RSS Feed

Tag Archives: #destroyingthejoint

The PRIME MINISTER. the SPEAKER and the LEADER of the OPPOSITION: what a day.

Can I just say at the outset that the mainstream media’s analysis (and I’m using this term ironically) of yesterday’s performance by the Prime Minister is a glowing indication of what is wrong with their coverage of federal politics.

After two yeas of enduring a level of abuse with a certain level of humour and a seemingly inexhaustible supply of good grace, the Prime Minister rose to her feet and said ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

When reading Peter Hartcher’s article this morning in the SMH it would seem the underlying theme dominating his piece is that she, and presumably therefore women generally, are not permitted to complain of gender discrimination or abuse.  BALDERDASH! Hartcher’s opinion piece like many others in the mainstream media peddling a similar line, says more about his character, his inner prejudice and bias than any attempted illumination on the issue of misogyny still so prevalent in all levels of our society.

To find some clear minded and cold blooded analysis of yesterday’s events I have to travel overseas and read comprehensive coverage in the New Yorker, NYTimes and other fairly reputable journals in the USA and UK.  This failure on the part of Australian mainstream media makes me want to weep with frustration.

In fact it was the Prime Minister’s finest hour so far.

Can I clarify at the outset, just in case dear reader you think I’m so one eyed that I’m blinded to faults or points of disagreement with this Labor Government, I’m not. There are a number of policy and procedural matters with which I take issue with the Government and its leader. But you have to be deaf, dumb and blind to not see the gender based discrimination and abuse she faces daily, which wouldn’t occur if she had a Y chromosome and a dangly bit.  Well, she may not have a dangly bit but she sure has balls.

Abbott’s wife’s performance in raising Tony’s feminine side on the weekend was part of the strategy that was designed to achieve a few things: it was the scatter gun approach. It was to further highlight his newly acquired feminist credentials, get rid of a Liberal Party traitor, and undermine the Prime Minister: all with the added benefit of making him more appealing to the large number of Australian women who think he is a controlling chauvinist shit.

He didn’t count on the Prime Minister reaching her ENOUGH IS ENOUGH line in the sand moment where she wiped the floor with him as he sat uncomfortably having to listen while the metaphorical mirror was lifted and pointed in his direction.

His use of the words ‘dying in shame’, words repeated three times in the one almost grammatically correct sentence, was gobsmacking. If he meant it, it was as nasty a piece of emotional abuse as I’ve ever seen on the floor of the House. He has said later in a radio interview that he had forgotten the significance of those words. This makes him either a man with the attention span of a gnat, or a deliberately emotionally abusive bully. Take your pick. Whether you believe it was deliberate or not, in either instance it makes him unfit to be Prime Minister.

Peter Slipper’s resignation from the role of Speaker was not unexpected.

Should the House have sacked him? Not while a court case is still being decided. Perceptions can also taint the system of justice and in this area it is better to be prudent.

Do I think Peter Slipper needed to go?  Yes. There was too much self-inflicted baggage. It is unfortunate, as I believe him to be the best Speaker of the House I’ve seen ever. (and I’m old).

Do I think yesterday’s attempt to pass a motion of no confidence and censure against the Speaker was a wise strategy on the part of the Liberal thinkers’ brigade? No I do not.

What Slipper’s resignation has done is remove himself from being a problem for the Government. I can’t see him returning to the Liberal fold for any reason. They have crucified him.

Peter Slipper is now the Liberal Party’s problem. Irrespective of the outcome of the court case, questions of Mal Brough’s, Christopher Pyne’s and Tony Abbott’s involvement in, or knowledge of, the circumstances that lead ultimately to Peter Slipper’s downfall will bubble back up to the surface and they have to be praying that Ashby will hang tough. Gulp!

These next few months are going to be interesting indeed.


Alan Jones really does have the happy knack of offending almost everyone without really trying. All he has to do is open his mouth and it just seems to tumble out. Points of view seem never to be substantiated by facts or evidence, no corrections are made when proved incorrect, instead vitriol and venom are the order of the day when he is in anyway challenged.  Civilised public discourse has never been his long suit.  It is almost as if there is a disconnect between his mouth and his brain.

He now accuses of being cyber bullies those of us who publicly came out and informed his advertisers we would no longer purchase goods from them if they continued to promote their goods on his breakfast programme.

It started with his destroying the joint remark about women in any position of power or leadership, and continued to even higher levels of outrage following his comments on the death of the Prime Minister’s father. Bouquets to both @JaneCaro  @JennaPrice  @turnleft2013 @destroyingthejoint

For Jones, a man who has turned bullying into an art form, to now accuse us of bullying is outrageous if it wasn’t so amusingly ironic.

Since 1985 we have been subjected to Alan Jones’s particularly pointed bias and bullying. He has consistently been the voice of divisive bile, pouring scorn on those he sees as being marginalized and without a voice – easy targets to garner headlines.

This Teflon coated shock jock has created an aura of not being able to be touched. Very little criticism has been cast his way by political leaders from either side of politics. Their simple wish was to curry favour. I always believed Jones’s influence was disproportionate to his actual listening audience. But he was master of managing the mainstream media for his own ends; that of continual self-promotion and that of his broadcasting interests.

Alan Jones pretty much has the freedom of speech to do all but incite sections of the community to riot and hate.  Companies have the freedom to advertise their products with him.

I just want to state loudly and clearly that I have rights too. I have the right to state publicly that I will not buy products from those companies who advertise with him. It is called a free market. I don’t have to buy at Woolworths, I can choose to buy at Coles or IGA or Aldi. My choice doesn’t need to come from where they advertise or who has the best price. If, for example, your goods are made from using child labour in some third world country I will not buy your stuff.

I also have the freedom to state publicly, as well as in private correspondence to those companies, the reasons behind my exercising this freedom of consumer choice. (See previous blog post:

What has changed?

The social media now has given a voice to the voiceless, and empowered the seemingly powerless. On our own we are one small voice speaking in a whisper, cautiously taking one small step at a time. As a group I found myself as part of an organic chain reaction of outrage, and to the shouts of “Enough is enough” this group has discovered a voice, which can now be heard. The unstructured, organic reaction to Alan Jones has changed the media dynamic.  The extent of that change remains to be seen.

But it was a helluva first step.

For me? I shall continue on as one little old lady unashamedly #destroyingthejoint.

%d bloggers like this: