De Minimis
  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Podcast
  • Your Learned Friend
  • Anonymous Feedback
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • Constitution
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12

You Can't Drown a Witch: Women in Politics

3/10/2017

 
Vol 12, Issue 10

GEORGIA DALY


“She should be careful about being too successful. Young women burn out in politics.”

I’m not sure anyone told Paul Keating to settle down when he came into parliament aged twenty-five.

I’m not the first woman to complain about double standards in politics and I hope to god I’m not the last.
​

Pioneers, political giants like Joan Kirner and Julia Gillard warned us that politics is a different game for women, you have to be submissive, smarter and above all, tougher.

​
Picture
I must admit, I didn’t expect to experience it so discernibly myself, as someone content with occupying the lower rungs of the political ladder, so to speak.
Politics is a rough, calculated, divisive game. It’s not for everyone, but for me it’s never been optional (I’m not one to stick my head in the sand).
Recently Melbourne University launched a program titled “Pathways to Politics” encouraging women to participate in politics. But is politics really an institution that wants women? Welcomes them?

Full disclosure, I haven’t attended this particular set, but in my experience, these workshops teach politics as though it occurs in an unbiased, neutral environment.
Because that’s what women in politics are meant to be, neutral.

Joan Kirner, the first female Premier of Victoria once said “It’s okay, when we as women are in a serving role. But it’s not okay, it appears, still, when we have full access to power.” Kirner was Premier in 1990, almost thirty years ago. Thirty years and nothing’s changed.

Let’s take a look at Julie Bishop. She enjoys an unusual degree of confidence from the Australian people, she is well liked, endlessly competent and her longevity as deputy leader outlasts that of our last 5 Prime Ministers.
She also knows her place.

Predictable. Steady. Unambitious.

I would, to a certain extent, dispute the unambitious part. I think she’s very ambitious, but rather, knows moving above your station as a woman in politics means you’ll be turned on quickly. If you want to be around for a long time, not a good time, you’ stay the loyal subservient deputy.

Bishop is almost the perfect antithesis of Gillard.
I don’t think feminism means being dogmatically supportive of women, there are a great number of things Gillard did that I disagree with, but it’s hard to deny the level of abuse she received was unwarranted.

I don’t know how many of you read murder judgements for fun, but if you do you’ll notice that men who murder are often described as emotional, good men who lost control. Overwhelmingly women are described as unfeeling, calculating and “witches”.

Sound familiar? Gillard was crucified for stepping above her station. She dared challenge the authority of a man. I’ll admit there were other factors at play here but in essence; the character of a man who plays the political game is forgivable. Whereas when a woman plays the dirty game it apparently reveals something deeply sinister about her character.
Because, as the fairer sex, we’re not meant to get dirty.

Admittedly, I’m being dramatic here. No one chants “lock her up” at me and I’m fairly sure De Minimis isn’t too interested in my wardrobe choices. Nonetheless I’ve witnessed the confusion, indignation and vitriol a competent woman in politics stirs up.  
I asked a friend, the subject of the opening quote and a more senior woman in politics for her thoughts. She bluntly summarised: “No one takes you seriously, or else they think you’re a bitch”.

I’ve been told I should have a male Vice President, to “balance my leadership out”. I’ve been asked if I was sexually assaulted whilst working on the Respect. Now. Always campaign, because apparently, women can only engage with issues to which they have an emotional attachment.

I’ve been called emotional and a “reductive simpleton” when I’ve spoken passionately about an issue.
Men have spat the words “bitch”, “manipulative” and “soulless” at me when I’ve outplayed them.

Apparently, I’m Schrodinger’s woman; ruled by the emotions I’m devoid of.
I’m not factional, I’m not devious and I’m not emotional.
I’m confident, I’m smart and I’m competent.
Perhaps, instead of teaching women politics is neutral, we should teach them how to endure the onslaught that comes with it.
After all, no one calls Bill or Malcolm treacherous.

​Georgia Daly is a second-year JD student and the President of the Graduate Student's Association

The rest of this issue:
​
  • What the Hell Are Do We Do About It?
  • Respect Taskforce and Women's Health
  • Fuck Them all and Here's Why
  • Liberty: A Long Way to Go for Everyone
  • Kick Like a Girl

Bishopped
3/10/2017 08:45:48 pm

'Let’s take a look at Julie Bishop. She enjoys an unusual degree of confidence from the Australian people'

Not difficult when you're well connected and sit in one of the safest liberal seats in the country

King Me
7/10/2017 11:39:32 am

Always held safe positions too. Deputy and Foreign Minister are pretty uncontroversial (domestically at least). I guess that kinda goes to Georgia's point

Wondering
3/10/2017 09:01:29 pm

'I don’t know how many of you read murder judgements for fun, but if you do you’ll notice that men who murder are often described as emotional, good men who lost control. Overwhelmingly women are described as unfeeling, calculating and “witches”.'

Which cases? In particular, which ones call women witches?

Laura B
3/10/2017 09:09:59 pm

Great Article Georgia!

JT
3/10/2017 09:27:03 pm

Stabs a sitting PM in the back and hands the Labor Party back to the Unions, singlehandedly moving the Labor Party back 30 years. Then makes one of the biggest strategic blunders in recent politics giving up the sitting government's advantage to call an election on short notice. Hardly a political giant.

Curmudgeonly old geyser
3/10/2017 11:02:05 pm

In my wild and intemperate youth, I would play Spy on Team Fortress 2 and name myself 'Julia Gillard' in Steam, for extra lulz as the kill feed displayed players repeatedly getting knifed in the back by Julia Gillard.

No doubt Gillard received a good deal of unwarranted vitriol that was unfairly based on her gender, but I believe that there was always a huge amount of simmering anger and distrust about the way she got the job in 'knifing' Rudd. It crippled her from the beginning and she was never able to shake it.

I've heard the arguments that she was held to a different standard because she is a woman, and men like Keating, Abbott, and Turnbull never faced the same accusations of treachery for their own 'coups'. Maybe that's true, but I think there were circumstances in 2010 unrelated to sex/gender that placed Gillard's "coup" in some sort of different category.

It took practically the entire nation including most of the Labour Party by complete surprise, Rudd was a first term PM and still retained a lot of the celebrity of 'Kevin07', and labor was in an election winning position, despite what the bogus 'internal polling' cooked up by talentless hacks like Dastyari and Mark Abib said. The nation was used to a pattern of long serving Prime Ministers and seemed to be settling in for about 7 to 10 years or so of Rudd government. The government displayed an outward manifestation of stability and unity.

After the fact, Gillard compounded the problem by proving to be in many respects a tone deaf, dudd politician. She gave a half arsed, bullshit non explanation of why she did it, and ran to an election in which she and Labor conducted possibly their worst campaign in living memory. Rudd didn't help when it became clear he wasn't going to slink off into the night. Labor dunked him into a bucket of shit and he resolved to drag them into it worth him.

All that would have been present whether it the lead actor had been Julia or Julian Gillard. I don't think the 'unfaithful spouse betraying her husband' interpretation of the Rudd-Gillard years is consistent with facts.

Relatively young spout
3/10/2017 11:17:48 pm

hear hear

Ash M
3/10/2017 11:58:33 pm

"Maybe that's true."

Can you honestly say that Malcolm would have ever been subjected to such gendered treatment? Check yourself.


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/julia-gillard-on-the-moment-that-should-have-killed-tony-abbotts-career-20150622-ghug63.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-12/mal-brough-says-sorry-for-menu-jibe-at-gillard/4748516



Wreck yourself
4/10/2017 12:14:10 am

I can honestly say that I believe Malcom Turnbull would have been subjected to the same treatment if he had been in the same position as Julia Gillard and performed her same actions, with the only difference being he is Malcom Turnbull and not Julia Gillard.

The circumstances in which Turnbull knifed Abott are simply not comparable to the circumstances in which Gillard knifed Rudd, apart from the fact that there was a knifing.

PS
4/10/2017 12:18:19 am

I also already acknowledged that Gillard was the target of sex/gender based attacks, but argued that the greater part of the general hostility to her during her time as PM came from other sources.

Oversight
3/10/2017 11:20:16 pm

Articles on this topic always overlook examples of strong historic female politicians from the non-progressive side of politics

Giants like Thatcher and Merkel never get touched in the analysis, it is an oversight and a shame.

Interesting
4/10/2017 12:40:11 am

To me, this shows that women have to be the least controversial, not ruffle too many feathers and fit within the existing structure to have a chance at being successful. Some industries (including the law) historically and to this day are so male dominated that women who manage to make it to the top seem to be the same type of woman. Usually white, wealthy, very conservative in their views. Arguably, the same can be said about the few women who have been on the High Court bench. It is as though being women is inherently disruptive or 'progressive', and having a woman who is from the progressive side of politics too would just be too much and cause too much disruption to the 'way its always been'.

Separately from political views though, women seem to have to be 'like men' to be taken seriously in high positions of power. Clinton, Merkel and Thatcher are all perfect examples. Strong, authoritative voices and a strong pantsuit seem to be pre-requisites to success.

Whilst I respect the women who lead the way regardless of what their politics are, I do think that if you look at who 'makes it' you can see that the system that excluded women in the first place is still there.

Hdg
4/10/2017 07:55:13 am

I think you seriously need to read some more articles.
PS Thatcher hated feminists.

Monica Sarder
4/10/2017 10:58:49 am

Powerful and well written article. Well done on cutting through the noise.

Anon
10/10/2017 11:06:41 pm

Kirner was a complete failure of a premier, that's why she's despised by those who remember the early 90s not her gender. The State Bank collapsed, Victoria was almost bankrupt, we had record youth unemployment and failing infrastructure.

Don't try and re write history.


Comments are closed.
    Picture

    Archives

    December 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014

  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Podcast
  • Your Learned Friend
  • Anonymous Feedback
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • Constitution
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12