One of the substantial hurdles for gender equality is the reluctance by many to accept inequality between men and women exists. (A less substantial, but more sinister, hurdle is the belief that inequality doesn’t matter). In my experience of the former, though, it is most often motivated by innocent disbelief or oblivion. Lots of people quite guiltlessly believe that in Australia in 2014 gender equality is fait accompli. You can hardly blame anyone for assuming that might be the case.
Unfortunately though, regardless of a person’s innocent intentions, an unwillingness to recognise or accept gender inequality has unhelpful consequences. If the starting point for someone’s thoughts on matters relating to gender is that men and women are equal, it is logical, then, to confuse a person’s argument to the contrary, as meddlesome. If you believe men and women are truly equal, then any argument about sexism or discrimination against women will seem misguided.
It’s the reason so many conversations about sexism, for example, descend into an unconstructive argument about the existence of sexism in the first place. When Clive Palmer recently made his appalling remarks in Parliament about Peta Credlin a considerable chunk of the media coverage that ensued was focused on the reaction of various individuals to the comments. I wrote at the time that it’s only possible to mount that sort of argument if your underlying belief is that sexism isn’t a legitimate concern.
It’s frustrating because the commentary should have been unanimously focused on the simple fact that Palmer’s comments were sexist. It was an opportunity to demonstrate, quite clearly, the different way men and women are treated. A man’s family plans are never bandied about in parliament so why were Credlin’s? (It’s a familiar situation working women face outside of Parliament too). And that is the question that should have been asked.
Peta Credlin being subject to sexism doesn’t discount Julia Gillard’s experience any more than Gillard’s experience cancels out Credlin’s. The fact is both women are – and have been – subject to sexism and that is where the focus should lie. Not for the sake of outrage, but for the sake of progress.
I am well aware that by writing to the readers of Women’s Agenda on this topic I am preaching to the converted. But the challenge, and the question I ask myself often, is this: How can we open the eyes of the unconverted to the fact that gender inequality and sexism is prevalent?
In the past week alone I can identify three obvious instances of sexism. I can’t guarantee it will be effective but maybe instances like this can be useful in highlighting the different way men and women are treated.
- Friday’s printed copy of The Sydney Morning Herald ran a photo of Julie Bishop on the front page with the headline “I need a hero”. The article to which the headline referred reported that four Federal ministers had received police protection since the Budget. Why was Bishop singled out for the photo with that headline? Would “I need a hero” have accompanied a photo of Christopher Pyne?
- The research released by AMP and National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling this week regarding the cost of childcare framed it as an issue for working mothers. The media coverage reflected that angle. Childcare is a household expense so why is it treated as an issue for women? Because many of us still quietly assume that women are the primary carers of children.
- And of course there was the search for Australia’s most unhinged Frightbat. A quick check for sexism is to remove the reference to gender and see what remains. The premise of Tim Blair’s blog post was that because they were women they were hysterical. Without their gender he had no point.
How can you make the unaware aware? I am open to all your suggestions.