Former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s Bizarre Victim Feminism: Making Hillary President Will Make The Islamic State Feel Silly

Posted on Tue 05/26/2015 by


Bolt New 01By Andrew Bolt ~

Everything is gender to professional victim, the former Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, leading to a truly bizarre argument for the election of Hillary Clinton as US president:

We, the US, Australia, so many other countries are involved in this struggle with ISIS, the Islamic State so-called, and when you unpack it, what is it about? Well, at the core of that ideology is really the subjugation of women. So in the face of that for the US to say that we are going to endorse the first woman as our leader I think will be a powerful message to the world.

In how many ways is this ludicrous?

For a start, is the core of Islam really the “subjugation of women”?  If so, why did Gillard never say so when she was Prime Minister?

Or does Gillard mean that subjugation of women is the core of just the Islamic State’s version of that faith?

Either way, is that remotely true? For sure, Islam and especially the Islamic State’s version of it do indeed in my opinion give women a role subservient to that of men. But is this really the “core” of the faith? Is that really why the Islamic State is slaughtering Shiite civilians, Christians and Yazidis? Is that really why it has destroyed priceless antiquities it says offend Islam? Is that really why it is murdering gays, crucifying “spies”, beheading aid workers and stoning adulterers? Surely this demonisation of the other and this sanctioned lust for blood and power is far bigger than a desire to put women down.

Secondly, is the Islamic State really best defeated by simply making a woman the president of the United States? Does Gillard seriously believe the Islamic State will then shrivel in shame at having their sexism exposed? Or will it, in fact, have even more contempt for its foes, and a greater conviction that it will prevail?

Which brings us to the third point: what a president is said to symbolise is far less important than what they actually do. The Islamic State can only be defeated by soldiers, bombs, boycotts, diplomacy, advocacy and money. What in Clinton’s record as Secretary of State, during which Iraq was abandoned and the Islamic State grew strong, suggests she has the insight, will and ability to fight and win?

Hasn’t America learned the critical difference between a symbol and the reality of a chief executive? Barack Obama was elected as a symbol of racial healing and man of peace, who’d placate America’s allies in the Middle East. The reality has been the exactly opposite, thanks in part to Obama’s sheer lack of ability: America is more racially divided than in years, and the Middle East is in flames. Obama, who started his presidency by admitting US guilt to the Middle East, now has so little respect from former allies there that only two of six Gulf States – Qatar and Kuwait – bothered to send their heads of state to Obama’s Camp David summit a fortnight ago to discuss his Middle East strategy and (weak) attempts to restrain Iran.

In short, Gillard has given a fake reason to offer a fake solution to the Islamic State threat that involves electing a fake as president – on the sole grounds that this fake is a woman.

Gillard’s brand of victim feminism helped to kill her leadership in Australia. Pray that it won’t help to kill US leadership in the world.

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Andrew Bolt’s columns appear in Melbourne’s Herald Sun, Sydney’s Daily Telegraph and Adelaide’s Advertiser. He runs the most-read political blog in Australia and hosts Channel 10’s The Bolt Report each Sunday at 10am. He is also heard from Monday to Friday at 8am on the breakfast show of radio station MTR 1377, and his book  Still Not Sorry remains very widely read.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog .