Reflection: No means no

Routine expressions, which we discussed, may, in some instances, echo broader societal discourses. In such cases, the question of whether the user of the expression is held accountable for endorsing that broader societal discourse comes into question. Take the expression no means no. In the lead up to the 2010 election campaign in Australia, the leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott, was asked about the decision by Julia Gillard, who was Prime Minister at that time, to participate in a live televised debate with him despite earlier saying she would not. He responded as follows:

The use of the phrase no means no by a man (Abbott) in reference to a woman (Gillard) accepting or not accepting an invitation (in this case to a televised debate) generated considerable controversy. The then Minister for the Status of Women, Tanya Plibersek, for instance, was quoted as saying:

Abbott attempted to distance himself from this routine meaning and the broader societal discourse it invokes by claiming he could not have meant anything offensive towards women since he himself has daughters:

Gillard herself maintained that Abbott was responsible for his own words in responding, “Mr Abbott’s words are a matter for Mr Abbott”. In other words, speakers are accountable for what they are taken to mean.