Will it really be easier for the next woman?

Australia's first Prime Minister Julia Gillard was beaten in a leadership ballot for control of her own party today, losing to persistent challenger Kevin Rudd. Rudd, it is argued by the Labor party, has a better chance of defeating the Liberal leader Tony Abbott in this year's election.

Why did Australia struggle so much with its female Prime Minister, and what does it say about the state of the country?



By Katherine Burgdorf

So, there we go. As it turns out Australia wasn't ready for a woman PM. But who wasn't ready? The media? The public? Her political colleagues? Aren't we all the same thing, at the end of the day? Many modern psychologists argue we learn more about ourselves from the reactions we have to others than we do about the subject our reaction is focused on. So what on earth, in Julia Gillard, are we so afraid of?

The treatment of Julia Gillard by politicians and the mainstream media has been debilitating. Debilitating for her, as it turns out, and debilitating for those of us who want to see Australia advance. I feel stumped as to what we do next, and I don't live there.

The reaction to the event in the UK has been one of astonishment and no small amount of awe at the ruthless nature of Labour politics. Indeed, Julia's own takeover of the leadership from Rudd has been described as such. There is much coverage of whether sexism befell her, or whether it was wider incompetence and pure political strategy. The event has been very widely broadcast, including a segment tonight on Newsnight. When Jeremy Paxman asked whether women be put off politics no one was daft enough to suggest they wouldn't be.

To suggest her gender hasn't been an issue is fantasy. Can we think of a single male PM treated with such disregard by both colleagues and the press? I can't. Not Rudd when he cried the last time he was booted out. Not Hawke when he cried, and not Whitlam when he was cut off at the knees by the GG. Not Keating when he dumped Anita. It is perhaps the only admirable thing about US politics...the respect for the post is what is most important, not the man or the woman in the post. Perhaps Russell Crowe sums it up best as saying it is simply ungallant. Ungallant to our own country.

So is Australia afraid of career women? Is it fearful of childless couples? Is it fearful of women generally, or outspoken women? Unusual people who don't fit the mould? The difficult thing for me, and people like me, is that other than her role she appeared ordinary. I have a hunch it was her straightforwardness, and I think that straightforwardness was amplified by her rarity in her environment, and Australian's didn't like the sound.


People who say what they think is rare - in politics as in financial services, as in any other alpha industry. Sometimes it is delightful - hence London's love affair with Boris Johnson, and sometimes it is uncomfortable, as we see with Gillard. One fits a mould we are comfortable with, and one does not yet come from a mould not enough of us are comfortable with.

From what was reported about Gillard before she become PM her no bullshit approach was highly regarded, and one that suited her. In her early days as PM the press kept asking where the 'real' Julia went to...the impression being she appeared muzzled and newly uncomfortable in her leadership role.

Perhaps in her role as PM it was unpalatable, and perhaps her advisors never found a suitably comfortable press replacement. No doubt her policies were not impressive to big business, but the venom with which she was attacked was bigger than that. She was never considered incompetent as the deputy leader and it seems unlikely she suddenly became incompetent as PM. Sexism was to play here, but many will not understand what we mean by this and will genuinely believe this not to be the case.

'Telling it like it is' is considered a great quality. It is talked about as a great quality, but not in women. Telling it like it is tends to make people unpopular and most people want to be liked. Arguably, being liked is a politician most important goal and being a plain speaker is a quality in very rare supply.

By and large people feel safe making their feelings known in private conversations, and very uncomfortable and unwilling to tell it like it is in public situations. They respond to leadership, and appreciate straight-talkers, but if that straight-talker falls outside the usual comfort shape then anxiety ratchets. The kneejerk reaction is to cut the speaker to size. In the City - and I will write more about this - it often comes dressed in light-hearted taunts, or shaded in language designed to remind you your outspoken behaviour is unusual. Unusual as a woman, and somewhat amusing. What I argue is that outspokenness isn't unusual for women. It's simply rare in general. It is not desirable in women, and that is different.

In Gillard we had a capable, straightforward politician as committed, clever, ruthless, calculating as the next politician. But we were not comfortable with her. We had to make out complaints about her about her as a woman. Her thighs, her gay hairdressing husband, her lack of children. That is how uncomfortable she made us.

It says more about us than her. It does not make us look good.