Julie Bishop: Woman-Traitor of the Year

Julie Bishop, the current Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, has just been named Harper’s Bazaar’s “Woman of the Year”.

In an interview with the women’s magazine Ms Bishop reflects on her role as a female leader in a male-dominated cabinet, while sticking by her controversial insistence she is not a feminist.

“Stop whingeing, get on with it and prove them all wrong,” she told the magazine, in a veiled criticism of former prime minister Julia Gillard’s promise to “call out misogyny”.

Ms Bishop tells the magazine: “Please do not let it get to you and do not become a victim, because it’s only a downward spiral once you’ve cast yourself as a victim.”

I suppose Bishop had not bothered to look around the Cabinet, and notice that she is the only one without a penis? One out of seventeen is almost as far away from 50/50 representation as zero out of seventeen. Perhaps if the Cabinet was ‘somewhere near’ 50/50 female/male, you would have a right to your “get on with it” stance, as if institutional misogyny does not exist, and failure for women to rise through the ranks are just ‘personal failings’. But we do not live in that world.

We live in a world where a white male Prime Minister appoints himself “Minister for Women” (so he can ensure no gains are made). We live in a world where that same white male Prime Minister absorbed the folio for Indigenous Affairs into the Prime Minister’s portfolio, presumably again, so no gains can be made. We live in a world where that same white male Prime Minister appoints a Cabinet so devoid of women, as has not been seen in recent history.

Certainly it is personal choice for a woman to become a feminist. Let’s recap:

  • Julie Bishop (and all other women) would not be able to vote, if not for feminists
  • Julie Bishop (and all other women) would not be able to hold political office, particularly federal office, if not for feminists
  • Julie Bishop (and all other women) would not be able to have bank accounts in their own names, nor hold property, if not for feminists
  • Julie Bishop (and all other women) would not be able to limit the size of their families (even to nil, as Bishop has chosen) if not for feminists still constantly fighting for contraception and abortion rights
  • Julie Bishop (and all other women) would hit the glass ceiling at the typing pool level, if not for feminists
  • Julie Bishop* (and all other women) would not be receiving the 70-80% of male wage now, but 10-50% as it was before the 2nd Wave, if not for feminists [* Bishop probably not currently subject even to the higher limit, given the public nature of parliamentary salaries]

So tell me again, Ms Bishop, why you abhor calling yourself “a feminist”, when feminists have paved the way for you to have the life you have? Even if you are the ONLY Token Woman in Abbott’s Cabinet. You would not even have that luxury, if not for feminists.

In the Harper’s interview you said:

“I went into federal politics with the secret hope [of becoming] Foreign Minister. It’s the greatest opportunity I could ever wish for. I am living my dream.”

And that would be in large part, thanks to …?

Clearly, you are as self-serving, self-centred, as the rest of the be-penised Abbott Cabinet, who are guaranteed to be out at the next election (it cannot come fast enough).

It is an utter insult that you get named “Woman of the Year”.

You are (sex) Traitor of the Year.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Julie Bishop: Woman-Traitor of the Year

  1. Julie Bishop believes that by claiming ‘wah I’m not a Feminist’ that women-hating male Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his male cronies will reward her with political power. In your dreams Ms. Bishop because Abbott and his male cronies will toss you out with the trash as soon as you are no longer useful to men and their Male Supremacist System.

    Oh and by the way Ms. Bishop the only reason you managed to become a female MP was due to the campaigning work of real Feminists – yes those women you Ms. Bishop dismiss. If it were not for those real Feminists you wouldn’t be an MP but instead would be living a very restricted life because you would not have right to enter mens’ political arena.

    Sadly Ms. Bishop you aren’t the only female pandering to the men in the vain belief that by pandering to men they will reward you with a miniscule amount of political/socio-economic power.

    The Masters’ Tools will never Dismantle the Masters’ Houses! A lesson Ms. Bishop you refuse to accept.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Exactly. She would not have the choice to “live her dream” if not for feminists, particularly earlier feminists, fighting for the rights of women to fully participate in society. Men did not graciously ‘give’ us those things, feminists demanded women’s rights. Had they not demanded, her ‘choice’ would be to be married with a whole pile of children, or a rich spinster living off her family’s income.

      Yet, she derides feminists and feminism, and throws other women under the bus, as well as sucking up to The Boys. Sex Traitor is what she is.

      Did Bishop “pull herself up from her own bootstraps”? That again would be no.

      I noted when researching, Bishop went to a private all-girls’ school in Adelaide. The current rate for (tuition only, no boarding) is AU$19k plus other fees per annum. In an article I found on private SA schools, it was equal first as the most expensive private girls’ school in Adelaide.

      She also graduated Law prior to HECS fees coming in for Australian Universities, so not burdened by later extra taxation to pay that off. I doubt she had to hold down jobs to put herself through university either.

      It is completely insulting for her to say “Stop whingeing, get on with it and prove them all wrong”, as she has proven nothing, other than coming from ‘money’ and going to the best schools gives you advantages over most of the rest of the female population.

      It is Bishop who should “stop whingeing” about other women, and about feminists. She really is as bad as Thatcher with her anti-woman stance.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Dave, another wonderful post! Thank you for this! ❤

    I look at Julie Bishop winning that award of the year as a reward for playing her role in the patriarchy. She is apart of the Kim Kardashian, Jenna Jameson, Jenna Marbles problem; women who get paid to hate women while holding up the patriarchal role for women.
    He says “Look here dollface, these women don’t mind being the only women in their group. These women love hating other women. These women love submitting to abusive men. These women don’t mind sexism or sexual harassment. These women don’t mind my shenanigans or call me out on it. These women love being sex objects, and for that, they get rewarded for strapping on their peen and being called sluts, whores and old hags! They wear these titles with high esteem, and you should too! This is the life I might give/reward you if you obey me.”

    I keep coming across men saying that it’s hard to find a good, confident woman these days. I started thinking about what he means by confident? A woman who says no to him? A woman who speaks up to him? A woman who doesn’t put up with his crap? A woman that knows she is worth so much more than the low value he’s placed on her? A woman that has limits and boundaries? A woman that wants more out of life than the unimaginative crap he offers her? Nah, he doesn’t want a woman like that. That’s a feminazi.
    What he wants is a woman who is confident in her role within the patriarchy; he wants to her be confident as his sex object/slave/stepping stool. Yea, that’s what he really wants. And there’s nothing more of a turn on to him than a woman who’s confident with being trampled on by him.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. FabFro you are spot on – what men want when they lie and claim they ‘want a good confident woman’ is patriarchal reversal malespeak. In reality what these women-hating men want is a silent submissive female robot who ‘says yes sir no sir three bags full sir!’

    Seeing through mens’ lies is sometimes easy and other times not so easy and I believe only reason women such as Ms. Bishop pander to the men is because they think their lives will be so much easier. Well perhaps it is made a little easier for them but that doesn’t change fact men continue to hold women in contempt.

    Class and wealth has never protected women from male violence or from male hatred and I have no doubt Ms. Bishop has been subjected to at least male hatred/male contempt but she believes it is worth it because the men have given her a temporary minute reward. Enjoy your 15 minutes of male praise Ms. Bishop because as I said before when you are no longer useful to the men your career will immediately deteriorate.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Have been reading your blog since you started – am very glad you are back- but never had anything more to add to your own analysis and words except for this time.

    That is, I see something far more insidious occurring in Australian politics – in global politics, by extension- than ‘just’ the rise of traitors to feminism such as La Bishop. Have been searching unsuccessfully for a distant past second wave feminism quote to illustrate; quote that went something like the following:

    “Women will reach full equality (with men) only when the most mediocre and incompetent of women manage to succeed alongside the most mediocre and incompetent of men.”
    I’ve never agreed with that sentiment because, in my view, the most mediocre and incompetent of women (the worst male identified handmaidens of the P) have always managed to succeed alongside the most hopelessly incompetent of men. In my view, this seems to be an unwritten rule of patriarchy; indeed how the P has managed to succeed for so very long.The daily testosterone pill-popping Margaret Thatcher, anyone?

    Julie Bishop brings to mind – from Wikipedia- the concept of “negative selection” whereby, in politics, bureaucracies, dictatorships, corporations and similar hierarchies, “the person at the top of the hierarchy, wishing to remain in power forever, chooses his associates with the prime criterion of incompetence: they must not be competent enough to remove him from power.
    Such subordinates often mimic their leader, these associates do the same with those below them in the hierarchy, and the hierarchy is progressively filled with more and more incompetent people. What remains is a grossly ineffective hierarchy.”

    Ergo: the grotesquely comically incompetent Tony Abbot as a prime minister and his choice of the equally comically incompetent, arrogant, parochial Julie Bishop as his Foreign Minister. As a student of geopolitics as well as a rad fem, I despair; La Bishop not only a traitor to feminism but a political embarrassment to Australia all around the thinking world.

    Negative selection explains the why of both.
    With respect.

    Like

  5. Welcome Bronte71.

    Current global politics could be summed up:

    I did see a better one on serfdom, but neglected to save it, dammit.

    I cannot recall exactly how that quote goes (I will ask the BrainTrust!), but I think it was something like ‘when the most mediocre woman surpasses the most competent man’. But certainly loads of competent women are passed over in favour of very mediocre dudes in the workplace, all the time. It’s a dual-edged sword, in that if a woman promotes herself, she is seen as ‘pushy’ (whereas a man would be seen as ‘ambitious’ and ‘driven’).

    That is a different situation to current (global) politics, particularly the current liberal government hellbent on reversing women’s (and aboriginal) rights—only the handmaiden’s will be chosen. We know that is Abbott’s agenda, given he assigned himself (a male!!) as Minister for Women, and absorbed the Aboriginal Affairs under the PM’s portfolio (a white male!!). This is so no one will raise objections to the agendas being pushed, and he has control. Abbott is pure evil.

    Like

    • Thanks to Hecuba for finding this one (although there still may be an older version around, I am sure I remember it from “way back”)

      Until men are actually promoted on merit I see absolutely no reason why women should have to be. In fact, I believe we will only have true equality when there are as many mediocre women in positions of power as there currently are mediocre men. And if you’d like to see just how mediocre things can get, look no further than our new Federal cabinet.

      Good article, highly recommend it to read.
      You can find her many other article by searching her surname on that site’s search box.

      http://www.womensagenda.com.au/talking-about/opinions/promotion-on-ahem-merit/201309172909#.VIhuy8k8DyA

      Like

  6. Bishop is a typical strike breaker, Jew that manned the gas chambers, fully paid up member of the Quisling Club. She is as sexist as the men and should be treated with the same scorn that is reserved for those other wacko jobs, the MRAs.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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