women in “power”
Following up from my anti-affirmative action rambles, just a quick thought about how the glass ceiling is so totally *not* broken…
There was an interesting op-ed from Michelle Gratton in the Sydney Morning Herald over the weekend which pointed out that, like Palin, both Julia Gillard and Julie Bishop are the Deputies in their respective parties.
I wish to comment on just this little bit for now:
While Julia Gillard apparently made a no-comment on her personal opinions on Sarah Palin, Julie Bishop said she watched the debate and was rather impressed:
“She’s [Palin] succeeded in life with strength while retaining her femininity. But she doesn’t trade on her challenges in life or on her femininity,” Bishop said.
I am not surprised Bishop reckons Palin’s femininity makes up for the fact the Alaskan Governor comes across as a complete airhead.
But let me try to figure out what the Shadow Treasurer meant… she likes that Palin succeeded through bullying, while staying “hot”?
And, even though she didn’t trade her lipstick and pitbull behaviour, she did trade, judging by her performances over the last, “what, like, five weeks?” *wink”, all reason, rationality, intelligence, logic, and other such qualities we no longer need in our leaders?
(See this excellent Newsweek story: “Yes, she won the debate by not imploding. But governing requires knowledge, and mindless populism is just that—mindless.“)
While I don’t have a problem with femininity, I seriously have a problem with “women in power” who use that trait, instead of brains and good ideas and reasoned arguments, in order to get where they are.
But, on the other hand, Gratten included an observation that “Gillard can mix it with the boys. Bishop can’t. Gillard can cope in a man’s world. Bishop is operating in a man’s world”.
Most will probably know about the brouhaha over Gillard’s boring suits/haircut and lack of children/flowers on her kitchen table. Does that make her more suited to cut it in a “man’s word”?
I long for the day when women can succeed in a “man’s world” without having to either be:
- an air-head pretty-girl/hockey-mom;
- knocked for not having flowers on one’s kitchen table; or
- the daughter/wife of an assassinated sub-continental leader.
Because until then, it’s still a man’s world, and until it stops being a man’s world, we’re still suffocating in the glass house.
But at least there’re pretty flowers in here, right? Right? We need those for the kitchen table…