’t really want to get into an extended argument with you Casey, and I’m sure that underneath the anger we both have a fair bit of respect for each other. But to respond to your specific questions –
    My post @ 18 was a pastiche of what I’ve seen over a long period in several different groups. Not everything can be taken to apply specfically to one situation or one individual. But in regard to here and yourself, I spent about thirty or more (I’ve gone back through some of this, not all) comments explaining my point about sexism in the left, with particular regard to Rudd and his supporters on this blog. I was exposed to a lot of misrepresentation and ridicule from men on this blog. When I eventually cracked it, I was rebuked by moderators, especially tigtog and had some comments, including completely harmless ones, deleted. ( I also know that some other people’s comments have been deleted) I’ve also had off line conversations with tigtog in which she has rebuked me.
    Throughout this, almost nothing has been said by moderators to any of those men who misrepresented and ridicuked me, and when it does happen, it is only because someone has brought it to their attention.
    You’ve made earlier comments to me suggesting I’m taking it all too seriously, and then after I decided to withdraw for a while, you started making fun of me. You and PavCat have both made comments about how I’m a new comer to the blog, I need to learn the rules etc – I think referring to both rules of the blog and unspoken rules. What I’m saying to you is the rules don’t work properly – they are working in favour of men. And so when you police those rules against me (read your comment above if you don’t think you’re doing that – I can’t cut and paste on my iPad) you are acting on behalf of patriarchy.
    Basically I was treated disrespectfully and it’s still going on – look at Jungney’s classic faux apology @ 27 and Paul’s completely rude and dismissive comments to me @ 29 “please, please, don’t bother to try to explain to me. My life is already too short” about a dispute he wasn’t even involved in. For some reason a lot of people on this blog think it’s fine to patronise me and treat me like a fool, even though as you have admitted, I actually brought a lot of ideas and energy into the discussion.
    Why do you think I’m upset? Is it really because I don’t understand the Internet? Do you think it could possibly be more than that.
    A number of comments have suggested this kind of thing – women’s comments not being taken seriously or being disrespected – happens a lot. So I’m suggesting maybe feminist commenters here need to confront that and actually get something done about it. That doesn’t mean people haven’t tried in the past and I recognise that, but I think you and the other women who are rebuking me, need to stop attacking me or making fun if me, and say this business of treating women’s views less respectfully than men’s is not ok and we want it to stop.

  67. Val

    For those who don’t want to read the long version, here’s the short one. The rules of this blog aren’t working properly. Women’s views are being disrespected. Instead of attacking me, feminists on here should do something about that.

  68. Casey

    I don’t really want to get into an extended argument with you Casey, and I’m sure that underneath the anger we both have a fair bit of respect for each other.

    Val, perhaps you are not aware but it is offensive to say that I am supporting the patriarchy because I advise to follow the rules of the blog and tell you not to psychoanalyse Mark, the mods or any other commenters. I make those statements, not because I am supporting the patriarchy, but because apart from breaking blog rules there are quite clearly, violations of boundaries going on which unnerves me. I’m not sure you know where you end and other people begin, frankly. Val, if you cannot see that you prosecuting your case by arguing that you have been misrepresented by misrepresenting me is utterly ludicrous.

    I don’t even know what you are actually going on about really but stop the bullshit about the feminists are being sexist, it’s just a deluded nonsense argument and if you don’t want to get permanently moderated, follow the rules. Contrary to your accusations of sexism on my part, that’s just being respectful. Over on your blog I note that you deleted comments from Linda and FN because you felt they might be defamatory to individuals here, well great, your rules your blog – Same deal here. Now scuse me while I go bash my head with that brick.

  69. Linda

    While I don’t think it’s worthwhile using energy trying to reform men through polite (or even impolite) conversations, I think the point Val makes regarding group norms and the need to not upset men, is a fair point. Feminists acknowledge that we have had to learn to be very good at modifying our behaviours in order to not upset the men around us, for our own safety. This is true to some extent, in any type of space and no woman however feminist/smart/articulate is immune to this. Most of the time we do it unconsciously.

    A recent example here at LP is PavCat’s response to me on the previous Overflow Thread, when I referred to male supremacy, telling me that it would offend the blokes here (and it did). Presumably I breached the norms of the group by not referring to “sexism” or “patriarchy” which are acceptable terms here for women to use and ones that are not considered by men to be overly threatening.

  70. Val

    Casey @ 68
    Could you point to where I psycho analysed Mark or anyone else Casey?

    I don’t think you are sexist, I think that the rules of this blog are working in favour of male commenters, and by trying to police them without addressing that, you are allowing that situation to continue.

    By saying that women have divided loyalties I’m not psych analysing anyone. I go in to Monash three times a week, and I haven’t yet overtly said anything about the fact that in my unit, men are disproportionately in senior positions and women in lower or casual positions. I’ve done it in another department previously but not in this one. We all have to compromise with patriarchy sometimes, it’s the world we live in. I just think that it would be possible to get some change on this blog.

  71. Val

    Casey @ 68
    Btw you may not have noticed but I put both of those comments back at my blog, without the specific bits about an individual, after I’d talked to Linda and FN. They were comments on another blog about one individual, which is a bit different than saying things to people on the same blog.

    You may not have seen that I’ve put them back or not realised, because I had to do it under my own name due to the limitations of blogger.

  72. mindy

    @Debbieanne I was playing with an old internet meme. It was more a joke for the old hands. Sorry.

    Katz and PatrickB that is the beauty of it. Rudd knew that his destabilisation would reflect badly on Gillard who was already fighting patriarchal norms so he didn’t have to be overt like the overgrown schoolboys of the other side. When someone already thinks you are weak and incompetent because you are a woman it doesn’t take much.

    I won’t name everyone on this blog who has already made that point because I am sure to miss someone but the point has been made several times.

  73. Casey

    I will make a few points:

    1. You haven’t adequately explained what you meant about this bizzo:

    So I’ve seen this before – you get into a new group and start challenging some of the mores and the women in the group say, hey sister, great stuff and sometimes they even ask you to convene the women’s committe or whatever, and then they start saying but hey this group has its own rules babe and if you push them too much no-one (ie men) aren’t going to like you and you’ll get rejected.

    Please explain what on this blog has prompted you to say “I’ve seen this before” What have you seen before? Where did any one at all say to you “if you push them too much no-one (i.e. men) aren’t going to like you and you’ll get rejected”. Argue to the point and have the courage to stand by your accusations if you are going to make them.

    2. In terms of psychoanalysis, when you begin to speculate on what sort of feelings may have been engendered over years on this blog that might be causing a certain group of women to not behave in the way that you want them to, and causing them to have what you term “divided loyalties, then you are no longer offering a feminist critique but you are psychoanalysing people. In fact when you begin to do this, you leave feminist critique far behind. You have absolutely no idea what I think about some of the stuff that has been said on the blog, nor do you know about my loyalties so get out of my brain and stop with the hackneyed armchair psychology.

    3. In regards to your own blog you still moderated according to your rules. Why you would expect any differently here is beyond me. When you say that I did not acknowledge your comments before I acknowledged FN’s, or when you say Jungney paid no attention to your comments but paid attention to PavCat’s then I think, again, we have left the realm of critical analysis, don’t you? In fact, I’d wager that are heading to some far land that is altogether different. Where that is only you can answer Val, you are the Captain, and I care not to speculate but please don’t parade that as feminist analysis. If you would care to reconsider my only point to you on this matter – that not everyone reads everything you write Val and much of what you are saying has been said before – is not actually a criticism of what you are saying but of how you say it. How that ends up being a defence of the patriarchy I’m not sure, but whatever floats your boat.

  74. Val

    Casey @ 68
    Just wanted to add a couple of things
    – I don’t want to continue a personal argument with you, but I do take seriously your view that I am trespassing on others’ boundaries and I don’t wish to do that, so if you want to explain that further I definitely will read and think carefully about it.

    – When I say the rules appear to privilege men, I should be more precise: I think often in our society the rules of groups or organisations (spoken and unspoken) operate in such a way that critical feminist perspectives are more likely to be censured, marginalised or not spoken. That can apply to both men and women if they express or hold such views (although sadly, as others have pointed out, men may also be taken more seriously when they express those views at times). I’m concerned that may be happening or have happened here at times.

    In such a situation just enforcing the rules, without looking at them critically, can lead to supporting the patriarchy.

  75. Val

    Casey @ 73
    My post crossed with yours

  76. jungney

    A fascinating read … thanks.

    According to Raewyn Connell, all men are in receipt of what she terms ‘the patriarchal dividend’ by which, and I’m doing the theory injustice with this crude rendition, all men take an advantage over all women in a patriarchy. There were problems with the original thesis and Connell has since acknowledged that the dividend is not paid out equally to all men all the time; some get more than others; some get none at all; those who don’t conform to the hegemonic norm often get a negative dividend, like homosexuals who are victims of gay hate murders, for example.

    I can’t agree that Rudd actively engaged a sexist strategy; he did not denounce sexist attacks on Gillard, but that doesn’t make him a sexist in the same way that the fact that he didn’t denounce racist attacks on Warren Mundine doesn’t make him a racist.

    All men are potentially the recipients of the patriarchal dividend but this doesn’t mean that all men are not simultaneously potential allies in a democratic struggle for equality.

    Besides which, expecting Rudd to back Gillard after his sacking is about as unrealistic as expecting Titus to forgive Tamora. This was a revenge play. Hopefully it will end soon without too many more corpses.

  77. Val

    Casey @ 73
    It would take a long time to respond to this and I can’t right now, but I will try to respond later. I think I should look at your points separately as well, otherwise it will be too long. But I should just say there was a fair bit of rhetorical flourish in my post that you quoted and I think that was pretty obvious. It was an impressionistic pastiche of a few things I’ve seen here and elsewhere, dashed off fairly quickly while my grandson was asleep. I think if you are unhappy with that sort of thing, you’d have to look pretty critically at some of your own posts. But I will explain it more later.

  78. paul burns

    Val,
    I’ve been commenting on this site for years. (is it really seven years, Casey? Wow!)
    So, I’ve been observing where feminism fits in here for quite a while. For the first few years when it came to commenting on feminist posts, I just lurked. (though there is some contention about that). Then I sort of jumped in. But I worked out a few things you might find helpful. So, if the women will forgive me …

    There were/are posts that directly engaged with feminist issues. That’s why those particular posts were written.

    There were/are posts that did not engage with feminist issues but during the comments on those posts a discussion about feminism organically evolved from the topic under discussion.

    There were posts in which some blokes were sexist/stupid/thoughtless/annoyed/trolling et al et al in their comments and this resulted in a stoush or a flame war about feminist issues; or women said things about blokes’ attitudes that riled them so the blokes responded.

    In no instance did the women on this site concede much to the blokes. Some discussions were civil. Some were disrespectful; but at the end we all lived to debate another day, and not too many feathers were left on computer keyboards.

    Now I might have missed something in my analysis of the types of feminist threads we’ve had on LP, so others please add more if you so wish.

  79. Casey

    Val having a conversation with you is rather circular. You feel you have been misrepresented but when I ask you what you mean by what looks like a misrepresentation of me, after saying that I misrepresented what you said in your comment, you won’t put your money where your mouth is and explain it, you call it a ‘rhetorical flounce’. I call it a slur, but whatever. If I complain about the misrepresentation inherent in your ‘rhetorical flounce’ asking for specifics as to what you meant, you tell me to not complain and go look at my own shit. All this while you are complaining about misrepresentation.

    You know, I don’t think you are arguing in good faith. I’m not sure what faith you are arguing in but it’s a bit fucking convoluted for my taste. So please don’t bother addressing any more of your comments to me.

  80. Helen

    2. In terms of psychoanalysis, when you begin to speculate on what sort of feelings may have been engendered over years on this blog that might be causing a certain group of women to not behave in the way that you want them to, and causing them to have what you term “divided loyalties, then you are no longer offering a feminist critique but you are psychoanalysing people.

    Well, just as a datapoint, I often disagree strongly with Mark, but *on this blog* I often eyeroll and agree to disagree, because it’s his and Brian’s blog, not mine. On my blog it’s a different story.

    Does that make sense?

  81. Mindy

    @Jungney – what I’m trying to say is that Rudd used the ripple effect. What he did personally was small, but the effect was large because of the situation already in place. I understand the revenge bit, but when it starts to hurt the party you profess to be a part of that really stinks.

    Val – for me this is where you crossed a line that shouldn’t have been crossed.

    Like I honestly do think that some of the stuff Mark has said and done, without wanting to be personally hurtful, is evasive – but I’m sure to those of you who have been around longer and are members of the group, that there would be some tension between thinking that perhaps there might be something in that, and your – I don’t know what, loyalty, recognition that Mark has done a lot for the existence of the group, or whatever – there must be some tension there.

    I don’t know what the bee in your bonnet is about Mark but please stop dragging him into conversations where he isn’t participating. As Casey says you don’t know what is going on in our heads. The tension is that you keep whinging about Mark. Please stop.

  82. Val

    Casey I said I would respond later in detail, I honestly don’t have time now. I’m trying to finish marking some essays and I have to get them done today. Please respect my boundaries also.

    Mindy if you are going to use pejorative words like whinging, how do you expect to have a serious discussion? When I worked in one particular male dominated organisation (labor party in the 90s), ‘whinging’ was the word of choice to describe feminist criticisms. Mark is not to central to my argument and I’ve barely mentioned him.

  83. Casey

    For the love of God, please don’t respond. My brick is borked. Just look at what Helen wrote and what Mindy wrote.

  84. mindy

    Why mention him at all Val? I have kids. I call it whinging. If you want to relate that to what some bloke did somewhere else you worked fine. It is not feminist criticism to bring Mark into conversations that don’t involve him. It is having a go at Mark. I don’t always agree with him either. But I don’t spend countless comments on heaps of different threads talking about him either. That is what I am calling whinging.

    You don’t think he answered your questions. I KNOW. I read the thread too. Mark said he wasn’t going to. That is the end of it. You can’t make him, and constantly repeating that he hasn’t answered questions he said clearly that he wasn’t going to answer = whinging in my book.

    Would I have liked him to answer the questions. Yes, it would have been interesting for me. But I respect that Mark chose not to go there. I am not going to speculate on why because it is none of my damn business. He doesn’t owe me an explanation and he sure as hell doesn’t owe you one. You want to know what the tension is? We like and respect Mark even when we disagree. End of.

  85. Casey

    I should respect my boundaries because you are marking essays?

    Val, are you for real? Where did I demand that you answer me immediately? Did you see the bit where I said don’t address any comments to me any more? How did you interpret that as an invasion of your boundaries.

    Now listen carefully: Please do not respond. I’ve had more than enough of this cray cray.

  86. paul burns

    Val @ 82,
    I come from that working-class Labor culture you describe. I grew up from infancy in that culture. ‘[W]hinging’ was not a gender specific term. It was a term applied to anybody who went on and on about anything even though people took no notice of them. I don’t know its etymology but at the very latest it dates from the 1920s, and was a term frequently applied by my parents generation to demanding children whose demands for lollies, an ice-cream, a comic book, a Golden book etc were ignored. It also applied to people who complained a lot, especially those of English descent who complained about Australia.
    Its a word I rarely hear used nowadays.

  87. mindy

    Thanks Paul, that is the usage I am familiar with. I use it a lot with my kids.

  88. paul burns

    mindy @ 84,
    Cross-posted. And I agree with you.

  89. Val

    Mindy @ 84
    Ok one final comment. The reason I said that stuff about Mark and women on this blog in that comment you’re referring to is that I was trying to understand the way you and particularly tigtog have spoken to me at times both on and off the blog. I was trying to make sense of something that I had found very hurtful.

    I know how the word whinging is used for crying out loud. I’ve also heard it used to dismiss legitimate complaints.

    There obviously isn’t point in arguing about all this any more, there’s too much hurt and anger around. I know some of my comments were hurtful and I’m sorry that they caused hurt, but it doesn’t mean there isn’t some truth in what I’m saying.

    Also just in case Casey reads this, Casey you are accusing me of saying a lot of things that I didn’t say. Not a fair way of arguing.

  90. mindy

    Val you accused me of trying to shut you down. That’s why I explained how I was using the term whinging. Did you read the rest of my comment, the bit where I acknowledged the truth of what you said?

  91. faustusnotes

    This stoush appears to have become so heated that it has melted the blog’s home button. Where did it go?

  92. tigtog

    FN, looks like my post-election rejig of the nav-menu melted the home button, actually. You can still click on the blog-banner to get the home page, of course, but I’ll fix it in a tick.

    * * * * *

    Time for a moratorium, Val – from you and from others responding to you about how inadequate the feminism is here, according to you. You have been given more rope than anybody I can think of in recent LP history, and instead of climbing out of the hole you’ve dug for yourself you’re just keeping on digging. You seem to be particularly upset that you’re not being treated exactly the same as Jungney, who has been in permanent moderation for yonks, so I am now putting you on an absolutely equal footing. Comments from you that abide by the comments policy and specific moderator directions you have received will be approved asap when moderators are logged in.

  93. paul burns

    I’m putting this here because it might generate debate about sexism etc.
    Just watched Masters of Sex on SBS 1.
    The MA rated sex-scenes didn’t bother me. I’m sure we’ve all seen their equal or worse in other shows or in movies. Nor did I have any problems with their research. (I recall leafing through one volume (and I don’t think I’m confusing it with Kinsey) shortly after it came out and finding it very dry. (I think.)
    It was the sexual politics of the show that fascinated me.
    I suppose I should’ve seen it coming that Dr. Haas would thump Virginia Johnston when she refused to reciprocate his “lerve” for her. But I was still a bit shocked by that act of violence, stereotypical (and true) as it was.
    The real shock came at the end of the show when Masters suggest to Johnston that she and him should get together and record the sexual experiments with each other as guinea pigs necessary for his research.
    This raised sveral questions.
    Is Masters exploiting his power as a boss over Johnston?
    Since its pretty clear he’s in love with his wife (and she has a really weird relationship with him and vice versa, calling him Daddy), he clearly has no actual sexual feelings towards Johnston that he consciously recognises. So, is he such a geek that he really doesn’t get what he is asking Johnston to do?
    Or more sinisterly, is this the kind of thing Masters had in mind all the while which is why he got rid of his elderly secretary and got a pretty young secretary like Johnston in the first place.
    I think I could go on and on, but, if youse are up for discussion, I’m sure someone will bring up other points, eg Johnston’s desire for credentialism and wish to be seen as more than a sex object.
    Anyway, if people saw it and want to debate.

  94. Linda

    Oh that’s a nice touch; gratuitous descriptions of sexual violence in a place where discussions of sexism in australian politics is going on. Which thread is this overflowing from exactly? Thanks so much, Paul. Great way to have to start the day.

  95. paul burns

    [Sighs]
    I was describing a scene in a TV series I watched on SBS last night. Not advocating gratuitous sexual violence. I put this piece on this thread because both obliquely and directly it dealt with sexual politics and I thought this might be the appropriate thread to discuss it since, as your peculiarly twisted perception has proved [I have actually read your blog, closely], I thought any discussion of the television show might prove controversial.
    Did you actually watch the show? I don’t think so.

  96. Linda

    Paul, where did I accuse you of advocating sexual violence?
    I know you were describing it which is why I said “gratuitous descriptions”. It is the description I am objecting to having to see here.

  97. Linda

    …and how is it appropriate to randomly rubbish my blog here?

  98. paul burns

    volunteer to shift potentially thread-cluttering side-discussions/metacommentary on other threads to Overflow.

    Which is why I put it on the Overflow thread. I was attempting to pre-empt clutter on a main thread.
    I am quite happy for the moderators to shift my comment @ 93 to Saturday Salon if they think it is more appropriate there.
    Linda, I’m not even bothering to respond to your hair-splitting. You know very well what I meant.

  99. paul burns

    And how else does one critique a TV show without describing the scenes in it?

  100. paul burns

    Which incidentally were not sexually violent. The scene where Haas hits Virginia is in a social not a sexual context. But you’d know that if you’d seen the show, Linda.
    Its a good idea not to discuss a show if you haven’t seen it.

  101. Linda

    You are not hearing me, Paul. When I said in my first response “great way to have to start the day” did that not alert you to my reaction to seeing a man refer to rape as “lerve”?

    Why would you suddenly post a comment like that in a thread such as this? Was it a reminder of whose in charge?

  102. paul burns

    There was no rape in the show, Linda. Clearly, you didn’t see it. I am hearing you but there is nothing to hear, except that you obviously didn’t watch the show. If you had you wouldn’t be making the comments you are making.
    Sure, Dr. Hass has a consensual sexual relationship with Virginia Johnson. When she ends it, he hits in a circumstance that is decidedly non-sexual.
    I used the term “lerve” to indicate what a bastard he was. If you read more in to it than that, you’re just plain wrong. Go watch the episode on SBS’s equivalent of I-View, and then come back and comment about it when you know what you’re talking about.

  103. paul burns

    And if you want to know why I put it in this thread read my 98.
    And, so far as I know, the only people who are in charge here are the moderators. If you think there is some vast male conspiracy of men here trying to assert they are in charge, well, that’s your problem, and so far as I can see you’re wrong.
    But then again, I might be wrong, since I don’t have your view of the world.

  104. tigtog

    Linda, Overflow is meant to be a hodge-podge thread of discussions that do not belong on any other thread. It is not possible to thread-jack or derail an Overflow thread. The way we’ve set Overflow up means that any moment an entirely different topic might be raised here, so objecting to exactly that happening is not going to fly.

    I understand Paul’s concern that discussing this particular TV show might be deemed problematic for the Salon. Maybe it could have worked there, but given past Salon Threads Of Doom, more likely not. It was a toss-up, Paul made his call, and given that he’s put quote marks around the word “lerve” I’m presuming that he’s attempting to quote the actor playing Dr Haas phonetically in a scene that had nothing to do with rape, as he has already explained. You’re taking the most uncharitable take you can, and that’s not conducive to substantive discussion.

  105. paul burns

    tigtog,
    Thanks.
    FTR, I phoneticised and used the word ‘lerve’ as a means of shorthandedly portraying this character’s awful attitudes. That is my personal contribution and does not come from how he said it in the show. Haas was a sort of kiss-and-tell, emotionally immature twerp who couldn’t accept that Virginia Johnson wanted to end her relationship with him when he dragged her outside at a party and upbraided her for not paying any attention to him. Then he hit her.
    The script has a raw emotional honesty that keeps you on the edge of your seat all the way through, and is sufficiently ambiguous for one not to be sure who is the “goodie”, except for Virginia Johnson, whose story it is, so far anyway. I recommend it highly, so long as you don’t mind sex scenes.

  106. GregM

    Linda I haven’t visited your blog. I would like to do so.

    Can you give me a link? Thanks.

  107. Linda

    This is what made me think rape, which I had a physical reaction to:

    “I suppose I should’ve seen it coming that Dr. Haas would thump Virginia Johnston when she refused to reciprocate his “lerve” for her.”

    How else could you read that? I don’t want to come back to a thread to follow a discussion about Julia Gillard and oz politics, and suddenly be blind-sided by that, and to have my initially mild objection responded to with *sigh*. Like why can’t these silly feminists be a bit more charitable when we want to fetishise their oppression through our creative art?

    Since I’m still feeling quite creeped out by the whole thing, I will step away from the blog. Congrats Paul.

    GregM, eeww!

  108. GregM

    GregM, eeww!

    I guess that’s no then.

    I’m sorry about that. My request was sincere. I only wanted to read from your blog what you truly believe so I could understand where you are coming from when you post comments on this blog.

    If you don’t think I should do so I accept your right to think that.

    But your comment “eeww” as if I am a piece of shit is sad.

    If that is truly what you think of me why don’t you have the courage and integrity to say it?

  109. Linda

    Oh well when you put it so sincerely, GregM, I thank you for your interest in understanding my perspective. That is very decent of you. Unfortunately, I am not entirely comfortable with your rather sudden er “interest” in my deeper thoughts, being raised in the context of my being obviously triggered by the above descriptions of violence against women, particularly given that men post deathrape threats to my blog on a daily basis and this is very hard for me to deal with sometimes.

    I thank you for your understanding, now excuse me, I need a glass of chardonnay and some funny cat videos asap. Cheers.

  110. GregM

    Linda my interest is not sudden and was not triggered by Paul Burns’s posts which annoyed you except that from those posts I became aware that you have a blog, which I would like to read.

    So after the chardonney and the funny cat videos I’d really like to read your blog.

  111. paul burns

    Linda,
    I hope you are not implying I made any comments of any kind at your blog. I read a page worth of your posts with interest. I made no comment. I had no desire to make any kind of comment.
    FTR, I frequently glance at the blogs of people who post here. Its one of the things people do here. Once in the blue moon I might make a comment on some-one’s blog. I don’t do it very often. And when I do I don’t insult the blogger, even if I disagree with them.

  112. Jacques de Molay

    I guess this should go in here, an interesting read from Holocaust historian Professor Wendy Lower:

    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/world/bigread-new-book-reveals-the-nazi-women-who-were-every-bit-as-evil-as-the-men/story-fni6um3i-1226733107140

  113. Mindy

    The behaviour written about in that link is horrifying. The fact that it was done by women is not. The fact that the writer of the article acts as if women engaging in horrifying behaviour is somehow in itself startling is bloody annoying.

    Of course women were involved. Thousands of people were complicit. Some would have been in fear of their own lives others would have joined in with relish. Some men some women. Sure men bore the brunt of what little punishment was meted out but they were also the majority of those in charge.

    I think the writer was just trying to have a go at women for not being quiet and nice like he thinks they should be.

    Despite that it looks like the book could be an interesting, if harrowing, read. Thanks for the link.

  114. Mindy

    The description on Amazon is better I think.

    Wendy Lower’s stunning account of the role of German women on the World War II Nazi eastern front powerfully revises history, proving that we have ignored the reality of women’s participation in the Holocaust, including as brutal killers. The long-held picture of German women holding down the home front during the war, as loyal wives and cheerleaders for the Führer, pales in comparison to Lower’s incisive case for the massive complicity, and worse, of the 500,000 young German women she places, for the first time, directly in the killing fields of the expanding Reich.

  115. Katz

    Wendy Lower sets up the straw [wo]man of sexual essentialism and then knocks it down.

    The interesting element here is the erection of the straw figure in the first place.

  116. Casey

    Please note that the book review actually comes from the tabloid The Daily Mail. This might explain some of its more excessive descriptions of the dark heart of German womanhood in the Nazi era.

    I advise to await the reviews by prominent holocaust historians. If I know anything about my brief perusal of holocaust studies it’s that simplistic constructions about what went on and why get debunked pretty quickly. Whether this book is simplistic and essentialist and is dealing with the feminine monstrous, I am not sure, but I do know that article is.

    For instance: “This schizophrenic combination of warm-hearted mother one minute and cold-blooded killer the next is an enigma”

    This silly rendering of that the murderous female construct passes for a review does it? Well, I suppose a newspaper that sees fit to hold the leader of the Labour party to account for something his father wrote in a diary at age 17, might say it does.

    Another quick google of reviews reveals suggestions that this book shows how “Nazi women left men far behind in their cruelties”. Uhuh, of course that’s true too.

    I note that typists who typed and filed are singled out as particular examples of the murderous feminine. I dunno. If the soldiers with guns didn’t up and kill Hitler, I’m not sure what a woman with a typewriter could do, but perhaps the book is building a different case which adds to the scholarship of holocaust studies. Whatever it does, it will soon be addressed by eminent historians. I suggest we wait for that, rather than rely on a Daily Mail book review.

  117. jungney

    Wendy Lower is a holocaust historian, if you would like to check her publications list, with appropriate awards and research monies from esteemed holocaust sources as well as prior articles dissecting gendered issues among the perpetrators of the shoa.

  118. Val

    Tigtog @ 92
    At this time I don’t intend to post on LP any further. I will point out to you that it is apparently ok on this blog for Casey to call me crazy (‘cray cray’), which is offensive not only to me but to people with mental illness.

    I will put any further comments I have on feminism and left wing politics (including on this blog) at my own blog http://www.fairgreenplanet.blogspot.com

    Thanks to people here with whom I’ve had interesting discussions. All LP readers are very welcome to visit my blog.

  119. Casey

    Geez, I’m aware of that, you know. How many times did I say my issue was with the Daily Mail article? It’s hard to actually get a sense of where the book is going, for all the essentialisations.

  120. jungney

    Well, I was aware you’d be aware Casey. The information about the legitimacy of the Professor’s holocaust credentials was for others. The review is what often happens – the book is presented as some sort of shoa p0rn, for which there is a market after all.

  121. Casey

    some sort of shoa p0rn

    Apt description, Jungney.

  122. Katz

    It would appear from this review that Lower is writing against a somewhat sparse and inchoate historiography that gave German women a walk on the charge of complicity. This exoneration appears to have been influenced by essentialist prejudices and nourished by squeamishness. In short, Lower is an anti essentialist who seeks to locate causes of the behavior of German women in the peculiar conditions of post Great War Germany:

    Hitler’s Furies builds a fascinating and convincing picture of a morally “lost generation” of young women, born into a defeated, tumultuous post–World War I Germany, and then swept up in the nationalistic fervor of the Nazi movement—a twisted political awakening that turned to genocide. These young women—nurses, teachers, secretaries, wives, and mistresses—saw the emerging Nazi empire as a kind of “wild east” of career and matrimonial opportunity, and yet could not have imagined what they would witness and do there.

    http://www.bookbrowse.com/bb_briefs/detail/index.cfm/ezine_preview_number/9004/hitlers-furies

  123. Casey

    In short, Lower is an anti essentialist who seeks to locate causes of the behavior of German women in the peculiar conditions of post Great War Germany:

    Yes, and isn’t it amazing how, from that, we end up with an article talking about the doubled nature of the Nazi German woman as both monster and mother and in other reviews, as somehow worse than Nazi men because she could shoot babies in the back of the neck. It’s amazing, really.

  124. paul burns

    Surely there’s never been any doubt that the majority of German women at the time favoured Nazism. IIRC, there’s a fair bit of film evidence to that effect, some of which sticks in my mind. From the reviews Lower’s book might be concentrating in particular on sections of the eastern front where many Holocaust crimes took place.. Its unsurprising to my mind that women there imbued with the Nazi ideology (and presumably they were not all German) engaged in Holocaust crimes.
    The work sounds like yet another useful contribution to WW2 and Holocaust history.

  125. Casey

    Casey to call me crazy (‘cray cray’), which is offensive not only to me but to people with mental illness.

    Another misrepresentation Val.

    I said

    “I’ve had more than enough of this cray cray”

    “This” in that sentence refers to the conversation you and I were having, not to you the person. if you go to the old Saturday salon and see where I am talking about the Cyrus/O’connor Twitter War and I say “If you thought the LP Stoush of recent days was crazytown …” – again you will understand I am referring to the stoush. I don’t slur people by calling them crazy. I can however, have an opinon on a stoush.

    To complain about misrepresentation by misrepresenting people only weakens your argument. Which no one can understand anyway. But that’s another matter and we shan’t worry about that.

  126. Helen

    @112 Assertions of WOMEN WERE JUST AS BAD AS THE MEN SO WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT EH are so tedious.

    The “angel in the house” victorian concept that women should be better and more moral than men (and as a corollary, any prominent woman, like, I don’t know, a PM for instance, should show herself to be more “moral” than any equivalent male in her situation) is not a feminist idea. It’s an integral part of the patriarchy which we are fighting and it is a root cause of double standards.

  127. Helen

    Didn’t see Katz @115 – nailed it in fewer words 😉

  128. jungney

    Mylie Cyrus is sooo white! Here’s the antidote to honky culture in Sly and the Family Stone. More to the US than honkies!

  129. Val

    I’ve done a response on my blog about the issues raised earlier in this thread. Still not entirely happy about it, and concerned it may still upset or annoy some women here, but it’s a start and hopefully puts the issues in a bit more context
    http://fairgreenplanet.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/patriarchy-rules-ok-foiled-again.html

  130. jungney

    Pavcat, following from [Avoiding futility under the Abbott administration ~ corrected] in which you describe the uses to which young Tristran was put in posing an uncomfortable question to the ex-PM Gillard as “child abuse”…

    If you knew anything at all about child abuse you wouldn’t further abuse disenfranchised children by enrolling their identity, as abused children, in your crusade to lay the foundations for the beatification of JG.

    But look, I’m sure child abuse authorities will welcome your insight. God knows, they might even investigate!

  131. PavCat

    You’re a literal-minded sausage, aren’t you, jungney. It’s very sad. Think of all the wonderful simile, metaphor, personification, allegory, metonymy, zeugma, litotes, hyperbole and what-all else used in everyday life and language that are rushing straight past you like a runaway train.

  132. PavCat

    As for the beatification of JG, if you actually read my or any other women’s comments properly, you would be aware that that nonsensical (albeit very common) rubbish remark has already been addressed.

  133. Russell

    The Overflow thread – has a lovely liquid quality to it, but shouldn’t this thread be more aptly re-named “The Boxing Ring”?

    For those who love to throw a punch while making a point.

  134. Mark Bahnisch

    Let me just note that I am thoroughly fed up with coming here and finding endless discussions of what I may or may not think or what might or might not motivate me. I am really, really sick of it. As far as I am concerned, you can stoush about whatever you like, but I am getting very frustrated at hosting a space which is constantly used for personal criticism and for that matter, meta-analysis and criticism of the blog itself. I am absolutely unaware of any reason why I should continue to tolerate that. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

  135. Ambigulous

    No, I can’t think of a reason either, Mark.

    Very sorry it’s developed like this.

    pax vobiscum

  136. Mark Bahnisch

    Thanks, Ambigulous.

    It may be time to start afresh elsewhere.

  137. Ambigulous

    Thanks for all your sterling efforts over the years.

  138. paul burns

    Mark, you shouldn’t tolerate it at all. But what on earth can one do with the very few people who have no internet manners.
    I know I spout off sometimes on line without thinking (and I can only speak for myself). And now and then get caught up in threadjacks, though not on purpose. You know how they just grow. I guess we all have to try to be more aware that being on the internet for a while can sometimes put you into a trance like state where you’re not always fully aware of what you might be saying. (I reckon – others might disagree with me.)

  139. Mark Bahnisch

    Cheers, Ambi and Paul.

    I was having a nice day before I looked in here.

  140. paul burns

    Well, think about the nice people here. Even when you argue with them, its nearly all of them.
    Can only give you a big smile, Mark.

  141. paul burns

    Oops! 🙂

  142. Mark Bahnisch

    Thanks, Paul 🙂

  143. Nick

    Mark, I hope you keep blogging at LP.

    I’m sorry for my comments at the end of the futility thread – I got the wrong end of the stick, and really did think people were referring to your recent comments on Facebook – which, rightly or wrongly, I did find a bit inflammatory – or more to the point, I thought when I read them that other people would find them inflammatory.

    And I couldn’t agree wholeheartedly with them because of that (even though I mostly agreed with them if that makes sense).

    I wasn’t trying to be wildly OT. I was trying to strike some middle ground, and maybe (clumsily as it turned out) say that we’re all prone to exasperation and outrage and venting. And there’s nothing really wrong with that. It just makes it hard to respond to except in kind, and it’s only a short step from there to the ‘hate’ part of what you were saying.

    That a lot of us commenting too often may as well be wearing “Fuck Gillard” or “Fuck Rudd” or “Fuck Quiggin” or “Fuck Summers” t-shirts.

    I sincerely believe that’s going to die down soon. Not that anything that’s happened in the last few years needs to be swept under the carpet – but that hopefully we can all begin to discuss them without the need to tear strips off one another – or anyone else in the blogging community guilty of having an opinion.

    And if anyone does arc up, well obviously they needed to get something off their chest…I can’t agree with it and I might think they’re wrong, but there’s probably not much point getting outraged at them in turn either. At least that’s how I’ve been trying to respond (or, more often, not) lately.

    I really hope you persist with it.

  144. Mark Bahnisch

    Nick, I really can’t tolerate reference to comments I make on Facebook being repeated here. It’s an unacceptable breach of my privacy. I have privacy settings on Facebook for a reason. There should be a clear separation between that, and what I post in a public place.

    Thank you for your apology, though.

    The whole thing does point to broader issues about how personalised discussion has become on this blog. It is supposed to be a space for the discussion of politics – not arguments over whether individuals or groups of individuals have this or that motivation or intent. That’s been made clear as day, yet it persists down some very well worn tracks. I am just not prepared to see this continue – everyone who’s been participating in these stoushes needs, in my opinion, to reflect seriously on what constitutes civil and acceptable discourse. I am just not going to be in the business of providing a forum for forms of discourse which I don’t personally condone. As I said, I cannot for the life of me see why anyone could expect otherwise.

    I am really angry about this.

  145. Mark Bahnisch

    I’m sure you’ll also understand why I’ve removed you from my Facebook.

  146. Val

    I just looked in here because on thinking about what happened earlier in the thread, I felt I owed Casey an apology for unintentionally locating her as the prime target of my comments about ‘policing’ by women on this site. That wasn’t my intention, but looking back it’s clear that’s how she felt and I am sorry. The whole ethics of talking about ‘policing’ by women is also now troubling me and I am trying to write something about this on my blog too.

    Because of looking in here I saw Mark’s comments above. Mark I presume you are including me in what you say as I have mentioned you here and on my blog. I think it would be a great shame if you gave up, because as I have said before I think this is a really interesting blog, even though it is hard for someone with a critical perspective like mine to participate in it without getting into trouble. However suggesting that left wing blogs such as this and John Quiggin may be expressing or allowing sexist views (eg of Julia Gillard) as I have on my blog, is an honest opinion. I don’t suggest that this is intentional. On feminist sites it’s discussed as ‘checking your privilege’ as I’m sure you know. However if you have concerns you would like to discuss please feel free to contact me through my blog or directly through the email address shown on the blog.

    I am really trying not to comment here any more as I think views like mine – in brief from a left wing ecofeminist position – just do cause a lot of angst on this site, even if I don’t intend them to. But expressing my views wasn’t and isn’t meant to be personally hurtful and I apologise to yourself or anyone else who has experienced it that way.

  147. Nick

    Yep, that’s totally fine Mark. Sorry again.

  148. Graham Bell

    Mark:

    I’m sorry.

    Please reconsider.

  149. Linda

    “Let me just note that I am thoroughly fed up with coming here and finding endless discussions of what I may or may not think or what might or might not motivate me.”

    Where are these “endless discussions” about you?

    Are they really about you personally or is it beyond the personal?

    How do you think it is for feminist bloggers who get daily deathrape threats yet keep on blogging, regardless?

  150. drsusancalvin

    Mark I’m an occasional here, and really appreciate your effort. This blog always has something useful to offer and a remarkable collection of people giving of their time, humor and intellect. LP has been a kvetch filled space lately, and it is tiresome. But it has caused me to think about the “discourse”, and that’s a good thing. I don’t know how or why you persist, I just get to enjoy the fruits. Wading through asinine, ill considered, argumentative and baiting comments is easier for me, I move on; but there are consequences for you, for your well being, and for this blog. I hope things change, improve, and if you wonder why you continue, perhaps this acknowledgement will remind you. Again, thank you.

  151. Adrian

    Can certainly appreciate how you feel, Mark.

    I think that there is tremendous goodwill from most towards you and the efforts that you’ve made over the years with this blog. I’ve always found your writing interesting and well considered, and this is one of the better places on the net.
    But in the end it’s not worth the angst, if that’s what it’s giving you.

  152. Ootz

    Let me just note that I am thoroughly fed up with coming here and finding endless discussions of what I may or may not think or what might or might not motivate me

    ditto

    It astonishes me how some people treat this blog and it’s host like their emotional trash can. In support of Dr Calvin’s comment, deconstructing recent discourse on LP has been revealing and somewhat surprising, considering that some commentators take pride in their long term participation on this blog or even operate their their own blogs.

    My questions are, does it look like we are living in such times, where we can afford to indulge in prolonged carpet bombing of bridges? What does it take to start to consider the maintenance and building of bridges?

    My sincerest thanks to Mark and Brian, as well as moderators, support people and considered commentators of this blog, for your dedication and efforts.

  153. Mindy

    [Moderator note: side-discussion from this thread transferred to Overflow, Mindy is responding to Jaques de Molay ~tt]

    Build a bridge and get over it. I was cranky with you once ONCE and you gave as good as you got. I disputed your opinion. Sam told me that my fact was wrong. He was wrong. Quite different.

    Women on this blog have been personally abused by some of the blokes here for a long time and a lot of people just passed it by including you. Sam dissed my comment and then apologised to Brian for being wrong. Apparently sorry is the hardest word to say when you have to admit to a woman that you are wrong.

    I have every right to ask for an apology. Tigtog has every right to point out that it happens all the time to women here. There is a long history of that sort of behaviour all over the internet, LP is not a solitary case. But the backs that go up when some bloke gets called on his shitty behaviour which has been demonstrated more than once.

    You don’t have to like me, I don’t care. But you don’t get to tell me that I don’t deserve an apology because I hurt your feelings.

  154. Liz

    Jacques de Molay, it isn’t about someone making an mistake. Although the ‘d’oh’ is just unnecessarily rude. It’s the fact that Sam thought he should apologise. But he apologised to the wrong person – Brian. And then followed it up with spectacular rudeness when that was pointed out.

    So, it isn’t about error, or even rudeness. It’s about treating a woman as though she actually doesn’t exist. This happens all too often at LP. And yes, the women here get shirty about it.

  155. tigtog

    If Sam had noted his error without explicitly apologising to Brian only, or without actually apologising at all, then he wouldn’t be getting this stick. Nobody asked him for an apology initially, they just disputed his claim.

    Sam chose to make his self-correction include an apology, so obviously Sam thought an apology was owed, but apparently only to Brian. Our point is that if Sam felt he owed Brian an apology, then why didn’t he also feel that he owed Mindy one?

  156. Jacques de Molay

    Build a bridge and get over it. I was cranky with you once ONCE and you gave as good as you got. I disputed your opinion. Sam told me that my fact was wrong. He was wrong. Quite different.

    This is the attitude I’m talking about. It’s not about being cranky, that at least comes from a genuine place, I made some minor comment about how I didn’t understand how anyone could defend burqas, being the beacons of right-wing, anti-feminist conservatism they are and you jumped in calling my opinion crap (which wouldn’t fly if I or most other blokes on here said that to a woman), I essentially said “what? A bit of manners please” and then you responded to that with something along the lines of “I think your opinion is crap, I don’t give a fuck”. I’ve been here a similar length of time to you and I have no doubt in my mind I would’ve been banned for that. How that is meant to add to debate and furthering discussion I have no idea.

    Women on this blog have been personally abused by some of the blokes here for a long time and a lot of people just passed it by including you. Sam dissed my comment and then apologised to Brian for being wrong. Apparently sorry is the hardest word to say when you have to admit to a woman that you are wrong.

    Without saying if it goes on or not I don’t think I’ve ever come across anyone personally abusing women on here. In fact one of the things I’ve always liked about LP is personal abuse not being tolerated, attacks of a personal nature being rightly condemned and until very recently adults behaving like adults. I don’t think “Your opinion is crap and I don’t give a fuck” jives with that. Maybe Sam has been on the wrong end of one of your vicious responses before, so thinks you can go jump?

    I have every right to ask for an apology. Tigtog has every right to point out that it happens all the time to women here. There is a long history of that sort of behaviour all over the internet, LP is not a solitary case. But the backs that go up when some bloke gets called on his shitty behaviour which has been demonstrated more than once.

    You don’t have to like me, I don’t care. But you don’t get to tell me that I don’t deserve an apology because I hurt your feelings.

    Of course you can ask for an apology but it was something pretty minor and was clearly being used to continue on with this “why are all the men ignoring us even though they’re not and these stoushes and overflow threads keep happening and will continue to happen until every bloke on here that ever criticised a policy decision of Gillard’s or supported Rudd repents and just admits it was all really because they’re sexist” attitude.

    It’s not about liking your or not, which you know but about being able to engage with other adults in a civil way. Val didn’t understand that and I don’t think you do either.

  157. PavCat

    “why are all the men ignoring us even though they’re not”

    And now you’re ignoring the fact that you’re ignoring us. Meta city. Actually ‘ignoring’ is the wrong word; it implies that a presence has been registered and is being deliberately disregarded. What happens here as in so many other places is that women’s presence in the conversations simply isn’t registered. There are a number of men at LP who can see that and have acknowledged it.

  158. mindy

    No Sam has not. Obviously you do not read my comments.

    JdeM you have completely mischaracterised what I said. I argued with you for a long time before I got sick of your attitude and your ‘you are just a blow in’ which is why I pointed out that I was here in 2005. Strangely GregM also thought I was only new here too. Funny about that. Personal attacks have been happening here for a long time. Just because they flew under your radar doesn’t mean they haven’t gone on. Do you think we are just making this up? Seriously.

    There have been many people, mostly blokes, in long term moderation for their attacks on women on this blog. They might not be overt but they do happen. So we finally get sick of it and suddenly we are the bad ones for pointing it out and making people uncomfortable. Too bad.

    You are the only one who has any issue with my civility. That’s okay I side eye some of your comments too. I have been chatting quite happily with people here for years but suddenly I don’t understand civility? What I understand is that you didn’t like being challenged. Still doesn’t mean that Sam gets a free pass on being rude.

  159. Jacques de Molay

    Liz,

    Jacques de Molay, it isn’t about someone making an mistake. Although the ‘d’oh’ is just unnecessarily rude. It’s the fact that Sam thought he should apologise. But he apologised to the wrong person – Brian. And then followed it up with spectacular rudeness when that was pointed out.

    So, it isn’t about error, or even rudeness. It’s about treating a woman as though she actually doesn’t exist. This happens all too often at LP. And yes, the women here get shirty about it.

    Would you consider d’oh ruder than I think your opinion is crap and I don’t give a fuck? Where were the howls and demands for an apology to me from Mindy then?

  160. mindy

    On the thread JdeM. Also where incidentally I apologised. Did you not see that? How amusing.

  161. Liz

    Again, you’re missing the basic point I’m making. Sam did apologise. But, he apologised to the wrong person. It’s as though Mindy doesn’t exist. Aren’t you capable of separating that from the fact that you’re pissed off by the way Mindy spoke to you once? Two separate issues.

    Women will keep pointing these things out as long as they keep happening. For you to drag Gillard into it is a total furphy. It shouldn’t be asking too much for a bloke who considers them self to be progressive to actually look at his behaviour and ask himself if he’s being sexist. It happens time and again here. We’re not deluded, you know.

  162. Jacques de Molay

    PC,

    Jacques de M, you are spectacularly missing the point, which is that Sam’s little moment is yet another demonstration of the way women in blog discussions are simply invisible to many male participants here and we are sick to death of it. Context is all. The appropriate response is not ‘Don’t be silly and childish about this one little thing.’ The appropriate response is ‘Oh shit, am I part of the deep and long-standing systemic problem here?’

    This is what I was talking about. I don’t know about anyone else but I have always skimmed through peoples posts on here (male or female), I’ve never once on any thread in all my time here ever read every single word of every single post. I think it’s more than a bit rich to scream sexism at any male that does this especially when sexism isn’t screamed at women for doing so to men.

  163. Helen

    “screamed”? Wow, overreaction much? Who has “screamed” anything J de M? Or, as I suspect, do you have some kind of overblown idea of feminist criticism as something which is necessarily “screamed”?

  164. Helen

    (Of course, if one is portrayed as “screaming”, never mind the complete absence of any possibility of verification of that idea, one is automatically portrayed as a bit mad and unreliable. Handy, that.)

  165. Jacques de Molay

    And now you’re ignoring the fact that you’re ignoring us. Meta city. Actually ‘ignoring’ is the wrong word; it implies that a presence has been registered and is being deliberately disregarded. What happens here as in so many other places is that women’s presence in the conversations simply isn’t registered. There are a number of men at LP who can see that and have acknowledged it.

    Meta city about sums up what LP has become since it came back. If you genuinely think women on here are being ignored good luck to you. I think that is absurd. It’s called a difference of opinion. There were a number of people here and elsewhere supposedly of the Left that agreed with Gillard’s attack on single mothers payments too.

  166. mindy

    There were a number of people here and elsewhere supposedly of the Left that agreed with Gillard’s attack on single mothers payments too.

    Yep that would be all the women who have responded to you here. Yet somehow we are all lumped in the ‘Gillard did no wrong, evah’ basket. And people wonder why we get upset. Sheesh.

  167. Liz

    Poor Jacques. Attacked by Screaming Feminists. *Sigh*.

  168. PavCat

    Apart from the fact that you’re the one who persists in repeatedly dragging Gillard into this discussion, all this stuff about her being the devil because her government (NOT her personally, and this weird widespread illusion that a Prime Minister has absolute power is starting to really disturb me) changed the cutoff age of the youngest child in a family receiving benefits seems to me to have been coming largely from people who couldn’t have given a stuff about single parents till it gave them a stick to beat Gillard with. It’s reminiscent of Andrew Bolt suddenly getting all hysterical about hijabs and FGM. Concern troll much?

  169. mindy

    Andrew Bolt is the concern troll’s concern troll. Has he been a bit quiet lately?

  170. Jacques de Molay

    No Sam has not. Obviously you do not read my comments.

    JdeM you have completely mischaracterised what I said. I argued with you for a long time before I got sick of your attitude and your ‘you are just a blow in’ which is why I pointed out that I was here in 2005. Strangely GregM also thought I was only new here too. Funny about that. Personal attacks have been happening here for a long time. Just because they flew under your radar doesn’t mean they haven’t gone on. Do you think we are just making this up? Seriously.

    There have been many people, mostly blokes, in long term moderation for their attacks on women on this blog. They might not be overt but they do happen. So we finally get sick of it and suddenly we are the bad ones for pointing it out and making people uncomfortable. Too bad.

    You are the only one who has any issue with my civility. That’s okay I side eye some of your comments too. I have been chatting quite happily with people here for years but suddenly I don’t understand civility? What I understand is that you didn’t like being challenged. Still doesn’t mean that Sam gets a free pass on being rude.

    No you didn’t. I don’t remember you even voicing an opinion on it just that my opinion was crap. I never accused you of being a blow in, I said don’t talk to me like I’m some blow in when I’ve probably been here as long as you have, I think you then said you arrived the year before me or something.

    Like I said I don’t see these supposed personal attacks on women and if they are legit why are those people still allowed to post here? I wouldn’t think that is the sort of thing that should be tolerated on a left-wing blog.

    Mindy, I think there is a definite disconnect between what women think is personal (or attacking their gender) than what men do. When this stuff all first started not long after LP came back I viewed it as sisterly solidarity being pissed off with the treatment Gillard received as PM and us blokes on here were going to have to cop a bit of heat until it was out of your system. I still think by and large that is what’s going on here and absolutely anything that resembles a nail will get a real hammering. I just haven’t seen much in the way of evidence to support these claims, perhaps these personal attacks on women get deleted before I come across them? It’s not something I’ve really ever seen on here.

  171. Liz

    Oh, FFS. Feminism is now something we have to get out of our systems. It’s all Gillard’s fault.

    JdeL, why are you so obsessed with her? Here we are, explaining the issue of women not being heard. And here’s JdeL, determinedly not hearing women. But, there’s no problem. *Snort*.

  172. Jacques de Molay

    Not feminism the anger towards Gillard’s treatment, they’re different things.

    Liz I can see this debate is devolving (like so many on here in recent times) to the point where I don’t think there is anything to be gained by me continuing to participate. So very disappointing.

  173. Liz

    Yes, agreed JdeL. So disappointing that you choose not to listen to women, whilst insisting it isn’t a problem. So disappointing that you probably think of yourself as being very progressive, as well. As long as the women STFU.

  174. Jacques de Molay

    Liz, putting aside your continuous snarky bullshit this seems to be the way things were going:

    A few posters: “We’re continually being abused & ignored”

    Me: “Clearly you’re not being ignored and I’ve never seen any personal abuse of women on here”

    A few posters: “See you’re ignoring us”

    Me: “But I haven’t seen any personal abuse of women on here”

    It’s pointless.

  175. Liz

    You’ve never seen it happen? The example under your nose is the one you’re so diligently ignoring. That is: Sam ignoring Mindy and apologising to Brian instead.

    This is compounded by the fact that this was the issue as I stated back at 154. You’ve ignored that completely. Then you talk about women being abused, but what I’ve stated is that women are being ignored. So, you can’t even get that right. So, please don’t tell me it isn’t a problem.

  176. Too Cool to Fight Feminist Ozblogger

    Oh my goodness! Jacques, come and have a cuddle, love 🙂

  177. Jacques de Molay

    You’ve never seen it happen? The example under your nose is the one you’re so diligently ignoring. That is: Sam ignoring Mindy and apologising to Brian instead.

    This is compounded by the fact that this was the issue as I stated back at 154. You’ve ignored that completely. Then you talk about women being abused, but what I’ve stated is that women are being ignored. So, you can’t even get that right. So, please don’t tell me it isn’t a problem.

    So let me get this right, Sam refuses to apologise to Mindy (putting aside we don’t know if he’s been on the end of one of her more ‘lively’ posts before or not) and this is evidence of men continually ignoring women? Please. And it’s been noted you clearly haven’t read what some of the other female posters have been saying, Liz.

    I expect the howls of condemnation to reign down upon you any moment now.

  178. GregM

    Tigtog can we change the name of this thread to Overflow Thread of Doom, to differentiate it from other Overflow threads?
    It has a nice catchy ring to it.

    [email protected]

    When this stuff all first started not long after LP came back I viewed it as sisterly solidarity being pissed off with the treatment Gillard received as PM and us blokes on here were going to have to cop a bit of heat until it was out of your system.

    Jacques, I don’t think that there is a simple women/men divide here. When Julia Gillard got rolled I made my feelings on that very clear and have since repeated them once. They are in accord with the views articulated by Helen, Mindy, PavCat, Casey, Liz and others. I don’t feel I have to express them more when they are being capably articulated by others. The difference I have with them is that where they feel angry I feel sad, but it is about the same thing, the loss I feel we have had of an excellent prime minister with a solid record of achievement, who deserved better from her party and from politics in Australia.

  179. mindy

    *rain down*

    I would know and I have not said anything of the sort to Sam. In fact you are the only such recipient. Aren’t you the lucky one. Still I find it interesting that the women here saying such activities are taking place isn’t proof enough for you. Almost as if you believe that we are all engaged in a collective illusion. It is almost like there is a huge veil of privilege over our eyes that doesn’t allow us to see things that don’t directly affect us or something.

    Sam’s behaviour was rude. Yet it must be let past because he was rude to someone who was rude to you once. Once.

  180. tigtog

    Jacques, let me just repeat my comment upthread which you have ignored in your haste to snipe at Mindy. I’ll bold it for you this time, and then perhaps you’ll actually engage with it.

    If Sam had noted his error without explicitly apologising to Brian only, or without actually apologising at all, then he wouldn’t be getting this stick. Nobody asked him for an apology initially, they just disputed his claim.

    Sam chose to make his self-correction include an apology, so obviously Sam thought an apology was owed, but apparently only to Brian. Our point is that if Sam felt he owed Brian an apology, then why didn’t he also feel that he owed Mindy one?

    Repeating with handy numbers now the sequence of events:
    1. Mindy made a statement of fact about Kim Carr being in the ministry.
    2. Sam made a counter-statement that she was mistaken regarding this fact.
    3. Brian asked whether Sam was perhaps confusing Kim Carr with Bob Carr.
    3a. Up until this point nobody had asked Sam to apologise for anything.
    4. Sam acknowledged that his assertion had been counterfactual.
    5. Sam apologised to Brian only for getting this fact wrong, even though the simple acknowledgement would have been sufficient, since nobody had asked him to apologise.
    6. Seeing that Sam had decided to apologise anyway to Brian for making an error of fact, several people wondered why he didn’t think Mindy also deserved an apology, since surely either both did or neither.

    We are dinging Sam for a bleeding obvious double standard here in his engagement over Mindy’s statement of fact in which she was correct and he asserted that she was wrong. This isn’t just a matter of a difference of opinion, this is a matter of fact, albeit a trivial fact. Sam could have just acknowledged his error with a simple ‘Oops’ and never brought an apology into the interaction at all. But he did, didn’t he?

  181. Liz

    Jesus wept. How clearly do I need to explain it to you?

    1. Mindy makes a statement about Kim Carr.
    2. Sam says she’s wrong.
    3. Brian points out Mindy is correct.
    4. Sam apologises to Brian, even though it was Mindy who made the statement and, therefore that’s who Sam should apologise to.
    5. Therefore Sam is ignoring Mindy.
    6. Several people point out Sam should be apologising to Mindy, not Brian.
    7. Several people also note that women’s writing is often ignored at LP.
    NB. The reason apologising is being discussed, is because Sam apologised.

    You’ve then managed to ignore and misread just about everything a woman has said to you hear.

  182. Liz

    Tigtog, I’ve written almost exactly the same thing as you, at almost exactly the same time. It’s the feminist hivemind.

  183. tigtog

    Liz, we crossposted! Our list is eerily similar – I guess that’s what happens when one pays attention.

  184. tigtog

    After our last effort, I hereby make the only possible response:

    🙂

  185. Liz

    Eeeek!

  186. PavCat

    *more raining*

    Jacques, you are a sooky la la. And you are losing.

  187. Jacques de Molay

    We are dinging Sam for a bleeding obvious double standard here in his engagement over Mindy’s statement of fact in which she was correct and he asserted that she was wrong. This isn’t just a matter of a difference of opinion, this is a matter of fact, albeit a trivial fact. Sam could have just acknowledged his error with a simple ‘Oops’ and never brought an apology into the interaction at all. But he did, didn’t he?

    Yes, I’m very much aware of the double standards around here! I also said I thought the howls of derision over something so minor/trivial were quite unseemly.

  188. Jacques de Molay

    Jesus wept. How clearly do I need to explain it to you?

    1. Mindy makes a statement about Kim Carr.
    2. Sam says she’s wrong.
    3. Brian points out Mindy is correct.
    4. Sam apologises to Brian, even though it was Mindy who made the statement and, therefore that’s who Sam should apologise to.
    5. Therefore Sam is ignoring Mindy.
    6. Several people point out Sam should be apologising to Mindy, not Brian.
    7. Several people also note that women’s writing is often ignored at LP.
    NB. The reason apologising is being discussed, is because Sam apologised.

    You’ve then managed to ignore and misread just about everything a woman has said to you hear.

    This sounds like womansplaining?

    And as Mindy saw fit to do to me

    *here*

  189. Jacques de Molay

    [redacted]

  190. Too Cool to Fight Feminist Ozblogger

    And now for a rousing chorus of Kum bay yah!

    And some cuddles 🙂

  191. tigtog

    JdM, it’s not about whether folks read every word one of us ever writes. Obviously nobody is here all the time, although when a stoush about a matter of fact is happening it behooves people to read back and see what actually happened rather than jumping in with a bunch of assumptions.

    It’s about whether some folks repeatedly respond only to others when women have made the same points earlier in exactly the same thread that those folks have been engaging in. Whether some folks repeatedly engage in double standards when engaging with women in various other ways. Whether some folks can’t let go of someone getting stroppy with them once in eight years and choose to harp on that over and over again instead of looking at what is happening here and now and weighing it upon its separate merits.

  192. Jacques de Molay

    TCtFFO, the cuddles come later 😉

  193. mindy

    As much fun as this has been I must now go and give some weeds one of my ‘lively’ posts and buy some milk. Sorry I won’t be here for the Kum Bay Yah TCTFFOB but rest assured it will accompany me as an ear worm. Perhaps that might remind me to buy some more headphones for the iPod. Silver lining!

  194. Jacques de Molay

    I’m in moderation now and had that response to PC’s baiting deleted.

    Very nice.

    The rank double standards here continue.

    A number of you should be ashamed for what you’ve done to this blog since it came back, intentionally [imputed motives in breach of comments policy redacted ~ mods]

    Yet another bloke run off of the blog.

  195. Liz

    I just give a bemused arch of an eyebrow.

  196. Mindy

    That sounds much easier Liz, is it effective? (yes I’m going, I’m going)

  197. Liz

    It always works for me.

  198. Sam

    I see that I’ve started a shit storm. Just to be clear, I wasn’t selectively apologising to Brian and not Mindy. I didn’t apologise to anybody. All I did in my response to Brian was acknowledge my error.

    However, since I was rude to Mindy by writing “Doh!” in pointing out her supposed error about Kim Carr, which was in fact my error, I apologise to Mindy, sincerely and without qualification.

  199. PavCat

    Yet another bloke run off of the blog.

    As distinct from all those women who haven’t been driven away in frustration, sorrow or disgust.

  200. tigtog

    Sam, “my bad” is normally considered to be an apology (“sorry” actually only means that one feels sorrow, and on its own does not express an apology, which is why we also use it to express condolences and other sympathies), and you offered it only to Brian. If you’d only addresssed that comment to “Brian and Mindy”, then the “shit storm” would not have happened.

    However, I for one appreciate it greatly that you have offered an unqualified apology to Mindy now, although of course it’s not my place to accept it on her behalf. Perhaps the apology best belongs on the thread where it was directly asked for, since the direction to Overflow was in order to contain the derail following JdM’s threadjacking.

  201. jungney

    Love the new name of the thread. I’m sure I’m not too late! It’s been highly educational, my thanks to all parties. It appears to me that there is at hand an active reworking of the principles of respect.

    That’s a fine project.

    I’m a bit of an animal lib person, myself, and would welcome the expansion of a discussion about respect the day that it includes all sentient beings. In the meantime, this dialogue has been a good start.

  202. mindy

    Thanks Sam much appreciated.

  203. Casey

    I suppose you all want to know how the coven runz menz off the blog eh? Cackle. Well, first I must say we are everything in your worst dreams menz. It is true that we meet on another coven on the internet and do spells in weird outfits. We go like this ( I could be the one singing and Mindy could be the one in red. Of course given that Mindy could be me, I could also be the one in red and Mindy could be the one singing. Pav is most defo Nancy Sinatra singing and she is also the one in green and the Liz is all the witchez in pink – she’s legion, don’t mess with her). Are you Ready?

  204. Casey

    Laydeez, I put it to you that we are almost good enough to go on Dancing with the Stars. Screw this gig. Let’s go be stars on Channel 7.

  205. Mindy

    Don’t make me sing. The RSPCA will be onto us for being nasty to cats.

  206. desipis

    [email protected]:

    However, since I was rude to Mindy by writing “Doh!” in pointing out her supposed error about Kim Carr, which was in fact my error, I apologise to Mindy…

    You’ve managed to frame your apology in terms relating to one of the few calls for an apology by man (based on the d’oh), effectively ‘ignoring’ all the calls by women to apologise (based on apologising to the wrong person). If I didn’t actually believe your apology was genuine, I’d give you a 9/10 for trolling.

  207. Liz

    So, Nicola Roxon just gave the John Button Lecture and really let loose on Rudd. I think the entire Labor Party has got PTSD.

    She confirmed that Rudd was the one doing the leaking. So, now the list of ex Parliamentarians who has said that includes Roxon, Combet, Smith and Emerson. Is anyone still going to that they wouldn’t know? The killer line was that removing Rudd was an act of political bastardry, but it happened because he was a total bastard. The mistake was not telling him and everyone else the truth at the time.

    He also referred to Kristina Kenneally as Bambi. But, he wouldn’t be a little bit sexist himself, would he?

  208. FDB

    Bambi was a dude.

  209. desipis

    So, now the list of ex Parliamentarians who has said that includes Roxon, Combet, Smith and Emerson.

    All who have publicly supported Gillard over Rudd in the past and hence can’t be considered an unbiased collection of sources.

  210. PavCat

    Bambi was indeed a dude. Perhaps this was one of Kevin’s strange near-miss locutions (suck, sauce bottle etc) and what he really meant was ‘Barbie’.

  211. Mindy

    Huh, Bambi was a dude. Of course he was. But when I think of Bambi I tend to think of well endowed blonde ladies in teeny tiny bikini tops who make a living out of pretending that they aren’t very smart. I suspect, but obviously do not know, that Rudd’s thinking ran along the same lines.

  212. Casey

    Well, Maxine McKew has just slammed his crazy campaign and she was a great supporter. Looks like the scales are finally falling all round.

  213. FDB

    Oh doubtless his intention was to deride Kenneally as a clueless bimbo, and yes I suspect if the quote’s accurate he was asumming, as many do, that Bambi was a sheila. Or looking for a combination of Barbie and Bimbo.

  214. Ambigulous

    Nicola Roxon’s lecture is well worth reading in full. It includes examples of Kevin Rudd’s rudeness being not only personally hurtful, but politically damaging (to his Govt.) also.

    She reports lengthy avoidance of decision-making, sometimes. At other times, rushed (hence flawed) decisions. Maxine McKew’s comments tally in some instances.

    Nicola says she won’t be writing a book; pity, but the lecture is meaty.

  215. Ambigulous

    One example of rudeness falling flat was his icily ignoring Premier Kenneally, who later “ran rings around him” in hospital funding negotiations.

    Some Bambi!
    Some “bimbo”!

  216. Chris

    tigtog @ 200 – interestingly my interpretation of “sorry” and “my bad” is the exact opposite of yours. “sorry” normally being a pretty clear apology and “my bad” as a declaration of being wrong, but not necessarily an apology. Thus you get the comments about “its not your fault” when people say sorry to someone else when something bad happens to them that isn’t their fault.

    As for people getting replied to selectively I think part of the issue is lack of threading within topic threads. So a lot of people “reply” to the most recent relevant statement rather than the first person to make the comment. And lots of comments simply get “lost” because people only read the last few recent comments on a thread.

    Also re: people not responding to comments made to them – I’m definitely guilty of that at times. I read/comment here a bit randomly – sometimes a lot in a short period of time and then I just disappear because I get busy IRL. It used to be a lot easier to catch up later when the recent comments bar listed the recent comment by thread rather than just the recent comment by time like it is now where an active thread can quickly mean that you don’t see when there has been a recent comment on a thread. I understand that feature was removed because it put a lot of load on the db, but I think its probably still a source of frustration at being ignored.

  217. tigtog

    Chris, I do get that people drop in and out, but when one decides to take issue with what is the latest comment in a subthread gone stoushy a while since, then reading back to the beginning is part of good lurkerdom.

    With regard to the semantics, how do you square that with the convention of people saying “sorry” when they first hear that someone has died? Are they all apologising? Or are they sympathising? Sorry = Sorrow, that’s the long and short of it. That expressing sorrow has become *one* of the components of an apology does not make it the primary component. Accepting contrition (and the concomitant responsibility) is still the primary component.

    I’ll grant that “my bad” is a formulation that saves face by avoiding saying “sorry”, but that doesn’t mean it’s not an expression of contrition, and that is the essence of an apology.

  218. Russell

    Macquarie lists meanings of ‘sorry’ … No. 6 is:

    “6. (a conventional form of apology for injury or inconvenience caused.)”

    Oxford, under ‘bad’ has:

    4.colloq. (orig. U.S. Sport). With possessive: a person’s fault; responsibility for a mistake, blunder, etc. Originally and chiefly in, my bad

  219. Chris

    With regard to the semantics, how do you square that with the convention of people saying “sorry” when they first hear that someone has died? Are they all apologising?

    Well there’s probably a bit of context there too, but as I said above, in my experience a “sorry” is sometimes responded to by saying “oh, but its not your fault” because people do see “sorry” as being an apology. Perhaps why people now often say “my condolonces” instead of sorry. Anyway I would agree that both terms are often not clear cut was more expressing what my first interpretation of someone saying those terms would be.

    Chris, I do get that people drop in and out, but when one decides to take issue with what is the latest comment in a subthread gone stoushy a while since, then reading back to the beginning is part of good lurkerdom.

    Probably a good thing to do, but often not done. And these cases of missing attribution to the first person, or saying something that someone already said often come out of situations where a thread is not stoushy. It’s the result of a bit of slackness, briefly scanning comments etc. I’m also guilty of accidentally responding to comments in browser windows which loaded quite a while ago and end up saying something that someone else already did. Looks like I just ignored them, but in reality just forgot to hit reload and re-read first because I thought the tab was refreshed earlier than I thought.

  220. Brian

    FWIW I didn’t perceive Sam’s response to me as an apology, rather as an acknowledgement that he was wrong and I was right. As was Mindy. Acknowledging Mindy at that point would have been appropriate and courteous and there is no doubt that failing to register what women say is a problem experienced quite commonly.

    I think I’ve said before that one of my senior female staff back in the 1980s told me about this in the context of committee meetings where sometimes the minutes would attribute one of her ideas or suggestions to a man. And sometimes her suggestions were ignored until repeated by a man a few minutes later.

    Sam at the time provided the list of Shorten’s ministry I was seeking, for which I thank him.

    “Doh!” was rude. Sam’s initial smart arse response was not put in the trash can by me, in case anyone was wondering. I first saw it in the trash can.

  221. Brian

    For tidiness, can we take further discussion about the Roxon lecture to Saturday Salon, please? I think it starts here.

  222. Brian

    The Cat Herding Cabal has closed the previous Saturday Salon. I’m truly sorry to bring this item forward and I’m hoping this is the right place.

    desipis @ 106 is of course right.

    Leaking against your own party during an election is not just a dog act. It deserves expulsion from the ALP. Hence forensic standards of proof are required. In this case the alleged involvement of Rudd falls well short of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. IMO it also falls short of ‘on the balance of probabilities’, but all I’m arguing for is a suspension of judgement. To simply assert “of course he did it” is both unwarranted and improper, but for Kerry-Anne Walsh it is the central fact she bases her book on (see pp 15-16). After reading the book I made the note that W has a visceral hatred of Rudd which makes her not credible in reporting his motivations. Much of the book is written in the tone of a sneer. In 2010 she wasn’t keeping a diary, so in reporting the events of 2010 as a background for her story she should be held to the standards of an historian. She reports with a sneer Rudd’s own account of his motivation (to Hartcher), then asserts with a sneer that he’s wrong, in essence calling him a liar and a hypocrite and his religion a shallow mockery.

    To go over the opportunity and motivation for one last time.

    Katz @ 107:

    Katz @ 47, if you ask who benefits the answer is Abbott.

    Brian, I trust you are not seriously asserting that a Liberal politician was dishing secret Labor dirt.

    The leak that mattered was the one from Cabinet asserting the Gillard had opposed an increase in the age pension and parental leave. Of course it wasn’t a Liberal politician. More likely someone who wanted Abbott to win. I’ve said several times I had been given information that it was someone from the public service. Apart from cabinet ministers there would be some support staff present. Also political staffers and senior public servants would be briefed on what happens in cabinet.

    I’m ruling out Lindsay Tanner at this stage because I’ve read a credible account that he was very upset at the suggestion, but didn’t comment because it would have been taken as evidence of the reverse of whatever he said.

    So the likeliest are a Rudd staffer, quite possibly former by then, having lost their job with his demise, or a public servant. I’ve been advised the latter.

    If it was a someone close to Rudd, I think there’s a less than 50% chance that Rudd knew about it beforehand.

    Rudd says his motivation was to do what he could within the resources available to him for the country and to prevent Abbott from becoming PM. He said then that he was coping fine, that you pick yourself up and learn from what went wrong.

    He said recently, Q&A I think, that it wasn’t the biggest shock he’d had in his life. The biggest was not being elected when he first ran (1996?). Certainly I think one can say he had a low opinion of Gillard as a person and as a politician, but to say that he lusted after revenge to the point where he would act to see her defeated by Abbott is a big call and needs better evidence than supposition and hearsay.

    Can we move on now? I don’t want to spend any more time on this and am happy to leave it to the historians.

  223. Katz

    Brian, that’s a reasonable tour d’horizon of possibilities.

    My reservations are:

    1. Your “information” from an undisclosed source might be mere suspicion, idle speculation or even disinformation.

    2. Rudd’s statements about his own state of mind may or may not be accurate or sincere.

    But as you say, absent positive evidence, which may or may not be available to future historians, it would be reckless to make absolute assertions of guilt.

  224. Paul Norton

    My intuition at the time was that the leak was the work of a Ruddy staffer as it smacked of the kind of superficially clever act of vengeance that would appeal to someone with the mentality and time horizonn of a Labor student politician.

  225. Paul Norton

    Rudd staffer.

  226. Brian

    Katz, I accept and share your reservations.

    Paul N, ignoring what I was told, which I thought at the time was a reasonable source, but already at one remove, I’d agree that a Rudd staffer seems likely.

    Rudd may also know who did it but unlikely before the event.

  227. Su

    Rudd may also know who did it but unlikely before the event.

    What?

    That’s just ridiculous.

    It never ceases to amaze me how people go on giving Rudd not just the benefit of the doubt, but absolving him of all responsibility for anything.
    backing down on CPRS- Gillard’s fault.
    Behaving abusively- why didn’t his colleagues counsel and support him better.
    Bottleneck to decision making- see above
    Colluding with Bishop over “Bougainville/Bouganville – silence.
    Turning deterrence up to the max- Realpolitik/go Rudd/ enthusiastic support on grounds of Islamic terrorism and gawdawful knows what all else.
    Bracks/Carr/Faulkner report- plausible deniability ( but note that that report very clearly talked of the leaks (including the counter leaks )as deliberate and continual,not whoops bad staffer

  228. Su

    Oops my computer just decided to post that unedited comment without my bleeding consent. It’s one of a number I compose and then usually bin thinking, there’s no point beating my head against a brick wall.

  229. Liz

    It’s clear enough what you meant, Su. This is what I find weird. There’s a large amount of evidence from various sources saying Rudd was the leaker. No Rudd supporter has denied it, which I find interesting.

    Yet, someone in the public service tells Brian it was someone in the public service and that vague claim has more credibility? Remember we’re talking Roxon, Combet, Smith, Emerson choosing to put their reputation on the line by making a specific claim, which no-one at all from within the ALP or the media has rejected. Rudd hasn’t claimed otherwise and its his reputation on the line. On the balance of probabilities that looks about right.

  230. Casey

    Well, when history is written, I do suspect they will be quoting Roxon, Combet, Smith, and Emerson and *not* Brian, somehow.

  231. Chris

    Remember we’re talking Roxon, Combet, Smith, Emerson choosing to put their reputation on the line by making a specific claim, which no-one at all from within the ALP or the media has rejected. Rudd hasn’t claimed otherwise and its his reputation on the line. On the balance of probabilities that looks about right.

    I thought that Rudd has denied being the source of the leak in the past? He and his supporters are being very quiet now, but then if he did respond he’d get criticised for that too and it would be more evidence for those that don’t want him in parliament that his continued presence is destablisizing.

    Though perhaps there still will be an all out Rudd/Gillard war again. After Roxon’s speech Senator Crossin has threatened to go public about Gillard’s behaviour http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/dumped-senator-trish-crossin-hints-at-julia-gillards-shocking-behaviour-20131017-2vpqy.html

  232. Katz

    Su, do you think that all “people” who are not convinced that Rudd initiated the leaks in question are also prepared to absolve Rudd of all his misdeeds?

  233. Russell

    Does it matter so much if Rudd was the source? What matters, if he wasn’t, is that he used it to his advantage and the party’s disadvantage, over a period of time. There is no doubt that his games with the media destabilised the government – that alone is enough treachery to see him asked to leave.

  234. Katz

    Russell, I’m not completely au fait with what is required to boot a sitting parliamentarian out of the ALP.

    But I imagine that it is not easy, nor would a very large number of ALP members and movers and shakers be comfortable with inflicting that procedure on an ex PM.

    In short, the cure is highly likely to have been worse than the disease.

  235. Russell

    “nor would a very large number of ALP members and movers and shakers be comfortable ..”

    Katz, I don’t know how many are comfortable with him remaining, but it must be a substantial number – look how many former ministers have left in disgust, presumably they represent a body of opinion. As long as Rudd is around, the memories of the whole nasty business will be kept fresh and this debate will go on.

  236. Chris

    Russell – let’s just assume for a moment that Rudd is a bastard (much more a bastard than is commonly found in a parliament anyway). He’s also been in the ALP for a long time at the highest levels of the party so I think we can fairly confidently assume that he knows a lot of stuff the party would prefer would not be public. Now there is an idea to force him to resign from the ALP.

    So I ask do you think if he is such a bastard as is claimed do you think there might be an unintended consequence of doing so? We’re back to 2010 and the decision to remove him as PM in the first place – the failure to consider the full impact of what they were about to do.

  237. PavCat

    The fact that Kerry-Anne Walsh’s book is written in a tone of increasing incredulity and disgust, and the fact that is does not claim to be either impartial or, generically, history (and I’m sorry, Brian, but I think your argument about her being ‘held to the standards of a historian’ because she wasn’t keeping a diary in 2010 is a real stretch; I take it you are referring to the brief ‘Prelude’ on pp 1-9, since the diary begins immediately after that) does not cancel out the fact that it is rich in demonstrable evidence and examples of Rudd’s undermining behaviour, particularly in relation to the media. If Brian is right and she has a visceral hatred of Rudd, to me the most interesting question is this: what caused it? You don’t just wake up one morning in a state of visceral hatred.

  238. Katz

    Well, Well, when history is written, I do suspect they will be quoting Roxon, Combet, Smith, and Emerson and *not* Brian, somehow.>when history is written, I do suspect they will be quoting Roxon, Combet, Smith, and Emerson and *not* Brian, somehow.

    It is indeed unlikely that Brian will be quoted. However, it is more likely that future historians will replicate Brian’s sceptical methodology rather than to accept uncritically assertions of partisans.

  239. Casey

    Sceptical methodology?

    Someone told Brian something but we don’t know who that is is hardly presenting as “sceptical methodology”. More like “gossip”, if you ask me. This is not to disparage Brian. Perhaps this source is impeccable, but Brian cannot say who that is. Perhaps if Brian is prepared to say who that is, he can still all the disbelieving voices in an instant, disbelieving voices who still cannot understand how he is discounting a wealth of evidence in favour of someone who said something somewhere sometime.

    But Brian won’t say who it is and so, we can discount that source immediately and rely on those who are actually going on the record, and unlike Brian, were actually there.

  240. Katz

    Brian privileges neither his anonymous source nor the evidence-free assertions of partisans.

    Brian’s approach is the essence of scepticism.

    To privilege either would be the antithesis of scepticism.

  241. Casey

    Brian says:

    I’ve said several times I had been given information that it was someone from the public service.

    Katz says:

    My reservations are:

    1. Your “information” from an undisclosed source might be mere suspicion, idle speculation or even disinformation.

    Brian says:

    Katz, I accept and share your reservations.

    If Brian has reservations, he should really stop using it now because it’s obviously not a reliable source, even to him as evidenced by his acknowledgement that he shares your reservations. So instead of bringing this up in every comment he makes regarding the leak (and he does it all the time), perhaps he should stop using it and rely on what is on the public record. In that way we could see the essence of scepticism more crystally clearly.

    Brian may also want to consider that diaries are excellent sources of primary historical evidence. So Kerry Anne Walsh’s diary will also be of interest to historians as it was written as events unfolded. Diaries don’t have to be impartial to be of interest to historians. But they do join the wide array of sources that people draw on to get a larger picture.

    And certainly, I await Trish Crossin’s eyewitness account of Julia Gillard’s bastardry which will be coming out soon, too.

    So many many credible sources to rely on! Let’s lay Brian’s faceless man to rest, shall we?

  242. Katz

    “Larger pictures” are interesting in that they indicate how individuals and institutions fill in gaps in information to achieve emotionally satisfying answers.

    I myself was victim of such an emotionally satisfying falsehood when I believed that Menzies manipulated the Petrov Royal Commission in order to defeat Labor and to destroy Evatt.

    Robert Manne’s work proved that this version of the events was false. Initially I was disappointed. But I got over it.

    The truth was more complex and more interesting than the fantasy I had shared with most of the Australian Left.

  243. Casey

    “Larger pictures” are interesting in that they indicate how individuals and institutions fill in gaps in information to achieve emotionally satisfying answers.

    I don’t know. Perhaps I have a different idea of larger pictures. By wide array of sources, I mean the deep work of scholarship that surrenders surety.

  244. Brian

    Casey, I could strengthen my case considerably by telling you exactly what was said and greatly again by nominating who said it, but protecting sources is important. All I’m arguing for is doubt. Others are asserting certainty, and it is quite inappropriate.

    I don’t have time now, but tonight I’ll type out an extract from Cassidy’s book, written in 2010 by a journalist that has pretty good contacts, which shows shows that people at that stage didn’t have a clue as to the identity of the leaker, but had certain certainties based on supposition.

    BTW while we are here, Emerson, Smith et al are in no way putting their reputations on the line by asserting what a lot of others were supposing.

    No-one as far as I know has surveyed the views of the 30 people (according to Chris Uhlmann) who would have voted for Rudd had he contested.

    PC you are right, the passage I was quoting comes from the sackiversary chapter, where she quoted an article written mid-2011 by Harthcher and one from the Brisbane Times. These quotes from the press have great value and I learned a few things I didn’t know before.

    The problem is that Walsh interleaves the press stuff with a narrative/commentary that asserts facts and opinion. The stance she takes seems to align with the more paranoiac fears and suspicions of Gillard followers, which may or may not be justified. But in this sense it is not balanced or truth-seeking.

    But she appears to accept that Rudd started plotting Gillard’s overthrow within days of his demise and comes up with passages like this, which are quite divorced in any specific sense from the press coverage she is reporting:

    … those who know him know he hurts like hell. He watches, he waits, and he plots.

    When she covers “The Cardinals” in 2013 she identifies them as to who they are and as centered around Chris Bowen. But around mid 2011 she calls into being “Team Rudd” without identifying them or establishing that Rudd has anything to do with them. She identifies that Rudd gave some in depth interviews to Matthew Franklin, from memory, and then he went off to have open heart surgery. I’ve been there, done that. It’s a considerable physical and existential challenge and chances are Rudd wasn’t doing too much politicking. Of course he is an unusual and in many ways remarkable person, so I can’t infer from the general to the particular with any great confidence.

    A narrative that to me fits the facts better is that Rudd didn’t start any overt scheming until the end of 2011 when Gillard had rubbed him out of Labor history in her speech to the party conference, had given an unbelievably poor speech (Walsh asks, who penned this fluff?), generally failed in party reform and there was still a yawning gap in the 2PP polls. Frankly, however things came to this pass there was a case at the time for mounting a rescue mission to save the party. I’m not saying that’s what Rudd should have done. I would have liked to see him out of politics by then which would have given Gillard a clearer run at the job. All I’m saying is that as things worked out there were manifest reasons other than revenge for Rudd trying to regain the leadership. Then he was caught well short when Gillard pulled on a vote in Feb 2012.

    We’re talking here about what happened in the 2010 election and whether, at that time Rudd was plotting revenge on Gillard at the expense of losing the election and probably destroying the party. In my view Rudd isn’t that evil. His whole orientation is to do good in the world, and that through an electorally successful ALP.

    You have to put together a very strong case to demonstrate otherwise, one that meets forensic standards of evidence, or, alternatively, admits uncertainty. No-one has come close.

  245. PavCat

    The stance she takes seems to align with the more paranoiac fears and suspicions of Gillard followers

    Do you know, among all the verbiage that’s gone down over the last few years I don’t think I’ve ever before heard any form of the word ‘paranoid’ used to describe what you call ‘Gillard followers’, by which I assume you mean people who accept the evidence of Combet et al, who admire Gillard (despite the usual mistakes, failures and bad days that all politicians experience) and came to admire her more and more as she stayed calm and went on getting things done all through the ordeal to which she was subjected, and who are appalled by the daily ordure that was flung, from all directions, while she was in office. It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you, regardless of who ‘they’ are.

    That word ‘followers’ strikes me as having connotations of some sort of religious faith, but nothing could be further from the truth about the attitudes and feelings of most people who supported Gillard and were appalled by the way she was treated. Frankly I think ‘followers’ is a more appropriate word to use about Rudd supporters; his performance of charisma is much closer to the models of religious leaders, and the reaction of people who responded to it also mirrors religion-based effects.

    On the same note, I don’t think Rudd is ‘evil’ either (although that’s partly because I don’t find the discourse of the sacred — in which ‘evil’ is a key term — helpful in discussing human behaviour; I find the terms and concepts of anthropology and psychology more useful) and I would even be prepared to accept a toned-down version of your account of his motivations. I’m sure he thinks he did nothing wrong; I’m sure he thinks that even the ‘Boganville’ moment was justified.

  246. Liz

    I don’t know that anyone’s whole motivation is to do good in the world. That’s a rather Messianic attitude to take.

    Can you tell us where this paranoic attitude resides? It’s a very strange use of words. Combet, Smith, Emerson and Roxon were clear that Rudd leaked against Gillard. There was no ‘maybe’ or ‘probably’. There were definite statements. Do you think all four are telling lies about this?

  247. Casey

    Brian, you are backtracking and collapsing this “essence of scepticism” you got going. You can’t say this:

    Casey, I could strengthen my case considerably by telling you exactly what was said and greatly again by nominating who said it,

    After you’ve said this:

    Katz, I accept and share your reservations.

    in response to this from Katz:

    My reservations are:
    1. Your “information” from an undisclosed source might be mere suspicion, idle speculation or even disinformation.

    You to be giving different answers depending on who is asking you about it.

    And who are you referring to when you say followers of Gillard have paranoic fears? Which followers? In Caucus? On this Blog? Who are you talking about?

  248. Chris

    Combet, Smith, Emerson and Roxon were clear that Rudd leaked against Gillard. There was no ‘maybe’ or ‘probably’. There were definite statements. Do you think all four are telling lies about this?

    They have asserted that Rudd was responsible, but what evidence of this have they presented? I’ve probably missed stuff, but have any of them said:

    – they personally witnessed Rudd leaking this information to a reporter
    – a reporter disclosed to them that Rudd was the source of the leak
    – they have personally seen or heard any written/electronic/voice correspondence between Rudd and a reporter where he leaked information
    – they know and described specific pieces of information which was leaked that only Rudd knew (and not various staffers, public servants etc)

    Or are they making their conclusion based on the belief that they think Rudd was after Gillard, the leaks were damaging to Gillard and he knew the information (although he might not have been the only one to know). And that forms the basis of their conclusion.

    From the Utegate we know that there are public servants who are willing to leak against the ALP for LNP political advantage. Leaking damaging information against Gillard on the assumption that Rudd would get the blame is a lot more subtle, but would still have been an effective strategy.

  249. Liz

    No-one asked them those questions, Chris.

  250. Brian

    Casey, it’s about degrees of uncertainty. I trust my informant’s judgement about the quality of that person’s information (not saying which gender). But I have no way of knowing that what that person was told was 100% correct, or even disinformation. The full range is possible. But we can leave aside all that as you suggest, if you prefer.

    The main choices would be someone from the public service, someone from a political office of a minister, or a (probably former) Rudd staffer. Of all those I’d go for the latter, but it’s just a guess. No-one has claimed more direct and specific knowledge or put a claim forward in a way that is at all convincing.

    PC, I’ve heard some in Gillard’s office called paranoiac, but I don’t know what concrete information they were working on, so I’m not making that claim. To put it differently, on p1 of the Prelude Walsh says:

    Gillard allies say the Rudd started planning for his return to the prime ministership within days of the removalists stacking up the Rudd furniture and trappings and shifting them out of the Lodge.

    Walsh seems to buy into this position uncritically and without question. If it’s true it still doesn’t mean he would leak against her and his own party during the election.

  251. Chris

    No-one asked them those questions, Chris.

    I blame the media then 🙂 If they’re going to assert something so confidently, then some reporter should have asked them to present the evidence for their conclusion.

  252. Liz

    That’s fair comment, Chris.

  253. Katz

    Liz:

    No-one asked them those questions, Chris.

    If this is true, then it is an indictment of the media.

  254. PavCat

    Walsh seems to buy into this position uncritically and without question. If it’s true it still doesn’t mean he would leak against her and his own party during the election.

    No it doesn’t, and you might note that I have very carefully not said that it does, because I don’t know for 100% sure and apparently nobody else does either. What does seem beyond doubt is that whoever dunnit, they dunnit to discredit and damage Gillard with a view to getting Rudd back into the Lodge, and what also seems beyond doubt is that there were all sorts of different white-anty activities apart from the actual leaks themselves, including that moment re ‘Boganville’ — a public collusion in Parliament with a member of the Opposition, and one designed to humiliate and mock the Prime Minister and leader of his own party — which any number of people saw and heard, and which the more I think about it makes me believe that Rudd is capable of anything at all.

  255. Katz

    Oh, c’mon. Here is a report of the Boganville incident:

    ”Will the foreign minister,” mischievously asked Julie Bishop, ”advise the House when he intends to return to Bogan-ville?”
    That, at least, was the way most MPs, merrily slapping their thighs, chose to interpret Ms Bishop’s question to Kevin Rudd.
    Boganville is Kevin’s naughty private name for The Lodge now that it is occupied by Julia and Tim.

    For those who have lived under a cultural rock over recent decades, the Macquarie Dictionary helpfully offers a definition of bogan: a person who is not ”with it” in terms of behaviour and appearance, and hence perceived as not being ”one of us”.
    It’s a limited definition: there are now large numbers of flannel-shirt-wearing, flag-waving, ute-driving, ugg-boot clad, mullet-coiffed and McMansion-residing westies who wear the bogan tag with pride.
    If the Prime Minister and her man are indeed inhabitants of Boganville, as Ms Bishop and Mr Rudd would have it, you’d have to conclude that bogans have got it made.
    Rudd, innocent as a wolf in lamb’s clothing in this week-long First Anniversary Festival of his decapitation, chose to feign that Ms Bishop’s question was about the peace process on the unhappy isle of Bougainville – a most delicate matter that ”must be brought to its proper conclusion”.
    ”That is why we should be very sensitive about any external interventions by well-meaning Australian politicians,” he added helpfully.

    There is no evidence of any collusion. It’s a deft dig at Gillard. But in the annals of parliamentary rudeness it hardly twitches the Geiger counter.

  256. PavCat

    Well, Katz, obviously you and I have very different values and standards.

    ‘Mischievously’? ‘Merrily’? ‘Naughty?’ ‘Deft dig’? Who wrote this bilge? More to the point, where does Kevin Rudd get off calling anyone else a bogan? And even more to the point, when was the last time you saw a politician indulging in ‘parliamentary rudeness’ by singing a malicious duet (if you don’t like ‘collusion’) with a member of the Opposition at the expense of his or her own Prime Minister?

  257. Helen

    “Hardly twitches the Geiger counter”?
    In that case, Katz, I’m sure you’ll be able to come out with not one but several worse examples of politicians publicly mocking and undermining members of their own party in parliament?

  258. Helen

    Heh, beat me to it Pav.

  259. Katz

    We’ll PavCat, do you have another account of these events?

    The above is by Tony Wright:

    http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politics/the-boganvillea-is-flowering-and-the-hats-are-on-the-kat-20110622-1gfcr.html

    I’m happy to accept “duet (impromptu)” as an apt description of this moment of blagging.

    Is Rudd peculiarly disqualified from calling anyone a bogan? Or is bogan a taboo word barred to everyone?

    Don’t mistake me for a Ruddite. We would be far better employed discussing other elements of Roxon’s we’ll documented denunciation of Rudd’s megalomania, control freakery and appalling people skills.

  260. Terry

    Amanda Bishop’s portrayal of Julia Gillard in “At Home With Julia” was premised upon exactly the same joke. Unfair? Probably, but it was hardly unique at the time. Indeed, Mark Scott had to defend the idea that “At Home With Julia” was funny in Senate Estimates that year (2011).

  261. paul burns

    I’m sure Mark Scott had to defend At Home With Julia. Not only was it not funny, it was one of the most badly written and badly acted shows the ABC had produced for decades. And it lacked any satiric flair.

  262. Liz

    Katz and Terry, you’d have to be joking. You have a Labor MP making a joke about the PM’s private life and chortling along with the Opposition. It’s entirely obnoxious.

    It’s also entirely obnoxious that the ABC made a very tedious tv series using the same unfunny trope. What sort of person thinks that calling someone a ‘bogan’ is funny? Such crass snobbery. Imagine Kevin and Therese had been portrayed as money obsessed religious fanatics. Unfair? Of course. That’s my point.

  263. PavCat

    Katz: yes, actually ‘bogan’ is a bloody offensive term, especially when used by someone who is supposed as a Labor politician to be a man of the people and a supporter of the underprivileged. And if being a bogan is a matter of family background or personal presentation or some combination of the two, then for the life of me it seems to me that Rudd is at least as much of a bogan as his nemesis and should be careful about throwing the expression around. And if you think ‘we’ would be ‘far better employed discussing other things’ then do by all means carry on. You start.

    We’ll PavCat, do you have another account of these events?
    The above is by Tony Wright.

    Tony Wright, as far as I can see, has some sort of brief to keep it ‘light’ and ‘wry’. Sometimes he’s funny, more often he’s not because he’s trying so hard, and like most of the journos, many of whom resented Gillard because she didn’t drip-feed and she didn’t have much patience with idiot questions, he was more often pro-Rudd and anti-Gillard than the other way round. This doesn’t mean his account is factually inaccurate, just that it makes light of what is to me extremely low and nasty behaviour. The alternative account I have to offer is from Kerry-Anne Walsh, who may likewise use connotative language, albeit in the other direction, but whose account of what actually happened tallies pretty exactly with Wright’s:

    Opposition Foreign spokeswoman Julie Bishop rises to her feet and directs a question to Rudd about Australian diplomatic relations with East Timor, PNG and Malaysia in the wake of Labor’s latest asylum seeker policy. Wild cheers erupt from the benches behind her; this will be fascinating. Rudd is happy to respond: he leans with lazy nonchalance on the despatch box as he extols the government’s policy, while the faces of ministerial colleagues behind him are grim.

    When Bishop winks at him and asks a supplementary question, inquiring when he’d be returning to Bougainville, he responds with deadpan delight: it is a most ‘sensitive’ issue that remains ‘contested territory’. It ‘must be brought to its proper conclusion’, he states, his back straight, eyes wandering to the public and press galleries. ‘That is why we should be very sensitive about any external interventions by well-meaning Australian politicians.’ The Opposition benches rock with glee at the obvious sub-text. Bishop’s question was no polite inquiry about Rudd’s travel plans: ‘Boganville’ is the former prime minister’s searing private put-down of The Lodge’s current inhabitants.

  264. Katz

    It may be obnoxious. In fact, it was obnoxious. It was also deft, unlike that lame ABC skit.

    Given that Rudd and Gillard were at that very moment waging an epic struggle of career destruction and reputation annihilation, it is surprising how deft it was.

    The obnoxiousness is a given in the “larger picture” of their struggle.

  265. Katz

    So Walsh uses “searing” whereas I use “deft”.

    I think that we could have swapped usages without doing inordinate violence to our arguments.

  266. Liz

    You think ‘deft ‘. I think ‘crass’.

  267. Chris

    It’s also entirely obnoxious that the ABC made a very tedious tv series using the same unfunny trope. What sort of person thinks that calling someone a ‘bogan’ is funny? Such crass snobbery.

    Apparently http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/upper-middle-bogan/ rated pretty well for the ABC recently. So “what sort of person” may well include quite a few ABC viewers.

  268. Katz

    But do you think “searing”?

  269. David Irving (no relation)

    Actually, Chris, I thought Upper-Middle Bogan was at least as tedious as At Home … – I didn’t watch more than a few minutes of either of them.

  270. Su

    A bit more than merely obnoxious, Rudd was acting against his own party, the opposition benches were in transports of delight and he just grinned at them across the floor for a good ten seconds while they laughed it up before answering. Prior to this, In February, Bishop was stringing him along about an overseas position under the LNP, talking up his talent in public comments, saying if he applied for a diplomatic posting she would consider it and mentioning that they’d forged a friendship (we have Wright to thank for this information). As soon as the LNP won the election she pulled the rug out from under his feet. He was comprehensively played.

    Nudge, nudge, wink,wink, “Boganville” is a ham-fisted classist pun broad enough for the trogs of the LNP back benches, but whatever floats your boat.

  271. PavCat

    But do you think “searing”?

    No. ‘Searing’ would be something that lasered in on some genuine weakness. Walsh may or may not be being sarcastic here. It’s sometimes hard to tell.

  272. Russell

    Gillard stresses her resilience, so she may not have been seared … yet, she wasn’t just called a bogan (tasteless trash) but said to have dragged the PM-ship down to that level – that the Lodge had become Bogan-ville – that may have disturbed her. Even a super-confident person may wonder about themselves after sitting in a chamber full of people (including on your own side) laughing at you for being a bogan thinking you could be a PM – it’s another shot in the ‘she’s illegitimate / not worthy of the position’ war.

  273. Katz

    Yes Russell. I’m fairly confident that Rudd was trying to cause the effects you have described. He did it deftly.

  274. Su

    He very deftly fell into the trap laid by the LNP, they knew that if the ALP changed leaders again they would make themselves a laughing stock, they gave him every assistance to replace Gillard, knowing that ultimately it was to their benefit.

  275. Katz

    Category error Su. You have mistaken the agents of Rudd’s return to leadership.

    The majority of the Labor caucus voted Rudd back into office. Maybe Rudd’s deft barb helped them to decide.

    As Russell noted, they enjoyed Rudd’s barb too.

  276. Su

    There’s a YouTube clip of the exchange, google able with the search terms Bishop, Boganville. The narrow view of the government benches do not show “enjoyment” to my mind. Did I say Bishop was the agent or did I say assistant? Read this article by Wright and tell me Bishop was not delightedly urging her temporary “friend ” on in his quest: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bishops-toast-to-diplomat-rudd-20130210-2e6m6.html

  277. mindy

    All of Labor caucus or just the Rudd supporters? Because of cause they would laugh. Doing damage to Gillard was more important to them then the damage they did to the party.

  278. Katz

    Mindy:

    All of Labor caucus or just the Rudd supporters? Because of cause they would laugh. Doing damage to Gillard was more important to them then the damage they did to the party.

    Yes. Rudd deftly mobilised that desire to his own advantage. In the end, a majority of the caucus bought into Rudd’s project.

  279. Su

    Never change, Katz; be it flexible ideation or dogged determination to get at least one fraction of a mangled hoof over the line ahead of everyone else, inimitable Katzenjammishness. Yes, Yes, very deft. Of course some people might see a strategy of jamming the wheels of the party chariot in order to leap into the driving seat as a slightly pyrrhic strategy. But we can all admire the momentary athleticism, even if chariot, horse and driver all end up in flames, or in the Tiber.

  280. mindy

    Yes they foolishly bought into the ‘Rudd will save us’ meme put about by Rudd and his cronies. That went will didn’t it.

  281. Chris

    Mindy @ 280 – actually that part did. The intent wasn’t ever really that they’d win under Rudd with such a late change (though some got rather excited initially with the poll bounce) but ensure that there wasn’t a huge landslide like was predicted.

  282. PavCat

    I’m going with Katz here on ‘deft’. Rudd did indeed deftly step into, and then deftly dance around in, the trap laid for him by Julie Bishop to put the full horror of the disintegrating state of federal Labor on display in front of the public and press galleries and the cameras. He showed the world very deftly that he cared more about scoring points off Gillard than he did about the fate of the party he was so desperate to lead again.

  283. PavCat

    I mean, come on. Surely it would have only been a ‘deft barb’ if it had borne even some remote relation to the truth. Katz, if you think it was a ‘deft barb’, could you elaborate on exactly what aspect(s) of Gillard’s persona you regard as boganish? And on what your own view is of the idea of soi-disant progressives doing anything other than distastefully rejecting the notion of the ‘bogan’ at all?

  284. Brian

    Last night when I logged on Ozblogistan was broken and it didn’t become unbroken until I was due to log off. With a bit of luck I’ll have another go tonight.

  285. Katz

    Don’t shoot the messenger, PavCat. That behaviour smacks of atavism.

    As a mere observer of past actions, my view of Gillard’s traits is immaterial.

    Rudd’s deftness did not depend upon convincing me. The audience that most immediately concerned Rudd were those sitting behind him when he launched his barb. And as Russell correctly noted above, many of them liked what they heard. Eventually a majority of them would vote Rudd back to the leadership. Perhaps some of these caucus members thought that Gillard exhibited bogan traits and that for whatever reason, whether reasonable or otherwise, decided that this perceived trait undermined her claims to effective leadership. Sometimes there is no accounting for how folks form an opinion.

    But thank you for declining to impute motives for the comments I have made.

  286. Katz

    And on a more general, semantic point.

    Conjurers are said to be deft if they can convince their audiences to see what isn’t there, or to fail to see what is there. When a conjurer fails to conceal the truth she is said to be clumsy, not deft.

    In other words, conjurers are deft insofar as they lie, not show the truth. In the same way, it can be said that Rudd deftly conjured an illusion about Gillard, to his own advantage and to the delight of most of his audience.

  287. Chris

    Actually, Chris, I thought Upper-Middle Bogan was at least as tedious as At Home … – I didn’t watch more than a few minutes of either of them.

    You might not have liked it, but apparently it did rate pretty well. Laughing at bogans is hardly a minority position, though upper middle bogan did have a bit of a laugh at those who look down on bogans as well ….

  288. Helen

    Katz @286, I’d say by that definition he wasn’t deft, as his laboured joke was noted and commented upon, not concealed successfully.

  289. paul burns

    On Upper Middle Bogan. The trailers were probably better than the show. I watched one episode about halfway through and didn’t laugh once. It just wasn’t funny.

  290. mindy

    Just got tomato sauce all over my shirt. I am a proud bogan. Bogan is a strange thing. I have seen a bloke dressed in singlet top, stubbie shorts and thongs with a mullet (with matching family) scornfully say to their wife ‘look at those effing bogans’ as a car drove past full of people similarly dressed. This was in about 2010 so the bogan is alive and well even if s/he doesn’t accept the label.

    Rudd might think he isn’t a bogan, but really he is. Cashed up, but still a bogan.

  291. Helen

    Fair suck of the sauce bottle, Mindy!

  292. adrian

    Humour’s a very personal thing of course, but I found it quite amusing if a little obvious. Certainly more funny than QandA, and it wasn’t really laughing at bogans, quite the opposite.
    As for Tractor Monkeys – worst show ever.

  293. adrian

    As for the Rudd/Gillard death match. Even I don’t care any more.

  294. Russell

    No, Rudd is not a bogan – he does not have bogan pre-occupations or tastes. An Australian Mandarin-speaking bogan? Doesn’t sound right does it?

    Gillard has more bogan elements – there’s the speech, of course; the football fan, the lack of wardrobe sophistication… (Now there you see a change over her time as PM: started off with no idea and ended up more or less perfect). But Gillard doesn’t fit neatly in the bogan category – her manners are too good, she doesn’t appear to like bling and she loves policy development.

  295. Casey

    I don’t know if people know this but PavCat won the Pascal prize for critic of the year in 2013 and this review reveals exactly why she won that, if you ask me:

    http://sydneyreviewofbooks.com/the-unseemly-splatter/

    (I am putting it here, not because it belongs on the thread of doom, but because this is where you all are right now talking about some of the things – most of the things in fact – that she deals with in this review).

  296. Nick

    Rudd and Gillard are loosely representative in their own way of the Australian bogeoisie.

    But they sure ain’t bogans.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoSEs_6mNrs

    I would’ve been impressed if she’d stood up and thonged him though.

  297. Nick

    PS I can stand about 3-4 mins of Housos, which ranks it well above the other bogan humour shows doing the rounds! There’s nothing deft about Australian TV scriptwriters, that’s for sure.

  298. Tim Macknay

    bogeoisie

    Heh!

  299. Helen

    Given the prevalence of “bogan” traits among the Australian bourgeoisie, maybe we should have another name for them? The bogueoisie (pronounced BoagWahSee) perhaps?

  300. Tim Macknay

    Sort of an update of ‘bunyip aristocracy’.

  301. Ambigulous

    Thanks for the tip, Casey @295. You are a thoroughly scholarly witch.

  302. Katz

    Australian comedy. Not deft .… daft.