Moral superiority a job for the boysSydney Morning HeraldSeptember 4 2004By Julia BairdHas it struck anyone else that women have so far been shadows flickering on the edge of this election campaign? The smooth pates glinting under the spotlight have been male, and the campaign has been shaped as being about, ostensibly, money, mortgages and war.
There are no high-profile female leaders, like Janine Haines or Natasha Stott Despoja, or even charismatic candidates like Pauline Hanson. With the exception of the deputy Labor leader, Jenny Macklin, and the Opposition health spokeswoman, Julia Gillard, it's largely boys against boys fighting for the female vote.
In 1990, the ALP pollster Rod Cameron famously predicted we were about to witness the feminisation of Australian politics. In that year, Joan Kirner and Carmen Lawrence became state premiers and many women rubbed their hands in anticipation.
Cameron argued that, other things being equal, people were 2-3 per cent more likely to vote for a female candidate, a trend which would only continue because "the increasing community cynicism, the eventual realisation of the gravity of national economic problems, and the growth of division over consensus in social issues, will reinvigorate the search for a new style of political, corporate and community leadership and a new order of political values in which Australian will have faith ... the old macho ways of proving leadership credentials will decline and the community will respond to a commonsense, managerial style which is in touch, honest and direct."
This meant leaders would have to show a more human side and would be valued more for intelligence, honesty and creativity than brute strength. Which is, of course, exactly what the men leading this election are trying to do: prove they are truthful and trustworthy.
But what has happened to the women in the wake of their spectacular downfalls - Lawrence, Bronwyn Bishop, Cheryl Kernot, Hanson, Stott Despoja?
When I interviewed Cameron last year for a book I was researching, he insisted his thesis has proved true: "The general point is that sheilas are going to be generally better viewed, and a good female candidate will, these days, generally speaking, beat a good male candidate."
Cameron says the Liberal Party in particular has "realised it's not the high flyers we are searching for, with some exceptions, but a community-minded, strong but ordinary woman in marginal seats, like Danna Vale and Jackie Kelly - they are not much as ministers, but are wonderful local members ... the community-type people, strong and dynamic but ordinary - I don't mean to be offensive - but natural for their community, usually go very well."
So this means women are being used to do their party's hard work in insecure electorates but not being cultivated for, or promoted to, senior positions. The irony is that male leaders are now working to establish themselves as credibly "feminine" - reading books to primary school pupils, being photographed with their children, and stitching subjects like obesity and parenting to the agenda.
Meanwhile, the ghosts of female leaders past still flit through newspapers. A recent story in a national newspaper about students protesting against HECS fees began: "Wearing high heels and a figure-hugging top, Australian Democrats Senator Natasha Stott Despoja teetered on the back of a ute in Melbourne yesterday as she took on heckling Young Liberal students. The South Australian senator, who is six months' pregnant, was forced to take it easy in the early stages of her pregnancy after a minor scare ... But yesterday, with one hand resting on her belly, Senator Stott Despoja, 34, proved she was again in good health as she joined 200 student protesters in a march through the city."
She's not wearing Doc Martens any more, but her choice of footwear still leads stories, and even though she seemed to be clothed simply in a black cardigan, we were reminded of her sexuality before anything else.
Kernot still provokes easy contempt, with dismissive epithets such as "ambitious", "highly strung" or "drama queen" attached to her name.
This week, Trish Worth was even mocked for using an old photograph on her campaign posters, with pundits suggesting it was a tactic to compete with a younger female candidate - cat fight! Using old photos is not a new trick; many journalists do it themselves.
But all of this is a distraction. The key questions remain: do voters believe that politics really will bring in new values, and are women going to be part of this change? It's wrong to simply assume women do politics differently from the way men do, but surely the entrance - or promotion - of a previously excluded group into parliament must at least force those heavy wooden doors open a crack.
In 1513, Machiavelli wrote that a prince must be very careful with his words so that "for those seeing and hearing him, he should be a man of compassion, a man of good faith, a man of integrity, a kind and religious man". And perhaps he might add today a man of truth, deserving trust.
In the 1990s, women such as Lawrence and Kernot, who claimed to, or were believed to, do politics differently from men, were lambasted for piety and mocked for signs of ambition, deceit or aggression. In the light of their experiences, any woman who claims moral superiority today would be foolish.
It's a curious thing, then, that John Howard and Mark Latham are tryingto claim moral superiority over each other.
jbaird@smh.com.au
Media articles are posted for the purpose of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under "fair use" provisions and may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owners, except for "fair use."
