This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/08/feminist-loyalty-julia-gillard

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Feminists should be free to disagree without being branded 'disloyal' Feminists should be free to disagree without being branded 'disloyal'
(2 months later)
Julia Gillard's demise has unleashed some very nasty commentary among feminists that shows serious rifts in how we define our roles. The conflicting rhetoric was not just illustrated by outbursts from Labor's opponents, such as senator Michaelia Cash's extraordinary tirade, but among those of us who publicly identify as feminists.Julia Gillard's demise has unleashed some very nasty commentary among feminists that shows serious rifts in how we define our roles. The conflicting rhetoric was not just illustrated by outbursts from Labor's opponents, such as senator Michaelia Cash's extraordinary tirade, but among those of us who publicly identify as feminists.
This divide started earlier this month, when Anne Summers laid into me and some others for publicly expressing doubts about the effectiveness of the "Women for Gillard" launch speech. She attacked our input as the "dismissive comments of several feminists".This divide started earlier this month, when Anne Summers laid into me and some others for publicly expressing doubts about the effectiveness of the "Women for Gillard" launch speech. She attacked our input as the "dismissive comments of several feminists".
I defend my right to be critical of a strategy that clumsily tried to sell the Labor party – which is by no means free of sexism – as the only party for women. The event was obviously designed to echo Gillard’s earlier successful misogyny speech, but lacked its fire and authenticity. It smacked of clumsy backroom boys’ efforts to exploit feminist rhetoric, and undermined her ability to register with any but already rusted-on voters.I defend my right to be critical of a strategy that clumsily tried to sell the Labor party – which is by no means free of sexism – as the only party for women. The event was obviously designed to echo Gillard’s earlier successful misogyny speech, but lacked its fire and authenticity. It smacked of clumsy backroom boys’ efforts to exploit feminist rhetoric, and undermined her ability to register with any but already rusted-on voters.
However, the following few days saw further examples of sexist attacks towards Gillard: both a gross menu and a nasty interview illustrated the obvious ingrained sexism that powerful women in Australia still have to face. These events triggered a strong emotional response by many feminists. But as a result of the undoubted misogyny Gillard was subjected to, asking whether some of her decisions were sensible became a no-go.However, the following few days saw further examples of sexist attacks towards Gillard: both a gross menu and a nasty interview illustrated the obvious ingrained sexism that powerful women in Australia still have to face. These events triggered a strong emotional response by many feminists. But as a result of the undoubted misogyny Gillard was subjected to, asking whether some of her decisions were sensible became a no-go.
Some feminists believed the sexist attacks justified supporting the "Women for Gillard" push. I, and others, were still raising questions about other aspects of her judgement – for example, publicly supporting the male candidate for a safe Labor seat on the same day she made the "Women for Gillard" call. Her dismal polling still justified questions about tactics. So when the spill finally occurred, feminists were already divided – and the media were looking for comments on the loss of our first female prime minister.Some feminists believed the sexist attacks justified supporting the "Women for Gillard" push. I, and others, were still raising questions about other aspects of her judgement – for example, publicly supporting the male candidate for a safe Labor seat on the same day she made the "Women for Gillard" call. Her dismal polling still justified questions about tactics. So when the spill finally occurred, feminists were already divided – and the media were looking for comments on the loss of our first female prime minister.
Yes, the loss was painful, we all agreed – and her treatment raised many questions about the sexism female politicians have to work with in this country. The difficult question was whether Gillard's ousting was because of her gender, or whether other unrelated factors were more important. In her gracious speech conceding defeat, Gillard acknowledged that gender was neither everything nor nothing, but did have some effect. However, this very reasonable summary has not stopped the war of words, both in public and the social media.Yes, the loss was painful, we all agreed – and her treatment raised many questions about the sexism female politicians have to work with in this country. The difficult question was whether Gillard's ousting was because of her gender, or whether other unrelated factors were more important. In her gracious speech conceding defeat, Gillard acknowledged that gender was neither everything nor nothing, but did have some effect. However, this very reasonable summary has not stopped the war of words, both in public and the social media.
The problem is with those who are claiming that gender was the major factor of her demise, and that the disloyalty of other feminists could have been instrumental in that. This view clearly shows in Summers' writing. She followed up her recent book, The Misogyny Factor, with a widely distributed piece that excoriated those female politicians who had either failed to vote for Gillard in the ballot, or failed to resign their portfolios when she lost:The problem is with those who are claiming that gender was the major factor of her demise, and that the disloyalty of other feminists could have been instrumental in that. This view clearly shows in Summers' writing. She followed up her recent book, The Misogyny Factor, with a widely distributed piece that excoriated those female politicians who had either failed to vote for Gillard in the ballot, or failed to resign their portfolios when she lost:
Those ministers who honourably resigned on Wednesday night did not include a woman. Not one of the nine women ministers showed any sisterly solidarity. Do these women seriously think that it was OK for our first woman prime minister to be hounded out of office by bullying, duplicity and an outrageous trashing of her reputation? Do they seriously think they are not also contaminated by the crude culture of misogyny that has now enveloped so much of the Labor party? ... Her treacherous colleagues will have nothing good to say about her. The hypocrisy is breathtaking as well as shameful.Those ministers who honourably resigned on Wednesday night did not include a woman. Not one of the nine women ministers showed any sisterly solidarity. Do these women seriously think that it was OK for our first woman prime minister to be hounded out of office by bullying, duplicity and an outrageous trashing of her reputation? Do they seriously think they are not also contaminated by the crude culture of misogyny that has now enveloped so much of the Labor party? ... Her treacherous colleagues will have nothing good to say about her. The hypocrisy is breathtaking as well as shameful.
The tone and content of the piece put the former prime minister onto a pedestal in an inelegant hagiography; the language used stopped a reasoned discussion of the merits (or otherwise) of Gillard as Australia's leader. This form of positive sexist discrimination can undermine gender equity, because sexism is a problem whether it is positive or negative: in neither can we claim to share full human diversity, from very competent to the completely hopeless. Women once become again the second sex, defined by what men allow and what other women police.The tone and content of the piece put the former prime minister onto a pedestal in an inelegant hagiography; the language used stopped a reasoned discussion of the merits (or otherwise) of Gillard as Australia's leader. This form of positive sexist discrimination can undermine gender equity, because sexism is a problem whether it is positive or negative: in neither can we claim to share full human diversity, from very competent to the completely hopeless. Women once become again the second sex, defined by what men allow and what other women police.
Limiting debates between feminists by hurling accusations of disloyalty damages the possibilities of progress in the somewhat stalled "gender revolution". To avoid this, we need to differentiate between supporting women against sexism, and uncritical loyalty to someone just because she is a woman. There are many lessons we can learn from Gillard's record, treatment and subsequent ousting, and those are not always external to us.Limiting debates between feminists by hurling accusations of disloyalty damages the possibilities of progress in the somewhat stalled "gender revolution". To avoid this, we need to differentiate between supporting women against sexism, and uncritical loyalty to someone just because she is a woman. There are many lessons we can learn from Gillard's record, treatment and subsequent ousting, and those are not always external to us.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.