The most significant thing about this comment on Gillard, a comment we know is true anyway:
Would Julia Gillard still be prime minister if she were not a woman? She has managed to split her party and the nation, sowing division and discord on gender, class and xenophobic lines that have won her the approval of Pauline Hanson but few others.
… is that it was made by a woman and a journo at that. Miranda Devine is more to the right anyway and happens to show some common sense on many issues so it might have been half-expected from her. Why can’t we have these women in power if a woman’s to be in power? Why can’t we have our own Julia M?
People like Gillard who play the race card or the gender, disabled, immigrant minority or any card like that – victimhood poker – are really the pits and shouldn’t be anywhere near the driving seat. Yet someone appointed them, no? Someone actually thought they were good enough people to do those jobs.
We’ve just had the woman who should never have headed even a section, let alone a department – Lin Homer. However, as Wiggia points out:
Whilst having proved to be a waste of space she only follows on from Dave Hartnett who cost the country billions in sweetheart deals with Vodaphone etc and the ongoing questions as to the suitability of Amyas Morse head of the NAO, Hartnett having “left” is now with HSBC , so it goes on.
So it’s a wider malaise, this appointment of incompetents and raises the spectre of who the faceless people are appointing these non-comps. And a woman non-comp has other issues to contend with in the appointment as well which are gender specific. One of those issues – resentment by both men and other women, is not her fault but when you get this wrong type of woman in there, it exacerbates the issue. Example – Caroline Flint.
No one I know wants a return to Patriarchy in society – the Inquisitions, Crusades, corruption, Stalin, Hitler, Franco – and we’re opposing that now with the radical Muslim push in this country.
Why oh why then would we glibly accept a Matriarchy because that is what has been coming, from women raising their children genderless to fatherless homes to completely unfit women turning their back on that to seek power for the sake of power – the appointment to positions of power. Why?
When I used the term Matriarchy, I was politely corrected by a lady colleague that it was [cough] Nanny State, not Matriarchy.
Sorry, that’s a euphemism. This thing is Matriarchy, an attempt by the Narrative believers pushing for power and quotas and all that to swing the pendulum completely the other way. This has zero to do with equality, as Minette Marrin pointed out – this is lust for power over others.
There’s an oft-used analogy of the canal boat heading down the canal, banging into the left bank, then slewing over and banging into the right bank and so it goes downstream, damaging itself with its lurch into one bank or the other.
Why on earth can it not steer a course down the middle?