Providing critical, constructive feedback is a fraught business for women – particularly when those being challenged are powerful men.
Remember the way then prime minister Tony Abbott treated Gillian Triggs, the former president of the Australian Human Rights Commission? Before reading the AHRC’s report into children in detention ‘Forgotten Children’, he described it as a “blatantly partisan, politicised exercise” and a “stitch-up” against the Coalition government. Abbott’s government even tried to pressure Triggs to quit her role.
Abbott’s response to the report was textbook ‘shoot the messenger’ rather than listen to the message.
The practice of punishing messengers for delivering bad news dates back to ancient civilizations. When the news was unfavourable, recipients would sometimes react with violence towards the messenger, simply for being the bearer of the information. Sophocles’ play ‘Antigone’ includes the line “no one loves the messenger who brings bad news”.
Shooting the messenger is not inherently gendered. Dutton, for example was accused of such behaviour when he dismissed a question from a male ABC journalist, Lee Robinson. Robinson had asked what evidence Dutton was relying on to support his claim of “rampant” child sexual abuse occurring in remote central Australia. Rather than answer the question, Dutton snapped: “That’s such an ABC question.”
There are also people who, in addition to shooting the messenger, use the “fake news” disclaimer, following in the hallowed footsteps of Donald Trump. Rather than respond to evidence with reasoned debate, it is not uncommon to dismiss it in such terms as “a load of bullshit … Full of lies … Not worth the ‘paper’ it’s written on”.
Trump continues to up the ante. He not only dismisses evidence-based reports as fake news, he now also dismisses the messenger. For example, Trump recently fired Dr Erika McEntarfer, the US commissioner of labor statistics, just hours after the agency she leads revealed data that US jobs growth had stalled. This prompted accusations that Trump was “firing the messenger”.
Trump then went further, creating a conspiracy theory about the evidence Dr McEntarfer had given him. He claimed: “Today’s Jobs Numbers were RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad”. He produced no evidence for these allegations.
Like so many, when I hear mistruths and conspiracy theories replacing reasoned debate, I despair for our future.
As a female qualitative researcher, I have witnessed the difficulties of bringing people to the table to impart critical, constructive feedback. Early on in my career, I was shocked when reports written by female colleagues were dismissed by men in powerful positions. I soon realised that powerful men were more likely to listen to such feedback if women passed it on ‘gently’ in face-to-face discussions.
In our patriarchal system, women need to find innovative ways to get our message heard. For example, when I was advocating for an older woman, I needed to give critical feedback to her doctor. When I suggested a meeting with a professional mediator, the doctor agreed to “independent medication (sic)”. I replied that we should all take kindness pills.
Recently two powerful men went on the attack before reading evidence-based critical feedback in a report. One took a leaf out of Trump’s playbook, claiming it was all fake news and creating conspiracy theories; the other followed Abbott’s lead and attacked the messenger.
Ironically, both men have publicly supported David Pocock’s Whistleblower Protection Authority Bill 2025. However, it seems that when the whistle was blown on them, they chose to respond by attacking the messenger rather than engaging in respectful discussion.
I grew up in the academic culture of the 1990s. In those days, academics engaged in robust critical debate and then went out for a meal together. Rather than walk on egg shells, we provided critical feedback without fear of retribution or the loss of friendships.
Now many people live in echo chambers in which they are exposed primarily to information that reinforces their existing beliefs. When they encounter an alternate view, they go from zero to abusive in seconds.
Have we lost the ability to disagree without reacting with personal attacks, indulging in ad hominem debate and promoting conspiracy theories? Has frank and fearless left the building?
Our polarised world needs us to approach issues with curiosity, not judgement. We need to find solutions through evidence and dialogue.
To bring our community together, we need to find common ground. Rather than slam the door against people with whom we disagree and ascribe pejorative labels, we need engagement. Our shared humanity is a good place to start.