The clip of Collins stumbling in a press conference perfectly plays into this hypersensitivity towards women politicians' mistakes – it is much more likely to be undermine her credibility than if the same clip had been made using a male politician. For Gillard, her impressive policy achievements appeared to have been overshadowed by the focus on her missteps, even though all prime ministers falter at times.
This subtle sexism, displayed by both male and female participants in the research, is difficult to challenge. It seems fair and legitimate to evaluate women politicians' imperfect behaviour negatively, so long as one ignores that men avoid the same level of scrutiny. This is not to say that men will never be evaluated negatively as politicians, but rather, that men often get the “benefit of the doubt” when their behaviour diverges from the ideal.
This subtle sexism has two plausible explanations. Ironically, it may be shown by some people keen to achieve gender equality. For these people, mistakes or hesitancy from women politicians may be punished because it is seen as letting the cause down, because it can be used by detractors as evidence that women aren't up to the job.
For people less committed to gender equality, punishing women when they fail to meet the masculine ideals of politicians can be justified as consistent with a meritocracy and a “fair go”. Yet because men avoid the same level of scrutiny it reinforces the conclusion that women are inferior.
Whatever its motivations, this research shows that in important respects, sexism towards female politicians has changed with the times. While confident female politicians are now seen as equal to men, female politicians pay a larger price than men for their faults and shortcomings. In order to achieve gender egalitarian ideals, this subtle sexism must be acknowledged and addressed.
Dr Renata Bongiorno is an honorary research fellow in psychology at the University of Queensland. Her research examines gender inequality and social change.
