While we still think in terms of “politicians” and “female politicians”, we can’t pretend gender isn’t an issue in politics.
One of the many of thinkpieces (yes I see the irony) on whether women should vote for Hilary Clinton because she is a woman fell through my Facebook feed recently, this one entitled Hillary Can Make a Difference for Women Everywhere That Bernie Can’t
In the article Clinton was quoted as saying:
…it is still the case that there are challenges and obstacles to young women’s ambitions. I’m going to try to break the highest and hardest glass ceiling. I hope it splinters completely and, and I hope for your daughters [a female president] opens doors that might not be open right now, regardless of whether any of them ever do anything politically. But in their lives, their profession, how they’re treated. I hope it does give them more of a sense of empowerment. That’s what I want for my daughter and my amazing granddaughter, and that’s what I want for your daughters.
Is she right?
The debate is raging among women in America, splitting along age lines as well as gender. And the language of the debate is very telling: Madeline Albright apparently “scolded” young women, because women (especially older women – ew!) expressing an opinion is apparently “scolding”.
That aside, the debate is interesting in the context of Australian politics over the last few years.
In 2010 we had a female Prime Minister, Governor General, QLD premier, NSW State Governor, Premier and Deputy Premier.
Four years later, all of those positions, except the QLD premier, are now held by men.
All of them, male and female, were white.
It’s difficult to see that the small window of time where women held a number of high offices had a long-term effect on the assumption that such offices are the purview of men.
What it did highlight was the idea of positions gained by “merit” and how we understand “merit”. Merit is something men have and women need to prove they have.
Clinton is assumed to not have it and needs to prove that she does, Sanders is assumed to have it and his detractors need to prove he doesn’t.
Julia Gillard, in her speech after losing the leadership, said:
I have been a little bit bemused by those colleagues in the newspapers who have admitted that I have suffered more pressure as a result of my gender than other prime ministers in the past, but then concluded that it had zero effect on my political position or the political position of the Labor Party. It doesn’t explain everything, it doesn’t explain nothing, it explains some things, and it is for the nation to think in a sophisticated way about those shades of grey. What I am absolutely confident of is it will be easier for the next woman and the woman after that and the woman after that and I’m proud of that.
The shades of grey she mentioned don’t seem to have made their way into the national (or international) discussion.
Gillard is still vilified and lauded, but rarely given space in the grey areas. She was a flawed and skilled politician, achieved some moments of greatness, and others of mediocrity, even failure. But the gender issue polarises opinion. That Woman will always be uncompromisingly hated or loved, but there’s not much middle ground.
Clinton appears to be suffering the same polarisation. All her policies, history and activities are viewed through the prism of gender. She’s shrill, old, cold, failing women, representing women, corrupt, principled, strong, ball-breaking and all the other dichotomies of politics. She is, in short, no different to any other person with such a hunger for power, But, for her, all those descriptions are gendered.
Politics is always divisive, and all politicians, as all humans, have failings. But while women are still a shock to the public eye, while we still think of them as female politicians and men are just politicians, the argument that we need more women normalising their presence in leadership is difficult to dispute.