In a recent talk to the Victorian Women’s Trust Julia
Gillard, former Australian Prime Minister, said that we don’t really know why there was such an ugly reaction to
having a female Prime Minister. On the contrary, I think we do know although
I’m not sure people will like the rather confronting answer.
I’m not often taken to psychoanalytic explanations of human
behaviour but in this case I am going to dabble a little in an effort to
understand a deep and unconscious part of the human psyche. This is not
uniquely Australian but this phenomenon is waning in other parts of the world,
where here it continues to erode female participation.
From a sociological point of view it is pretty clear how
women are viewed in Australian society. One does not need to be a Hugh Mackay
to see that women are poorly represented in the boardroom, the senior public
service and in government. The Abbott ministry is a fine example of how we
value women. The lack of parity in women’s wages, the still contentious issue
of paid maternity leave and the stand of an all male clergy denying women the
right to abortion, are all continuing examples of female inequality and the
myth of egalitarianism. And this is more apparent for the conservative mind
that doesn’t like change, preferring instead the status quo, the natural order
of things.
The denigration of women is still a national pastime in the
conversations that men have between themselves about women, through rape,
proliferation of pornographic sites, the use of women in advertising and
modelling, the sexualisation of young girls, scantily clad pom-pom wielding
women on football fields and in bikinis in the ring on fight night. The list
could go on. The underpinning theme is that women are sexual objects, they are
weaker than men, second-class citizens.
The denigration of a female prime minister was an extension
of this understanding of women in society. Having a female prime minister
created an awkward conflict in the minds of men and women alike. Our social
idea of what women are and should be clashed with having a women in the highest
office in the land, our leader. This conflict resulted in what psychologists
call projection in which we project our turmoil outwards on to others to
deflect it, to make it the fault of someone else. This mechanism is common in
daily human life and reduces our stress and anxiety. The result in this case
was blame, an outpouring of anger outwards as we try to cope.
But there is more to the explanation.
Scratch the surface of Australian society a little more and
we find that women take more responsibility for housekeeping then men, even if
they have a job. They are more likely to shoulder the major burden of child
rearing, even while working full time. Most women are exhausted by having to take
on two roles as well as sharing in bread winning. While this is getting a
little better it is clear that men still have a better deal of family life than
women. Many women view their husbands as the ‘additional child’ in the family
who needs to be cared for and nurtured in the same way as the other children.
He is free to go to golf or play cricket, have a hangover and suffer in bed,
and have a few at the pub while dinner is being cooked or the good wife is
child minding.
The bit about projection above may have been a bit uncomfortable
and I’m sure there is still some head scratching about that explanation of some
of our behaviour. But this next bit is likely to be hard to take.
Humans are raised in households, as they have been for many
centuries, which are male dominated. As I mention above women shoulder most of
the burden of housekeeping and child rearing, even while having to work. There
is a clear delineation of duties. Mum tends to be the disciplinarian, the
person who brings everyone back to reality after playtime, they get things done
such as bath time and teeth cleaning. Mums make the kids eat their broccoli and
brussel sprouts. Dad tends to be, still, a more playful character, more fun.
And because he is not involved so much in child rearing, a welcome diversion. It
is evident to children that Dad is meant to be in charge.
Even more interesting is the way in which, still, boy
children are given an easy path through childhood than girls. Boy children are
feted, sometimes very subtly and not even consciously. Boys will be boys and
have far more freedom than girls, who are loved and nurtured but expected to be
far more passive and watched over rather than let loose.
So, it is my contention that while we love our mothers
dearly, there is also a sense that they have their place, that they are meant
to be present, to be nurturing. For some there will also be resentment, often
hidden deeply below the surface, for those moments when we were force-fed the
broccoli or when her love was not immediately available. And, of course, a
mother’s disapproval is hurtful: we want her attention and love all the time,
unconditionally.
A female prime minister, for some people, will cause even
more conflict. They may harbour deeper resentment than normal and this is an
opportunity to express it in what appears to be an acceptable way. Some may be
confused, unable to deal with what is a huge ambiguity for them and respond
with anger at their turmoil. This coupled with the social view of women
inherited from the middle ages, of which Ditch the Witch is a powerful
metaphor, enables people to express their anger openly.
In short, for some, Julia was a convenient, justifiable
target. Sadly, those that stalked her may never understand what motivated them.
Even more saddening is that Australia in the twenty-first century could be so psychologically
immature.
