Why the pond cherishes the dog botherer and the Bolter ...

The pond abandoned its lunchtime posting some time ago due to assorted pressures, but was so delighted by a reader drawing attention to this minor war criminal dog botherer tweet that it just had to run it …

What a visionary, and how unfair and unsporting of some to drag it out of the closet, and dust off the moths, and see how the drover's dog did … (last heard from apparently the drover's dog was heading back to Fishermen's Bend to fuck up another part of Melbourne …)

Well there's more comments on the tweet here, and then the wretches kept on flinging it in the face of the dog botherer like so much cheap dog food …

And so on …

And then another reader suggested that the latest Bolter outing was well worth a read.

Apparently the Bolter realised the problem with having women in the government was that there were uppity, difficult women in the government …

Look at them laughing and smiling and cavorting and smirking and sniggering and having a good time. Why it's enough to make the Bolter's blood curdle, or perhaps boil. Bloody women …

But the pond had to politely explain, with a split infinitive, that the pond doesn't bother with the Bolter anymore, and besides, there's a simple cure.

Any woman who wants to stand for the Liberals or the Nats simply needs to be made to study the angry Sydney Anglican creed and understand the role of complimentary women:

According to Mary Kassian, who claims to have helped coin the term, Christian complementarians believe that men and women must exercise different functions: 

Males were designed to shine the spotlight on Christ’s relationship to the church (and the LORD God’s relationship to Christ) in a way that females cannot, […] females were designed to shine the spotlight on the Church’s relationship to Christ (and Christ’s relationship to the LORD God) in a way that males cannot. 
Therefore, it is argued – in most Sydney Anglican churches, for example – that women should not lead in religious communities because they have complementary, non-leadership, roles. (Here, at The Conversation, with links)

Of course, as a full-blown speaker in tongues, and therefore totally in tune with the duties of complimentary women,  ScoMo understands this all too well, though it perhaps it needs to be rendered into a political text so that lay people might comprehend:

Males were designed to shine the spotlight on ScoMo’s relationship to the people (and ScoMo's infallible relationship to  his disciples) in a way that females cannot, […] females were designed to shine the spotlight on the need for lamingtons and cheese and cucumber sandwiches at party meetings (and ScoMo's infallible need for a pie with dead horse and beer chaser) in a way that males cannot. Therefore, it is argued – in most Sydney Anglican churches, the Liberal party, the Nats, and Bolter columns, for example – that women should not lead in political communities because they have complementary, non-leadership, roles. Back to the kitchen, women, do your duty, and stop getting the Bolter agitated with your devious, unrepentant ways …

Of course there might be simpler selection processes if things get too tricky …