Gillard shatters the glass ceiling. So what now?
|
So, it’s official. First female prime minister. It’s a Big Moment, there’s no denying it. And the feminist celebrations are a lot less qualified than they would have been if one of the other prominent female contenders had made it across the line. Julie Bishop, say. Or God help us, Bronwyn Bishop. And yet, I can’t suppress my inner party-pooper — not in response to Gillard herself, but in response to all the talk about The Significance, the invitation to the feminist sisterhood to start giving each other high-fives. For years, conversation about gender issues in Muslim societies has been met with the smug line that at least Muslim states like Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh have had female leaders, unlike well, the United States. Or Australia. But the rise to power of these women did not signify a breakthrough for other women in their societies. Benazir Bhutto failed to repeal the notorious Hudood Ordinances, under which too many Pakistani women, including rape victims, were jailed for adultery. And Pakistan’s sponsorship of the Taliban was generated under Benazir’s watch. I do not suggest that Australia suffers anything like this level of gender inequality, or that Gillard resembles Benazir in any way other than the #firstfemalepm hash tag. I mention it only as a reminder that the hardest feminist battles have never been the struggle for a few women to attain positions of power. And the most difficult battles are also the most important, because they are the battles for the most vulnerable. The women who struggle against gender violence, against entrenched poverty, against multiple disadvantages not only misogyny, but also racism, poverty, disability and all the myriad forms that marginalisation can take. The danger now (well, one of the dangers) is that feminists will be told that the battle is won, that anyone who is still on the battlefield is just a whinger, that if a woman can become prime minister, then we have no further reason to complain. We’ve shattered the ultimate glass ceiling, after all. So anyone who is still struggling is either not good enough or has made other choices (like settling for a gorgeous Louis Vuitton handbag from the David Jones CEO). I am sure that Gillard is very well aware of these dangers. And well aware that if she is to address them in meaningful terms, then getting to the Lodge has been the easy part. |
|
|
|
20 Comments
Perceptive article, except for the cheap shot about DJ’s. There is a lady involved in the DJ’s story, also perhaps a squadron of ladies past, who must be left out of the public journalistic spotlight to run their private lives in private.
I, for one, know nothing about Louis Vuitton handbags and would like to keep it that way.
I do thank the author for her perceptions regarding Australian and some other countries’ female PM’s and their lack of relevance to other social ills.
The glass ceiling will only be smashed when Julia is voted in by the people of Australia.
Enough, please, of the “voted in by the people of Australia”. We operate under the Westminster system of government, we each vote for our local representatives within our electorate, the leadership of the government is at the discretion of the the majority party forming the government. If more of us voted for the best representative for our electorates and held them accountable by participating more actively in our democracy we would be the better for it.
The battle has not been won, but it is a start. Next she has to get elected by the people, not the party. Then, we need to see a married woman with children be elected, and finally the ultimate (political) glass smashing: a Liberal Leader/PM.
I have seen many changes for women in this country over my lifetime. Each has progressed both men and women that little bit more. It wasn’t that long ago women were forced to resign when they married, or became pregnant .
However there are still indirect ways that women find themselves excluded from promotion or other opportunities. Being the primary care-giver and therefore usually the one to look after sick children, often stands in the way of career opportunities, or being considered for more ‘heavy-weight’ positions. For a country with a fairly good equal opportunity laws, there is still a distinct lack of women in senior positions, parliament and on boards etc.; wages are more equal, but has the gap changed much over the last few years?
Having said all that, this is still a day I thought would never happen. A single, unmarried woman is Prime Minister. It doesn’t matter whether you support Julia’s politics or not, this is an historic day.
One step is better than none.
And once again for the people who don’t understand the Westminster system; Julia Gillard was voted in by her electorate as was Kevin Rudd. The Labor party decides who will be the leader. What if Kevin had a stroke (glad he didn’t) and was unfit to be leader? Julia Gillard, being deputy PM, would have had every right to be PM. Would that have qualified as smashing the glass ceiling Carol? We do not live in the US (Whew) and we do not elect a PM as they elect a president (who is their head of state). Our head of state is the Queen and her rep in Oz is the GG.
Geddit? The labor party can elect whoever it likes as its leader. Just as the libs rolled Nelson, Turnball etc and elected Abbott, irrespective of whether they form govt or opposition. Jaysus…………….
Sorry Haryana I wouldn’t have posted if I’d seen yours first. Agree wholeheartedly re holding our respective MPs to account more. Nothing more depressing than living in a ‘blue ribbon’ or a ‘diehard labor’ electorate, as one feels powerless. Only way to go is choosing the senate individually, oh well.
“I mention it only as a reminder that the hardest feminist battles have never been the struggle for a few women to attain positions of power.”
Excellent, thoughtful piece.
Thanks to those who have responded to my post, despite the fact you misunderstood it.
For those who missed it, my point was exactly that the Westminster system doesn’t provide for a popularly-elected Prime Minister, and therefore calling anyone the ‘people’s Prime Minister’ is an error. Until such time as Australia implements a direct-election system, and can therefore vote Julia in directly, we should stop overcooking it.
Uhmm… Who called her a ‘people’s Prime Minister’.
My point has been missed: what I want to see is a woman standing as leader of either party at the time of election, and being voted in.
Great to talk about the processes, but in reality, it is the leader of the party that many, many people vote for. If they didn’t, why the focus on who is leader? Why was Kevin Rudd toxic? It is because if he was leader, the Labor party did not thing that ‘the people’ would elect him. Nothing to do with local candidates.
Why would the opposition call him ‘Kevin O Lemon’ and why would Labor be threatening us with Tony Abbott? It is because most people and the media focus on the leader of the party.
I understand the system, and I understand the right of the Deputy PM to step up to the PM role if necessary, and I do not deny the right of the party to vote in whoever they see best as leader.
But I do reserve the right to hope to see that when the leader of a party at the time of an election is a woman, that she is successful. That the local candidates are voted in based on their politics and their contribution as the best candidate for the job, or vice-versa, and not because their leader is a woman (or is arrogant, or is a mad-christian or whatever else).
Your point about a female leader does not equal equality for all is spot on. But give us feminists more credit than to believe otherwise. We have been told for years that we are living in a ‘post feminist’ age, but we know that is not true.
Today is a significant historical milestone and while the sex-trafficed, the discriminated against, the rape survivors and the women beaten by their partners know full well they don’t enjoy equality, at least the young girls in the community can believe that anything is possible, and the young boys can see a competent woman leading their country being (hopefully) treated with the respect she deserves.
We do not have full equality for sex, race, age, sexual orientation and there is more work to do, but it is important to acknowledge and celebrate achievements - and this is one of our country’s best in recent times.
@Michm, Haryana
It was always Rudd Labor, Never just “Labor” or ALP. Rudd Labor did this Rudd Labor did that. Rudd Labor said sorry.Rudd Labor singed kyoto.
Now Rudd is gone and people are genuinly wondering what this Gillard labor thing is going to be and why people insist that it’s different. Your premis that it’s the same party and not different at all is undmined by their reason for doing this. A break from Rudd, except nobody voted for a break, yet, hence the feeling of betrayal.
You can’t claim it’s different, and hence free to change course radically then in the next breath claim, no really it’s the same and therefore no need for a vote.
The Working Famillies are going to feel cheated for sure. We put him in there and he was OURs to take away.
Is it possible a SINGLE woman could ever be president or lead a political party in the USA? Not likely.
The Yanks wouldn’t vote a single man into those positions either.
‘First female prime minister’ - I don’t think so.
Shakira, I was THERE in the UK when Maggie (remember her? no you are too young you fortunate person) became Britain’s first female PM (and no, ‘I Didn’t vote for her’).
Believe me, the feminist celebrations were *extremely* qualified then.
And I believe that apart from the few other woman leaders you mention there was some Israeli person? (even I am too young to clearly remember that name, at least at this point in the evening).
Fortunately Julia G has bona fide union movement/working class Welsh roots and her hero (at least for the benefit of Kerry tonight in 7.30 Report-land) is Nye Bevan. The battle is not won and won’t be for years but Julia is not a backward step at all.
How is Gillard single? Unmarried yes, but not single.
Dear Socratease, you are splitting hairs again.
Is there purpose in clarifying the PM’s marital state? I presume that you presume that a common law marriage (that word again) is at foot. It’s not really relevant to anybody but the tax man and immediate family.
It’s rather like debating whether an envelope should properly be addressed to John and Jill Jones or Mr and Mrs John Jones. Anachronistic use of the language tends to head into these dead ends, but only when pedants lock horns.
After all, many married couples have sh-thouse relationships and many in relationships are not married. Is that a civil service you are relying on to define marriage, or a religious one? Perhaps we need a whole new range of words to cover the divisions in the meaning of “married”.
Heaven help us all if/when same gender marriages become more common, or are these blessed with another name? Oh, yes, I know! Let’s call them “relationships”, another factotum word with a fist full of meanings.
No, good Socratease, marriage is indeed what you make of it, and it takes all kinds.
Thankyou for giving me the opportunity to get this off my mind. I feel so much better now.
Shatter the glass ceiling and there you are teetering on the glass precipice. Don’t look down Julia, Carmen and Joan aren’t waving they’ve already been drowned along with heaps of other women who made it to the top when the boys didn’t want to be there anymore (except for Kevin of course).
Israel: Golda Mier
Don’t forget Germany: Angela Merkel
Social change can only happen incrementally. Go too fast and you get backlash, which can lead to appalling retrograde motion of the sort we saw for ten years under Howard.
It is most important to keep up the momentum and to name sexism when it occurs, without resorting to the sort of ridiculous separatist militarism that surrounded the Ormond College case. (Militarism comes from social identification with the group ‘feminism’, rather than than from ideas and ideology. Once ‘feminists’ form a social group, they can be stereotyped and dismissed through ridicule.)
MoiraS & JohnB - also Finland now has their 2nd female PM as well as an out lesbian as President.
Dr K once referred to Golda Meir as “the best man in the Israeli government”.
AR:
What’s this about “out?”? I am sad to think that, in this age, in and out are appropriate terms to describe sexual orientation in the female of the tribe.