Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
header_07
search_bar_left
date_box_left
date_box_right.jpg
search_bar_right
sidebar-top content-top

The monstrous regiment of women

Longtime Webdiarist F Kendall originally posted this comment on the Who will be the next Prime Minister of Australia? thread. I asked whether we could use her comment as a thread starter, she agreed, so over to you, Webdiarists. No holds barred.

The monstrous regiment of women
by F Kendall

But who or which among them?

Julia Bishop, we x chromosomes seem to agree, is like the Head Girl who is selected by the Headmistress, not by the student body.

Julia Gillard's breasts are too small, hips too large, seems a popular verdict.

Sarah Palin has the ready popular appeal that Pauline Hanson had for a moment or two. Is she the future? Mom?

Hillary fights it like a man.

Maggie Thatcher, the formidable nanny casting you off to boarding school at 7 years old, still seems to have the most universal appeal.

Any thoughts?

left
right
spacer

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

White Australia

Trivial comment:  I have been mildly intrigued, reading touristy facsimiles of newspapers, (say in Beechworth et al), headlining Ned Kelly's outrageousnesses, to see included small court notices of such as "(obviously Chinese name) " - assaulting a minor female?  unlawful etc?

That the Irish attack on property dominated the paper, and the Chinese assault on an immature female had one or two minor lines, seemed to me to be an interesting insight into the society ... and, it didn't really suggest that the population was very racist.

Have I lost the thread?

I had the opinion that we were discussing women in politics and, by its very title, is surely discriminatory".

My opinion was intended to demonstrate how gender can be, partly at least, eliminated from the equation.

I do not believe in complaints which are made by the lowest type of citizen – the anonymous! But I note that success has many opportunists.

There is far too much exploitation of the differences between the people in the entire world. R.G. Menzies introduced the "White Australia" policy, which was popular in his time but has now proved to be counter-productive.

Freedom is a misused word. Civilisation is surely paramount to freedom?

I stand by my opinion that when a person is charged with an offence – a driving crash, domestic violence, murder or mayhem or whatever – the press should not distinguish between the obvious issues which inflame bias.

But then, good news does not sell newspapers.

NE OUBLIE.

White Australia Policy

Ernest William, the thread is going a bit off-tangent, as so many Webdiary threads tend to over time.

However, I feel compelled to continue its drift in order to correct one of your assertions. Ming did not introduce the White Australia Policy. That policy had been in existence since Federation, when one of the first pieces of legislation enacted by the new Commonwealth Parliament was the Immigration Restriction Act 1901. This did not impose a prohibition on persons of colour; instead it provided for a dictation test that could be used to exclude any person deemed to be an unwanted migrant.

The policy was strongly supported by the white Australian community (especially the unions) and by the political establishment, most notably by Hughes, Bruce, Lyons, Menzies, and Calwell. J.F. Archibald, co-founder of the Bulletin, was one of its more ardent proponents.

Its winding back started after World War 2, when non-Europeans were, first, permitted to become permanent residents in certain circumstances, until under Holt certain categories of non-European “temporary” residents were able to become citizens on the same terms as European “temporary” residents. To all intents and purposes, the policy met its demise under Whitlam, with Fraser administering the last rites, with selection based on country of origin being removed from official policy. The dictation test, incidentally, disappeared in the late 1950s.

Then we got Howard's Bradman questionnaire…

Neverthless, Menzies was notable for one of the most infamous – and farcical – exercises of the dictation test in the mid 1930s when, as Attorney-General in Joe Lyons’ UAP government, he tried to prevent the entry to Australia of, and then to deport, Egon Kisch. The reason for doing so was based on (political) creed rather than on colour – Kisch was (shudder) a communist (as well as being a renowned writer, a Czech national, and Jewish). As far as I can remember, Kisch, who was multilingual, passed the test, which was administered in several different languages, with flying colours – until they tried him with Gaelic.

Take this down Miss Moneypenny

Ernest William Graham, the White Australia policy grew out of Chinese immigration on the goldfields. While miners were winning and losing fortunes, astute Chinese were running shops and creaming the profits.

Dr Reynolds, wrong on two counts, Chinese migration was totally prohibited in 1888 by the Parkes Government in NSW closely followed by the other colonies (Lawson S. The Archibald Paradox A Strange Case of Authorship The Miegunyah Press, Melbourne 1983, 2nd Ed 2006 - don't say I don't research my cases) and Archibald throughout his career was one of its champions. At one stage its Masthead changed to "Australia for the White Man" and stayed that way for decades.. Secondly, Egon Kisch was finally tested under the dictation test in Old Icelandic in which he was also fluent and passed.

Garlic usually works well

Yep, garlic has always been recommended to ward off spooky people and stuff. Works great with not spooky people as well.

Quebecneck

Fiona, your mention of the dictation test, the Bradman questionnaire and other such 'us and them' measures reminded me of what I read yesterday about Quebec:

Future immigrants to Quebec will be required to sign a declaration promising to learn French and respect Quebec's "shared values," the government announced on Wednesday...

The shared values spelled out in the declaration are: Quebec is a free and democratic society; church and state are separate; Quebec is a pluralist society based on the rule of law; men and women have equal rights; and rights and freedoms are exercised while respecting those of others and the general well-being.

It also stresses that French is the official language of Quebec, as laid out in Bill 101. Signatories will declare their intention to learn French if they do not already speak it.

The Immigration Department plans to bombard potential and new immigrants with messages stressing Quebec values. There will be a section on values added to the immigration forms filled out overseas and an explanatory pamphlet will be distributed. Immigrants will also receive a DVD on shared values and be directed toward a new Web site whose name translates as "shared values of Quebec." Information sessions on shared values will be offered to immigrants after they arrive.

I saw the story on Fark where the headline - very appropriately - read: 'Quebec may be the first society to successfully combine French and redneck culture'

Gender irrelevant

Umm this seems a bit weird to even have on Webdiary. I don't actually factor in gender when I vote. I'd be happy to see more women elected but I don't vote for people because of their gender or race or culture etc. I'd be surprised if many on Webdiary did.

I'm generally attracted to people I consider intelligent  and I allow for the fact that in a democracy politicians are going to have to fudge it and dumb it down a little to get elected. Then I also have my own policy preferences and understanding of the world that is certainly going to rule out a Maggie Thatcher as ethically unacceptable. And on the intelligence scale ... well actually, she was bright but by the gods was she ignorant and arrogant. 

I am in private life attracted to intelligent women and yes, as a heterosexual whose mind is connected to a body, physical appeal, to my sensibility, will also be an issue. But it hardly applies to my public political life and decisions.

Joan Kirner, Nat Stott Despoja, Julia Gillard, and yes Hillary, all people of ability I would support for high office. And hey Helen Clark, on what little I know, seems impressive. Whereas Germanine Greer? Uber intelligent and feisty fun, but I wouldn't back her for political office. I like her ethics but don't trust her tolerance - "all fools to the dungeons now!" As for Julie Bishop, a wolf disguised as a deer in the headlights. A reliable advocate of vested interests with no doubt sex appeal to a particularly ugly male type, but not for me. All sandy detritus and no pearls as far as I'm concerned. 

And Sarah Palin, well no way, but Tina Fey, well now we are talking,  a little Liz Lemon anyone...

 And for all you interactive players out there, check out www.palinaspresident.us. Have your sound turned on and move your mouse around clicking as you go, it's more fun than a barrel of monkeys. And make sure you open the door to the Oval office more than once. Suggest you end on the hotline.

Gender irrelevant 2

The enquiry was about who and which, not whether, Tony Phillips. 

And, hey - I liked your link.

G I 3

Point taken F Kendall.

And while I'm here let me also add Maxine McKew, intelligent, thoughtful, a sense of humour and, memories of her dancing in the run up to the 2007 election, a rare capacity for the expression of unabashed joy. Now doesn't politics need a leavening of that now and again? Her "style" is the breath of fresh air of the new girl next door.

And if we are on women of the media

Mary Kostakidis - now she is a lady in all the best senses of the term, dignity, integrity and elegance.

and of course Margo - somewhat shambolic, earnest and always keeping in good faith. The sister you would trust, and love to yarn and drink with... Her style - "the barbie that goes on late into the evening and the third bottle of red".

Joy

"Now doesn't politics need a leavening of that now and again?"

And don't we all, Tony Phillips. Where has it gone?

Joy, bliss, delight ... hmmm ... I remember those words, but they don't seem to be in common currency these days.

Representation

"There is a strange absence of suggestions here from the mainly male contributors to Webdiary."

Perhaps because the debate has moved on. I grew up with women leaders, (Bandaranaike, Gandhi) while countries like Australia and the US are still debating it. The real frontier now is not equality for women, but equality for children, the next biggest group without representation.

Women leaders

Yes, the debate has moved on, Jay Somasundaram,   and I obviously didn't make it clear that I was referring to the style of the women, not their presence on the scene.

I recall  reading at one stage when K Beasley and John Howard were antagonists, that KB had the appeal to people of a labrador dog:  huggable, warm, friendly;  but that in fact they would vote for JH, because he came across like a fox terrier, more able and likely to defend them.  Dare I say that they were the kind of appraisals that I was seeking?  

I have a thought

G'day F Kendall. There is far too much discrimination in our world, and it even seems to be getting worse.

Your piece on various women in politics is a case in point. Should it matter what gender?

Just imagine: If those women known to the public as politicians were written about in this way (in order of your article), can people identify as I have suggested?

The shadow treasurer says.... The Deputy Prime Minister is..... The Republican Vice President candidate.....The Leader of the One Nation Party.... The Democratic contender Senator Clinton........The Prime Minister of England...

In underdeveloped countries they often hide the faces and sound of witnesses to protect them - and they are underdeveloped!

Our jury system is an anachronism exploited by the judiciary. It is merely a matter of how well the barrister/attorney performs in the court room, and then quite often they meet privately and make a deal. Was the person guilty as charged? Ask a computer and it will answer without emotion.

Certainly the identity of the person is inescapable but, the decision on the ability or employability of a person should not be influenced by gender.

Perhaps lawyers could be better employed as brokers in employment when they do not have to divulge the sex of their clients. Weird, but at least I am thinking.

Wonders will never cease

Ernest William Graham claims to have had an idea. It is a little difficult to work out what it is. To the best of my divination, it isn't a very good one and it totally misunderstands what lawyers do.

A jury trial in the criminal context does not depend on how the legal representative "performs" in the courtroom. It depends on provable admissible facts - and you are only ever as good as your facts no matter how brilliant. Even then, juries get it wrong sometimes.

To proffer, as some often do, the idea that a computer could perform the function is rubbish. Judging people's lives is not an accounting or computing exercise. The fight for being judged by one's peers according to an established set of rules is one that has been hard won and for which people have been prepared to and have died for. It and the presumption of innocence are the very basis of any civilised criminal jurisprudence. It is a value Australians have been to war for more than once. That an ex-serviceman comes out with such twaddle is truly breathtaking.

Are you fair dinkum?

With any respect for which your post may entitle, I can't believe an adult would even think - let alone believe such rubbish. Unless a lawyer? Next you'll be telling me that in my years of experience on juries I was completely ignorant of what went on, what was said, what was objected to when it obviously shouldn't have and vice versa, and most of all, the performance of the supposed opposing counsels.

You imply that the honour of these people is incorruptible - on what planet?

You say - no, you state: "A jury trial in the criminal context does not depend on how the legal representative "performs" in the courtroom." That suggests, I suppose, that the fact of the wealthy being most anxious to employ the best representation is a waste of money. Any law student could handle the situation you describe.

I followed a case regarding a Shirley Begar (?) trial for murder, which some of our older posters may remember. Shirley's defence, commissioned by the Daily Mirror newspaper, provided the eminent C.W. Shand who argued brilliantly while the young lady appeared, dressed in very flattering apparel but displaying appropriate distress. She was acquitted!

Of what? Just the important points as I remember them, as would anyone else who witnessed this charade. The evidence as accepted or claimed by Shirley's defence vis-à-vis: Shirley was distressed that her boyfriend had gone to a nightclub with another woman. She contacted her mother and assembled a 22 rifle, as taught by her boyfriend, to frighten him. Her mother's partner was a taxi driver and together they drove to the club and had her boyfriend paged.

When he came to the car, according to Shirley, her back seat window was half open. The boyfriend put his head inside the car and pushed her - she fell back and the rifle went off and killed him with a wound to his forehead. She had to admit that she had loaded the gun of course, but it also surfaced that she had spare bullets in her purse.

I could really be sarcastic here, but my point is that it took an awful lot of money to get a brilliant "performer" to convince the "sometimes mistaken" jury that that story proved that it was an accident.

One swallow does not make a summer of course, but you know quite well what I am talking about and it sold an awful lot of newspapers. Could another result have been contemplated? Really?

There are so many such cases, especially in America where the court appointed lawyer is so impotent against the high rollers.

Well might the American judiciary claim "In God we Trust". Fair dinkum.

NE OUBLIE.

White man's justice

Ernest, you may be interested in this one from Crikey:

The black and white of a Palm Island tragedy

I'd vote for Julia

At least she has a brain.

As for Thatcher, she is a murderous beast. Sending over 1000 young Argentinian naval conscripts to their horrendous deaths in the Belgrano. sunk in international waters, on the bogus pretense of defending the Falklands , just so she could get re-elected ,should have seen her on trial in the Hague.

Instead, like her murdering pal Pinochet, she dozes off into senility quietly at home.

Madam President? Wot!?

There is a strange absence of suggestions here from the mainly male contributors to Webdiary.

My guess is that men won't ever vote for a woman - (except for mum) - until it is absolutely the last resort.

At the ballot box, men are all Muslim: a woman is less than a man.

At the ballot box, men are all Muslim

As at 30 August 2000 there were 190 women (23.1% of total pollies) elected to Federal and State Parliaments.

Were these 190 women the last resort?

Who voted for these women? Definately not Muslims according to F Kendall.

Maybe F Kendall would like to explain how a women was elected as President of Pakistan, twice.

Would you like to have another go F Kendall?

Um, I think I better not

I certainly made a mess of that, Justin Obodie, and I don't think that I could have another go without becoming like Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby.

I can't find the delete button on the site, either.  Wish I could.

Helen Clark

Seems to me to be the senior hockey mistress. One knows her rules absolutely, she applies them fairly, and only modifies them with commonsense.

Anno Domini 2000

It's well worth considering the prescient novel Anno Domini 2000 (1889) by Julius Vogel. Here's a summary of the plot which from memory (I read the book about thirty years ago) is accurate:

The novel describes the exploits of Hilda Fitzherbert, former twenty-three year old Under Secretary for Home Affairs, and then Imperial Prime Minister, in a future where the British Empire has achieved both female suffrage (which New Zealand granted in 1893) and become an Imperial Federation, apart from an independent Ireland, although Sir Reginald Paramatta, a villainous Australian republican, has his eyes set on the abduction and wooing of Miss Fitzherbert. Miss Fitzherbert foils the Republican plans, and then she falls in love with Emperor Albert, the dashing young ruler of the Federated British Empire. Unfortunately, their plans hit a snag when the Emperor refuses the hand of the female US President's daughter, which precipitates an Anglo-American war, which the Empire wins, leading to the dissolution of the United States and its reabsorption into the Empire, and the ensuing marriage of Hilda and the Emperor. Several years later, the Emperor and his Empress find that their opinions about male primacy in royal succession have reversed themselves, when faced with a brilliantly competent princess and bookish, scholarly prince as prospective heirs apparent to the throne.

While there are large slabs of intrusive detail about the intricacies of finance and federal Imperial politics, this work did not sell well initially, although it has attracted posthumous recognition for its uncanny representation of New Zealand's female dominated political, judicial and corporate executive hierarchies in 2000.

Re-edit

Could we re-name this thread the Regiment of Monsterous Women?   That way we could get Amanda Vanstone in.

Fiona: No.

So where does...

.....Helen Clark fit into this picture?

Those days are gone

"Maggie Thatcher, the formidable nanny casting you off to boarding school at 7 years old, still seems to have the most universal appeal."

It's changed, F Kendall, from "we're all Thatcherites now" to "we're all socialists now."

Funny thing is when it comes down to assessing a woman's sex appeal I've always tried to imagine having sex with them, a bit hard these days but Gillard yes, Palin no and Vanstone - Malcolm, I don't want to go there. (BTW has your cat gone missing?)

Levity

TOM has a fear of heights and we live on level 7, Scott Dunmore.

How did Terry Pratchett get in here?

You humanes.  I dunno.  Breasts, hips, who cares as long as there are biscuits in the bowl and litter in the tray.

Personally, I like that naked Italian sheila.  La something. 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2006, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.