What it means to have a woman—other than a statistical rarity such as Thatcher or Meir—as the leader of a country
Mark Richardson at Oz Conservative writes:
Extraordinary photos were published yesterday on Australia Day of the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, fleeing Aboriginal protesters:
Those photos are amazing. How laughably obvious that “equal” women still have to cower in the grasp of strong men for protection.The commenter is exactly right. If the police forces of the West declared to the feminist multiculturalist elites of liberal society: “You constantly cast aspersions on white men, on the masculine strength and authority of white men. But when your own safety is a concern, you turn automatically to those same white men, expecting us to be there for you. So we’re not playing the game any more. If you want the protection that only we can give you, stop diminishing and degrading us. If you want your pretty heads to remain connected to your bodies, acknowledge that YOUR liberal order and YOUR lives depend on us, and start acting accordingly.”
Of course they will never say this. But if they did, it would transform the entire situation.
And what about Tony Abbott, the leader of the Opposition party, who was also at the event? Did he, while leaving the restaurant, lean with distraught face and helpless posture into the arms of a security guard? Tell me if you find any pictures of that.
UPDATE: guess what? As Carol Iannone points out, the man at the extreme right of the first picture above, with light blue tie and white shirt, is unquestionably Tony Abbot, as you can see from his photograph at Wikipedia:
Guard with Gillard … … . Abbot
Here’s the headline:
Aboriginal-rights protesters burn Australian flag, blame police for clash where PM stumbledThe protesters’ anti-police view of the clash is highlighted in the headline. Yet the story says that the “Aboriginal-rights supporters had surrounded a restaurant and banged on its windows while Gillard and opposition leader Tony Abbott were inside at an award ceremony to mark Australia Day.” Well, that’s pretty serious, but the story doesn’t reference that threatening mob violence again, Instead it gives the protesters’ view that they didn’t do anything wrong, and that it was the police who initiated the violence. Which version is true? The Washington Post cares not. It leaves everything in a relativistic haze in which the violent protesters are at least as credible as the police.
Brandon F. writes:
The suggestion that those photos somehow represents the weakness of women as major political leaders is absurd.LA replies:
I was not talking about the necessary things that are done when a political leader is physically threatened, such as the security guards taking physical control of him and hustling him away from a dangerous location, an arrangement that is unavoidably embarrassing to the leader, who may be tossed around like a sack of potatoes. We know all about that. I was pointing to Gillard’s helpless, dependent posture and distraught, helpless-looking facial expression. There was nothing in the situation calling for that. Most of the men in the same photos are just walking down the steps. By contrast, she looks, and allowed herself to look, emotionally overwhelmed.Mark Jaws writes:
“Aboriginal” protesters my arse. I’ve watched the video of that debacle, and most of those protesters looked pretty white to me. This was just a bunch of orchestrated leftists who need to be told, “Unless you self-loathers who despise this culture which has given you prosperity and freedom are willing to live like the aborigines in pre-1788 Australia, shut the hell up.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 27, 2012 12:22 PM | Send