It is not often that a Deputy Opposition Leader’s name appears on a scurrilous T shirt with the defamatory implication that she is allegedly free with her sexual favours.
No mention of any Willies on the bio or in newspaper records.
It won’t be the first time we’ve seen surnames of people which resemble those of the famous. No doubt if you have a famous monicker it doesn’t harm you when looking for a job.
Here’s his website if you really want to read it. He declares
Polliter.com was created not out of need, but necessity. It is the lone voice of free Conservative speech left to Australians.
Yeah yeah yeah…
Tim Wilson on steroids.
Willy dislikes lots of things – the SMH, conservative News Corpse columnist Peter van Onselen, Fairfax journalist Elizabeth Farrelly, the ABC, asylum seekers and the Facebook page Destroy the Joint – by extension feminists women who have and express an opinion in general.
Strangely enough when we visited Polliter only the main page was visible. The links led nowhere.
Something like Willy himself.
Error 404
polliter.com
Sat Jun 14 13:55:56 2014
Apache/2
Looks like the pages have been down for some time
All else we managed to find was a link to this article in Quadrant, the musty old mag edited by very conservative historian Keith Windschuttle, which serves as a sort of home for the bewildered for very conservative old white blokes.
The Quadrant contributors in animated discussion
Destroy the Joint managed to dig up a brief bit of Willy’s self-puffery which reads
Brooks is an independent consultant in hospital management, healthcare reform and clinical care. He worked extensively with Professor Chris O’Brien on developing the world’s first comprehensive cancer data repository, and has advised State and Federal governments on improving public healthcare systems and increasing accountability in medicine.
Let me guess – a minor pen-pusher in the Department of Health (one of them) applying some helium to his resumé. If that.
Scores of people on Facebook and Twitter, as well as in The Guardian, complained.
Some of the responses in The Guardian
…”The page itself may have been created specifically to provoke”…
I’m sure it was and the person responsible is obviously a complete tosser.
Agreed
Why won’t facebook listen to it’s users and enforce it’s Rights And Responsibilities code? It shouldn’t take a newspapers involvement to bring about the removal of the page. This isn’t the first time it’s happened either. Seems as if their conscience is only pricked when bad publicity comes calling.
How many hate pages are still up on Facebook despite thousands of reports?
I reported it as well.
Might have to post to the page, including a photo of a nipple. That might get FB to act.
Facebook has a weirdly warped concept of “Community Standards”. One wonders what loony “community” they reference.
The First Amendment does not apply to Facebook having to give a platform to people. The person who claimed it did is either lying or very stupid.
Someone needs to tell Facebook that. Do they think that anti-social entities like racists, bigots and killers and their supporters are more likely to click on their shonky sponsors’ ads?
What the fuck is Facebook’s problem? How can it possibly defend hosting a tribute page to a murdering psychopath? I’m all for defending free speech. But when it becomes a platform for bigotry, and rabid sexist bilge it is no longer a champion it is a symptom of the murderous social malaise besetting America.
I’m glad its taken the page down but the fact it did so under protest I find revolting. Especially when it will delete a pic of a woman breastfeeding with gusto.
Facebook has very disturbing issues it needs to address. Get some therapy.
One wonders indeed at the intelligence and mental health of people at Facebook.
The fact that one individual could target women is terrible, but I would not jump to the conclusion because of E Rodgers that misogynistic thinking is now the norm in western culture. However what is truly terrifying is Facebook’s continuing failure to remove sites glorifying violence against women. What does this say about our society? …They haven’t even got the decency to have a proper customer complaints department and show complete arrogant contempt for their users. .. Apparently there is still a site showing a young girl being gang raped which they refuse to take down. What really goes through their minds? Why have we allowed internet based corporations to operate outside normal boundaries? The press, TV, cinema and Advertising outlets all have to operate within codes so why do we think that the internet is different? There is no effective age restriction either;all this is available to children.This is not freedom of speech but oppression, terror and incitement of hatred. It needs an international government response.
Rape sites which can be seen by children – that’s Facebook for you
As you may have noticed above, Spectrum Daiquiri Bar in Brisbane has a couple of drinks on its menu that are clearly offensive, particularly to women. Calling a drink a ‘slut’ because it ‘goes down well’, or a ‘winey [sic] bitch’ because it ‘shuts her up’ in the company of the combination of men and alcohol is a big deal and we’ll come to that later. Spectrum clearly made a social media error by asking people for feedback for 2013 planning as literally hundreds of men and women turned up to their Facebook page telling them that such drink names were offensive. But what’s possibly more disturbing than the names of the drinks is the reaction of Spectrum management and a select bunch of anti-‘feminazi’ barflies. The very fact that the bar asked for feedback and proceeded to delete tens of rational and respectful comments and requests while leaving plenty of insulting comments from their lowlife regulars also speaks volumes.
Leonard Walker thinks that those who speak up against pejorative, gender-specific derogatory slurs are automatically ‘…screeching unwashed armpiitted [sic] ones.” He sees those who find such slurs as offensive as “…faux intellectuals…” who are not only screeching but also crying and whining. Misogyny much? In his pithy paragraph he highlights exactly how he views women who speak out against degradation and also shows that he is completely unable to identify degradation when it’s happening right in front of him. It should be noted that one of the four people who ‘liked’ Leonard’s comments was the bar manager.
John Thompson is under the misguided impression that making a comment on a Facebook page is a completely time consuming activity for people who believe in opposing sexism. The assumption that anti-bigots have ‘targets of the day’ is actually somewhat of a faux pas because it suggests that there are proponents of sexism to be found everywhere, and each day there is someone new dishing out the misogynistic cocktail. I wonder if that was his intent.
Josh L M Brewer makes the mistake of believing that the only people who could possibly find offence with these publicity-in-a-glass stunt-drinks are ’40 something feminists’. He also makes the mistake that the same people are primarily and only occupied with getting ‘knickers in a knot’ over cocktail names and nothing else.
Greg made a total of eight (8) spelling and grammar errors in one sentence. Enough said about this oxygen thief.
There are more highlights from the Facebook thread attached below. What we are seeing at play here is this ‘new concept’ of ‘rape culture’. If you look at any media source today, with your eyes open, you may begin to notice that women are portrayed in a completely different way to men. Women make up only 24% of news subjects (the people in the news), and appear in newspapers and magazines in far more common states of undress. Women rarely save the day in movies and television and when they are playing the heroic protagonist, they are nothing short of a fighting fuck toy (Lara Croft, Invisible Girl [Fantastic Four], Catwoman etc.). Women appear in advertising as either sexual playthings or household props and when only 2.4% of CEOs and management positions are filled by women in a country like Australia, you can start to see why people start to get their backs up when remarks like ‘whiney bitch’ and ‘slut’ are considered ‘tongue in cheek’ and part of the common vernacular.
So why does any of this matter? Why should we give two craps if some shitty dive in Brisvegas has a couple of offensive drink titles on its largely uninspiring and unoriginal cocktail menu?
1. The words ‘bitch’ and ‘slut’ are as offensive to women as the words ‘nigger’, ‘chink’, ‘dune coon’ and ‘kike’. They represent oppression, denigration and slander. When such words become commonly accepted, the negative connotations stick. Black African Americans are in the process of ‘taking back’ the word ‘nigger’ in attempts to reverse the negativity in the same way that Italians, Greeks and people from the Mediterranean are trying to nullify the effects of the word ‘wog’. It could be argued that some women are attempting to do the same with the word ‘bitch’ by proclaiming a pride in being outspoken and the organisers of the Slutwalk (a mass protest where women dressed scantily in response to police suggesting that they were less likely to be raped if they covered up) were also trying to spin a positive angle to the word ‘slut’. But naming a drink ‘bitch’ (and adding that it will shut up her ‘whining’) and ‘slut’ (because the alcohol will make her go down on you) is completely inappropriate.
2. The definition of the word ‘slut’ is basically a slovenly or promiscuous woman. If you applied that definition to a man, society would brand him a cheeky playboy and in some men’s circles a hero. But apparently it’s wrong for a female to enjoy sex or to seek multiple partners. The problem with this is that choosing one’s partners grants you power and that goes against what society deems to be appropriate for women. If a woman is ever referred to as a slut, you can rest assured that 9 times out of 10 it’s being used against her in a pejorative sense.
3. Men who are outspoken are brave and inspirational. They are confident and passionate. Women who speak up are whiney, shrieking, screeching banshees. Men who speak their mind wear their hearts on their sleeves but women who speak their mind are seen as bitches. Again, if you’re ever called a bitch, you can assume you’re not being complimented.
4. Alcohol plays a significant role in the rape scene. In various studies it has been shown that between 20-25% of rape perpetrators and rape victims have been found to be heavily intoxicated, and another between 20-25% of rape perpetrators and victims as mildly under the influence of alcohol. Let’s be clear about this: a woman under the influence of alcohol cannot consent to sex. Of course, many drunk people have sex but that doesn’t suggest that a person is able to make clear, conscious decisions about intercourse – it just means drunk sex is just a fact of life and something that will always happen. Laughing at the bar about getting someone drunk enough to root is entirely unacceptable.
Here’s a few of our previously featured rape supporters:
Taken from the ‘Support Tony Abbott’ page on Facebook, here’s a quick look at the more common criticisms of our female Prime Minister. To be fair, we’ve taken comments from both females and males on the page. Julia Gillard (and feminists in general) cop insults such as fat, ugly, left at the alter (sic), misandrists, feminists (is that an insult?), lesbians (is THAT an insult?), bullies, hypocrites, thugs, obese, grumpy, stupid, McTurds, barge-arse, retard, red-headed cum bucket, face planking cow, evil, big butt, cunt, skank, gutter trash, piece of shit, bush pig, thunder thighs, lard arse, amoral slut. (The red highlighted words are female/appearance related).
Enjoy the read, and share it around if you so desire. If not to expose the hatred and unabashed sexism that exists within these people, but perhaps to highlight the irony that such internally and externally ugly people could be so hypocritical.
you said it... 