Women in politics.

[Rorschach]

When the political going gets tough, blame sexism
Janet Albrechtsen
11:00PM November 30, 2018

Asked whether she could imagine a world of equal footing for women, Julie Bishop told an audience of accountants on Tuesday: “Has anyone seen the latest series of House of Cards, episode five? Say no more.”

In fact, there is more to say and Bishop’s quip about the fictional Claire Underwood is as good a starting point as any for a frank foray into women and politics.

First, spare us a feckless female politician from a television drama who fakes an emotional breakdown as part of her latest wicked plan for self-aggrandisement. We have enough real-life women who play the victim in Canberra, even if they don’t plumb the depths of Claire’s malice. Last season, Bishop’s chosen female character poisoned her lover, then shagged him as he lay dying. Say no more about that then.

There is plenty to say about political treachery in federal parliament this week when Julia Banks resigned from the Liberal Party to sit as an independent. It was disastrous for the Morrison government. And it was no raised fist for women either. Banks’s lament about those “dark days in August” raises a perception of her as so ­reliant for her political relevance on one leader, Malcolm Turnbull, that she couldn’t stay around under Scott Morrison. She looks like the patsy for the man who is intent on bringing down the government. And riding his coat-tails is not female empowerment.

Banks joins a growing list of women who complain about sexism when things don’t go their way. Think former prime minister Julia Gillard, former Victorian police commissioner Christine Nixon, former boss of the Australian Human Rights Commission Gil­lian Triggs, former Liberal deputy leader Bishop. Sour grapes? Serious sexism? Who can tell? Banks didn’t name anyone. When women blur the line, using claims of sexism for base political pur­poses, they make poor role models for younger women. And they dishonour genuine victims of sexism.

Sadly, the member for Chisholm is set to become a symbol of a woman who prefers power over responsibility. Banks crafted a bombshell on Tuesday that transformed her from an anonymous backbencher into a woman searching for crossbench limelight. Every government proposal will see the media seek her out to check numbers in the lower chamber.

Banks’s swipe at the actions of a “regressive far Right” of the Liberal Party that doesn’t listen to people ­rebounded on to her the next morning when a woman from Cairns rang her electoral office. This 54-year-old woman, who helps run a 30-year-old family business and has voted Liberal since 1996, is not political. She’s not a member of the Liberal Party. And she doesn’t want attention. But she did want answers from Banks about the ­future of the government. She contacted The Australian soon after the phone call.

“I was very polite, gave my name and said that I was from Cairns, and that I was speaking as a Liberal voter to express my disappointment at her defection, that I felt she had a wider responsibility to all Australians. The woman on the phone screamed at me, ‘We have no responsibility for you’, and slammed down the phone,” she told The Australian. Perplexed, the woman rang back. She said Banks’s electorate office staff member again gave her short shrift, and the phone went dead. “Is that what people in the city think about us in far north Queensland?” she said to The Australian a few hours later.

Banks has the same listening deficiency she condemns in others. Still, some women in the media were quick to share a photo of Liberal men walking out as Banks delivered her Tuesday broadside. Finding offence from the trivial is a modern fad, to be sure, but why would any self-respecting Liberal watch Banks cut and run when times are tough for the Liberal Party and the Morrison government? Her retreat in crisis was not a fine moment for women.

Banks’s claim that she left because the party has changed is hard to understand, too. She was in parliament as a Liberal for a grand total of two years. The Liberal Party has held government for 52 of the 74 years since its foundation and endured many raucous internal disputes over policy and personalities. Long-running dramas between the so-called wets and the dries in the 1980s pitted Liberal against Liberal. That was in opposition. In government, John Howard managed many civil debates within his broad church because he understood the party’s electoral appeal depended on two philosophical strands: classical liberals and conservatives.

The schism within the Liberal Party is deeper and different today. In the ’80s, disputes broke out over economic issues, industrial relations and privatisation. Today’s disagreements cover everything from fiscal responsibility to social issues and basic freedoms that once were bread-and-butter values for Liberals. But the bigger problems are unresolved leadership clashes and leaders who are defective at managing policy ructions.

Consider Howard’s handling of the debate over Australia remaining a constitutional monarchy or becoming a republic. That fundamental question about our national identity attracted visceral responses from both sides. Three members of Howard’s five-member leadership team wanted a republic: Peter Costello, Richard Alston and Robert Hill. Howard managed tensions by granting a free vote for the party, and the rest is history.

If Banks deserted the Liberal Party on Tuesday over policies, she didn’t name them either. A vague mention of her “sensible centrist values” is no substitute for substance. Banks is part of a growing cohort of Liberals whose values are largely unknown to voters. Some rarely make a dent on public debate or swing a vote their party’s way. Some can’t bear the idea of raising cash for the party. Most ­become known for regularly dumping on their own party ­behind closed doors. ­On that last score, what was Kelly O’Dwyer thinking with her homegrown “deplorables” moment the day ­before? In reported comments during a crisis meeting of federal Victorian MPs that she has not denied, the Victorian cabinet minister ­accused Liberals of being seen as “homophobic, anti-women, climate-change deniers”. In other words, she thinks voters who tick the box for the Liberal Party are equally homophobic, anti-women, climate-change deniers? Emulating Hillary Clinton is foolish enough; doing so to attack your own party is utterly bonkers.

The better explanation for Banks’s departure is that she was not suited to the Liberal Party or a parliamentary team. Fair enough. It’s how Banks brought the party to its knees. When you win a seat as a Liberal, drawing on party support and money, not to mention loyal party volunteers, and Australian voters, don’t expect to be ­rewarded for your disloyalty.

Howard was right to scold Banks for forgetting that she owed the Liberal Party. “She, like me, owes a lot to the Liberal Party,” the former prime minister told Leigh Sales on the ABC’s 7.30 on Tuesday night. As it turns out, the rookie Liberal MP who hankers for the crossbench spotlight has more in common with that other Liberal deserter, Cory Bernardi.

The Liberal Party’s biggest problem with women is a trio of Liberal women (one former) who appear to want to tear down the Morrison government. It has been dismal to watch the former foreign minister throw her hat in with the grievance politics of pussy feminists such as O’Dwyer and Banks. Bishop became an echo chamber for their simplistic demand for equal representation of women in parliament. As Bishop knows only too well, politics doesn’t suit everyone, and very likely suits fewer women than men. Many women regard motherhood and rearing children as a messy, demanding, beautiful and exhilarating privilege. Many women cherish a family life caring for children. It’s not that women can’t go into politics. Banks did, as did Bishop and O’Dwyer and a host of others, following in the footsteps of women such as Edith Cowan, Enid Lyons and Irene Longman.

It’s more a case that women may not want to go to Canberra in the same numbers as men. That’s not a judgment or a criticism of women who enter politics or women who don’t have children. It is a reality. When women such as Banks and Bishop complain about unequal representation, they could mention that difference. It honours women who make different choices. And feminism is about choices, right?

On Wednesday, Bishop don­ated a pair of red pair shoes to the Museum of Australian Democracy. From Claire in House of Cards to Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz then. Bishop said: “If by gifting these red shoes … I inspire just one young woman to aspire to enter public life, to aspire to be a foreign minister and indeed prime minister, then this gift will have been worth making.”

Two months ago, Bishop called for “more substance, less theatre” from our politicians. Agreed. ­Female empowerment doesn’t come from silly gifts of red heels or sassy emojis. Or self-aggrandisement. Or a WhatsApp group for a small chorus line of female politicians drawn together by griev­ances. Female leaders such as Helen Clark in New Zealand and Britain’s Margaret Thatcher rose to the top by articulating ideas, being team players and being a leader for their political cause. That is the best kind of clenched fist, at least for those women who don’t want or need to use their gender to get ahead.

[Rorschach]

I'm a bit agnostic about women in politics. One side that calls for more women and claims their party numbers as a badge of honour is the ALP. But they have quotas.

Tim Wilson was on TV this morning and he made several good points re the Liberals and women. He said that they do have women in politics and that their numbers are dependent on 3 things ...
1/ Their decision to run or not.
2/ The decision of their fellow party members to choose them as the best choice of candidate
and
3/ The decision of the people at the election.

This is obviously true.

But one thing he didn't point out, possibly because he is not a true Conservative is that a great many Conservative women by their very nature choose not to run but take a more traditional role, in the Party and in their lives. They have, more Conservative/Traditional aspirations and interests.

Personally there are a great many women on both sides of politics I wouldn't feed. (Men too BTW). I doubt very much that quotas make for good decisions re Candidates. I also don't see that women or men are better decision makers, even if one side seems primarily to lean towards more progressive ideals. At least in our Parliament.

[cods]

I have yet to find out.. what gender has to do with being in politics...

anymore than a kING IS BETTER THAN A qUEEN....

come on many women in history have left men standing in their wake.....and no one ever told them they couldnt do it...

Cleopatra /Helen of Troy....

Maggie Thatcher who didnt back away from anyone...

and thats how it should be.......

get over yourselves girls....pick up the sword and fight for what you want.....

women like to whine I am thinking......

Julie Bishop stuffed up her own career as far as I am concerned... do yourself a fav or Julia and fade into the sunset....

[Valkie]

I have yet to find out.. what gender has to do with being in politics...

anymore than a kING IS BETTER THAN A qUEEN....

come on many women in history have left men standing in their wake.....and no one ever told them they couldnt do it...

Cleopatra /Helen of Troy....
Both used sex to get what they wanted

Maggie Thatcher who didnt back away from anyone...
Who was the most hated politician on earth
People actually celebrated her death
The queen herself hated her
She virtually destroyed the people of england

and thats how it should be.......

get over yourselves girls....pick up the sword and fight for what you want.....

women like to whine I am thinking......

Julie Bishop stuffed up her own career as far as I am concerned... do yourself a fav or Julia and fade into the sunset....

And as soon as any woman does not get what she wants, or sees an opportunity
She will inevitably play the sex card
Men are constantly under attack, the women flirt and then scream misogynist.
The claim sexual harassment, years after the event, which in many cases could have been accidental.
If they can sleep their way to the top, they do
How many ugly chicks do you see hanging off a millionaires arm, no matter how old he is.
No wonder God made man responsible for a woman's morals
They obviously can't do it themselves.

[sprintcyclist]

I have yet to find out.. what gender has to do with being in politics...

anymore than a kING IS BETTER THAN A qUEEN....

come on many women in history have left men standing in their wake.....and no one ever told them they couldnt do it...

Cleopatra /Helen of Troy....

Maggie Thatcher who didnt back away from anyone...

and thats how it should be.......

get over yourselves girls....pick up the sword and fight for what you want.....

women like to whine I am thinking......

Julie Bishop stuffed up her own career as far as I am concerned... do yourself a fav or Julia and fade into the sunset....

I like Julie Bishop, she was a long termer and held some high positions.

[Valkie]

I have yet to find out.. what gender has to do with being in politics...

anymore than a kING IS BETTER THAN A qUEEN....

come on many women in history have left men standing in their wake.....and no one ever told them they couldnt do it...

Cleopatra /Helen of Troy....

Maggie Thatcher who didnt back away from anyone...

and thats how it should be.......

get over yourselves girls....pick up the sword and fight for what you want.....

women like to whine I am thinking......

Julie Bishop stuffed up her own career as far as I am concerned... do yourself a fav or Julia and fade into the sunset....

I like Julie Bishop, she was a long termer and held some high positions.

She was nothing but a wasteful bitch

Too self centred to have children, a waste of womanhood.

She threw money at every third world country just so they would talk to her
Sort of like tying a pork chop around bwyannnns neck so the dog will play with him.

[Black Orchid]

And as soon as any woman does not get what she wants, or sees an opportunity
She will inevitably play the sex card

Absolute bullshit and fuels your notion of keeping women in the home "where they belong".

No wonder God made man responsible for a woman's morals
They obviously can't do it themselves.

That is one of the most idiotic and uneducated things I have ever seen typed.

Aside from that nonsensical tirade ...

I tend to agree with the OP mostly. Too many women are taken into the ranks just because they are women and when the going gets tough their sensibilities are upset and they cannot hold their own without pulling out the gender card. HAVING to have a certain quota of women, regardless of merit, is ridiculous and will eventually bring down the ALP.

That is NOT to say that women are not capable of holding high office. They most certainly are!! It's just parties like the Democrats and the ALP recruit from the bottom of the progressive barrel.

Look at the loony young progressive women the Democrats have enlisted and who actually got elected. That is never going to end well. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a prime example.

Julie Bishop is not one of these. She is a very capable woman and holds her own in a man's world, like her or not. Whether or not she has had children is moronically irrelevant. Maybe she can't have children and what asshole would/should hold that against her?

[Valkie]

And as soon as any woman does not get what she wants, or sees an opportunity
She will inevitably play the sex card

Absolute bullshit and fuels your notion of keeping women in the home "where they belong".

No wonder God made man responsible for a woman's morals
They obviously can't do it themselves.

That is one of the most idiotic and uneducated things I have ever seen typed.

Aside from that nonsensical tirade ...

I tend to agree with the OP mostly. Too many women are taken into the ranks just because they are women and when the going gets tough their sensibilities are upset and they cannot hold their own without pulling out the gender card. HAVING to have a certain quota of women, regardless of merit, is ridiculous and will eventually bring down the ALP.

That is NOT to say that women are not capable of holding high office. They most certainly are!! It's just parties like the Democrats and the ALP recruit from the bottom of the progressive barrel.

Look at the loony young progressive women the Democrats have enlisted and who actually got elected. That is never going to end well. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a prime example.

Julie Bishop is not one of these. She is a very capable woman and holds her own in a man's world, like her or not. Whether or not she has had children is moronically irrelevant. Maybe she can't have children and what asshole would/should hold that against her?

Don't take the bait NO, it wasn't meant for you.

[Valkie]

And as soon as any woman does not get what she wants, or sees an opportunity
She will inevitably play the sex card

Absolute bullshit and fuels your notion of keeping women in the home "where they belong".

No wonder God made man responsible for a woman's morals
They obviously can't do it themselves.

That is one of the most idiotic and uneducated things I have ever seen typed.

Aside from that nonsensical tirade ...

I tend to agree with the OP mostly. Too many women are taken into the ranks just because they are women and when the going gets tough their sensibilities are upset and they cannot hold their own without pulling out the gender card. HAVING to have a certain quota of women, regardless of merit, is ridiculous and will eventually bring down the ALP.

That is NOT to say that women are not capable of holding high office. They most certainly are!! It's just parties like the Democrats and the ALP recruit from the bottom of the progressive barrel.

Look at the loony young progressive women the Democrats have enlisted and who actually got elected. That is never going to end well. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a prime example.

Julie Bishop is not one of these. She is a very capable woman and holds her own in a man's world, like her or not. Whether or not she has had children is moronically irrelevant. Maybe she can't have children and what asshole would/should hold that against her?

Don't take the bait BO, it wasn't meant for you.

[brian ross]