Two headlines

Eva Cox in The Conversation: Tony Abbott: a confused, conservative sexist, but not a misogynist.

Milanda Rout in The Australian (paywalled): Feminist insists Abbott no misogynist.

Eva Cox’s article does not “insist” that Abbott is not a misogynist, she merely describes how he doesn’t meet her definition of one while acknowledging that opinions vary. Cox argues that Tony Abbott’s attitudes on a conservative sexist and classist policy level rather than a purely maybe-misogynistic personal level are far more problematic for women voters, even given that the Gillard government has a flawed record itself e.g. enacting sexist policies such as the drastic cut to the sole parent allowances that just came into action on January 1st, 2013. Her take home point is the following:

The question of character is not likely to be a major factor as mutually-slung mud has diminished both leaders. Both are relatively unpopular and it seems voters will focus on competency issues and policies.

Therefore I am concerned that the current campaign may fail to connect with voters in any significant way but also weaken the possibilities of debating good social policies.

This is the area where real gender issues arise and neither party is focusing on addressing income inequality, and inadequate welfare and community services.

Milanda Rout, describing Cox’s article, appears to eschew nuance altogether in favour of gloating gotchas directed at Gillard. Quelle surprise.

Categories: gender & feminism, language, media, parties and factions, social justice

Tags: , , ,

2 replies

  1. Eva Cox is a responsible educated commenter investigating a semantic issue involving character and personality formation and how that pertains to accurately describing certain traits that own certain subjects without their knowledge and the implication for politics involving this feature.
    She has worked out how/where/when he has been fouled, in his conditioning in his younger years if not at a foundational pathological level and is demonstrating objectively and without malice, why this a flaw in his candidacy for pm ( consider the job description ), rather than merely venting off the frustration a lot of people feel toward him and politicians like him.
    The evidence of the last twenty years shows there IS a doubt as to character and personality, Cox doesn’t advocate he be punished for being what he is, just removed from politics to some where else where he may do some good and bring less harm both to himself and others (fire-fighting?
    Now, Milanda Rout is a different proposition. A long term Murdoch scribbler and rarely have I read much of value from her pen, but it’s not her fault, she has to pay rent too and to paraphrase phrase the song, probably “works hard for the money”.

  2. Grrrr…. There’s no way Rout didn’t know she was misrepresenting Cox to shoehorn her into the Australia article. What a complete failure of ethics.

%d bloggers like this: