Showing posts with label men and women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label men and women. Show all posts
May 15, 2016
Men and Women are Completely Different
It is obvious that men and women are completely different.
For instance, women love dressing up and reading horoscopes, and men love drinking beer and watching sports. But there are many other ways that men and women are different, and all of them are scientific fact.
The below well-known examples prove beyond doubt that men and women are very different.
Jul 4, 2015
When men piss me off with their art
This is a ranty post. It's also not entirely serious, but it is a little bit serious, because the things I mention really did/do annoy me, though probably not all to the degree I'm presenting them here. I'm exaggerating a little to make my point. It's just for fun :)
You won't get any argument from me that most great artists are men. You will get an argument from me if you try and say that's because men are better than women at art, but that's another story.
(The pram in the hall - I'm just saying).
Anyway, as there is so much great art, high and low, produced by so many talented men, I have been a big fan of a number of talented men all my life. And when you're a huge fan of someone with huge talent, it is easy to assume that that person is also a wonderful human being who you would personally like and admire in the flesh, and that they generally see the world the same way you do, because after all, don't you both agree on what makes awesome art??
So it is a shock when these artists disappoint you. You might find out they might not be nice people (Terence Howard - you disappointed me greatly, sir). Or, as is equally jarring, an artist you love suddenly produces something that pisses you off!
I LOVE Gordon Lightfoot. If there is a better slow sultry country song than Sundown then I haven't heard it. I love Early Morning Rain, If You Could Read My Mind, Carefree Highway....
Carefree Highway. I do love it, but it also never fails to piss me off a little. Take a listen:
Carefree highway, got to see you my old friend
Carefree highway, you've seen better days
Got the morning after blues, from my head down to my shoes
Carefree highway, let me slip away, slip away on you
What's it about? A guy who is down on his luck, lost (possibly because his girlfriend left him, or perhaps that was some time ago), not knowing what to do. And what does he do? Takes off. Hits the highway, as he's done before. Sure, run away from your problems! It's not like anyone else ever has the same impulse, is it? Nice to be able to just throw everything away, pack your bag and take off when things get hard!
In my even less charitable moments, I think, what a GUY thing to do! A bit like:
Got a wife and kids in Baltimore, Jack
I went out for a ride and I never came back...
For years, Paul Theroux was my favourite writer. I read most of his books in my teens and early twenties, and I didn't mind that he was arrogant and grumpy. At least not until The Happy Isles of Oceania, when he was finally too grumpy even for me. Plus I was a bit offended when he referred to a bloody sanitary pad on a beach as "that disgusting thing" - I mean sure, it was disgusting that it was there on a beach, I get it - but there was something about the way he phrased it that was a bit... anti-women? It seemed?
It may well be wrong or unfair, but sometimes it feels like you read something that shows a true glimpse of the writer's feelings or character.
Here's the main thing I remember, from all my hours and hours of reading Paul Theroux. Hours and hours, and books and books, and this is what has stuck with me:
This is from My Other Life, which was a weird experiment that annoyed me a bit in itself, even while it was a great read. There is a chapter where Paul Theroux (or possibly a fictional character! He won't say which!) has invited people for dinner and is forced to cook and organise everything himself because his wife, tired from her day at work and under some kind of unnamed stress, is angry with him and refuses to help with any of it, saying repeatedly "It's your dinner."
The thing is, even young as I was when I read this, and even being a massive Paul Theroux fan, I totally got his wife's point of view in this, without any more context from Paul Theroux. In this one incident, in which he imagines he portrays himself as the injured party, he instead unwittingly outs himself as a probable bastard who routinely expected a lot from his wife with little reciprocation or notice. She was busy from work, tired and stressed out, and was angry at him for a lifetime of precisely this kind of shit. A lifetime of watching him swan off to travel and write memoirs which included boastful hints of affairs or at least flirtations, and her at home to raise the kids plus keep her own career going, and then also have to entertain his last-minute mid-week dinner guests when he was back home?
Fuck off Paul, it's your dinner!
AND WHAT'S MORE: After enduring the unreasonable and unfathomable reaction from his wife, Paul Theroux (or, okay, the fictional character), happily and competently makes the dinner. He prepares a pot of curry on the stove - taking care to describe the deft and relaxed way in which he prepares it, as counterpoint to his wife's unreasonable stress - then ducks out to the shops to buy whiskey for his guests while it cooks, because his wife wouldn't go and get it. As he walks, he passes the local pub and "wished that I could be sitting there irresponsibly reading the evening paper over a pint of draft Guinness."
Oh. My. God. I do believe this is the part that actually irritated me the most. This whole section is meant to convey how relaxed and competent he is in the kitchen and at life, but in that one sentence he conveys his sudden pique at having to do all this himself when he really, obviously, didn't think he should have to. What an asshole.
As a teenager I discovered my parents' Cat Stevens albums, and fell for them hard. I LOVED Cat Stevens. I taped Teaser and the Firecat and Tea for the Tillerman and listened to them for years. I loved the beautiful melody in the song Wild World but it also has always pissed me off. As a kid I had been confused by the way men seemed to sing romantic songs to girl-children ("little girl"). It took me ages to understand that the "little girls" in songs were actually grown-up girlfriends. As I got older it just started to really annoy me. I didn't know the word "infantilising" but I knew that's what it was. It was always either really patronising or really creepy and sometimes, as in Wild World, it managed to be both.
In Wild World, the singer's character is upset that his girlfriend is leaving him, and he is begging her to reconsider. We all have contradictory feelings in anger and the song is well written: the character veers between grief, despair, concern for his girlfriend and flashes of anger ("I hope you have a lot of nice things to wear"). But it is super patronising, and gives the girlfriend no credit for having any intelligence at all. It refuses to believe she has any good reason for leaving him. I mean I know it's just a "story", in character, and it's about feelings, but it just always really irked me. It is absolute proof that the girlfriend was making the right decision. You run far, girl, and don't look back!
You know I've seen a lot of what the world can do
And it's breakin' my heart in two
Because I never wanna see you sad, girl
Don't be a bad girl
But if you wanna leave, take good care
I hope you make a lot of nice friends out there
But just remember there's a lot of bad and beware
Yeah.... see ya!
And finally...
While I was looking for an image I could use for this post using search terms "angry woman" I came across this Jim Carrey quote/meme, and it pissed me off!
When men piss me off with their art
You won't get any argument from me that most great artists are men. You will get an argument from me if you try and say that's because men are better than women at art, but that's another story.
(The pram in the hall - I'm just saying).
Anyway, as there is so much great art, high and low, produced by so many talented men, I have been a big fan of a number of talented men all my life. And when you're a huge fan of someone with huge talent, it is easy to assume that that person is also a wonderful human being who you would personally like and admire in the flesh, and that they generally see the world the same way you do, because after all, don't you both agree on what makes awesome art??
So it is a shock when these artists disappoint you. You might find out they might not be nice people (Terence Howard - you disappointed me greatly, sir). Or, as is equally jarring, an artist you love suddenly produces something that pisses you off!
Gordon Lightfoot
I LOVE Gordon Lightfoot. If there is a better slow sultry country song than Sundown then I haven't heard it. I love Early Morning Rain, If You Could Read My Mind, Carefree Highway....
Carefree Highway. I do love it, but it also never fails to piss me off a little. Take a listen:
Carefree highway, got to see you my old friend
Carefree highway, you've seen better days
Got the morning after blues, from my head down to my shoes
Carefree highway, let me slip away, slip away on you
What's it about? A guy who is down on his luck, lost (possibly because his girlfriend left him, or perhaps that was some time ago), not knowing what to do. And what does he do? Takes off. Hits the highway, as he's done before. Sure, run away from your problems! It's not like anyone else ever has the same impulse, is it? Nice to be able to just throw everything away, pack your bag and take off when things get hard!
In my even less charitable moments, I think, what a GUY thing to do! A bit like:
Bruce Springsteen
Got a wife and kids in Baltimore, Jack
I went out for a ride and I never came back...
Paul Theroux
For years, Paul Theroux was my favourite writer. I read most of his books in my teens and early twenties, and I didn't mind that he was arrogant and grumpy. At least not until The Happy Isles of Oceania, when he was finally too grumpy even for me. Plus I was a bit offended when he referred to a bloody sanitary pad on a beach as "that disgusting thing" - I mean sure, it was disgusting that it was there on a beach, I get it - but there was something about the way he phrased it that was a bit... anti-women? It seemed?
It may well be wrong or unfair, but sometimes it feels like you read something that shows a true glimpse of the writer's feelings or character.
Here's the main thing I remember, from all my hours and hours of reading Paul Theroux. Hours and hours, and books and books, and this is what has stuck with me:
This is from My Other Life, which was a weird experiment that annoyed me a bit in itself, even while it was a great read. There is a chapter where Paul Theroux (or possibly a fictional character! He won't say which!) has invited people for dinner and is forced to cook and organise everything himself because his wife, tired from her day at work and under some kind of unnamed stress, is angry with him and refuses to help with any of it, saying repeatedly "It's your dinner."
The thing is, even young as I was when I read this, and even being a massive Paul Theroux fan, I totally got his wife's point of view in this, without any more context from Paul Theroux. In this one incident, in which he imagines he portrays himself as the injured party, he instead unwittingly outs himself as a probable bastard who routinely expected a lot from his wife with little reciprocation or notice. She was busy from work, tired and stressed out, and was angry at him for a lifetime of precisely this kind of shit. A lifetime of watching him swan off to travel and write memoirs which included boastful hints of affairs or at least flirtations, and her at home to raise the kids plus keep her own career going, and then also have to entertain his last-minute mid-week dinner guests when he was back home?
Fuck off Paul, it's your dinner!
AND WHAT'S MORE: After enduring the unreasonable and unfathomable reaction from his wife, Paul Theroux (or, okay, the fictional character), happily and competently makes the dinner. He prepares a pot of curry on the stove - taking care to describe the deft and relaxed way in which he prepares it, as counterpoint to his wife's unreasonable stress - then ducks out to the shops to buy whiskey for his guests while it cooks, because his wife wouldn't go and get it. As he walks, he passes the local pub and "wished that I could be sitting there irresponsibly reading the evening paper over a pint of draft Guinness."
Oh. My. God. I do believe this is the part that actually irritated me the most. This whole section is meant to convey how relaxed and competent he is in the kitchen and at life, but in that one sentence he conveys his sudden pique at having to do all this himself when he really, obviously, didn't think he should have to. What an asshole.
Cat Stevens
As a teenager I discovered my parents' Cat Stevens albums, and fell for them hard. I LOVED Cat Stevens. I taped Teaser and the Firecat and Tea for the Tillerman and listened to them for years. I loved the beautiful melody in the song Wild World but it also has always pissed me off. As a kid I had been confused by the way men seemed to sing romantic songs to girl-children ("little girl"). It took me ages to understand that the "little girls" in songs were actually grown-up girlfriends. As I got older it just started to really annoy me. I didn't know the word "infantilising" but I knew that's what it was. It was always either really patronising or really creepy and sometimes, as in Wild World, it managed to be both.
In Wild World, the singer's character is upset that his girlfriend is leaving him, and he is begging her to reconsider. We all have contradictory feelings in anger and the song is well written: the character veers between grief, despair, concern for his girlfriend and flashes of anger ("I hope you have a lot of nice things to wear"). But it is super patronising, and gives the girlfriend no credit for having any intelligence at all. It refuses to believe she has any good reason for leaving him. I mean I know it's just a "story", in character, and it's about feelings, but it just always really irked me. It is absolute proof that the girlfriend was making the right decision. You run far, girl, and don't look back!
You know I've seen a lot of what the world can do
And it's breakin' my heart in two
Because I never wanna see you sad, girl
Don't be a bad girl
But if you wanna leave, take good care
I hope you make a lot of nice friends out there
But just remember there's a lot of bad and beware
Yeah.... see ya!
And finally...
Jim Carrey
While I was looking for an image I could use for this post using search terms "angry woman" I came across this Jim Carrey quote/meme, and it pissed me off!
 |
| StatusMind |
Sep 29, 2014
Young, Female, Talented, Hated
People don't like show-offs, or arrogance. I get that. I agree with them. Justin Bieber is understandably lambasted for his antics. Kanye West attracts (gentle) mockery for his attitude and lifestyle.
But other than Justin Bieber, I don't really see young famous guys attracting the level of hatred and mockery landed on young women. Young female stars are not lauded much for their talent, even when they are very talented.
Miley Cyrus is almost universally reviled now. For some bad taste dancing and probably a touch of arrogance. But listen to her songs: she has some great arrangements, and her voice is incredible. She may be young, and she may be annoying - but better get used to her, she's going to be around for a long, long time. I fact, I think she will be a HUGE star, and will last. She reminds me a bit of Madonna in her early years, but with the difference that unlike Madonna back then, Miley Cyrus can really sing.
Taylor Swift is someone everyone loves to make fun of, for her supposedly too-many boyfriends, her bad dancing, and her heart-on-her-sleeve lyrics. But how brave, to write and put your teenage poetry out there, and to develop and mature along the way. Apart from the early 'Love Story' which is pretty 'young' in its outlook, I have liked almost all Taylor Swift's songs. Shake It Off, her latest, tells how she intends to deal with "haters". It's probably all bravado but kudos to her. She's young and she's dealing with a lot for someone so young. It's not nothing to create stuff and put it out there and have every aspect of your persona so publicly mocked.
Lana Del Rey has been mocked for her "fake" image, and her past as a wannabe vanilla pop star. But she's a performer, and performers mostly want to be famous. Why wouldn't they try different ways to get there? Most of them have changed their image and their style at some point along the way. (Granted, perhaps not as much as Lana Del Rey). And whatever - it seems she has managed to find the style that really, really suits her. Rock on, Lana.
Katy Perry is mocked for, as far as I can make out, being a sex symbol but not a good enough one. I like some of her songs and don't like others, but I'm pretty fond of Katy Perry for embracing her pre-teen girl audience and treating them with respect and responsibility.
Lady Gaga, with her avante garde persona, gets a bit more respect, or at least is gently mocked rather than vilified. Maybe people are scared of looking as if they don't "get it", or maybe people think they can't figure her out enough to truly dislike her, whereas they think they have the others figured out.
In contrast to all the above, Lorde is universally admired. She is also very talented. But I guess it's much easier to love an "indie" star than the pop stars whose efforts to reach fame are probably much more visible and easier to mock.
Disclosure:
I don't have any Miley Cyrus songs, but my iPod contains a few Taylor Swifts, Katy Perrys and Lana Del Reys, and a whole Lorde album. I have Lady Gaga's The Fame Monster on CD as the kids used to love it. Oh, and I've got one Justin Bieber song too (it was requested by my daughter but I don't hate it).
But other than Justin Bieber, I don't really see young famous guys attracting the level of hatred and mockery landed on young women. Young female stars are not lauded much for their talent, even when they are very talented.
Miley Cyrus is almost universally reviled now. For some bad taste dancing and probably a touch of arrogance. But listen to her songs: she has some great arrangements, and her voice is incredible. She may be young, and she may be annoying - but better get used to her, she's going to be around for a long, long time. I fact, I think she will be a HUGE star, and will last. She reminds me a bit of Madonna in her early years, but with the difference that unlike Madonna back then, Miley Cyrus can really sing.
Taylor Swift is someone everyone loves to make fun of, for her supposedly too-many boyfriends, her bad dancing, and her heart-on-her-sleeve lyrics. But how brave, to write and put your teenage poetry out there, and to develop and mature along the way. Apart from the early 'Love Story' which is pretty 'young' in its outlook, I have liked almost all Taylor Swift's songs. Shake It Off, her latest, tells how she intends to deal with "haters". It's probably all bravado but kudos to her. She's young and she's dealing with a lot for someone so young. It's not nothing to create stuff and put it out there and have every aspect of your persona so publicly mocked.
Lana Del Rey has been mocked for her "fake" image, and her past as a wannabe vanilla pop star. But she's a performer, and performers mostly want to be famous. Why wouldn't they try different ways to get there? Most of them have changed their image and their style at some point along the way. (Granted, perhaps not as much as Lana Del Rey). And whatever - it seems she has managed to find the style that really, really suits her. Rock on, Lana.
Katy Perry is mocked for, as far as I can make out, being a sex symbol but not a good enough one. I like some of her songs and don't like others, but I'm pretty fond of Katy Perry for embracing her pre-teen girl audience and treating them with respect and responsibility.
Lady Gaga, with her avante garde persona, gets a bit more respect, or at least is gently mocked rather than vilified. Maybe people are scared of looking as if they don't "get it", or maybe people think they can't figure her out enough to truly dislike her, whereas they think they have the others figured out.
In contrast to all the above, Lorde is universally admired. She is also very talented. But I guess it's much easier to love an "indie" star than the pop stars whose efforts to reach fame are probably much more visible and easier to mock.
I don't have any Miley Cyrus songs, but my iPod contains a few Taylor Swifts, Katy Perrys and Lana Del Reys, and a whole Lorde album. I have Lady Gaga's The Fame Monster on CD as the kids used to love it. Oh, and I've got one Justin Bieber song too (it was requested by my daughter but I don't hate it).
Apr 9, 2014
Stay at work mums, full time dads and others
I have stopped using the term "working mother" or at least I am trying to.
There are no perfect terms, because the term that each group of parents invents for itself annoys the others.
"Working mother" is annoying for mothers who are not in paid employment because they are home with their children: " 'Working mother'? What the hell do they think I'm doing all day?"
"Full-time mother" is hated by mothers who work in paid employment, including me. I am a full-time mother. I am a mother 24 hours a day as is every other mother. Motherhood (or parenthood) dictates how and where I work, as much as how I am at home. Also, what?: Anytime someone is away from her kids, she is not a mother? If you're a stay at home mother, when you leave your kids at kinder, or when you have a girls' night out, are you no longer a mother?
"Non-working parent" is wrong - for the same reason that "working mother" is.
"SAHM" (Stay At Home Mum) seems to be the preferred term by most, but what about the dads? They've started using SAHD. Is that a bit ironic, because it looks like SAD? I do wonder if "stay at home" is a bit annoying as it sounds a little patronising or limiting, like "housewife". Maybe just "At Home Parent" (AHP) is better?
"WAHM" (Work At Home Mum) is the one term that no one seems to grumble about. Or maybe that's just my misconception as a WOTHM (Work Outside The Home Mum - what, not going to catch on?)
Not one of these "lifestyles" is better or worse than the others, per se. Not one is a ticket to work-life balance - we're all as stretched and unappreciated as each other. There is of course just what works best for you and your family, or more accurately, what you have to work with and what you make of it.
But regardless of the terms we use to describe "mothering", one of the things driving change most is a critical mass of fathers being home with their kids.
There are so many of them now, and not all of them have blogs of course (pfft - what do those guys DO all day?) - but the ones I've noticed most as change agents are:
"World's Best Father" (Dave Engledow): this is the guy who created all the photos of himself with his baby daughter, she in various ignored or "helping" scenarios (sitting on an ironing board while he's ironing, etc) while he is usually looking away, reading thoughtfully and holding a coffee mug with "World's Best Father" on it. The photos are genius, encapsulating at once all the best qualities of how we regard the stereotypical dad: involved with the kids but casually; making the kids fit around him instead of the other way around; funny; relaxed; borderline-neglectful-but-actually-good-for-the-kids. Here are a couple of samples (these are all over the internet and they are a couple of years old now, so I've decided this is okay):
Reservoir Dad: RD is awesome, because he is very proudly a SAHD, and embraces the lot that goes with it, including actual, thorough housework. Not for him the superhero vacuum and willful blindness to dirty toilets and dusty windowsills - no, he happily and manfully tackles the lot. I actually think this is BRILLIANT. He writes about being a primary carer and shows that when it's done by a man it looks pretty similar to when it's done by a woman; this post in particular is just wonderful and I love it.
Of course, dads bring their alpha guy privilege to stay-at-home parenting, and that's simultaneously irksome and fantastic. RD admits men get more support in some ways than women as parents, and he has a robotic vacuum cleaner which makes me completely jealous ... but at the same time why wouldn't you make things better for yourself wherever you can, and why don't women do this more? - because we do it all properly!! and we're doing six million other things you can't see!! ... Sorry, that just slipped out. Where was I? Anyway, having more men take on the primary carer role (and more women the breadwinner role, and more men and women working part-time and doing a bit of everything), is a good, good thing, with great advances in mutual understanding and improvement for everyone all round.
I've kind of lost my thread with this post, but think I've said what was on my mind anyway, so I'll leave it here.
Meanwhile, if you want a bit of fun, take Buzzfeed's What Type of Parent Are You quiz.
I'm "overwhelmed" which I found a little disappointing. I'd thought I had moved beyond "overwhelmed" after eight years at this parenting gig, but I guess not. Buzzfeed knows best!
There are no perfect terms, because the term that each group of parents invents for itself annoys the others.
"Working mother" is annoying for mothers who are not in paid employment because they are home with their children: " 'Working mother'? What the hell do they think I'm doing all day?"
"Full-time mother" is hated by mothers who work in paid employment, including me. I am a full-time mother. I am a mother 24 hours a day as is every other mother. Motherhood (or parenthood) dictates how and where I work, as much as how I am at home. Also, what?: Anytime someone is away from her kids, she is not a mother? If you're a stay at home mother, when you leave your kids at kinder, or when you have a girls' night out, are you no longer a mother?
"Non-working parent" is wrong - for the same reason that "working mother" is.
"SAHM" (Stay At Home Mum) seems to be the preferred term by most, but what about the dads? They've started using SAHD. Is that a bit ironic, because it looks like SAD? I do wonder if "stay at home" is a bit annoying as it sounds a little patronising or limiting, like "housewife". Maybe just "At Home Parent" (AHP) is better?
"WAHM" (Work At Home Mum) is the one term that no one seems to grumble about. Or maybe that's just my misconception as a WOTHM (Work Outside The Home Mum - what, not going to catch on?)
Not one of these "lifestyles" is better or worse than the others, per se. Not one is a ticket to work-life balance - we're all as stretched and unappreciated as each other. There is of course just what works best for you and your family, or more accurately, what you have to work with and what you make of it.
But regardless of the terms we use to describe "mothering", one of the things driving change most is a critical mass of fathers being home with their kids.
There are so many of them now, and not all of them have blogs of course (pfft - what do those guys DO all day?) - but the ones I've noticed most as change agents are:
"World's Best Father" (Dave Engledow): this is the guy who created all the photos of himself with his baby daughter, she in various ignored or "helping" scenarios (sitting on an ironing board while he's ironing, etc) while he is usually looking away, reading thoughtfully and holding a coffee mug with "World's Best Father" on it. The photos are genius, encapsulating at once all the best qualities of how we regard the stereotypical dad: involved with the kids but casually; making the kids fit around him instead of the other way around; funny; relaxed; borderline-neglectful-but-actually-good-for-the-kids. Here are a couple of samples (these are all over the internet and they are a couple of years old now, so I've decided this is okay):
Reservoir Dad: RD is awesome, because he is very proudly a SAHD, and embraces the lot that goes with it, including actual, thorough housework. Not for him the superhero vacuum and willful blindness to dirty toilets and dusty windowsills - no, he happily and manfully tackles the lot. I actually think this is BRILLIANT. He writes about being a primary carer and shows that when it's done by a man it looks pretty similar to when it's done by a woman; this post in particular is just wonderful and I love it.
Of course, dads bring their alpha guy privilege to stay-at-home parenting, and that's simultaneously irksome and fantastic. RD admits men get more support in some ways than women as parents, and he has a robotic vacuum cleaner which makes me completely jealous ... but at the same time why wouldn't you make things better for yourself wherever you can, and why don't women do this more? - because we do it all properly!! and we're doing six million other things you can't see!! ... Sorry, that just slipped out. Where was I? Anyway, having more men take on the primary carer role (and more women the breadwinner role, and more men and women working part-time and doing a bit of everything), is a good, good thing, with great advances in mutual understanding and improvement for everyone all round.
I've kind of lost my thread with this post, but think I've said what was on my mind anyway, so I'll leave it here.
Meanwhile, if you want a bit of fun, take Buzzfeed's What Type of Parent Are You quiz.
I'm "overwhelmed" which I found a little disappointing. I'd thought I had moved beyond "overwhelmed" after eight years at this parenting gig, but I guess not. Buzzfeed knows best!
Jun 29, 2013
It's (mostly) just politics
This is a true story: on the night Julia Gillard was replaced with Kevin II as prime minister, my dog stood near me and shook himself vigorously, and a small piece of poo flew out of his butt and landed on my shoe.
He's such a misogynist.
International readers, please excuse this diversion into the past week in Australian politics. What follows may make little sense to you. Unless perhaps you read the UK Huffington Post.
Fellow Australians, what do we think of the role of gender in the deposing of Julia Gillard?
I think gender played a big part in the shabby treatment and lack of respect she was given by radio shock jocks and some of the public. It took people a long time to get used to having a female PM, and sadly I felt we had just about reached the point of accepting it as 'business as usual' when she was removed.
But I don't think gender had much of a hand in forcing her out.
I certainly don't agree with this kind of opinion that implies female MPs should all have voted to keep Gillard because she's a woman. Wouldn't that be making it all about gender?
What about loyalty?
Politicians have never been loyal against numbers. It's always about winning the next election or jockeying for personal position. Always has been.
What about the role of the media?
Unlike many on Twitter and in the letters pages of the newspapers, I don't think the mainstream media, the ABC, The Age, the Murdoch press or the Canberra press gallery are to blame. They might have overdone the coverage of the Labor leadership issues, but that's how news works. As a journalist I once saw tweet to a critic who told him to write about 'the real story' and not the politicking responded: "It may not be what you WISH the story to be, but it IS the story today."
Oh, you expected the papers to ignore all the internal division and upheavals and talk up the government's achievements? You're annoyed they eulogized the achievements only after Gillard was gone?
Wouldn't you be a bit suspicious if journalists ignored real problems within government and started talking up government achievements while governments were in power? I think I would. Thankfully, I've never seen it happen.
So then?
No one could have governed well in the circumstances Gillard had to work with. The combination of global financial crisis, minority government and relentless undermining by the previously deposed PM made it impossible.
Gillard gets everyone's respect for her strength, her resolve and her hard work, for "getting on with it" and "getting things done." In my opinion she did well under impossible circumstances and delivered some good things for the country. But we also do need our leaders to be communicators, and charismatic to some degree. And one's not enough without the other.
Paul Strangio in The Age summed the whole thing up quite nicely in this piece, which reminds us:
Paul obviously got that idea from my blog post from 2010 where I said CEOs and other public leaders are paid so well as compensation for the fact that some day they will suddenly (and maybe unfairly) be judged as having failed and will be fired.
So Julia Gillard's turn came this week.
It made international news. Here it is in the UK Huffington Post:
And here is a selection of my favourite tweets from the night.
Politics. Makes me glad I work in a gentle, nurturing industry like finance really.
He's such a misogynist.
International readers, please excuse this diversion into the past week in Australian politics. What follows may make little sense to you. Unless perhaps you read the UK Huffington Post.
Fellow Australians, what do we think of the role of gender in the deposing of Julia Gillard?
I think gender played a big part in the shabby treatment and lack of respect she was given by radio shock jocks and some of the public. It took people a long time to get used to having a female PM, and sadly I felt we had just about reached the point of accepting it as 'business as usual' when she was removed.
But I don't think gender had much of a hand in forcing her out.
I certainly don't agree with this kind of opinion that implies female MPs should all have voted to keep Gillard because she's a woman. Wouldn't that be making it all about gender?
What about loyalty?
Politicians have never been loyal against numbers. It's always about winning the next election or jockeying for personal position. Always has been.
What about the role of the media?
Unlike many on Twitter and in the letters pages of the newspapers, I don't think the mainstream media, the ABC, The Age, the Murdoch press or the Canberra press gallery are to blame. They might have overdone the coverage of the Labor leadership issues, but that's how news works. As a journalist I once saw tweet to a critic who told him to write about 'the real story' and not the politicking responded: "It may not be what you WISH the story to be, but it IS the story today."
Oh, you expected the papers to ignore all the internal division and upheavals and talk up the government's achievements? You're annoyed they eulogized the achievements only after Gillard was gone?
Wouldn't you be a bit suspicious if journalists ignored real problems within government and started talking up government achievements while governments were in power? I think I would. Thankfully, I've never seen it happen.
So then?
No one could have governed well in the circumstances Gillard had to work with. The combination of global financial crisis, minority government and relentless undermining by the previously deposed PM made it impossible.
Gillard gets everyone's respect for her strength, her resolve and her hard work, for "getting on with it" and "getting things done." In my opinion she did well under impossible circumstances and delivered some good things for the country. But we also do need our leaders to be communicators, and charismatic to some degree. And one's not enough without the other.
Paul Strangio in The Age summed the whole thing up quite nicely in this piece, which reminds us:
the highwire act of public life almost inevitably ends in failure and defeat
Paul obviously got that idea from my blog post from 2010 where I said CEOs and other public leaders are paid so well as compensation for the fact that some day they will suddenly (and maybe unfairly) be judged as having failed and will be fired.
So Julia Gillard's turn came this week.
It made international news. Here it is in the UK Huffington Post:
And here is a selection of my favourite tweets from the night.
Young people in the office aghast at bloodletting. 'When was politics ever so ruthless'? Oh, Gorton/Fraser, Hawke/Hayden, Howard/Peacock...
— Mr Denmore (@MrDenmore) June 26, 2013
I don’t care what you think, it’s fun having a new prime minister
— Ben Pobjie (@benpobjie) June 26, 2013
Playing Pin the Tail on the PM in there? #spill
— Kim Yeomans (@kimyeo) June 26, 2013
Can I become PM of Oz as I have policies? #1 No Xmas decorations before Dec 1 #2 No hot cross buns on Jan 1 #3 Academic gown for teachers
— Adam Byatt (@revhappiness) June 26, 2013
Rudd: I will never again contest the leadership under any circumstances (unless I can become PM next time, obviously) #auspol #spill #liar
— Sam Jeffries (@SamJeffries) June 26, 2013
All these people lamenting the #spill seem to forget the sight of weeping politicians is hilarious.
— Leigh Milward (@leighmilward) June 26, 2013
This is like watching your parents fight over who's going to drive while the car fills with lake water. #spill
— Alice Wild Williams (@shutupalice) June 26, 2013
Looks like many folk are still at "anger". Give me a hoy when we reach stage five.
— our man in Canberra (@ourmancanberra) June 26, 2013
Kev’s first appearance and I’m already wanting Jules back.
— Bolt Comments (@boltcomments) June 26, 2013
Politics. Makes me glad I work in a gentle, nurturing industry like finance really.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
LinkWithin
