It’s been a torrid week or so for the English language in Australia, what with the Prime Minister’s blunt instrument “shirtfront” threat to Vladimir Putin and the various – in-joke or otherwise – references to “Mussies”, “Abos” and “minx” employed by man-of-words, University of Sydney Poetry Professor, Barry Spurr.
It’s stiff competition, but perhaps the most regrettable of all is Mathias Cormann, who deployed “girlie-man” to slap Labor leader, Bill Shorten, around the head.
English may be the Belgian-born Finance Minister’s second language but Mr Cormann has previously shown he has a vast vocabulary at his disposal. So why did he choose to use “girlie” as an insult? If he really meant “weak” or “confused” or “irresponsible” why didn’t he just say so? The fact he didn’t says a lot about Mathias Cormann and the dire state of Australia’s public life.
So who said what in reaction? Labor’s Penny Wong led the attack, pointing out the obvious hurt conveyed by the comment: “What are we telling our sons and our daughters about being a girl? You’re saying it is somehow less competent, weak,” she told Sky News.
Enter Education Minister, Christopher Pyne, who can always be relied on to address the politics rather than the issue: “I don’t think it is the most important issue floating past us today.” Move on.
And so the debate again devolves into the usual stereotypes: Wong-women-opposition versus Pyne-men-government. How long before we hear the thundering declaration that this is a case of “political correctness gone mad”? Cue the usual suspects.
Yet there is a real problem with Cormann’s comments. They tell us that a man who is at the top of power in Australia is either a dreadful sexist or a fool or both.
On the best reading of Cormann’s comments they are a ham-fisted attempt at humour, recycling a 16 year-old political attack-phrase first used by the former Californian governor and one-time film star, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger’s comments went down badly with many then, so it’s hard to see why anyone would think they would improve with age. Indeed these days it is simply filed under “I” for “insulting” or “immature”.
At least, though, the Terminator had the defence of self-deprecation: he was playing on his all-testosterone image to skewer his mere mortal opponents. Call it a playful boorishness.
However, stripped of context, when it comes to Mathias Cormann we are simply left with the boorishness. And it shows that the humourless should never attempt to break out of their box.
At its worst, though, the Finance Minister’s comment (and the lack of a slapdown from the Prime Minister) underlines again the well-traversed malaise at the heart of the present government: that despite years of research, sometimes by leading corporate entities, the nation’s leadership does not believe that women as a species should wield real power in public life.
Apologists, of course, will always point to the influential role of the PM’s Chief-of-Staff, Peta Credlin, but when it comes to the Cabinet, actions speak the loudest: there is, famously, only one woman at the table.
Smart businesses in Australia recognize an obvious truth: that if you cut out half the gene pool in your hiring and promotion policies then your business suffers. This is the commonest of commonsense. And you don’t need to be a feminist to realize it: upright and breathing will do.
So why do people who use the rhetoric of the free market then not apply that when it comes to talent? Rather, they practice a form of protectionism based on sex. It might get called “unconscious bias” but that’s the contradiction at the heart of so many free-market champions. The proof is that you use “girl” to denigrate someone – and then say you didn’t really mean it that way.
So forget the girlie-men. What about the “boyie-men” who have their hands on the levers of government power? Is there not a reasonable expectation that the boy-men who purport to lead us might grow up a bit? Might they not by now recognize the simple truth that ability is not handed out according to your sex (or race or income level, for that matter)?
And this brings us to the final point about Mathias Cormann. If none of the above applies to him and he really is a straight down the line, equal opportunity for all kind of guy then why would he use words like “girlie-man” that are so capable of causing offence and thus risk alienating half the voting population? Only a fool of a politician would do that.