Don't get me wrong. I agree with every word Julia Gillard said in this barnstorming take down of Tony Abbott in the Australian Parliament. He has expressed some alarmingly misogynistic views and she is quite right to take him apart over it. There's no argument there.
No my problem is her motivation for what she did.
For she is defending a second politician - Peter Slipper - who has expressed similarly distasteful remarks, as well as allegedly homophobic ones; these views can be found here and despite Ms Gillards speech (and the fact that she won the debate) he resigned as Speaker over them the same day.
So what was her motivation?
Sadly, it appears not to be a deep rooted desire to crusade against misogyny - or else she would never have defended Peter Slipper.
Rather, it was about her majority in the Australian House of Representatives.
Gillard has a majority of 2. Peter Slipper, the speaker, was an independent. Now he has resigned, one of her own party has become the non voting Speaker, cutting the majority to just one.
Aha - you may say, surely Mr Slipper, even as an independent , will support the PM given her spirited defence of him in the House.
Sadly, it would seem Mr Slipper may be a little more slippery than that. Here's what he said after he resigned...
He also praised both Gillard and Abbott, saying he held nothing against the leader of the opposition whom he described as "a fine character".
Of Gillard he said: "I think it is a singular privilege to have a lady of the amazing stamina that we have as prime minister."
It would appear he has decided to play both sides. I suspect Miss Gillard knew this - which is why she didn't want him to resign and halve her majority.
So - while I applaud and agree with all Julia's fine words, her staunch defence of this man and his sexist texts, who in political terms appears slippery as a greased pig, does rather make me doubt her motives