Is Abbott a misogynist?

OK, so is Abbott a misogynist or not?

Let’s evaluate this in terms of policy, not in terms of budgie smugglers, cause we’re better than that right?

Sourced from Sydney Morning Herald

“The government operates on the basis that Tony Abbott’s weak point is his ”woman problem”, which shows in polling. Many female voters find his style excessively aggressive and some of his attitudes (such as on abortion) unacceptable” contended an article in SMH.

Ok, so that’s a view. But let’s get back to the policy.

Abbott is continually being roped into talk about abortion. However, “A spokesman for Mr Abbott responded that ”administration of RU486, as with other drugs, is a matter for the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the Coalition will not change that.”

Ok, so Australian women will be able to receive RU486, if of course; a doctor who has completed training about the drug prescribes it.

And may I just point out that abortion laws fall under State jurisdiction. So, essentially, Abbott is steering clear of the issue, and really, he doesn’t have much say about it.

It is a really hot topic; it is contested, as it ultimately clashes with people’s varying values on the issue. But he won’t touch the abortion debate. So why are we still talking about it?

In my opinion, it works for Gillard. Let’s label the opposition as a misogynist, even though his policies don’t articulate that sentiment.

Gillard released an 18-week paid parental leave scheme set at the minimum wage, which does not include super. Far out… is that all? 18 weeks? At minimum wage? So much for equality. So much for supporting working mothers.

Alternatively Abbott is at 26 weeks, at full pay, with super.

Hmm. If we just look at the numbers. It’s blaringly obvious what is better for women. Abbott contends that, ”It’s not a welfare measure; it’s a workplace entitlement.”

Exactly how it should be. How offensive can you be Gillard, when you speak of equality, and yet deny certain mothers access to maternity leave, when it should be a workplace entitlement?

Another point: Slipper. In response to Slipper’s disgusting and albeit sexist texts he sent earlier this year. “Abbott used the revelation of Slipper’s texts to launch a parliamentary attempt to remove him as Speaker. The motion failed; opposing it, the government essentially said the sexism issue was less important or urgent than observing due legal process” (Grattan 2012).

So crying sexism suits Gillard, well, when it suits her.

But her labels are tactical. “Labelling Abbott a ”misogynist’ – defined as hater of women, therefore a dramatic step up from the milder ”sexist” tag – also has a deliberate political edge” (Grattan 2012).

“But the fact remains that Gillard did the wrong thing in embracing Slipper last year and again in resisting his ditching. She might have made a hero of herself to some feminists by flailing Abbott, but she betrayed feminism in trying to protect Slipper” (Grattan 2012).

The point is, if we read facts for facts. Abbott is not so scary for Australian women. It seems Gillard likes to whip up the sexist storm, because whether true or not, it gets attention. It makes a headline, and maybe grabs a voter or two.

In my opinion. Stop  highlighting your gender, it really isn’t a big deal. That is equality. You want to be treated equally, so stop setting yourself apart.  I will vote for you, if your policies suit me. If not, i will not. Let your policies talk for you, not your sex.


Gordon & Flitton, 2012, The Sydney Morning Herald,

Grattan, 2012, The Sydney Morning Herald

The Sydney Morning Herald, 2012, Mr Rabbit Versus Carrot


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s