tip off

After shaky start, 2012 a triumph for feminism

Despite all the claims that feminism is dead, 2012 proved a landmark year for women around the world — from Julia Gillard’s misogyny speech to Hillary Clinton. Is social media facilitating a new wave of feminism?

It didn’t begin well. The first memory I have of 2012 is of Prime Minister Julia Gillard being clutched to the bosom of a burly security man and being half carried, half dragged away from a group of irate demonstrators, who were baying for opposition leader Tony Abbott’s blood. She had tripped while being hustled away and lost a shoe, hence the unseemly footage. It reminded me of the old movies I used to hate as a kid where the heroine tripped and fell when running away from the baddies so that the hero got to prove his bravery by rushing back into the teeth of danger to save her.

Gillard had another wardrobe malfunction later in the year and again it was her shoes that let her down, causing her to face-plant spectacularly.

The polls at the beginning of the year were hideous for Gillard, although they weren’t much better for the opposition leader. And women like me were growing weary of the excessive vitriol and sneering that was being directed at the PM mostly, it seemed, for daring to be a woman and hold high office. Just like the lame (in every sense of the word) heroines of those old movies, a message was being sent to girls with every word of gendered abuse hurled at Gillard. The message was: Don’t aspire to high office, girlie, because this is how we will treat you.

Journalist Wendy Harmer bravely made this point publicly and received another bucket of gendered abuse for her trouble. I can (and have) criticised many of Gillard’s policies, particularly on education and asylum seekers, but “the worst prime minister we’ve ever had” always seemed way over the top. Turns out it seemed that way to a lot of other women too, and not a few men.

The next memory is better: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s brilliant response to the meme that was created of her staring solemnly at her BlackBerry. Texts from Hillary began with two young guys posting ideas of who she might be texting. It took off like a rocket and exploded into the stratosphere when Clinton created her own witty and deft meme in response. Already considered to be doing a phenomenal job as Secretary of State, she became the coolest woman in the world over 60. At last, there was a credible, funny and courageous woman in power.

Then Anne Summers delivered her brilliant and forensic analysis of the gendered abuse being thrown at Gillard in a speech called Her Rights at Work. It hit a nerve and gave women the ammunition they needed. Then the carbon tax became a reality and when the sky didn’t fall, Gillard’s approval ratings began to rise.

Far from feminism being dead, as was so confidently stated by so many until very recently, social media and the power it gives women to voice their opinions and band together …”

In September, Sydney radio broadcaster Alan Jones let rip at Gillard again. In reaction to Gillard promising some aid to help more women in the Pacific, Jones suggested women like Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore and ex-Victorian police commissioner Christine Nixon were “destroying the joint” and that there wasn’t a chaff bag big enough for them — a reference to a previous suggestion that Gillard be sewn into a chaff bag and thrown out to sea.

That night, women hit Twitter in droves at #destroyingthejoint. The hashtag trended worldwide and a Facebook page sprang up. Women didn’t have to cop insults about their gender in impotent silence. Thanks to social media and the unmediated access it gave them to the public conversation they could — and did — make their point of view heard loudly.

Only a few weeks later, soon after the death of Gillard’s much-loved father, Jones told a function that John Gillard had “died of shame” because his daughter had told so many lies. An attendee wore a suit made from chaff bags. Businesses discovered there was a high price to pay for advertising with Jones. The chaff bag wearer lost his job. Major sponsors left 2GB promising never to return, costing the station more than $1 million.

And polls revealed Abbott, never popular with women, was sinking further. He turned to his wife Margie who confidently outed her husband as having been a closet feminist all along. The significance of the most socially conservative candidate for PM for decades calling himself a feminist to have a chance at re-election was not lost on many who really were — feminists, that is.

Only a few days later, Abbott used the same phrase about dying of shame in a debate over former parliamentary speaker Peter Slipper’s sleazy texts about female genitalia. Gillard, shaking with what appeared to be genuine fury, rose and delivered the speech of her life. The “misogyny speech”, as it has come to be known, resonated around the world with more than two million YouTube hits. Women who watched it alternatively wept and punched the air as Australia’s first female prime minister put into words what many of them had struggled against all their working lives.

Next morning, what is becoming rather disparagingly referred to as the “mainstream media” reported the speech as cynical, a distraction and a failed ploy. But as they found out immediately, the days of the media being able to set the parameters of debate are over. Women were not having a bar of it. The reporting of the speech by the gallery was pilloried. Journos belatedly changed their tune. The disconnect between how women heard the speech and how political journalists reported it became as much the story as the speech itself.

The year drew to a close with President Barack Obama winning a second term; and women got him across the line. Obama won 55% of the female vote; women are 53% of the US population and are more likely to vote than men. Right-wing Republicans now face a dilemma. The religious values they see as central to their platform are the same ones that stop women, particularly single women, from voting for them.

Far from feminism being dead, as was so confidently stated by so many until very recently, social media and the power it gives women to voice their opinions and band together to offer encouragement and support, has brought it roaring back onto the agenda.

Social media could prove to be as revolutionary for women and their role and opportunities as the invention of the pill was in the 1960s. If I am right, 2013 could be even more exciting.

*I would like to dedicate this column to the memory of Victoria Soto, Dawn Hochsprung, Mary Sherlach, Lauren Rousseau, Rachel D’Avino and Anne Marie Murphy; teachers and staff members of Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut. All were killed trying to protect their students. My daughter is a teacher.

*This article was originally published at Women’s Agenda

15
  • 1
    Buddy
    Posted Thursday, 20 December 2012 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    Thankyou Jane. Thankyou for never being afraid to call it how you see it. Thankyou for being an ever present and vital voice for so many women in our media, where we are so often misrepreented, ignored and belittled. Thankyou for summing up a year that so many feel has been a turning point. Where for so many for so long have been pilloried into silence we are now standing strong strong together and saying ENOUGH. What i am also enjoying is the many, many men who are standing alongside of us…

  • 2
    Peter Donoughue
    Posted Thursday, 20 December 2012 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    It’s NewTOWN, not Newton.

  • 3
    innerwestie
    Posted Thursday, 20 December 2012 at 10:52 pm | Permalink

    You’re also to be congratulated for being such a powerful and unapologetically supportive voice for women and public education, Jane. Keep on destroying the joint!

  • 4
    Ron King
    Posted Friday, 21 December 2012 at 1:55 am | Permalink

    Dressing up Gillard’s actions is feminist warrior costume is poor fare from Caro.

    The issue Jane is the content of Gillard’s character - not the colour of her gender.

    Slipper was a disaster waiting to happen for Gillard…another example of her seemingly clever short termism and idiocy at the long game. This woman hasn’t got the brain power, political wisdom or character to imagine the consequences of her actions.

    Misogyny hate speech hurled at Abbott for the purpose of defending Slipper - party rat, weirdo trad Anglican Minister who dresses up in funny robes, tweets twats to honey trappers and makes Kevin Rudd’s church door hypocrisy looks saint-like in comparison.

    And so the press thought Gillard’s speech was a cynical ploy - that it was - and a disgrace to the high office of Prime Minister.

    It might have impressed the feeble minded female kiddies with tongue and nose studs and chinese dragon tats on their bums - but thankfully not the majority of voters who can’t wait to get Gillard out.

  • 5
    iggy648
    Posted Friday, 21 December 2012 at 6:23 am | Permalink

    Misogyny hate speech hurled at Abbott for the purpose of defending Slipper - party rat, weirdo trad Anglican Minister who dresses up in funny robes, tweets twats to honey trappers and makes Kevin Rudd’s church door hypocrisy looks saint-like in comparison.” Could you just remind me how many times the Liberal Party endorsed Slipper again?

  • 6
    Dave Kelly
    Posted Friday, 21 December 2012 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    Brilliant Jane. Are we finally breaking out of the faux take on our society that the main stream press media has smothered us for years? This is why I sub to crickey. A bit of balanced journalism to restore my faith. Along with Keane, Rundle, FDOTM! etc. I thank you.

  • 7
    Peter
    Posted Friday, 21 December 2012 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

    The misogyny speech would have been a very good speech had it been made in a different place and in a proper context - there was no misogyny in evidence at the time the speech was made. The PM was agitated from the political attacks by Abbott, and then became furious from his inappropriate comment, along the lines that her government would/should die of shame - a careless use of words too close to those Jones used in reference to her father.

    The PM should not expect to treated in anyway different to a male politician in terms of the gender-free, robust political language used against her and her government by the Opposition.

  • 8
    Dawn Baker
    Posted Friday, 21 December 2012 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

    Thanks Jane for a recap of the victories of women to be heard and understood this year.

    Peter, your insightless comment is a mirror of the attitude of entitled males who don’t get it! Run your comment past your female friends and listen to their response.

  • 9
    Ron King
    Posted Saturday, 22 December 2012 at 12:32 am | Permalink

    iggy 648

    One too many times iggy. Shows you the power of incumbency. Howard never made Slipper speaker though did he?

  • 10
    Peter
    Posted Saturday, 22 December 2012 at 1:10 am | Permalink

    For Dawn…why did you bring gender into it Dawn, and where does your reference to “entitled males” come into it…it’s not a male/female issue, we’re talking about people.

    I hope you’re not suggesting the PM’s gender has to be taken into account in the hurly burly of political discourse in the House. You do remember I hope that it was the PM who, on taking office, said to Abbott, “game on”. He has engaged her in the game at her invitation.

  • 11
    innerwestie
    Posted Saturday, 22 December 2012 at 1:31 am | Permalink

    Peter, if you think there has been no evidence of misogyny in the treatment of Gillard, you are obviously blind to the overt and covert sexism that goes on around you every day to which millions of considerably less powerful women are subjected, and who are expected to suck it up and ‘not be a girl about it’. Whether you deem that moment an inappropriate time for Gillard’s speech or not, to me and just about every woman I know - both here and overseas - it was a thrilling, long-overdue repudiation of the subtle, insidious chauvinism designed to keep women silent and ‘in their place’.

  • 12
    Peter
    Posted Saturday, 22 December 2012 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    For innerwestie - I have two adult girls who are strong, independent married women who are equal partners in their marriages, and their attitude in this regard reflects the way they were brought up and what they saw in their parent’s relationship. I have worked for smart women in the past and have been happy to do so. I am for women.

    But I don’t believe that Julia Gillard has been persecuted by the Opposition with misogyny and sexism. She would do better attracting the male vote if she just got on with it a la Thatcher, and dropped the victim persona.

  • 13
    Johnfromplanetearth
    Posted Saturday, 22 December 2012 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    Feminism is in a lot of ways like fascism. Your average Fascist will disregard any scientific argument unless the conclusion supports his existing belief. The ideology comes first and the Fascist looks for anything to back it up, no matter how trivial, unreliable or discredited. Much like today’s feminists and their ideology. Fascists attempt to rationalize their beliefs and portray them as truth by twisting the facts. Gillard is a master at it. A fascist might, for example, cast blame for unemployment and work discontent on illegal immigrants arriving, getting handouts and eventually “stealing” their jobs. Feminists similarly cast blame for women’s lower average pay onto another party (men). (Tony Abbott?) Both feminists and fascists are quick to cast blame on someone else for anything that goes wrong in their lives. (Again Tony Abbott?) Most feminists seem to conform to feminist stereotypes. I can usually pick out a feminist in a crowd of women. She’ll usually have short hair, regular pants, a regular shirt, and an unbathed look; she’ll look very much like a stereotypical guy. I think why a feminist might appear like this is to make a statement that “if men can do it and be accepted, then women should be able to”. How bold, to go around and look like a stereotypical guy as opposed to a stereotypical girl. Who cares? Either way, you’re an ass for thinking anybody cares about the statement you’re making. If you’re trying to prove a point to the average guy that’s only concerned with women as sex objects, you’re wasting your time. A guy that’s concerned with women as sex objects is going to be concerned with women as sex objects regardless of how you look. Not every woman will share feminist ideals, so a possible argument that “if all women did it, then guys would have to respect us” isn’t very realistic. If you really want to make a point, surgically remove your breasts. Or is that going too far? Feminism serves as nothing more than a wedge to further separate the sexes, segregating men and women into cultures that wouldn’t otherwise exist. Why do so many women insist on carrying out this war against men? Absolute gender equality isn’t going to happen; we have gender equality now. Connie Rice and Hilary Clinton got top jobs in the US while Gillard got her job by stabbing her boss in the back. Never the less she got the job mo matter how bad she does it and despite her failures still keeps it! Then you have some women to be admired like Hafsat Abiola, women rule in the entertainment business as well (all hail Tina Fey and our own Asher Keddie) it must be Tony Abbott’s fault self confessed simpleton Kim Kardashian lives and breathes? Even if in a million years, men and women somehow made this unrealistic ideal happen, there will always be a sexual distinction between men and women causing some sort of inequality (if only on the level of basic physical needs). Or should I say women and men, as not to imply a male superiority? Why the hell should people go out of their way to be politically correct and use this “he/she” nonsense so a few chicks with language complexes won’t be offended? Oops, I said “chicks”. Damn.

  • 14
    Ron King
    Posted Saturday, 22 December 2012 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    Innerwestie et al…

    Gillard has got off lightly - in fact her history and lifestyle would be unknown or unnoticed by many voters due to a conspiracy of silence by the sisterhood.

    Imagine this Geoffrey Robertson hypothetical:

    start hypo :

    Kevin Rudd is a bachelor, and displaces Gillard, the duly elected first female Prime Minister in a palace coup.

    Kevin installs his paramour - a bimbo hairdresser in the Lodge as official escort, and counts in his cabinet a former girlfiend who left her husband and family for his charms. Kevin sports amongst his former bedmates a crooked union official and a history of climbing the greasy pole of labor politics via his dodgy abilities as a labor lawyer.

    In 2010 Kevin scrapes into office with green and independent bedmates and then presides over a shambolic litany of deceits, monumental policy failures and incompetence in basic administration. ’ end hypo

    And what would Caro and her sisters make of all this??

    She (the female pronoun) would be baying for Kevin’s blood.

    That bastard knifed our first female prime minister, lied to the electorate, dodged and weaved over his past, brought former mates and bedmates into the Ministy, and even besmirched our sacred site at Gallipoli by having that bimbo hairdresser jointly lay a wreath on our glorious dead.

    Caro would be leading marches down Oxford St - “FU Kevin” tee shirts would be hot sellers on EBay - even Germaine Greer would have a feminist moment and call Kevin a pidgeon toed arsehole with a bad haircut, and question his SNAGhood.

    There would even be signs behind Caro as she addresses the screaming female horde - “BRICK the BASTARD”

  • 15
    prembrowne
    Posted Monday, 24 December 2012 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    Johnfromplanetearth, you begin by describing to us how fascists hand-pick their facts to support their ideology, then go ahead and do the same yourself. And so much of it too; What a long time you must have spent on that! To even suggest that most feminists have a certain physical appearance, for a start, is so far off the mark it’s almost funny. Not sure where you’ve been hanging out :) Feminists that I know don’t blame everything that goes wrong in their lives on men, or Tony Abbott.
    Gender equality is such a larger issue to many people, even if not to you, and is complex. It’s not simply ‘Gillard v Abbott’ or jobs at the top for women. An interesting add-on to this article would be the march by thousands of people in Melbourne this year, by both men and women, in the wake of the Jill Meagher murder, and the protests in Delhi right now over violent rape. It’s not just about physical appearance or equal pay.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...