Showing posts with label men. Show all posts
Showing posts with label men. Show all posts

Tuesday, 11 December 2007

Coming into their own

What ever you may think about the Acting Prime Minister (yes that's right, for 60 hours until Kev gets back from Bali .....half his luck) isn't it good when you see people coming into their own?
Despite her and my good fortune of having red hair (you brownies, blondies and blackies just don't get it!), and her nasal voice. Don't you like the way she just ploughs on?
In yesterday's paper the Vox Pops asked the question of whether a woman would be a good PM...the resounding response was yes. And the reason? Because they see things differently.
This is (for those who could care less) one of the reasons why we need women bishop's too. Most bishops I have known (all men) have a side of them which is blinded by their own glory; some cope with this better than others. For the rest it can be disastrous.
Women don't seem to be so easily deceived. (I don't imagine a woman Pope would have dreamt up the doctrine of papal infallibility). So often women are some what more confident of themselves and don't need to be constantly worshipped and adored, like we frail creatures who need our Mummy!
So I am finding Ms Gillard's growth in stature, character and stateswomanly behaviour wonderful to observe.

Friday, 5 October 2007

Colourful comment

It is interesting to note that the newly released citizenship booklet (download here if you want) says "No one should be disadvantaged on the basis of their country of birth, cultural heritage,
political beliefs, language, gender or religious beliefs."
I do not then understand how Minister Andrews can promote this document as a key policy
instrument, and at the same time use national and ethnic origin as the significant
filter against refugees of Sudanese origin. (here)
One thing that really worries me about these sort of defective analyses that say: it is because a person was born here, or there; or it is because they belong to a certain ethnic grouping...is that it is just so unreflective.
I mean a headline in the pathetic Advertiser this morning says...Africans drink and fight, says Andrews.
My immediate reaction is to say: it is not Africans that drink and fight it is young men!
(I don't think this is sexist!) Last year it was Lebanese Australians, and "Shire" Australians who were in a pitched battle on the beaches of Sydney. Last Sunday I watched a little of that ever-glorious West-Side Story...there it was Puerto Ricans, Poles and Italians.
It is pathetic to single out one nationality, when it is more to do with bored young men of any race or nation.
At a time when the UN is saying that Sudan is the refugee community of greatest need we are saying ...but we will not take the problem cases. How pathetic!
How pathetic, too, that the Labor Party agrees with the Coalition about this. There is here no ideology, but rather the craven cowing to a racist electorate that wants these problems to be (pardon the pun) black and white!
I do not want a government that capitulates to such populist nonsense, but one that actually says we will do more than just paint racist solutions to what are complex social issues.
Did the victimistaion of the Jews teach us nothing?