Australia is run by men - what does that say about us?

[Joseph41]

Malcolm Turnbull is the 29th Prime Minister of Australia. He's the 28th male Prime Minister of Australia.

The one female - Julia Gillard - was (at least IMO) incredibly unfairly lambasted during her time as Prime Minister. She was criticised for appearance, clothing choices and voice in a way that no male Prime Minister ever would be. There was great emphasis on her home life. Like very, very many female politicians, she suffered from the "double bind": if she had kids, she'd be construed as uncommitted to her profession; if she didn't, she'd be construed as too ambitious and career-driven.

It's a consistent thing, and it's still happening.

We want female politicians to remain "feminine" in a historically and stereotypically "masculine" domain - but not too feminine, because that would apparently be unsuitable for the role.

After the 2016 election, women made up 32 per cent of Parliament (source). For the Liberal Party, the figure was just 21%.

Is Australia, deep down, still a patriarchal society? What are our collective views about the place of women in contemporary Australian society?

[brenden]

Imo, it says pretty plainly that sexism still exists in a pretty large way in our society.

[geminii]

We also need to take into account choice. No female that I know of is being told 'you can't be prime minister because you're female.' There is nothing stopping me from striving to become prime minister; I simply don't want to. Remember, 50-50 levels of male and female in all jobs is not something we should strive for. What we should encourage people to do is do what they enjoy, and if more males happen to be in positions of government, so be it. We can't force women to do jobs they don't want to do for the sake of 'equality'.

[exit]

There's nothing indicating that females are inherently discriminated against in politics. Maybe they just aren't into political jobs as much as men?

You can't force women to do jobs they don't like just for the sake of making 1:1 ratio of males to females in any job. In fact, it could be considered sexist as you are favouring less qualified females over more qualified males for the sake of 'equality'.

[appleandbee]

Maybe they just aren't into political jobs as much as men?

Have you taken a step back and wondered why women aren't as interested in political jobs? There may not be any structural barriers but the toxic culture in politics (starting from student politics level, where many politicians from), inherent sexism (eg. Julia Gillard) and general attitude that women aren't fit to tackle issues regarding the economy and international relationships, discourage women from pursuing politics.

[brenden]

We also need to take into account choice. No female that I know of is being told 'you can't be prime minister because you're female.' There is nothing stopping me from striving to become prime minister; I simply don't want to. Remember, 50-50 levels of male and female in all jobs is not something we should strive for. What we should encourage people to do is do what they enjoy, and if more males happen to be in positions of government, so be it. We can't force women to do jobs they don't want to do for the sake of 'equality'.

Yeah except our choices aren't made in a vacuum. They are a byproduct of our lives.

Some women in other parts of the world might want to have their genitals mutilated and actively make that choice. If then we see a [hypothetical] society where 55% of the women have experienced FGM, and did so of their own volition, we don't turn around and say "this is not a sexist situation, and there is nothing wrong here, because this resultant society has been created by choice!"

Everything comes down to choice, but the fact remains that people make choices for a reason. Even if it's true that women aren't going into politics out of pure 'choice', that doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with the situation. We need to be asking ourselves why so many men are making that choice, and so many women aren't.

There are also significant factors other than choice, but even if choice were the only factor... we'd still have a problem.

There's nothing indicating that females are inherently discriminated against in politics. Maybe they just aren't into political jobs as much as men?

You can't force women to do jobs they don't like just for the sake of making 1:1 ratio of males to females in any job. In fact, it could be considered sexist as you are favouring less qualified females over more qualified males for the sake of 'equality'.

Do you think that's actually the case, or would it be more true to say that "I haven't read, seen, or heard anything to indicate that females are inherently discriminated against in politics"? Here's a link to something pretty recent that's surely popping up on newsfeeds everywhere. I mean, that's at least one thing that's gives an indication that there might be some fundamental discrimination against women in politics so... surely it's wrong to say there's NOTHING indication that. I mean... Literally zero things is a big call. I'm not saying there's necessarily concrete facts about it but... I'm saying there's definitely at least a non-zero amount of indications....... lol.

No one is mentioning forcing women to do jobs. That is literally the definition of slavery. The question is, what does it say about our society that our country is overwhelmingly run by men... not whether or not we should force women into parliament (which I think virtually anyone over the age of 4 would agree is a bad idea).

Have you taken a step back and wondered why women aren't as interested in political jobs? There may not be any structural barriers but the toxic culture in politics (starting from student politics level, where many politicians from), inherent sexism (eg. Julia Gillard) and general attitude that women aren't fit to tackle issues regarding the economy and international relationships, discourage women from pursuing politics.

Yes.

[exit]

Well what I'm saying is that if you take personal prejudices aside, which can be apparent in any job, I can't see anything suggesting that Australia's political system is inherently favouring females. The article about the university's club doesn't indicate anything about Australia's political system itself, just personal sexism. The fact of the matter is that women in politics is going to always be lower than men simply because women aren't as interested in it as men. So the numbers in OP does not suggest anything in my opinion. The only way to boost numbers to have a 50-50 is either by forcing them (bad idea as already mentioned) or providing greater incentives for women to join a certain field ( such as engineering) which I disagree with as it is sexist since less qualified women are given places over more qualified men for the sake of equality.

[Calebark]

I think it's important to consider gender socialization when discussing such things. Thanks to Elysepopplewell for mentioning this term in another debate.

Gender socialization
The process of learning the social expectations and attitudes associated with one's sex.

[brenden]

I can't see anything suggesting that Australia's political system is inherently favouring females. The article about the university's club doesn't indicate anything about Australia's political system itself, just personal sexism.

Exactly! Australia's political system - call it a constitutional monarchy, a representative democracy, a bicameral system of parliament... none of this is structurally against women. To clarify, that's not the claim in the OP - the claim is that the issue comes from society, not the structure of our political system. Sorry if I misinterpreted you the first time

The fact of the matter is that women in politics is going to always be lower than men simply because women aren't as interested in it as men.

Always going to be lower? Why is that? Because they have a uterus, or lack a penis? If this is scientifically the case, I would like anyone making this claim for the rest of this thread to provide well constructed scientific literature providing empirical evidence to support the idea that women will always not want to be in politics, because they are women. If anyone could provide a meta-analysis or two, that would be great. Even a small collection of recent articles from a reputable scientific journal would do. Surely, 'always' needs some evidence.

And again, even if it's the case that "women aren't as interested in it" (which is surely just blatantly wrong given the amount of female political journalists and analysts with a fierce interest in politics), then the problem isn't with women, it's with society.

[Russ]

I agree that Julia Gillard had to put up with snide, 'gendered' remarks that no male PMs were forced to endure. However, this does not detract from my criticisms of her (namely that she ran a dysfunctional government with record-low approval ratings). Sure, she faced difficult circumstances (a hung parliament and the ghost of K Rudd), but ultimately she just couldn't govern effectively imho.

That minority government was one of the least dysfunctional governments I've ever seen. I wasn't a fan of her leadership style but there is clear evidence that the ALP in that period governed incredibly effectively and I am incredibly curious as to why you think they did not do so.

[patriciarose]

The article about the university's club doesn't indicate anything about Australia's political system itself, just personal sexism. The fact of the matter is that women in politics is going to always be lower than men simply because women aren't as interested in it as men. So the numbers in OP does not suggest anything in my opinion. The only way to boost numbers to have a 50-50 is either by forcing them (bad idea as already mentioned) or providing greater incentives for women to join a certain field ( such as engineering) which I disagree with as it is sexist since less qualified women are given places over more qualified men for the sake of equality.

but surely personal sexism, when brought into politics, /becomes/ political sexism? when individuals become a collective, the general opinion becomes the opinion of the collective, so when you put a bunch of sexist people into politics, boom. it's just an institution that reflects the beliefs of those within it tbh.

that's a very general statement tbh. there's nothing biological that prevents women from being as interested in politics as men (and if there is, i'm going to need sources to believe it). statistically, the numbers should be closer than they are. i'm not saying we need a 50/50 ratio, but it definitely should not be as skewed as it is currently. society discourages women from a very early age from aspiring to certain fields and undoing that would do wonders.

It seems to be the case that 'sexism' against female politicians is often used to explain away their failings to a large extent. This was the case with Gillard, as well as Hillary Clinton. However, this analysis is seldom applied to politicians of the Right. The fact that Marine Le Pen would have been the first female president of France barely rated a mention during the French campaign (unlike Clinton's, in which you couldn't escape hearing slogans like 'I'm with her'). Additionally, Pauline Hanson has been similarly attacked in a sexist manner (was originally named the 'witch from Ipswich'), yet this is seemingly glossed over in the prevailing political/media discourse in Australia. To my mind, feminists need to be more consistent when discussing issues pertaining to gender equality. Whether they are actually fond of the female politicians in question should be irrelevant.       

okay but hillary clinton literally lost the american presidency to a misogynistic, homophobic racist who's literally passed information to russia (um, if you like trump i apologise in advance, i just have literally no other way to describe him lmao) and was ridiculously under qualified for it. at least le pen and hanson were running against people with actual experience. hillary lost because she has a husband who's done questionable things and used a private email service once. not to totally stereotype here, either, but you've picked super right wing politicians there. i don't want to imply feminism is a leftish thing, because it's not and it really shouldn't be, but the fact remains that if you agree with a lot of their policies you may not be the first one on the street for a women's rights protest. people are always going to support the people they agree with to a greater degree. personally, i support pauline hanson's right to try for an election but damn i wish she wouldn't.

as to the rest of it, i mostly agree, except that again, there's nothing biological (that i know of) that makes one gender more likely to take certain jobs than another. australia will be a patriarchal society until we somehow manage to standardise those numbers so that females and males work similarly paid jobs in similar numbers – not perfectly, sure, but it should be a lot more even than it is. and until that happens, i think it's hard to argue we're /not/ sexist.

[sudodds]

i think the fact that Tony Abbott was literally the Minister for Women for a period of time says it all.

[geminii]

Yeah except our choices aren't made in a vacuum. They are a byproduct of our lives.

Some women in other parts of the world might want to have their genitals mutilated and actively make that choice. If then we see a [hypothetical] society where 55% of the women have experienced FGM, and did so of their own volition, we don't turn around and say "this is not a sexist situation, and there is nothing wrong here, because this resultant society has been created by choice!"

Yeah but there's a bit of a diffeerence between female genital mutilation and less women being in gov. jobs than men. FGM is obviously evil and we can see that; but women having less jobs that men in the government isn't as severe. And, frankly, it's horrible to equate or even compare the two, as FGM is mutilation of someone without any good reason, while men having more gov. jobs than woman could be due to a number of reasons, particularly choice. You're not mutilating someone by deciding that as a woman you don't want to be a politician.

Everything comes down to choice, but the fact remains that people make choices for a reason. Even if it's true that women aren't going into politics out of pure 'choice', that doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with the situation. We need to be asking ourselves why so many men are making that choice, and so many women aren't.

Because instinctually and innately, women prefer more maternal jobs compared to men. This is evolutionarily true; females, not just in the human species, are the ones who usually care for the children. This is not something we nor other animals learnt to do - it is instinctual. Therefore, females would much rather prefer a maternal job.
As a female I would love to care for my own children when I'm older and would be happy to cook and clean around the house - this is something I have decided, and no one has told me that as a woman, this is what I should be doing. It's something I know I would enjoy.
In my household, both my parents cook the food and take care of the children, so I've certainly been raised in a very 'equal' family. Therefore my upbringing has certainly not influenced me at all. I, like men, have a choice, as to whether or not I want to go into politics, or whether I prefer doing a job at all, or whether I would prefer being a stay at home mum and raising children. I personally would prefer to work because I want to be a doctor and I wouldn't feel right not pulling my own weight around the house - but being a stay at home mum isn't a bad thing. My mum is a stay at home mum and chose to do so. She has a Masters in Botany and could easily have gotten a job but she didn't want to leave her children at home while my dad and her went off to work. So, it was of her own choice that she decided not to work. No one told her that because she's a woman, she can't get a job. She simply decided to. No oppression here. In fact, she loves it and I recently asked her, would you have rather worked? And she said, no, I wouldn't change it for the world, because raising children is the most rewarding thing she could ever do.

There are also significant factors other than choice, but even if choice were the only factor... we'd still have a problem.

And...what would be that problem? I don't see anyone complaining that there aren't enough males in nursing, or that there aren't enough men in early education (97% women, by the way).

society discourages women from a very early age from aspiring to certain fields and undoing that would do wonders.

So you were told (I'm guessing your female, from your username) that because you're a girl you can't aspire to certain fields? Wow, that's harsh. Whoever said that to you is wrong. Certainly no one I know has ever told a female that before. Or a man, for that matter. Sorry that happened to you.

okay but hillary clinton literally lost the american presidency to a misogynistic, homophobic racist

Okay I get how you could say misogynistic but give me a quote where Donald Trump said anything against gay people - he literally said, and I quote, 'I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the hateful foreign ideologies.'

[Quantum44]

Yeah but there's a bit of a diffeerence between female genital mutilation and less women being in gov. jobs than men. FGM is obviously evil and we can see that; but women having less jobs that men in the government isn't as severe. And, frankly, it's horrible to equate or even compare the two, as FGM is mutilation of someone without any good reason, while men having more gov. jobs than woman could be due to a number of reasons, particularly choice. You're not mutilating someone by deciding that as a woman you don't want to be a politician.

Because instinctually and innately, women prefer more maternal jobs compared to men. This is evolutionarily true; females, not just in the human species, are the ones who usually care for the children. This is not something we nor other animals learnt to do - it is instinctual. Therefore, females would much rather prefer a maternal job.
As a female I would love to care for my own children when I'm older and would be happy to cook and clean around the house - this is something I have decided, and no one has told me that as a woman, this is what I should be doing. It's something I know I would enjoy.
In my household, both my parents cook the food and take care of the children, so I've certainly been raised in a very 'equal' family. Therefore my upbringing has certainly not influenced me at all. I, like men, have a choice, as to whether or not I want to go into politics, or whether I prefer doing a job at all, or whether I would prefer being a stay at home mum and raising children. I personally would prefer to work because I want to be a doctor and I wouldn't feel right not pulling my own weight around the house - but being a stay at home mum isn't a bad thing. My mum is a stay at home mum and chose to do so. She has a Masters in Botany and could easily have gotten a job but she didn't want to leave her children at home while my dad and her went off to work. So, it was of her own choice that she decided not to work. No one told her that because she's a woman, she can't get a job. She simply decided to. No oppression here. In fact, she loves it and I recently asked her, would you have rather worked? And she said, no, I wouldn't change it for the world, because raising children is the most rewarding thing she could ever do.

And...what would be that problem? I don't see anyone complaining that there aren't enough males in nursing, or that there aren't enough men in early education (97% women, by the way).

I'd say the tendency for women to not pursue politics is because of subconscious bias. Fundementally, choice is more of an illusion as it is a part of human nature to want to be normal. And in our society the status quo had normalised the perception that women should bematernal peacemakers, which is incongruent with out perception of politicians. If you think about it there are many things we accept that are fucked up, such as the fact that 1% of the world's population owns 85% of the wealth along with us slaughtering millions of animals per year because meat tastes good. It's barbaric but we are all suckers for the status quo.

[strawberries]

okay gonna say something controversial...(haven't properly read the comments and soz for messy grammar)

as a female, non-feminist, I think the way gillard was treated as PM was disgusting (soz for my extreme language).
e.g. calling her a witch, bitch etc. whether or not you like her politics, idk, that's just uncalled for. I don't even think that's sexism, that's just downright rude; and also from asking her stuff if her partner was gay...like, could you see anyone asking a male PM if their wife was lesbian?
as a politican, in the public eye, ofc you're gonna get criticized for everything you do even if it's non-political related. good on gillard for being strong but this kinda send a negative msg to other aspiring young women politicians, esp cos of the way she was treated, other women seem to be less likely to want to go into this field (actually idk if this is true haha, personally this'd make me want to go more into politics to try and change the atmosphere)
I agree with what some have suggested above - the reasons why women don't go into politics e.g. bullying, discrimination, (actually idk if too much of these has happened, if someone could prove to me) as opposed to gender quotas and forced equal representation
obviously we can't change the past but we can change the way we think about the future

personally, i don't have a problem with the current gender makeup of our parliament, government and cabinet. like i personally voted for a male candidate in my local area at the last election as opposed to a female one, not because he was a male but more cos of policy reasons.
would I like to see more females? - sure, why not? i don't have a problem with it, as long as she is competent, elected bcos ppl want her and not cos she's a woman then i have no issue

Like very, very many female politicians, she suffered from the "double bind": if she had kids, she'd be construed as uncommitted to her profession; if she didn't, she'd be construed as too ambitious and career-driven.

I agree with this.

ok soz i went on a ramble i don't even make sense