Last night Channel 7 broadcast a wide-ranging interview with the former Prime Minister John Howard. He reflected upon many of the major controversies that occurred during his time in office but he also commented on the events that took place in parliament after his electoral defeat in 2007. In particular he described the famous “misogyny” speech Julia Gillard delivered in parliament in October 2012 as “nonsense”.
“The idea that Tony Abbott is anti-women is ridiculous. Just quite wrong,” Howard told journalist and columnist Janet Albrechtsen. “I think it’s the worst possible way of promoting a greater involvement by women in public life and something that I support, we should have more women in Parliament … is to play the misogyny card. And so many women of ability I know in the community poured scorn on that.”
In one fell swoop Howard perfectly captures the exact sentiment that led to Gillard’s fiery riposte in the first place. The notion that misogyny is a “card” to be conveniently played, as opposed to a legitimate problem, blindly assumes that it doesn’t exist. Before even pretending to engage in the possibility that it exists, Howard, like many others, calls it a “card” and conveniently dismisses any responsibility to consider the idea that misogyny might still pervade any far flung corner in society.
Howard feels justified in his view because women (“of ability” no less) that he “knows” have poured scorn on the speech. So there is the obvious proof that misogyny doesn’t exist; if the people in your immediate frame of reference say it’s not a problem, it’s not a problem.
It would be less infuriating if Howard didn’t include an obligatory line that of course he supports more women in parliament. His track record certainly indicates he was supportive of increasing the number of women in parliament; women were positively abundant in his Cabinet compared to the current composition.
But making a broad assertion about supporting more women carries very little credibility when, in the same breath, the person making the claim dismisses an intelligent woman’s impassioned speech as “nonsense”. A speech, which despite Howard’s observation that it failed to resonate, went viral and caught the collective attention of men and women around the world.
Howard need not have agreed with every word of Julia Gillard’s speech. He is entitled, and practically expected, to disagree with all of it but he could do that without categorising it as nonsense. He could do that and still engage with the subject; he could provide some critical analysis or evidence to support his belief that misogyny doesn’t exist and is in fact merely a card women use. He could disagree with Julia Gillard without completely delegitimising what she had to say. Making the comments he did in the way he did, simply underscores the frustration which Gillard – and many other women before her – have felt when dealing with sexism and/or misogyny. it’s impossible to win.
Last year when Julia Gillard sat down with Anne Summers she said this of the bind women face when dealing with sexism.
“You just feel like saying, ‘well if it was your daughter and she was putting up with sexist abuse at work, what would you advise her to do?’ Because apparently if she complains, she is playing the victim, and playing gender wars, and if she doesn’t complain, then she really is a victim.”
“We’ve got to be able to say… strongly to women and girls, ‘You’ve got a right to an environment that treats you with respect, treats you as an equal and raising your voice about that isn’t starting a war, it isn’t playing the victim, it’s just asking for what simply is right.”
Aside from highlighting this frustrating bind, there is another reason Howard’s comments are difficult to comprehend.
How does he, and anyone else who truly believes misogyny doesn’t exist, reconcile the number of women who are killed by their partners? Or the violence that women and children suffer at the hands of males? It’s an ugly reality to confront but it’s a genuine question. And it’s a question not simply asked by women hoping to play a “card”; it’s a question many of John Howard’s Liberal peers are asking too.
Our Watch is a bi-partisan organisation that is specifically charged with the task of tackling violence against women and children. At the launch Senator Michealia Cash was among the Liberal politicians who argued that violence against women stems from sexist stereotypes and attitudes. These beliefs exist on a continuum and there is no doubt that misogyny sits at one of it’s extremes.
Another critical message from Our Watch is that inaction, or an unwillingness to understand the social dynamics which contribute to domestic violence, allows that violence to continue. It’s easy to hide our heads in the sand when it comes to ugly problems but it doesn’t help.
Howard might not like it but in couching misogyny merely as a card opportunistic women play he contributes to that very dynamic and I ask him this. Has he stopped to consider, even for a moment, that perhaps Julia Gillard had a point? Because if he hasn’t, he is part of the problem.