Hairstyles the least of leaders' worries

Anne Summers

January 27, 2011 - 6:59AM SMH

For men in politics, power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. At least, it was for Henry Kissinger in 1973 when he was secretary of state in the Nixon administration and was rarely photographed on social occasions without a gorgeous woman on his arm. Even then, Kissinger was no oil painting so the question was: how did he do it? He was disarmingly frank in his explanation. It was the allure of his power.
The same is not true for women.
As newly-installed Premier of Tasmania, Lara Giddings, noted this week: "At times I wonder whether or not your role as a member of Parliament ... may in fact inhibit a relationship developing.

Advertisement: Story continues below

''I don't have a steady relationship. That's something that women in politics deal with. For some reason, men in politics seem to have a larger charisma and women drop around their feet. I haven't noticed that so much for me.''
Giddings's frank and perhaps rueful ruminations on a rather important topic for aspiring women politicians were prompted by a question at her first press conference as Premier. She was asked: "As a single woman taking on the role, do you, are you concerned perhaps you're giving up the potential to have a family? Is it compatible?"
The questioner was a female journalist. I like to think her name was Bridget Jones.
The new Premier had just told the press conference of her biggest task: "We face a particularly challenging time with the state budget as a result of the continuing impact of the global financial crisis and the loss of GST revenue from the Commonwealth."
She did not mention finding a partner as among her challenges, yet the following day, The Australian carried a front-page story headed, "Leftist Lara Giddings still looking for Mr Right".
Why on Earth was this suddenly relevant the day Giddings became Tasmania's first female premier? It was not as if she had landed from Mars. She was, until the day before, Treasurer and Attorney-General. She'd been single then. Now she was Premier, Treasurer and Minister for the Arts and suddenly her marital status was an issue. Why?
The answer, of course, is that even as the numbers of women assuming positions of political leadership grow, so does the trivialisation and the double standard. You might have thought that with a female Governor-General and Governor in NSW, a female prime minister, three female High Court judges, a female Deputy Opposition Leader and, now, three female premiers that we might have reached sufficient critical mass for clothes and marital status not to matter. Apparently not.
During the week of the crisis of the Queensland floods when Premier Anna Bligh and Prime Minister Julia Gillard were fronting the cameras daily to explain, announce and reassure, both women were subjected to an astonishing ongoing assessment about their clothes, their hairstyles, make-up, and even about the ways in which they laid hands on evacuees.
The comments were mostly along the lines of good Anna/bad Julia. It was quite extraordinary when you think about it. Can you imagine similar comments being made about John Brumby and Kevin Rudd during the Victorian bushfires? None of us gave a toss what the premier and prime minister were wearing or how they had styled their hair. It only ever happens with the women. It's the same with marital - and maternal - status.
Would a childless male politician be denounced as "deliberately" unfertile? Are any male MPs asked about their childcare arrangements? Was Wyatt Roy, the young (and single) National Party federal member for the Queensland seat of Longman asked whether he was concerned that he was giving up the potential to have a family, given the long stints he'd need to spend in Canberra? Of course he wasn't.
It is one of the great paradoxes of current Australian society that as the numbers of women in public life grow, we seem to become more anxious about whether they are "real" women; whether they are married and have children.
We seem to fear that power erodes femininity, which just goes to show that we still retain unexamined, and perhaps unconscious, assumptions about political power being masculine.

Leading English football commentator Andy Gray has been fired after he made sexist remarks about a female match official

 It's been interesting to note that in Australia, whilst this story was widely aired there has been minimal public commentary on the issue here. Some news stories made comment that such remarks might be "appropriate at a barbeque but not in an official capacity". So it's ok to believe this in secret as long as you don't tell anyone? The SMH article reported: The pair caused controversy after agreeing female officials "don't know the offside rule". Then it added: She ended up calling a crucial borderline decision correctly.  As if the issue of her being there on merit was the issue to prove or disprove the validity of the sexist remarks.  

We have a long way to go girls. And I'm surprised at how often I hear watered down versions of these kinds of views.  It's important not to get upset over it, but I do try and challenge stereotypical views when I see and hear them.


 British football commentators suspended (25/1)

Gray and his colleague Richard Keys were reprimanded over the weekend after they were recorded making derogatory comments about lineswoman Sian Massey before the Barclays Premier League match between Liverpool and Wolverhampton Wanderers.
But Gray, who has been the face of Sky Sports' football coverage for 20 years, has been stood down permanently after the broadcaster uncovered "new evidence of unacceptable and offensive behaviour".
The new footage shows Gray making a suggestive comment and gesture toward Sky Sports colleague Charlotte Jackson in the studio.
"Andy Gray's contract has been terminated for unacceptable behaviour," said Sky Sports managing director Barney Francis.
"After issuing a warning, we have no hesitation in taking this action after becoming aware of new information today."

Gray hasn't publicly apologised for the remarks he made about Massey, unlike Keys, who telephoned the lineswoman to apologise.Gray has been fired after he made sexist remarks about a female match official

Boardroom diversion and division

January 24, 2011

''ARE you looking at me?'' she asked, with the start of a frown.
I had noted she had recently streaked her hair, spent quite some time on make-up, complete with enhanced eyelashes and lipstick of an intriguing hue, was adorned with attractive earrings and necklace, was wearing a lift-and-separate bra that was certainly doing its job, had undone the perfect number of buttons to display a sweeping decolletage, and her skirt was designed to emphasise a pair of silkily stockinged legs terminating in an elegant pair of quite substantial heels.
''Well … yes,'' I confirmed.

 

''Do you think that's appropriate behaviour in a boardroom?'' she asked.
Now I wasn't staring, gawking or goggling, just noting the package in a vaguely appreciative manner.
Appropriate behaviour? The clear implication was that my behaviour may have been somehow inappropriate. And here is where the gender problem begins. I am a male … a bloke … even, perhaps, a chap. Whichever, I almost certainly march to the beat of a different drum.
If I had gone to a similar degree of trouble to make myself stand out from the crowd, I would have been severely disconcerted had I not been noticed. Or, conversely, would have been delighted if someone had taken the trouble to observe, appreciate and nod tacit approval.
''I was just noticing the benefits of ladies' apparel in our climate,'' I intoned. As we were, in fact, sitting in a boardroom, my expected attire included a tie and jacket.
''There's no need to be condescending,'' she snorted. Of course! She was no lady! She was a ''woman''. Again, if someone were to refer to me as a ''gentleman'', I would feel quite chuffed.
''It's no wonder they're talking of bringing in quotas to ensure women get the opportunity to bring a female point of view to boards.'' I didn't like to mention the fact that she was the member of a board here. I was just a consultant presenting a paper.
''The sooner they bring in quotas to get more women into parliament, the better things will be as well,'' she muttered.
Now, Australia has had equal franchise since Federation and the country has almost always contained more women than men, so surely more women have voted for men than for their own brand. (Let's not even start on the Premier, Prime Minister, Governor-General thing).
Sometimes I ponder the value of passing a law that women must be obnoxious to men, if only to watch them beating blokes about with umbrellas demanding the right to be nice.
Ian Freeman
Posted in the SMH 27 January 2011
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/boardroom-diversion-and-division-20110123-1a16x.html