My eldest daughter is about to turn four and has recently discovered the joy of writing. She can’t actually write but after watching her older cousin, my niece, copy out letters and words that my sister wrote over the Easter break she was keen to do the same. She begged us to buy her a special writing book, which we did, and she now delights in sitting down at the table with her book and pen practising letters.
She particularly likes telling me and her little sister that she can’t hop in the bath, get dressed or put away her toys “because she is very busy doing her writing”. It’s really quite entertaining, particularly the earnestness with which she approaches the task. As I watched on earlier this week I caught myself, not for the first time, making a quick assumption. I concluded, without thinking, that this behaviour – wanting to sit still, concentrate and trace out letters – is so typical of a young girl.
Why do I think that? Do 4 year old boys also love sitting at desks writing letters? I’m sure many do, just as I’m sure there are 4 year old girls who have no interest in practising writing. But my initial assumption reveals that I have slightly different expectations for boys and girls.
On the one hand I’m inclined to argue my assumption isn’t limiting. I certainly didn’t make my daughter sit down and write because that is what I expect of her. It is one thing she likes doing and the fact she likes doing it, seems, to me, to be typical of little girls. On its own it’s hardly controversial. But I suppose the cumulative effect of assumptions like that, is that it creates and reinforces ideas about what girls should like, do and be. And ultimately what anyone likes, does and becomes should be determined by the individual, not their gender.
Because of that I think it is important to be mindful of the quiet judgements we make. My internal debate about boys and girls served to remind me of the tiny assumptions we all make, the unconscious biases we host, undoubtedly a product of our own circumstances and ideas, that can go unchecked. We all reach certain conclusions without really thinking and stopping to examine the reasons can be interesting.
The recent altercation between David Gyngell and James Packer caused me to consider this once again. I asked three different people how they think we’d all have reacted if Gail Kelly and Heather Ridout, for example, had come to physical blows one weekend. Their responses were almost identical: it’s so implausible that it’s impossible to say.
And it is. Can you imagine that happening? Are there two high profile female leaders whom you could envisage engaging in a physical fight? And, if so, would they emerge from a fight like that with any credibility? There has been some discussion of the broader business implications for both Gyngell and Packer following their tussle but it seems unlikely it’s going to impede either of them in any meaningful sense. Packer doesn’t have a job, as such, to lose and while Gyngell does, it doesn’t seem to be in jeopardy. Would that be the case if it were women in the ring, or the street, as it were?
Earlier in the week Angela Priestley wrote about the strange double standards the “billion dollar biff” reveals. A handful of young men die, tragically, as a result of drunk and senseless acts of violence and it sparks an immediate and urgent response from the government. Two rich friends fighting attracts 9-page “specials” in national newspapers and dominates headlines. And then there is domestic violence, which kills one Australian woman every week, but remains far less sensational. It’s interesting for what it reveals. Whether we like it or not it is clear that some people are more important than others.
Until Monday, I wouldn’t have believed anyone who suggested there would be a moment in time when Gyngell and Packer would be caught on camera brawling in a public street. It still seems so unlikely which is perhaps why it caught our collective attention the way it did. Yet even though it is far-fetched, seeing Packer and Gyngell lunge at one another wasn’t as preposterous as imagining two women in that situation, is it?
Part of that has to do with gender; we are still conditioned to accept men being physically aggressive. (Perhaps the more likely female equivalent of Packer and Gyngell’s street fight would be Heather Ridout and Gail Kelly having a screaming match?) But aside from gender, power is also relevant. Gyngell and Packer are powerful enough to survive a physical altercation. Would women?
I am quite certain we wouldn’t react the same way. I can’t help but think a female, even an established and high-profile business leader, caught in a violent encounter wouldn’t emerge with her credibility, even her stability, being called into question.
What do you think?