Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard Schools the World on Misogyny

Posted by on Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard's 15-minute speech condemning Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's sexist statements and "repulsive double standards" was all over the internet yesterday, but if you (like me) didn't have time to check out the video, I suggest you make it a priority today. Here are some sample quotes from Gillard's fiery speech:

-"I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man, I will not. And the government will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. Not now, not ever. The leader of the opposition says that people who hold sexist views and who are misogynists are not appropriate for high office. Well, I hope the leader of the opposition has got a piece of paper and he is writing out his resignation. Because if he wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia, he doesn't need a motion in the house of representatives, he needs a mirror.

- "I was very offended personally the Leader of the Opposition said abortion is the easy way out."

- "I was offended when he stood next to a sign that described me as a 'man's bitch.'"

Again and again, Gillard uses Abbott's past misogynist statements to string him up and hang him. The speech is smart, damning, and damned incredible. Here's the video and you can read the whole transcript of it here.

Updated for Baconcat: Now if only Gillard would evolve her lazy, bigoted views on gay marriage...

 

Comments (26) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Here here!
Posted by Regina on October 10, 2012 at 9:17 AM · Report this
Baconcat 2
A few days ago she sat with him on the opposition front bench to help kill marriage equality 98-42. Honeymoon is over, I guess?
Posted by Baconcat on October 10, 2012 at 9:17 AM · Report this
3
This should go down as one of the great political speeches of all time.
Posted by Timothy http://www.moreperfect.org on October 10, 2012 at 9:21 AM · Report this
4
maybe obama will at least match her? Romney is lying out his ass. if obama wants to win this election, he needs to call romney out. next debate.
Posted by pussnboots on October 10, 2012 at 9:27 AM · Report this
Original Andrew 5
It's double-irony since she's an extremely hypocritical liar and anti-gay bigot.
Posted by Original Andrew on October 10, 2012 at 9:27 AM · Report this
Cienna Madrid 6
@2, @5, I don't know about double irony but you're right: That counts as a repulsive double standard.

(Still, the speech was incredible.)
Posted by Cienna Madrid on October 10, 2012 at 9:33 AM · Report this
Original Andrew 7
@ 6,

1) She won't stand for bigotry directed against her, but she enthusiastically and unreservedly supports bigotry against the GLBT community.

2) Her speech espouses the fundamental truth that everyone should have equal access to society regardless of sex, but she obviously doesn't believe that herself.

Crikey. How do you say "she's an equal opportunity asshole in Australian?"

Sheila's a hooziewoozle, she is.
Posted by Original Andrew on October 10, 2012 at 9:52 AM · Report this
8
@5 Exactly. Gillard is not exactly a god damned hero. This was another calculated back-stabbing by Gillard for which she is widely known. Everywhere but in the US, apparently.

@6 Did you know a single thing about her before posting this speech?
Posted by tkc on October 10, 2012 at 9:54 AM · Report this
9
She really did rip him a new asshole, though. I did appreciate that he mostly sat there and took it pretty stoically. Is that how to spell that word? It looks wrong, but "stoicly" looks wronger and gets a red underline. Stoically it is.
Posted by beef rallard on October 10, 2012 at 9:55 AM · Report this
Geraldo Riviera 10
“I’ve made my position clear - I do believe that in our society, with our heritage, with our traditions, with our history, that marriage has a special place and special definition,”

“I’ve made my position clear - I do believe that in our society, with our heritage, with our traditions, with our history, that women have a special place and special definition"
Posted by Geraldo Riviera on October 10, 2012 at 10:00 AM · Report this
11
Parliament seems like a full-on verbal brawl. I wonder where you get the training and experience to stand up and yell back into the catcalls like that? Might it have something to do with the whole English "Public School" experience?

I'm also wondering if that's what you need to take on a baldfaced liar like Romney. If so, I hope Obama finds him some.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on October 10, 2012 at 10:00 AM · Report this
kim in portland 12
Not to defend her, but she appears to be a little more complicated than "anti-gay". It is true that she voted against the marriage equality bill. It is also true that she refused to speak at a confence in Tasmania, because of the groups anti-gay (and likening same-sex relationships to pedophilia and bestiality). If I understand the situation there, the movement is to have the federal government recognize civil unions for all and leaving marriage as a religious choice. Tasmania (as a state) just put marriage equality to a vote and it did not pass, but unlike the US the issues were about ensuring that Tasmanian couples have their rights, responsibilities, privileges acknowledeged and protected outside of Tasmania.

Again I'm not defending her vote. The situation in Oz is different than here. Sixty- five percent of their polled population is in favor of equality. Australia does not suffer the religious right stranglehold that we do, but they do have growing issues with the Anglican church and an influx of new Aussies with cultural and religious traditions from their country of birth that are trying to shift the very secular traditions of the Australian government and culture.

By the way, it looks like South Australia will be the next state to vote on marriage equality. Plus, I wouldn't be surprised to see a marriage equality bill in the next few months or years before the federal government. While the bills presented in 2013 before the House and Senate both failed, the increase in support in favor from 2010's vote, is really encouraging.
Posted by kim in portland http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/11/fast-paced_video_provides_a_fu.html on October 10, 2012 at 10:11 AM · Report this
13
Jesus, Madrid, do you ever bother researching anyone or thing you write about???

Evidently not --- Gillard is a complete and total fraud and fraudster, you douchetard!
Posted by sgt_doom on October 10, 2012 at 10:15 AM · Report this
Pick1 15
@13 wait a second...was that a sgt_doom post under 500 words? What the hell is going on?
Posted by Pick1 on October 10, 2012 at 10:51 AM · Report this
16
@12
"Not to defend her, but she appears to be a little more complicated than "anti-gay"."

Oh. Come on. Who isn't "more complicated" than what ever base bigotry they hold? Fucking Stalin was "more complicated" than just pogroms and kangaroo courts.

She had a prime opportunity to do the right thing and she blew it to pander to bigots for more power and influence.
Posted by tkc on October 10, 2012 at 10:56 AM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 17
"Discrimination against my tribe is the worst thing that has ever existed, discrimination against that tribe over there is morally good, and socially necessary."
Posted by Theodore Gorath on October 10, 2012 at 11:00 AM · Report this
seandr 18
@6: I'm confused - this impassioned speech against misogyny was given in defense of a misogynist.

I suppose it's an "incredible" speech, if by "incredible" you mean "unbelievable".
Posted by seandr on October 10, 2012 at 11:10 AM · Report this
kim in portland 19
@ 16,

If by "right thing" you mean voting yes, so that the final vote would have been 97-43. I agree with you. And, I am too uneducated about Australian politics to know if she was obligated to follow the party line or cooperate with a coalition. I do know that some who voted against, voted as their coalition demanded and not necessarily what they personally support. And, some were absent at the vote to avoid conflict within their party and/or coalition. Some coalitions allow voting conscience against the official position without threat of expulsion and others do not.
Posted by kim in portland http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/11/fast-paced_video_provides_a_fu.html on October 10, 2012 at 11:27 AM · Report this
ScrawnyKayaker 20
@4 Yes, let's all hold our breath. Maybe he'll indict some banksters or Dick Cheney in the next four weeks, too.
Posted by ScrawnyKayaker on October 10, 2012 at 11:54 AM · Report this
Pick1 21
Two things:

First, was I the only one that really loved the "Hear! Hear!"s shouted in the background? I don't know what it is but it's just great and I need to hear it more.

Secondly, I thought it was more of a speech on hypocrisy than misogyny/sexism. The point which she summed up at the end was that douchenozzle mcshitstain was asking for a motion that would throw himself out on his ass as well.

Calling a hypocrite a hypocrite while being a hypocrite isn't great (especially while defending a misogynist against a misogynist) but as far as coming out on top of a losing argument, that was pretty finely crafted.

And to people that have bitched at Cienna for reporting this, I hadn't seen it and I'm glad I have now. So, thanks Slog?

Even if you aren't "real" journalists or something.
Posted by Pick1 on October 10, 2012 at 11:54 AM · Report this
blip 22
I wish I had known this woman hates gay people before I enjoyed her blistering rant against a raging misogynist. Like all humans, I am incapable of enjoying the content of a speech in an isolated context while also disagreeing with the speaker on a tangentially related issue. Our feeble brains are just not capable of handling the slightest bit of nuance like that. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go sharpen my pitchfork.
Posted by blip on October 10, 2012 at 12:28 PM · Report this
23
The thing that really bothers me about her and her government's opposition to gay marriage was that for quite a while they even prevented Australians living in the US from getting the documents they needed to get married in New York . She wasn't content with keeping Australians from getting married at home--she prevented them from getting married abroad as well. Nice speech, though.
Posted by Joe Glibmoron on October 10, 2012 at 3:15 PM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 24
Australians confuse me.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on October 10, 2012 at 3:48 PM · Report this
26
For whatever reason, gay marriage isn't as big an issue in Australia compared to the US. It certainly isn't the litmus test on left/right as it is in the US. I don't particularly like Gillard, but as she is an unmarried atheist whose boyfriend is a hairdresser, I sincerely doubt she hates gay people, or privately thinks gay marriage is a bad idea. Of course it is disappointing that she doesn't publically support it, but Obama (who everyone on slog is eager to get re-elected) only came out in support of gay marriage very recently after essentially being forced into it by his vice.

As for Slipper. She is hardly defending him. The most support she gives is to say he isn't any worse than plenty of other people in parliament. Naturally it is all politics. With the last election, neither party got a majority, and while Labor got enough support to form a government, they have always been very vulnerable. Both sides have kept politicians around when in the past they would have kicked them out and arranged a by-election. It is undoubtable that if Slipper was still a Liberal member, Abbott would have supported him, and Gillard attacked him.

Anyway, as I said above, I don't particularly like Gillard, but she is several orders of magnitude better than Abbott. Australian politics is mercifully light on religious nutbags, but Abbott is one of the few.
Posted by blibbler on October 10, 2012 at 7:01 PM · Report this
27
@19 Unfortunately, she could not use the "party line" as an excuse, as leader she could set the party line, and even so, for this vote, Labor members were given a consience vote. The Liberals did not allow their members a consience vote - they were all required to vote against the legislation. Given how tight the numbers are, there was essentially no way the law would pass.
Posted by blibbler on October 10, 2012 at 7:11 PM · Report this
kim in portland 28
@ 27,

Thank you. And, I found your opinion that Gillard is several orders of magnitude better than Abbott to be very common amongst all the friendly Aussies that I have been fortunate to meet.

Kind regards,
kim
Posted by kim in portland http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/11/fast-paced_video_provides_a_fu.html on October 10, 2012 at 7:35 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy