Stuff it, I'm posting the rest of the story 😄
Given this whiff of usurper around Gillard due to her gender, the circumstances of her getting the top job could not have been worse. The unprecedented coup against a sitting Prime Minister that led to her elevation simply magnified the sense for many that this leader had no right to be there. For her political opponents it gave them leverage to ramp up the unease many Australians already had about a woman at the top.
When she made mistakes, as she was bound to do, they pounced. For those who were uneasy with her leadership anyway – because they were part of an opposition that felt robbed, Rudd loyalists in her own party, or out and out sexists and misogynists – our binary view of women at the top was a gift. And, with the help of an increasingly hostile media, her enemies made the most of it. Every woman who has ever aspired to sit at the top table knows that when she gets there every mistake she makes will be held not only against her, but her whole gender. This – in and of itself – makes the task of leadership more daunting.
Gillard had considerable strengths. She is clearly made of stern stuff. She got many important measures through a fragile and fractious parliament. Indeed, holding that parliament together and keeping it functioning for three years is a considerable achievement in itself.
She also had weaknesses. In person, she was charming, but over the airwaves, she came across as stiff and uncomfortable. Her one moment of real magnificence as a communicator; the justly famous sexism and misogyny speech, was made in parliament, where she clearly felt at home and in control. She was also consistently unable to develop a clear narrative about her prime ministership. Every policy was slightly muddied. She declared herself passionate about education, for example, but took some of the money for the Gonski reforms from the universities. This may have been sensible policy, but it made the narrative vulnerable. Her government did this consistently, and gave more ammunition to her enemies.
In other words, she was not great, but she was effective and that isn’t good enough for a woman. For a woman to earn her job, I believe we still unconsciously expect her to be demonstrably better at it than any man, otherwise what right does she have to be there? I think this higher standard for women leaders is universal. Hillary Clinton experienced much the same sanctification and demonisation when she stood for the Democrat nomination. Is Australia more sexist than other countries? I don’t know. We are perhaps franker and less sophisticated in our discourse.
When Gillard departed last night, she also said that the next female prime minister would have an easier ride. I worry we won’t find out for a long time. I can hear the blokes now whispering that women are electoral suicide. Worse, women have watched the treatment meted out to Gillard and thought; “go into politics? No way.”
I believe that is a message that was deliberately sent.
