Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Internet Villain of the Year Stephen Conroy Resigns

timothy posted about a year ago | from the do-you-trust-his-network? dept.

Australia 67

An anonymous reader writes "Australian Communications Minister and [2009's] Internet Villain of the Year Stephen Conroy has resigned after his patron was booted out by her party. Conroy gained infamy through his repeated attempts to censor the internet and more recently silent web site blocking, web snooping and data retention. His national broadband network remains controversial."

cancel ×

67 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

One down (2)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about a year ago | (#44110911)

A whole lot of other corrupt dishonest [wikileaksparty.org.au] Aussie politicians to go... they have had their fair go at it, mate.

Re:One down (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44110949)

FTFA:

What makes these revelations even more offensive are our elected representatives’ refusal to come clean. It is clear that the extent of Australian – United States cooperation on monitoring of citizens is not limited to special targets of high risk, identified and approved by lawful warrant to be intercepted and surveilled. No. It is all of us, all the time.

Re:One down (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about a year ago | (#44112429)

Yup.
Remember though.
It is not Just American or Just Australian political representatives that need to go.
France, Italy, Greece, Spain, Russia, Mexico, England, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, China, and Many MANY more.

Almost all of them are bad.
And none of them will be good after you leave them steeping in politics for more than a few years.

Re:One down (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111001)

Yeah, right. Given Rupert Murdochs 70% control of the media, the only thing Australians will be giving is absolute power in both houses to the Liberals (Aussie right wing/neocon types) - not any third parties like the wikileaks party or greens... a country gets the goverment its dominant media channels tell it to get.

BTW Australian mining companies keep around 60% and then some of the wealth they dig up - 40% for the Australian people. Complete opposite of Ecuador where 40% goes to the company for the privileged of mining public land... so no prizes for guessing know who owns the two Aussie mainstream political parties...

Re:One down (4, Funny)

Pav (4298) | about a year ago | (#44111147)

Heheh... Made a while ago, but is surprisingly appropriate. (Gillard taken out, Murdoch, Wikileaks etc...) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xm0HNbvtgQ [youtube.com]

+3: Informative, Insightful and Funny... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111461)

...sad when this is more insightful news than you usually get on prime time TV

Re:One down (1)

Elbereth (58257) | about a year ago | (#44111165)

I still don't understand how Peter Garrett [wikipedia.org] could turn into such a "team player" and moderate, after decades of activism. I guess it goes to show how much politicians have to sell out in order to make it to the top levels.

Even as an American, I considered Garrett something of a hero when I was growing up. It was a shock to find out what's become of him today.

Porn surfing history (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111281)

The CIA showed him his porn surfing history and he suddenly remember how loyal Australia was to the USA military leadership.

It's amazing how much leverage you can get on politicians just from capturing their browser histories.

Re:Porn surfing history (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111367)

When the generals talk, you better listen to them...

Re:One down (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year ago | (#44111465)

We have a widespread activist party, the Greens. By all and sundry, they're tainted the 'loony left' and attract about 10% of the vote.

Thus effectively, going mainstream forces once to sell out. But in Garrett's case he was an ineffective environment minister, sidelined as the climate change policy was given to an unknown and abandoned his views on US imperialism and uranium.

Re:One down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111995)

The greens have some pretty wacky polices. They were one of the biggest proponents of having NO r18+ video game rating.

Re:One down (2)

Maso (78542) | about a year ago | (#44112099)

The greens are in favour of r18.

"When it came to reforming our classification system, only the Greens declared unequivocal support for the introduction of an R18+ rating for games.

“It is bizarre that Australia is one of the only countries in the Western world without an adult classification for games,” says Scott Ludlam, Greens Senator for Western Australia. “We believe that a change to the classification system should occur in the next term in parliament.”"

Tell me more of these wacky policies

Re:One down (1)

Bremic (2703997) | about a year ago | (#44117983)

A lot of this confusion is caused by Murdoch's Blog... I mean the mainstream media in Australia... saying the Greens are doing one thing, while the Greens are in fact doing something else.

Re:One down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44118025)

Unfortunately now, instead of using the R18+ classification, they continue to refuse classification (Saints Row IV, State of Decay).

Re:One down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44118147)

Yeah because if you type in google "greens against r18+" you get a lot of results that seem to verifiy it.

Re:One down (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44111999)

abandoned his views on US imperialism and uranium

The reality is he was told to shut up on those issues entirely since it wasn't his job so we don't know if he abandoned his views or not. It shows what people have to do to be "part of the team".

Re:One down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44119825)

I agree, it was soooo disappointing to see the man turn into a mouse

Re:One down (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year ago | (#44120023)

In late-breaking news, Garrett resigned from parliament today.

Conroy will still be there on the backbench, just not as communications minister.

Re:One down (1)

Elbereth (58257) | about a year ago | (#44122721)

Yeah, I saw. Surprising. Even more surprising, he seems quite proud of his accomplishments and fiercely loyal to Gillard/Labor. I don't know what to say. I guess it's easy to criticize from the outside, and minor incremental advances are better than regression... but who can help but be disappointed?

Re:One down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111471)

To be honest i think we need one party with absolute power in both houses. Maybe then we might be able to get something done. At the moment when one party is in charge they bring up ideas and the other party blocks it, then when the other party is in charge they bring up the same ideas and the opposition party (who came up with ideas) block it themselves. It was Howard's idea for a national fiber network now his party is fighting to limit it. Is it just a circus to keep us amused while they do whatever the advisers tell them they can?

While I'm at it, why do we need state government? Divide the power between local and federal, then use the copious savings on something cool like catching an asteroid.

Re:One down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111571)

Your are sooo wrong. Both parties block each other on the same/similar idea - because they both NEVER WANTED IT TO GET PASSED. It was only propoesed to pander to their constituents. It gets blocked they can happily turn around and say "see, we tried, we are the good guys". Only exceptions is when it comes to pandering to the real power bases: bank bailouts, mining concessions, expanding ASIOs powers into police state territory... the list is long. Then the two main parties fall into line and vote together - usually on a Friday afternoon late session just before Christmas/holidays so their constituents do not notice. Cant have pesky voter backlash and democracy working as it should now, can we.

Re:One down (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#44112045)

To be honest i think we need one party with absolute power in both houses. Maybe then we might be able to get something done.

We had that with John Howard. He got lots done, and most of it was bad.

There are three things the thinking person quickly learns about Australian politicians:
If a labor politician says he's going to do something nice, he might be in deadly earnest, but he will never get the numbers to carry it through.
If a Liberal politician says he's going to do something nice, he's lying.
If a Liberal politician says he's going to do something nasty, you can bet he's deadly serious.

Either way, we're fucked.

Re: One down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44117891)

This is possibly the best assessment of Australian politics that I've ever read, well said sir!

Re:One down (1)

Bremic (2703997) | about a year ago | (#44118035)

It all depends on your perspective.

If you are an Australian citizen who doesn't appear in the list of 100 most wealthy, or an elected official in the LNP, you are correct.
If you are in one of those minorities, you have it backwards.

The LNP is being completely honest when it says it wants to support minorities. These are the minorities it is talking about.

Re:One down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44120191)

"If a labor politician says he's going to do something nice, he might be in deadly earnest, but it will turn out all his figures are wrong." ftfy

Re:One down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111223)

A win is a win, this was a particularly bad one down.

Re:One down (0)

oztiks (921504) | about a year ago | (#44111313)

I read these kinds of articles and forgive me for being a little one eyed here, I mean, it is from the "Wikileaks party" website after all. Though it makes you think, anyone, American citizen or not, If they dwell on Slashdot and care about a free internet but at the same time have a nasty thing to say about Snowden. I have something to tell you.

You're a Dick. Plain and simple, you're a Dick and there is no cure.

Traitor or not and I feel the term traitor these days is about as controversial as the word terrorism (wonder how many PRISM flagged words I'm triggering now WHOAAA!!). In fact, the word traitor is fast becoming an outdated term the more the world becomes interconnected. So moving forward from the labels put aside here, lets look at the facts, this person's actions have caused this upheaval and whatever happens from here on we have HIM to thank for that upheaval.

Are we still questioning whether that upheaval was to our benefit or to our detriment? As far as I can see Russia and China are treating this as one big laugh and not giving the US Govt. the respect it demands but come'on Julian Assange did the very same thing, aren't they all used to it by now?

So back to the "you're a dick" sentiment for a second. I.E the Snowden haters out there. Do you think for one second that Russia and China were blind to the PRISM program before it's plastering in public domain? Do you think that any of the secrets out there such as the Pacnet ordeal was blind to China? Right here this very news article we are seeing US allies run and hide at the mention of PRISM.

Doesn't seem like that big of a secret to me if half the freakin world Govts knew about it!!

Re:One down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44112567)

This.

Where one stands vis-a-vis Snowden really separates the decent form the indecent.

Australia's already got web snooping (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111073)

Just ask the UK, we discussed and debated the Snoopers Charter, and then we found out (from an American leaker no less) that we already had it. That GCHQ were intercepting most of the UK to US traffic, spying on Brits, and not just headers either. That this had been done in secret already.

Australia is part of 5 eyes, so their spy agency too will have already implement surveillance of Australia to US traffic. Capturing all the Aussies data too. It too will have been done in secret.

William Hague, our Foreign Secretary, even claims its legal. The its legal because its legal for the USA to spy on Brits, so he can sign off on GCHQ helping them spy on Brits!
Likewise there's no law in the UK, saying that UK can't spy on Americans, so we have NSA analysts here, spying on their fellow Americans. They could be in the USA doing it, but that wouldn't be legal.

So do you imagine that Australia is any different? That Conroy wasn't simply trying to make a law to legalize what his spies are already doing? Of course they are!

Looks like he got what he wanted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111083)

Who keeps working when the job is done?

"controversial" broadband plan? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111093)

His broadband plan only remains controversial to those who think that a broadband plan based on tin cans and string is a viable alternative.

Re:"controversial" broadband plan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111175)

plan? hahahaha. you have no idea how little an idea they had about this. The "plan" has changed more times than i can count, and they still haven't made up their mind.

Re:"controversial" broadband plan? (1)

Chuq (8564) | about a year ago | (#44112189)

You're talking about the coalition plan, which was wireless, then cable, now FTTN?

The ALP plan has been the same since 2009 when it was announced. 93% FTTH, 7% wireless/sat.

Prior to that, yes, there were discussions about broadband and requests for proposals, none of which got up.

Re:"controversial" broadband plan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44118183)

yeah you have no idea. I'm one of the guys that is fiquring out that percentage and traveling salesman problem (for the ALP), and my bosses keep changing there minds.

Re:"controversial" broadband plan? (1)

Chuq (8564) | about a year ago | (#44128831)

If you know more I'd be very interested to hear what you have to say. AFAIK the Government directive was for 90% or more to be FTTH, and they were able to extend that to 93%.

It hasn't been stated officially, but assuming the NBN is completed in its current format, I would bet that post completion the FTTH footprint would continue to grow; in the same way that when bitumen roads first became commonplace, there were some areas that remained gravel or dirt, but over the years many of these roads have become sealed.

I'm sure that the wireless/sat percentages will vary, given that some councils and residents are protesting the wireless tower locations, and the government wants to get it all done by 2015. I assume that if they can't get a fixed wireless solution for an area, those households will get satellite?

Re:"controversial" broadband plan? (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year ago | (#44111271)

For many the current infrastructure is adequate (e.g. 3 of my 4 aunts don't have the internet). Trying to explain to them that the reason after a storm that the phone becomes crackly or to others why their ADSL drops out because the copper wiring needs replacing at the cost of $1b/year goes over their heads.

Then there's 40% of the population who have always voted for the coalition... The NBN ain't a vote changer to most swinging voters.

Re:"controversial" broadband plan? (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#44112285)

...or to others why their ADSL drops out because the copper wiring needs replacing at the cost of $1b/year goes over their heads.

If they've got copper, they aren't doing too badly. I only live 1/2 an hour's drive from what passes for a large town in Tasmania, and there's absolutely no possibility of copper to my home, let alone fibre.

The NBN ain't a vote changer to most swinging voters.

Swinging voters should be disqualified from voting.

Re:"controversial" broadband plan? (1)

Macgrrl (762836) | about a year ago | (#44118257)

Do you have a landline? 'Cause that's the infrastructure they plan on using for copper to the home.

As a childless woman who works in IT, is a heavy user of the internet and has a partner with chronic health issues, there's a lot for me to worry about if (when) Abbott get's into the lodge.

Descoping of the NBN, 456 Visa's putting my job at risk, increased taxes to pay for other people's childcare. So much to look forward to.

Re:"controversial" broadband plan? (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#44119133)

Do you have a landline? 'Cause that's the infrastructure they plan on using for copper to the home.

Nope. I said no possibility of copper, and that's what I've got. So I pay over the odds for a substandard so-called NextG service, which when it is working, is just marginally better than dialup. And like you, I see no likelihood of any improvement with a change of government.

Re:"controversial" broadband plan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44117917)

controversial = a lot of people for and a lot of people against.

Re:"controversial" broadband plan? (1)

bebilith (1633123) | about a year ago | (#44119945)

To bloody right!

$25B for FTTN which will be limited to 25Mb/s by that ancient, expensive to maintain, copper. When Netflix (30% of US evening internet traffic) expects to be streaming 34Mb/s hidef video by 2014. How is that making good use of the spending and enabling Australia for the future?

Better to spend the $50B ($70B..whatever) up front on FTTH now and be good for the next 50 years.
--
B

Re:"controversial" broadband plan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44120179)

This copper for fttn, is it the same stuff that i use to network my computers at home with? because there isn't a 25Mb/s limit between my home computers (it's gigabit bitch). They must be using evil liberal party copper.

Re:"controversial" broadband plan? (1)

bebilith (1633123) | about a year ago | (#44129431)

Hahah. Really? You are comparing 30 metres of cable manufactured to Cat 5e standards in a clean dry environment to kilometres of twisted pair wires buried in the ground 30 years ago with multiple connections where it's just twisted together sitting in pits full of water with plastic bags as moisture protection?

You are either a troll or ignorant. I'll leave the world to judge.
--
B

NBN controversial? (5, Insightful)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year ago | (#44111161)

Smell the flamebait.

The Uncle-Rupert article you linked to mentions an absurd claim high speed internet is a major health risk because of disturbing asbestos-laden pits in the process of replacing copper with fibre.

Quite rightly Conroy called it out as ridiculous. These same pits would need to be accessed in laying fibre-to-the-node.

Re:NBN controversial? (1)

TranquilVoid (2444228) | about a year ago | (#44118743)

If the editors added the 'controversial' line then it's a poor reflection on them. At best it is mildly controversial.

It's riotously controversial if you are a writer for News Limited, though. I have not seen a single positive article about it in their broadsheet, The Australian, over the past few years. As Murdoch also owns Foxtel cable, which is likely to be eaten by an NBN, conspiracy theorists could be forgiven for suggesting editorial independence has been compromised.

Re:NBN controversial? (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year ago | (#44120483)

These same pits would need to be accessed in laying fibre-to-the-node.

I would be more happy if the public were educated to the great asbestos risk that this really is. The fact that some random people think their health was adversely affected because someone broke a bonded piece of non-friable asbestos on the other side of the world speaks volumes for how intelligent the general public really is.

The sad thing is, the stupidity of the people is the reason why Conrvoy 2.0 or whoever his successor will be is going to be just as corrupt as his predecessor.

Does he have an undeserved Nobel Peace Prize? (1)

lxs (131946) | about a year ago | (#44111257)

If not, the Internet villain of 2013 is still in the lead for Evilest Internet Villain of the century.

Re:Does he have an undeserved Nobel Peace Prize? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44119841)

My vote for Evilest Internet Villian of the century has to go to Nicola Roxon... someone, who as Australia's Attorney General once said she would defend the Australian public from Internet data retention laws (think Australia's version of PRISM) but who all along supported such a law, has to be a person of pure evil.
Thank fuck she'll hopefully be outsed now that Kevin Bumstead is back in

The enemy we know was better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111401)

Frankly this is a bit of a loss, the NBN is not really controversial, out of all policies [of both sides] in the current debate and enjoys within the community a rather large level of bipartisan support.

The asbestos etc from the article is not really NBN Co's fault, as the pits are owned by Telstra [I hope that the liability of the asbestos was made clear in the sale of telstra by the Liberals] and they are responsible as per the lease agreement on the pits to make them fit for use before NBN fiber is even poked near the hole.

This doesn''t defend his pushing on data retention, copyright, or any of the other things he has said besides, but he was the best advocate, and probably most competent advocate of the NBN the Labor party has at this point, which is a shame because it is actually very very good policy which will be replaced by an inferior alternative that will need upgrading in the very short term, which in private enterprise isnt a big deal but in government infrastructure builds is a nightmare and will most likely ending with the overall cost being far higher than the current NBN and more expensive to the individual as far as connection costs one would expect.

Essentially if we dont get FTTH now [Liberals get in and their alternative policy is implemented] then we will not see large scale uptake for a very long time, t our own detriment.

Re:The enemy we know was better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111749)

The alleged alternative will need upgrading literally before it is even finished. Yes, seriously.

See: http://theaimn.com/2013/06/22/the-nbn-worth-voting-for/

Re:The enemy we know was better (1)

Macgrrl (762836) | about a year ago | (#44118451)

Sadly, the voters who will decide the next election are largely aspirational voters with a poor understanding of the impacts of FTTH vs FTTN. Many of them are rents who annually spend more on their cars than on their housing.

That and the xenophobia the conservatives have whipped up regarding the 457 visa and asylum seekers sometimes makes me ashamed to be Australian - a country which has been founded on immigration from all corners of the globe.

NBN controversial? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111451)

Pure bullshit. It's always been an immensely popular policy. The supporters of it have been pretty much anyone who knows anything about computers and the current copper system. The detractors have been people lying through their teeth for political reasons.

It's the single biggest reason why Labor really should stay in for another term of government.

Re:NBN controversial! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111869)

Bullshit. It's more expensive than what I'm paying at the moment for speeds far below other countries and they have blown a shitload of taxpayer money on it.

TOO EXPENSIVE: NBN monthly plans unveiled: The proposed National Broadband Network prices released this week by iiNet are simply way too expensive for the promised 100Mbps speeds and will need to be reduced significantly to drive customer uptake. http://apcmag.com/too-expensive-nbn-monthly-plans-unveiled.htm [apcmag.com]

The NBN a nice centralised point for Conroy 2.0 to spy on Aussie's net usage and that will continue regardless of who we vote for because it is the public service fat cats pushing it: That part of the government you can't get rid of. http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/02/14/banality-of-evil-new-documents-lift-the-veil-on-data-retention/ [crikey.com.au]

>It's the single biggest reason why Labor really should stay in for another term of government.
You need to get a life.

Re:NBN controversial! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44112891)

It is far far too obvious that you are a shill.

The article you linked is from March 2010.
Construction of even the Tasmania trial of the NBN only started in July 2010.
Those alleged higher prices completely contradict what is available on iiNet's website.
The NBN is funded by government backed debt, and will actually make give the government a 7% return.

Need I go on? Really, it's like you're not even trying.

Never figured that one out (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44111455)

The biggest authoritarian nutjobs in Australian politics hail from the Catholic Right. They've historically dominated the Labor Party, although they can also be found in the conservative parties too (Tony Abbott was one of "Santa's little helpers" before he joined the Liberal Party).

I never really figured out how the Catholic Right in Australia got to be so illiberal, and how they got away with the stuff they've done in the past, and continue to do so.

And they crop up in all sorts of interesting places. You can imagine my surprise when I worked for a supermarket, and volunteered to help out with the union. That is, until I discovered that the SDA are actually a bunch of hard-Right book burning Nazis.

That said, I will not shed a single tear for Stephen Conroy.

Don't worry... (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#44111615)

Conroy will probably be back soon as a highly-paid lobbyist, working for corporations and governments who will benefit from a locked-down internet.

Shitstains take care of their own.

On a serious note, all I have to say is ... (1)

skegg (666571) | about a year ago | (#44111685)

Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy !!!

Yippeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee !!!

Wooooooooooooooooooot !!!

Now I'm doing a one-man conga dance, with imaginary maracas.

Julia Gillard Looks Like Jodie Foster (1)

snookerdoodle (123851) | about a year ago | (#44112283)

Ok, Off-Topic, and I feel awful for that.

Julia Gillard looks a lot like Jodie Foster in the picture on her Wikipedia page, IMHO.

That really is all I had to say.

Re:Julia Gillard Looks Like Jodie Foster (1)

Macgrrl (762836) | about a year ago | (#44118477)

It's been frankly embarrassing how the local media has treated Gillard (to the point of asking if her defacto partner was gay on a public radio broadcast, implying she was merely his beard.

I can only hope that by the time we get our next female Prime Minister the rest of the pollies or mass media can find it in themselves to treat the position with respect even if they are still a bunch of misogynistic pricks.

Re:Julia Gillard Looks Like Jodie Foster (1)

TranquilVoid (2444228) | about a year ago | (#44118817)

It's not fair to point to a single shock-jock whose question wasn't tolerated by the public whatsoever.

Also, Gillard did her best to make gender politics an issue, continually trying to paint Abbot as a misogynist. Witness her 'dressing down' speech and her recent left-field attempt to spark an abortion debate in a feminist context.

Re:Julia Gillard Looks Like Jodie Foster (1)

Macgrrl (762836) | about a year ago | (#44119699)

While the beard question may have been the most egregious offence, it was by no means the only one during her 3 years at the helm. Look at Allan Jones, Tony Abbott and Germaine Greer and their ilk for other examples.

Re:Julia Gillard Looks Like Jodie Foster (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44120857)

How about this story by Annabel Crabb (which appears on the ABC website ... the most conservative of media outlets as it's funded by taxes):

Divided Liberals limp to day of reckoning [abc.net.au]

1) "Don't wear budgie smugglers"
So male politicians must wear board shorts, not briefs. It seems Annabel objects to the shape of the male politician's penis and testicles showing underneath.
Stick with me, Macgrrl. Can you imagine a male author for the ABC writing that female politicians should pad their bikini tops so that their nipples don't show through ... in case the water's cold?

2) "If you have an extremely hairy back, for God's sake keep your shirt on"
Macgrrl, can you also imagine a male author suggesting to female parliamentarians that they must shave their legs before going out in public?

Females cop sexist abuse. Of course I'll admit that.

But if you answered "no" to either of my 2 questions above, you've also admitted that males cop sexist abuse.

I'm just sick of feminists who believe in their heart that only women cop sexist abuse; those women are completely (and willfully) blind to the daily abuse copped by the other 50% of the population.

Re:Julia Gillard Looks Like Jodie Foster (1)

TranquilVoid (2444228) | about a year ago | (#44121903)

They cop different abuse (which is really the definition of sexism!) For example a male politician is more likely to be called out on their physical appearance (like being overweight, or your examples). Female politicians are more likely to be belittled or disregarded.

Re:Julia Gillard Looks Like Jodie Foster (1)

fido_dogstoyevsky (905893) | about a year ago | (#44119579)

It's been frankly embarrassing how the local media has treated Gillard (to the point of asking if her defacto partner was gay on a public radio broadcast, implying she was merely his beard.

I can only hope that by the time we get our next female Prime Minister the rest of the pollies or mass media can find it in themselves to treat the position with respect even if they are still a bunch of misogynistic pricks.

It was far more embarrassing seeing the PM on national TV baying for the blood of an Australian journalist who had dared to embarras the US (one J Assange).

The position has lacked any respectability since howard's day.

Re:Julia Gillard Looks Like Jodie Foster (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44120805)

So you feel that Julia Gillard was singled-out because of her gender?

Look at this article, which appeared in today's Sydney Morning Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/masterchef/masterchef-the-spill-20130627-2oyej.html [smh.com.au]

Opening line:

It's horrible when your time is cut Shorten by a pair of crusty, dry balls.

It's saying that Gillard's time was cut short because Bill Shorten changed his support. Indirectly, it refers to Minister Bill Shorten as "a pair of crusty, dry balls". (Referring to his testicles.)
Now, this appeared in a mainstream newspaper. Was there any outrage? Did it even rate a mention?

Nope. Nothing.

Male politicians have been copping abuse for ever. What the Gillard situation reveals is that society is far more sensitive to abuse directed at women.
In fact abuse is incurred by ALL public figurees, and it pisses me off when feminists wear their goggle-filters and only see 50% of abuse.

idiot is the word (1)

Stonefish (210962) | about a year ago | (#44117027)

Stephen Conroy is an embarrassing idiot and as an Australian can hold my head a little bit higher as a result. Luckily his ineptitude protected the Australian public from his role a media industry stooge. His strategy in relation to the internet was as follows, get a magic filter in place under the guise of "protecting against bad stuff" and then block and stop people from downloading media content. In return provide me with a bit of positive spin in the traditional media space.
Unfortunately (for him) he misjudged this Internet thing which unfortunately didn't have a point of ownership.
Also as the minister for the Australian Broadband Network he has managed to completely cock this thing up so that the rollout is already far behind schedule, great idea appalling execution. It's a bit like expecting your florist to be able to sideline as a bridge engineer, a bit funny on the surface but underneath deeply tragic for all involved.

There IS no controversy (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | about a year ago | (#44120495)

The simple fact is that some people STILL believe The Earth Is Flat. Just like some people believe that a Fibre-to-the-home National Broadband Network is A Bad Thing.

Sure it's a huge bucket of money.
Sure there needs to be oversight, to ensure the money is well spent not just pork-barrelled.
Sure, you *could* achieve some (but only a little) of that by being (slightly) cheaper.

The bottom line is that the VAST overwhelming MAJORITY of backlash against the NBN has been spearheaded by The Opposition - People who (as in America) OPPOSE things for no reason other than it was somebody elses idea, therefore Ahm Agin' it!
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?