We still have a long way to go but it might get easier for the next one and the next one

This last week in Australia a sitting Prime Minister was ousted by their own party. Again.

Thief! - Pencil on Paper 2010

For a second time in a little over 3 years the Labor Party rolled a sitting PM and their own leader. An impressive effort when you think about it.

Whether relevant to the Labor caucus member's own personal decision or not the PM they ousted this time was a woman. The main reason for it, which is supported by the facts, is that to go to the election with Gillard as the sitting PM and as Labor leader would result in political suicide for the Australian Labor Party. Gillard had lost the support of the electorate and Labor would emerge from the upcoming election a decimated husk. A long hiatus in opposition to rebuild is what the party needed argued some. The electorate preferred the previously rolled PM, Kevin Rudd. I am bemused by the public popularity of Rudd. He was rolled for good reason, he had lost the support of his colleagues, he'd lost his way dazzled by the position of PM rather than rising to its promise. It was clear to everyone something had to be done about Kevin as Kevin was all about Kevin. Gillard took on what most of her colleagues from both sides of politics would shiver at the prospect of, a political party in turmoil and disunity though they were very happy for her to do so. And, to give her credit she had the courage they lacked to do so.

Gillard became the first woman Prime Minister, bundled into the role following the ejection of a bumbling Kevin Rudd. Gillard then subsequently won at the polls a shaky hold on Government (a minority one) at the next election. It functioned due to Gillard's talent to unify her minority government with 3 independents. Rudd was never going to stand aside gracefully and happily embarked upon causing any and all destabilising interferences he could. He could be excused for some of this but not for behaviour that, due to its persistence, does point to one main reason for why the Gillard Government was never fully accepted as being legitimate. Rudd would not allow the country to move past his own personal pique. He chose to never accept the position he had arguably put himself into in the first place and demands we see him as one who can take responsibility. To me, like some sort of Prince Friedrich Hapnick, there he was in the background blithering around or pouting dramatically. A prickly, sulky destabilising force, which appealed to some obviously, blaming Gillard for his position and not letting anyone forget his version of events.

Knowing this one wonders how reasoned and thinking voters prefer Rudd to Gillard (or worse Abbott to Gillard). Rudd is a known tanty thrower, micro manager, self obsessed and self promoting. No one would accuse him of bringing an appropriate level of rigour and intellect to the high office of PM. Gillard defined in office that she is about the job and getting it done whilst eloquently deflecting what detractors thought of what she wore or whether her body shape complied to an acceptable fashionable standard. She also took on and won debates lesser intellectuals would have crumbled before. The problem for Gillard was the personal and gender related criticism never ceased. And some of the really grubby underhanded muck stuck firm in the mind of the populist voter.

Julia Gillard though was the first woman Prime Minister in Australian, a fact and a matter of history that cannot be taken from her. Many of us though liking such a fact as a shiny piece of political kudos to flash at our fellow democracies took it very much for granted treating it with less than the special care deserved. Gillard competently fielded valid criticism, too deftly and with a Lawyer's (political) manipulative flair she deflected fair criticisms. But so do all competent politicians. She also graciously endured invalid abusive and out of bounds criticism. Through her the government had gotten a few good things done despite the hung parliament, and it unavoidably and avoidably made mistakes. Some implementations were very good, some botched due to a too hasty pressure to perform and some were plainly wrong but persisted with out of a belligerence of Government which can delude those in power they know better than the experts who clearly advised caution and the public who say no that's too far, we did not approve this.

Gillard had failed to perform on some matters to expectation, the nature of the parliament she led made certain progress unattainable. It was were she failed on one matter in particular that confused her real supporters as well as the grass roots electorate. She declined to endorse the gay marriage bill instead she defined the status of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman. We balk at such contradiction from a Labor Leader, a declared Atheist and person of reason. But this wasn't of concern to those who simply would never "warm" to Gillard. She both irritated and elated the electorate - she polarised but also pulled people together. Not simply but especially because of her gender Julia Gillard's government was most precarious as the classic double edged sword scenario of a hung parliament. Leading Government but at the constant mercy of Parliament. To carry the metaphor to its end running government on a such a knife's edge makes for dangerous political territory misstep and off with her head basically.

As Gillard gamely stated, when announcing she'd lost the party ballot to lead the Labor Party to the next election, there were good reasons to explain some of the struggle she'd had in the role as being due to her gender. It might not explain everything but it explained somethings...

"I have been a little bit bemused by those colleagues in the newspapers who have admitted that I have suffered more pressure as a result of my gender than other prime ministers in the past, but then concluded that it had zero affect on my political position or the political position of the Labor Party." 

How dubious an honour to be the leader of the Labor Party, male or female. A comment I make as a Labor voter my entire voting life. 

I happen to think that an element of timing is part of it. I'm grateful for her opportunity it may otherwise have taken much longer to see a Woman Prime Minister. I feel part of something as a consequence and some good must come of it.

Without a clear choice the electorate never "warmed" to Gillard on its own terms and Rudd remains a curiosity for anthropologists perhaps to some day sufficiently explain.

Attitudes To Women Matter - "If that does not suit you then get out"

In the last week Australian current affairs and politics has been peppered with reports of anti-women rhetoric and reference to anti-women behaviour and attitudes. When we hear about and read in the media of specific events concerning the deliberate and systematic maligning of women (such as within the Australian Military) we are hearing arguably about the tip of the ice-berg. If this is reflective of attitudes and behaviours within the wider Australian community it is difficult to confirm from my individual perspective. Arguably with the current mix of news items to select from it would appear to be reflective of attitudes of some strength in some quarters of our society. Though Chief of Army David Morrison does reflect the strength of the obverse view sexism and anti-women attitudes have never-the-less declared they are alive and well in 2013 Australia. Some might argue they had never left, for just a metaphoric scratch to a weakened section on the surface of our society allows them to burst forth like a hidden stream of magma.

As Prime Minister Julia Gillard discovered using sexism to promote a political agenda in order to create a more favourable political climate can misfire badly. Blow back for attack dogs can be very severe as well as Mr Howard Sattler is now discovering when cheap shots about sexuality backfire. When sexism is wielded falsely by men or women, particularly if politicians do so, the damage from backfire can range from being merely cringe worthy to explosively damaging, either way it is very public. The good that can come of it is that it is at least public where we can all see it, point out when it is used manipulatively and examine and investigate where demonstrated. The reputation of a politician on the sexism attack or the reputation of an attacker defending their sexist values can instead be truly revealed. The reputation of Government in the opinion of whom it serves is surely affected when bungles such as these are made. Of greater concern for us is when sexism is wielded secretly at the level of the political arena, the board room or in the home. It is out of public view that it is most damaging for women and harmful to society. Any disparaging anti-women behaviour that is hidden is a threat because it is hidden. Women who cannot rely upon the media coming to their aid find themselves at the mercy of social denial, apathy or fear of witnesses and the intransigence and belligerence of the perpetrator and the origins for the attitudes become reinforced. 

Accusations of sexism must be based in honesty and truth. And, clearly sexist or misogynist behaviour must be exposed. If the former is manipulatively biased intending to achieve a political, personal or social agenda and is untrue or stretches the bounds of the truth the latter is effectively weakened. False claims affect trust in very real and true claims with the tarnishing accusation of "cry wolf". 

Though they may be exceptional (in our modern so-called-secular democracy) such entrenched attitudes emerge from a deep pool. There must be a place, an origin for this belief - that women are inferior - that is kept safe from the light of reason and reality, and for where these attitudes have time to develop, form and become entrenched. It is difficult to comprehend some of these acts are viewed as reasonable (deserved) if not normal (accepted) to some people but they are. That women are weaker physically may be factual but is it a matter of her inferiority that she may be weaker physically than a male? Or more that too high a representational value is placed on physical strength alone. Some remarkably believe women to be mentally inferior - it escapes logic but founding psychiatry helped to endorse and entrench such spurious notions as scientific. 

The psychology formed from the belief that women are second, are inferior to the male, are more susceptible to criticism as they have suspect characteristics is a result of religious and socio-cultural reinforced influences. Women are religiously maligned by the doctrines they are compelled to or do follow and some even believe it because their faith tells them it is so; by being created second, or as an after-thought (presumably by an imperfect creator), or as a play thing for the perfection of the male (formed in Gods image so the more perfect creation), or to be reward for a pious male, or merely available for the very messy but necessary pro-creation purposes. 

Religion lumbers women before birth and throughout life with; original sin for their curiosity, cursed with a womb - that bleeds, or are just biologically compromised by it, hindered by childbearing - vacant, broken, barren if they do not bare children, hindered by a greater propensity for compassion, poorer of intellect and thus expected to be a supplicant in every realm of her life. The libellous disparagement goes on and on in religious doctrine. Texts which pervasively spill out their dogmas to inspire the destruction of a bus load of girls seeking an education through to endorsing cultural practices that determine female genital perfection is achieved through mutilation (FGM). The expression of anti-women attitudes can be brutal or more subtle but are never-the-less sinisterly linked to the concept of inferiority and subjugation. Strong words but when you are blown to bits or threatened with any measure of violence in order to subdue you are humiliated and subjugated as Charles Saatchi effectively demonstrates to his wife Nigella Lawson.  Every so often it is demonstrated that these ill conceived malignant deceits pollute the secular domain too, though purportedly impervious to such inequalities, because attitudes that are entrenched run deep and are difficult to dislodge until we expose them to the light.

Women are diminished by religious doctrine which followers view as law, diminished historically and legally in legislation, diminished in the historic arts of medicine and psychology, diminished in society. But it is not all bad and women are not perfect either. The point is women are equal to men - I prefer to dispense with arguments about what is intended with the word equal however clarity for some is always required - equal as in unbiased and of the same status.

Women are strong, are intelligent and competent, are contributors, and fortunately for me the society I grew up in now officially recognises these unassailable facts with some gaps here and there at the fringes. Not anything we cannot fix in time. Society reinforces what goes unquestioned whether this might be good or bad and it reflects on us and changes our society for the worse if we do nothing, question nothing when behaviour or attitudes emerge that are not good. Men do have to contend with social hurdles, bigotry, disadvantage due to birth and geography, life can be difficult for women in those ways too. I'm not arguing equivalent disadvantage but a similar position for most men might be to consider where homosexuality or a perception of being less manly and more womanly (= inferior) is observed, construed or used tactically in order to diminish them. It is this underpinning and fundamentally flawed psychology that needs to change along with valuing human reason over religious dogma. It is important to diminish the powerful role religious doctrine plays in creating perceptions that devalue women. 

Try to imagine living with the perception you are inferior to your gender counterpart, 24/7. It is a perception that exists, in some sectors of societies, in most major religions, I don't believe there is any purpose or reason to deny it by not pointing it out. If I were to compare the 1970s with the year 2013 I can say the situation with regards to sexism and  the treatment of women has improved and is continuing to do so in this country at least. And, as this last week has demonstrated we have much to be vigilant about and need to vigorously promote change in attitudes as they emerge from the depths because such change will only benefit society. To those who may have a problem with this, to quote the fine words of Chief of Army, David Morrison, "...if that does not suit you then get out.".

International Women's Day - a celebration of equality

Selene - detail

It is hard for me to comprehend I was born into a world where women employed in the public service were, when married, forced to leave their employment, career, in some cases their life's work to tend to their new role as home keeper and bearer of children. It wasn't until 1966 in Australia when this Dickensian form of legislated discrimination against women was removed. 

Somewhat auspiciously by contrast in 1902 Australia became the first country in the world to allow (white) women to vote and to stand for public office. (New Zealand awarded the vote to women in 1893 though not the right to office until much later) In my home state of Victoria women won the right to vote last (1908) in Australia and of all her compatriots was last again to be awarded the right to stand for office (1923).
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics

Edith Cowan,