I believe that feminism is a broad church (I have occasionally joked it is a broad’s church) and that almost any political, religious or world view is compatible with feminism, except a belief in restricting reproductive rights for women. That, to me, given that it hands agency over a woman’s body to others, is a bridge too far. It’s the equivalent of saying you are a Christian but don’t believe in God.
But, apart from that proviso, in the spirit of the more the merrier, I will cheerfully accept anyone who claims to be a feminist as a feminist.
So I was delighted to read that Margie Abbott has publicly declared her husband to be a feminist. A result, she says, of raising three daughters and being surrounded by strong women. All of whom have dutifully trotted around in his wake in the last few days touting his previously well-hidden feminist credentials.
To give him his due, I was impressed to hear from Margie that he recently raised $140,000 for the Manly Women’s Shelter by cycling some absurd number of kilometres. (Can’t help wondering if anyone has thought hard about the name “Manly Women’s Shelter”. It is hilarious.)
I do not intend to debate here whether Margie Abbott’s worse half — he called her his better half, after all — actually is a feminist or not. To me, that’s not what’s important. What has rocked the world on its axis, as far as this old feminism-watcher is concerned, is the claim should be made at all about an avowedly right-wing prime ministerial hopeful and, moreover, claimed proudly. Quite frankly, that’s bloody revolutionary.
Only 10 years ago members of the last Liberal government, including PM John Howard, claimed feminism was done and that we were in a post-feminist era. (The first time the word post-feminism was used, I believe, was in 1911. Women are always being told that feminism is past its use-by date.) Feminism was the movement that dare not speak its name. Women’s conferences died in the bum in the ’90s — I know, because I make a considerable part of my income speaking at them and the work dried up — and hardly any women were prepared to identify publicly as feminists, let alone men. Departments for women, ministers for women were shut down or absorbed into other portfolios. Women were equal, damn it, and anything they did or didn’t get was their own fault.
How the world has changed. Politically, it began with the election of the Rudd government, but it really ramped up when Julia Gillard became our first female PM. After the initial euphoria, however, it started to look rather depressing. Expectations were so high that Gillard could do little but fall short of them. There was also the whiff of illegitimacy about her government given her failure to secure a parliamentary majority in her own right and the deals she was therefore forced to do (Abbott would have done them too, given the opportunity).
For a good two years, we saw a level of political invective and scorn that — while Australian political debate has always been robust — seemed somehow more personal than before. For the first time, largely because it was the first time we’d had a woman leading the country, many of the most vitriolic comments were focused on Gillard’s gender. Jockeying for power is always about amplifying perceived weak spots and being a woman was quickly seen by her opponents as a weakness to be exploited; just as it commonly is in business. And for a while, it looked as if her critics had found a seam of gold.
Hubris, however, is always risky and the tactic of unremitting and nasty pressure on Gillard started to get out of hand. For every legitimate scandal — Craig Thomson, Peter Slipper, etc — there was an equal amount of plain misogyny. Women, in particular, began to feel uncomfortable with the level of abuse that seemed to be based around our Prime Minister not being a man. She may not have been any great shakes as PM, but the “worst Prime Minister we’ve ever had”? That always sounded shrill and hysterical, particularly to female ears.
The extreme fearmongering around the carbon tax also — eventually — played into Gillard’s hands. That strategy must originally have been predicated on the Gillard government falling long before the tax was implemented, but the gamble did not pay off. The sky having failed to fall in as predicted, the Liberals and the doom-laden anti-carbon taxers now not only look a bit silly, but all their other fearmongering, including dog whistling to anti-women prejudices, has been called into question.
As a result, the tables have turned a little more in Gillard’s favour. She’d still lose an election held today, but no longer would it be a wipe-out. The very fact that the Abbott females have been wheeled out proves she’s got her opponents rattled.
But there is something else that may be the most powerful and uncontrollable element in the revolution we are seeing in the growth of women’s political power and influence. After all, this isn’t just an Australian phenomenon. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney also has a problem with women voters (again, probably due to his views about reproductive rights) and has also wheeled out his wife to try to woo them.
Social media is giving all sorts of people access to the public square in a way that they have never had before, but women — just because of their numbers — are benefiting disproportionately. Men are still overwhelmingly the gatekeepers of traditional media, bricks and mortar business and the powerful end of town, but the conversation is rapidly moving elsewhere. Women have flocked to the internet and they are making their presence felt. They no longer have to seek male approval to get the job, the article published, their face on the telly or their voices heard. They just need to attract readers, customers, purchasers, friends, followers and views. And they are.
If feminism is about women’s equality of opportunity and right to participate in every aspect of life, and I think that it is, then it is not surprising that as women have found a vehicle which gives them equal access to the public space, feminism has correspondingly risen from what some may have fondly hoped was the dead.
If Tony Abbott needs to be seen as a feminist before he can have a shot at being our next prime minister, then we’re winning.
54 thoughts on “Jane Caro: why Margie Abbott is bloody revolutionary”
paul walter
October 8, 2012 at 4:21 pmI think Mrs Abbott’s intervention is based on far more mundane reasoning than that attributed by Jane Caro.
Venise Alstergren
October 8, 2012 at 4:24 pmHARRY1951: You have made a good point. Also, it would be interesting to know how many previous Prime Ministers could have survived the outrageous treatment handed out to Gillard- without buckling at the knees?
David Fyfe
October 8, 2012 at 4:32 pmIs there another person writing to blogs these days, blogs where she hasn’t been banned, with so much hatred in her being, as shepherdmarilyn has for Prime Minister Gillard. It is like an attack from a venomous snake, strikes as often as possible, regardless of the topic being discussed. Like A Jones, it’s become predicatable, boring and rubbish.
Jane you say, “She’d still lose an election held today, but no longer would it be a wipe-out.” You are obviously going on current polling. Those results are trending to a close call at his stage, no certain thing. Tonights Newspoll will tell the tale and insiders are saying the odds on Labor are shortening, appears some in the know, are talking.
Sprague Brett
October 8, 2012 at 5:00 pmPersonally I welcome any variation of feminism that welcomes the family. Any variation that doesn’t erase the role of males in families is a welcome form of feminism. Of course this will be seen as bigoted, but a husband and a wife, a male and a female bringing up children of either sex, hoping and striving for the best for all is the ideal. Margie is bang on the money when she says they have achieved amazing things for their daughters, one doesn’t have to personally know them not to want the same for one’s own daughters if you have them.
However feminism still struggles with nature in my opinion, because it doesn’t give the family unit primacy. It is perfectly right to let sons and daughters make their own choices, including staying single or same-sex relationships- but it should never detract from the primacy of the family of the male-female husband-wife variety. And that primacy means dealing with the differences between the sexes and women’s limited fertility time-span.
Also, feminism tends to go backwards when you have the likes of Nicola Roxon maligning males with pejorative terms such as misogynist because they don’t pay her enough attention. Surely males still have the right to choose who they pay attention to, especially in political combat, the future of our nation demands it.
hyumentaya jesse
October 8, 2012 at 5:02 pmi’m quickly becoming post-interested in tony abbott’s “women’s problems”.
Henry Starr
October 8, 2012 at 5:13 pmHey guys! Whatsup? Just a friendly reminder when something is in ‘quotations’, this means it’s quoting someone, and not the words of the author.
Have a nice day, everyone!:)
JMNO
October 8, 2012 at 5:15 pmI must confess, I hadn’t thought of Margie Abbott’s involvement in the way you have – that it is a win for feminism in that Abbott needs to position himself as a feminist with all the policy implications of that. But you’re right
However I think he has misconstrued the reason women don’t like him. It’s not just his right-wing Catholic views on the place of women and reproductive rights.
What I don’t like about Abbott is his intense competitiveness which leads to such destructive and aggressive negativity. Men are more used to the metaphorical wrestling to be top dog which is the way Australian federal politics have normally been conducted and so they are more tolerant of his way of being Opposition leader. Whereas I find it repellent and, I think, so do a lot of other women.
The thing is, Abbott is supposed to be quite a decent human being in person and his wife’s defence of him attests to that. Why can’t he behave this way in the political sphere as well? He’d be a lot more popular.
As for his bike ride for charity, he’s a compulsive exerciser and bikerider. Is it about the bike ride or the charity?
joanjett
October 8, 2012 at 5:15 pmUmmmm, as far as I know, Craig Thomson still hasn’t been charged with anything, is still an MP and is therefore not a ‘legitimate scandal’, no matter how hard Kathy Jackson has tried to implicate him. Try substituting his name with Michael Williamson and you might be more on the money.
zut alors
October 8, 2012 at 5:18 pmVery well articulated.
When a political leader wheels out a spouse to laud them they automatically lose significant points with me.
Boerwar
October 8, 2012 at 5:32 pmSo, Mr Abbott does the barbecue and ducks out for the Indian take away and we are talking feminism?
Oh, sister!