The recent elections in Finland were notable for that rare thing: not one but two levels of misinterpretation. The first was that the loss by the ruling Social Democrats represented some form of epochal repudiation of progressivism — however, the country has multi-member electorates and eight parties with significant numbers of seats. The Social Democrats actually had a 2.2% swing to them, but the victorious National Coalition took a 3.8% swing and edged them out in seat numbers. There were swings within the left and right.
The second misinterpretation was that prime minister Sanna Marin had been punished at the ballot box for being a young woman. Marin, aged 34 when she took office in 2019 and generally well-regarded, had caught some flak for being videoed doing some particularly naff voguing on a night out. Zoe Williams of The Guardian leapt on the result to suggest that misogyny was wot done it — even though there was a swing to Marin.
Weeks earlier, Nicola Sturgeon, first minister of Scotland, had suddenly resigned after 10 years in the job — and with the possibility of a new independence referendum in the offing. Misogyny was the cry; the trolls and online abusers had got another one. And the first and greatest expression of this was when former New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern resigned in February after five years in office. Ardern, having governed through COVID and imposed strict lockdowns, had been subject to a true tsunami of abuse that would have flattened anyone.
The trouble with these explanations is that all three of these women are professional politicians and political lifers in tough, professional, factionalised parties. They’ve risen to the top in a context where you’ve got to be not so much thick-skinned as scar-tissued (Gough Whitlam’s description) to even have a chance at such. And in the latter two cases, there were very good reasons why they quit, and these had nothing to do with online abuse or wider misogyny.
Sturgeon quit, saying she had given her all, nothing left, etc, even though she had been flying and forceful months earlier. What had got her was an encroaching scandal around Scottish National Party (SNP) fundraising (her husband, an SNP heavy, was arrested on charges last week), which followed on from a messy stuff-up. Sturgeon had passionately championed a pro-gender-self-definition bill, which passed in the assembly but had divided the SNP and Scotland.
But then the Sturgeon government was confronted with the Isla Bryson case. Bryson had been charged with raping two women — one in 2016 and one in 2019 — when known as Adam Graham prior to her transition to being a transgender woman, which she identified as by the time of conviction in 2023. Bryson had been on remand in a women’s prison, but was moved pretty quickly to a male prison after conviction. The rapid action left Sturgeon looking foolish and hypocritical and weakened her defence against the corruption scandal. Her support within the party disappeared, and she was gone.
Something similar happened to Ardern. In late 2022, she was saying she wasn’t going anywhere. In 2023, she was gone. What had happened in the interim? Christmas had happened, and the inner party had time to look at the numbers — which were not great for Labour, even worse for its leftish program, and terrible for Ardern. The likely explanation is that her faction decided she had to go, and, a good team player — and a possible repeat future prime minister — she went. Her deputy, a factional ally, replaced her, the leftish program was largely dumped when she was, and Labour is now back in the game in NZ.
So the chorus of claims that misogyny had destroyed these women didn’t ring true. There seemed to be a disjuncture between the way in which many women commentators viewed the matter and the political frameworks in which people like Marin, Sturgeon and Ardern had made their lives, and the personal qualities used within it. Both Ardern and Sturgeon used the misogyny charges to drop a bucket on the right, which seemed the act of political stalwarts using anything at hand to gain a point. Sturgeon had been a major player in the political destruction of Alex Salmond, the man most responsible for the SNP’s revival from fringe to mainstream. Ardern had worked in Tony Blair’s cabinet office when he was preparing the Iraq war based on obvious lies and implicit racism about non-white deaths.
It seems reasonable to argue that between these women and their supporters is a wider gap of viewpoint and basic comportment to the world than there is between powerful men and male observers. Many, many men want power, few get it, and most imagine you’d hold on to it by all means. The women who want power in the same way are, one suspects, a smaller group, and those who aren’t in it have relatively less identification with those who are.
The upshot is that decades after the emergence of second-wave feminism, there is now a sufficiently large pool of women who want power, seek it out, do what needs to be done to keep it, and who don’t need any excuses or special pleadings made for them. Yet in the current framework, they are being assessed by the logic that prevailed before second-wave feminism: that women are too sensitive to be in positions of power. Notwithstanding the extra blast of misogyny they do get — which they can avoid far more easily than most; it is not as if prime ministers do not have people to screen social media if they want to — the attempt to conscript strong leaders into a world-attitude they do not share surely creates a circle of vulnerability and victimhood that projects outwards.
We may well say that women and men overall have different settings with regard to public life. But that does not seem to require a re-Victorianisation of attitudes that not only tears strong women down in the service of a culture of complaint, but contributes to the undermining of robustness as a cultural value overall. No one gets to run a Labour or Nationalist party in government without being tough as all get out. It’s just faintly possible that when you rush to swathe these women in fragility, behind the screens of power you may find they’re having a bit of a laugh at it all.
What pressures do you think women in politics face? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
It’s fair enough to argue that female politicians should not be written off as fragile and to expect them to be as tough and thick-slinned as other politicians; but Rundle’s arguments seem to ignore the exceptional abuse directed only at female politicians. The relentless obsession with their appearance and clothes, which must always be too dowdy or too provocative. They are attacked for neglecting their children and husbands, or else, like Julia Gillard, they are told they cannot have valid opinions on child policy because they are ‘wilfully barren’. Much that is far worse, more violent. And so on, and on, and on, from a section of the public that appears, consciously or not, to have the same views on female participation in public life as the Taliban.
Well said.
The political realities Rundle describes are important factors but the truly depraved trolling female’s in the public eye get does not happen to men.
Exactly, for the 20thC conservative status quo?
One questions the value or need for such articles that bypass the ugly reality of right wing politics and media nowadays including and catering to the ageing, white and the paranoid, translates into misogyny, anti-woke, anti-LGBT etc. agitprop?
What about poor old Peter Dutton, who suffers from alapatia, but that doesn’t stop folks calling him Voldermort and teasing him mercilessly.
Hair today…. gone tomorrow..
But…it’s not just female politicians who cop exceptional abuse, and neither do all female politicians cop exceptional abuse.
For example, recent prominent male victims of relentless campaigns – Shorten here, and, Corbyn in the UK.
And prominent female politicians who appear not to cop exceptional abuse – Wong here, and, Merkel in Germany.
If it’s general it’s not exceptional. You are right that Shorten, Corbyn, Kinnock, Gillard and more have all been the targets of particular campaigns by News Corp, but that does not show that male politicians face the same relentless abuse from many quarters that female politicians get. It only shows how News Corp deals with those it regards as enemies. And BTW you must be having a laugh if you think Wong and Merkel have had an easy ride. Wong ‘qualifies’ for abuse in several categories, not just for being female, and if you want take a look at the ridiculous furore that erupted when, years ago now, Merkel went to a cultural event in clothes that revealed some cleavage.
Just to be clear – I included Gillard in that list to emphasise how these politicians were attacked because of the party they led. And still even those attacks were often enough gendered.
“Wong ‘qualifies’ for abuse in several categories, not just for being female”
I’m not sure how that is relevant – aren’t we talking here specifically about gender?
I was in my first comment, but I don’t think you are. Surely you were not saying that Shorten and Corbyn were abused simply for being male, were you? That would be ridiculous, so it was evident you had moved on to all abuse directed at politicians. You cannot have it both ways.
‘Being a female who is abused’ is not the same as ‘being abused because you are female’.
And so, I’m not saying Shorten and Corbyn were abused for being male – I’m saying that although they are male they too copped stratospheric levels of abuse.
It’s not just women who get abused in politics (although there is some evidence that in general women cop more abuse).
What is more interesting though is the different forms the abuse takes depending on the target’s gender (and their sexuality, and their political persuasion, and their wealth and…).
Women are tougher than you think. Julia Gilard copped more misogyny than all the women in this article and it didn’t make her want to throw in the towel. Quite the contrary, she came out fighting!
Of course she came out fighting. What would you expect her to do? Lay down and take it?
The real concern is why she even had to fight a battle in the first place. It’s a distraction from an onerous job.
She left politics – permanently. What would you call that? Personally, I’d call it a loss to the country and all because of the steaming pile of misogynistic hate that was directed at her.
Practically the only time she came out fighting!
Yes we all said lovely things about Morrison, Trump and Boris Johnson….
Oh but they deserved it!
Well maybe opponents of people we agree think they deserved it too.
Politics does tend to bring out the worst in people.
I began my original comment by referring to the general abuse that all politicians face. You’re missing the point completely, which is the exceptional abuse directed only at female politicians.
Women cop a lot of flack for being unwomanly, men also cop a lot of flack for being unmanly. Remember Marius Corman calling his oponent an ‘economic girly-man.’ But women’s acceptable behavior is far more restricted than the acceptable behavior for men.
That’s also meant as a misogynistic insult because it implies women are weak and inferior. Perhaps it’s time to acknowledge the problem is toxic masculinity.
“Toxic masculinity” (or toxic anything) is the worst term imaginable.
First we are linking the toxicity to something that a person does not have any control over. Try replacing “masculinity” with any other gender, racial or culture characteristic and see how it makes you feel – a bit dirty right?
Second if the thing we are trying to address is a specific group of men who behave in a certain way, how are we going to convince them to change their ways by labelling the thing that they identify with the most – their masculinity?
When dealing with extremism (we can just use the word “extremism” to describe extreme behaviours by particularly awful men) the absolute key is to isolate the extremism and the way to do that is not to use a catch all term. So for example if you are trying to deal with a particular group of religious people who are carrying out terrorism, you do not refer to that group by their religion e.g. Catholics in Northern Ireland or muslims. Because that links the terrorism to the religion when useful the terrorism is completely contrary to the religious teachings.
It could be argued that the true measure of “masculinity” is not to be misogynistic (or sexist – it’s also important not conflate terms as it has the same effect of mainstreaming v isolating the extremist behaviour).
That’s not what it means.
Not what means?
The word “masculinity”?
Whether or not that’s not it’s intended meaning the word is “masculinity” does describe “a male characteristic”.
Which is why it wouldn’t be acceptable to associate the word “toxic” with other characteristics e.g. “toxic femininity”.
You forgot to selectively quote the second part which is probably more relevant – it’s completely counterproductive and dangerous.
“Toxic masculinity” does not mean being masculine is toxic. It refers specifically to traits commonly associated with certain male culture stereotypes that are harmful (not only to men, but to society in general). Bullying, aggression, sexism, homophobia, emotional repression, etc.
These are things individuals absolutely have control over.
But I am sure you knew that already. Because nobody ever has any trouble understanding or identifying what it is except when they’re trying to minimise, excuse or obfuscate.
And entirely intentional – Room 101 is under construction and it will soon no longer be possible to mumble “But it does move.”
All together now, loudly & publicly declare ‘2+2=5!’
I don’t really get what you’re saying……
Well said.
These three men received exceptional abuse. I’ve had various times compared them to Hitler and commented on how they personify white, male privilege.
This does not seem like “exceptional abuse”.
Let me bask in my self-awareness.
The real issue for me about those three men is that they spent their careers being incompetent, narcissistic liars. They got sacked or went bankrupt or weathered numerous scandals but still kept failing upwards right into the top job. I think that ‘s probably male privilege and entitlement in a nutshell.
That is true.
SSR – you do your case no good by continually couching it in absolute terms. For example, you say:
“The relentless obsession with their appearance and clothes, which must always be too dowdy or too provocative”
That’s clearly not universally true. Firstly, not all men judge women by how they dress. If you mean overtly, as public commentary, I’d argue that nowadays it’s just a small subset of the male (and female) population who still dare to do that.
Secondly, not all women are judged by how they dress. Again Penny Wong is a good example. Mostly, she dresses in a contextually neutral way. That is, she conforms to the same political dress code that renders male politicians unremarkable because they are almost indistinguishable from each other, apart from their ties. Any politician who deviates from that norm is prone to comment, just because they are noticeably different. Remember Don Dunstan and Al Grassby – even a tieless Green draws comments today. Because many female politicians do deviate from the standard colourless male dress code comments are not unexpected.
No woman should be judged by how she dresses.
You are failing to read for comprehension. My remark is entirely accurate because it refers to the way those who abuse femail politicians work. My comment, very obviously, is about the exceptional abuse directed only at female politicians. The way others act, and the fact that many do not abuse female polticians for being female, is true but irrelevant.
You’re right – I can’t comprehend what you mean by “exceptional abuse directed only at female politicians”.
Do you mean by ‘exceptional abuse’ a particular type of abuse that is only directed at women? If so, surely the abuse women get is different to the abuse men get because they’re different. Whether that means born different or socialised differently doesn’t really matter – we wouldn’t be discussing this at all if men and women were the same. And the points of difference are the targets of abuse because they are important differences. That’s why women get praised for different things than men too, again because they’re different and the differences are important. If that’s your point I’m not sure how it’s useful.
So perhaps you mean that women are the only targets of exceptional amounts of abuse? But I doubt you mean that because it’s obviously a continuum where a list of the top 100 worst victims of abuse would almost certainly include both men and women.
Sorry if I’m too obtuse to keep up with you.
You ain’t sorry. But you are obtuse or acting that way.
And you haven’t answered my question. Which confirms my initial reaction i.e. that your initial comment has been heavily up-ticked for its vibe as opposed to its content.
I think you unintentionally confirm the argument Rundle was making that people too often unthinkingly hit the misogyny button to explain the demise of female politicians.
I don’t want to keep banging on about clothes but it was the first thing you mentioned as a notable difference in the way male and female politicians are treated. But, just imagine if Albo turned up on a high-rating foreign talk show dressed in a pink suit (Ardern did). It won’t happen but if it did it would be talked about for the rest of eternity. And it wouldn’t be misandry driving the comments.
In her time in politics, Ardern deliberately dressed to attract attention, as part of her branding and as a clothes hanger for NZ fashion. As a rule, politicians dress conservatively so Ardern’s choices marked her out and drew comments. Were those comments examples of your ‘exceptional abuse directed only at female politicians’?
It clearly works the other way also. Gladys Berejiklian is an example of an utterly incompetent corrupt fool being granted Saintlike status for no other perceivable reason than her gender and her looks. But I guess there’s a tendency to that outcome with all conservative politicians.
All politicians will be abused for deviating from accepted codes of behavior, but women’s codes of behavior are far more restive than men’s. But when push comes to shove, it is a just a way to get under their skin. It is their policies that we really cannot abide. In the U.S., where politics is far more robust (and ugly) than here, we have the spectacle of Donald Trump, who can flout all known etiquette and get away with it because his supporters are more interested in his policies. The Christian right couldn’t give a damn about his unchristian behavior as long as he backs their agenda
I think Julia Gillard copped more mysoginy than the 3 women Guy Rundle is talking about.
He is saying, yes they copped a lot of flack, but that is not what brought them down.
We must balance protecting the fragile in society whilst allowing for ‘robustness as a cultural value overall.’
Abbott particularly disgraced himself and undermined any authority he was ever going to have as PM. He was lucky to the last the two years he did to be honest. It clearly backfired not just on him but eventually on his whole party. Even Alan Jones has finally been sent off to some regional backwater.
Not openly spoken about but known by some outside the inner sanctum was the appallingly violent death threats made against Ardern and her family. They were so grim she had no choice. And, frankly she was too good for the party as it stood then, and still does with inept, lazy or stupid people in key Ministerial positions. She was too good for us and I say that as an emigré to NZ from Oz who fled the rise of Abbott. She’s living proof politics is too dirty for decent people. Same with Sturgeon.
Quite right, Kenny – and Ardern spoke of these death threats on several occasions.
Your comment provides the perfect example of what Rundle here is trying to point out.
Ardern was prime minister of NZ for essentially two terms, steps down for political reasons, and all of a sudden “politics is too dirty for decent people”.
It is condescending to assume Ardern did not play in the dirt of it all.
Both Ardern and Marin were absolutely subjected to extraordinary levels of misogyny. Marin was pulled apart by the media for dancing where others were taking drugs – she wasn’t taking drugs. Meanwhile, Anthony Albenese was lauded for his ability to let his hair down at exactly the same time Marin’s name was being dragged through the mud. Don’t tell me that doesn’t stick at all. Women in power are absolutely treated worse than men in power. The comments that have been made about all these women, but Ardern and Marin in particular, have been nothing short of hateful. Perhaps it takes being female to see this, but I really wouldn’t have thought so.
There’s a lot in your final sentence. Although I think women are perfectly capable of being brutal and contradictory, I suspect very few blokes, especially those who hanker for social value systems that are passing, understand what is means to live life in a misogynistic society.
Agree
How is it “misogyny” to criticise the leader of a country for dancing next to people doing something that is ostensible illegal???
I don’t recall any male leader of a country being criticised for dancing near people doing drugs.
It doesn’t take being female. It blows my mind, the kind of barbaric crap that prominent women have to put up with.
Come to think of it, I’m not sure Grundle made it clear he knows just how bad it gets…
Trying to tie Ardern to Tony Blair’s Iraq fiasco is a bit of a long bow………………
……..she was an associate director of the Better Regulation Executive, with primary responsibility for changing the way local authorities deal with small business.
Hardly in a position to advise on matters military.
But that gets in the way of presenting a simplistic argument of a complex picture.
Guy Rundle can speak for himself but surely he means that any young person from New Zealand who finds herself/himself working in the office of Tony Blair was politically calculating at an early age, and in no sense an innocent.
By conflating the concept of “working in Tony Blair’s Cabinet Office” (already a stretch) with “preparing the Iraq war based on obvious lies and implicit racism about non-white deaths” in the one sentence, the implication is obvious.
Likewise the intent.
So would you argue that a young intern who worked in the offices of Bill Clinton necessarily supported his treatment of women, or might they perhaps have been idealists for a better post Bush senior era?
Ms Lewinsky did.
And do you feel it’s her fault? Or is she perhaps a victim?
She clearly “…supported his treatment of women” else she’d not have participated.
One of the key differences between these women and some of the male leaders we’ve been subjected to, is their lack of a blindly overweening vanity.