Julia Gillard and s-xism:
John Richardson writes: Re. “What do we mean by ‘s-xist’ when we refer to criticisms of Gillard?” (yesterday, item 18). Robin Cameron suggests that society’s treatment and expectations of Julia Gillard are s-xist. Cameron implies that Gillard is being treated unfairly, suggesting that we are guilty of applying a double standard by accepting that it’s OK for Hawke, Keating and many other male leaders to knife each other in the back, but that it’s not OK for Gillard to do the same.
I think Cameron is right about the double standard but wrong in her contention that this is a reflection of s-xist attitudes.
What Cameron and many other commentators fail to understand is that many in our society actually expect higher standards of behaviour from women in public office or business than men, so when those women try and behave like men or demand to be treated like men, we are more than a little disappointed. There is ample evidence to suggest that women make better political and business leaders than men and that they are more inspirational and ethical.
There is ample research available that demonstrates that strong market growth among European companies is most likely to occur where there is a higher proportion of women in senior management teams and that businesses with more women on their boards outperform their rivals with a 42% higher return on sales; 66% higher return on invested capital and 53% higher return on equity. Other research has found that teams that involve women are more intelligent than teams made up of men alone.
In my view, Gillard’s leadership failure is not a function of her performance when measured against the behavioural standards of men, but rather against a higher level of capability that she never had.
Niall Clugston writes: Regarding Robin Cameron’s comments on the attacks on Julia Gillard, I think the issue of s-xism cuts both ways. Being overprotective of women is as s-xist as denigrating them, and equally unhelpful.
While snipers are clearly focusing on Gillard’s femininity, and stories proliferate about her stereotypical feminine attributes, or lack of them, the fact is that calling Tony Abbott the “Mad Monk” or referring to his Speedos clearly focuses on his masculinity. And perhaps John Howard didn’t like people deriding his eyebrows or his stature.
I’d suggest that everyone tries to play the ball instead of the woman or man.
Peter Slipper:
David Hardie writes: Re. Yesterday’s Editorial. Peter Slipper is no mug. In his decision to revert to the speaker’s robe, etc, he has sent (and forgive the cliché ) a clear message about the respect that should be afforded to the speakers of the house.
You see it in teachers who normally dress in a more casual fashion than the students on free-dress day. It is a very short step from being their “mate” (ethically dubious at the best of times) to being their “mat”.
For Slipper, he will probably be never be trusted again by either side, so building a culture of respect for the an independent Speaker is all he has left.
Now to show he is serious on the floor of the house. Watch this space.
Cyclists:
Andrew Cunningham writes: Re. Ava Hubble (yesterday, comments). Cyclists, myself included, do sometimes use the footpath. If the road were a safer place this would not be so. Shared areas are of particular frustration because pedestrians, in my experience, treat the space as their own. There is no sharing. Cyclists are treated as intruding.
There are no enforceable speed limits on push bikes. They do not need a speedometer to be roadworthy. I believe this has been tested in court.
Approaching this issue it is apparently near impossible to empathise. We all talk of how we are wronged on our roads, our footpaths.
Perhaps we should all grow up. Some cyclists are d-ckheads, as are some motorists, etc. I suppose, that since being the overtly racist and bigoted people that white Australians once were, is not as acceptable as it once was, perhaps we just need an outlet. A group that we’re allowed to hate.
Is that all we’ve got? I hope not.
Glen Fergus writes: Cycling lobbyists are regularly accused of road rule pedantry, but in my experience there is nothing more hostile — or dangerous — than that mad motorist or pedestrian who spends their days self-righteously trying to enforce some cycling rule they think exists because they read or heard it on some damn media outlet. Please don’t compound the problem.
Ava Hubble is right about no footpath cycling in NSW, but a national e-newsletter could have taken the trouble to point out that’s not the rule in at least two other states. And as for a general 10 km/hr rule on shared paths, with feeling, that would be “absolute crap”.
So, fellow Crikey readers, think you know your cycling rules? Take this little test:
- Cycling up the left of line of cars stopped at the lights is illegal, true or false?
- Riding two abreast is illegal in urban areas unless there’s marked lanes, true or false?
- Cyclists must always signal before turning or diverging left, true or false?
- Where there’s no signs, cyclists are still obliged to ride in a lane marked on the road for their use, true or false?
- If they want to, pedestrians are entitled to stand or walk any way they like on a shared path, true or false?
Score any trues there guys? Dunce cap for you then.
[NSW sources (others mostly similar): 1. (part 2, note conjunction “and”); 2. (read carefully now…); 3. (part 5); 4. (part 4 for definition of “bicycle lane”, then see rule 247); 5. (parts 1 and 2, note “driver” is defined to include cyclists)]
I would argue 2. is true for bicycles in the same lane. The only excetion is overtaking
Sorry “exception”.
“Bicycle lanes
When a bicycle lane is marked on the road, cyclists must use it. These lanes are for use by bicycles, but cars may use them for not more than 50 metres to enter or leave the road at a driveway or intersection.”
This is an extract from the NSW Laws and Penalties for Bicycles. I think that is more specific than the example that Mr Fergus gives, which is more related to the behaviour of motorists vis a vis cycling lanes. – which means that the answer to 4 is definitely true.
I also don’t think that the justification for point 5 really holds water, even with the point that a cyclist is a driver – as it’s clearly talking about roads, not shared pedestarian and cyle paths.
Sorry about the crappy formatting – I don’t seem to have any control over this.
I dont believe that we focus on Abbott in his speedo’s because of his masculinity, we focus on it because it all seems a bit exhibitionist and unseemly for a wannabe PM to be perpetually running around in his tiny wee red jocks.
Equally “Mad Monk” is about his personal style, some of his beliefs and background – not his sex.
Having said that I am not agreeing that there is a lot of sexist attacks on the PM – definitely some but far from a majority – but I couldn’t let such poorly argued comment go unchallenged. Strange that Crikey felt the need to publish them..
Many of our journalist journeymen constantly characterise our Prime Minister’s statements in the same manner they have experienced from a generation of political leaders.
With the exception of a few of them, this is proving to be a misleading representation of politics and its discourse today. It shows a shallow understanding of the character and focus of our Prime Minister.
Rarely have we seen a Prime Minister advocate her position from the outset with clarity before we have been subjected to a full political process of partial leaking followed by political spin doctors before a policy was proposed or adopted.
It has been common practice for the past twenty odd years to use the press to promulgate a political intention, or policy in small grabs to get an appreciation of what the electorate reaction might be. This, to some of us, is leadership from the rear and rarely delivers optimum policy that is for the nation’s benefit.
Ms Gillard has shown considerable political courage and honesty over her tenure in advocating her view, shaped by expert enquiry, from the outset and then endeavouring to progress the matter to its legislative requirements.
This attitude is probably born of her history as a successful advocate before our Arbitration Courts where most applications have a starting ambit claim that is then negotiated to a conclusion.
Politics is the art of negotiation and compromise to reach a politically pragmatic conclusion.
Whilst it may suit Mr Abbott to characterise this as dishonesty, to further his ambitions, it is actually a refreshing and basically very honest approach to politics that many of us have not had the pleasure of witnessing. It also enhances the facilitation of our Prime Minister’s focus on the issues and attention to the challenges her job description demands.