The Mirabella story is about how we expect women to act

And that makes it about feminism.

Lauren Rosewarne has a great piece in The Conversation about the sledging of Sophie Mirabella after Monday night’s QandA: Sophie Mirabella shouldn’t be attacked for failing to emote:

Of the very many gendered burdens heaped on the shoulders of women is that of natural emotional sensitivity. Apparently, as women, we’re supposed to be able to read people, read situations, and respond accordingly. Intuitively. All in under one minute. Apparently Sophie Mirabella should have known, instinctively, that Simon Sheikh was sick rather than merely dabbling in a little bit of silly bugger youthful petulance. Not doing so and judgment, contempt and vitriol got hurled at her in spades.

The comments are almost all from men saying Rosewarne is wrong – when did The Conversation become The Punch? – that Mirabella’s not being criticised because she didn’t act like a woman, but because she didn’t act like a human. It’s a little over the top. Not helping someone who faints is hardly inhuman. I think we should probably save that word for things that are actually inhuman, you know, like killing lots of people because you think it’ll make a political point, or threatening to tow boats of terrified asylum seekers back to sea. Or zombies. I mean, shit, if we’re going to say it’s inhuman to not help someone who faints, then what do we call the zombie apocalypse? Inhuman for realz?

The thing is, who knows how you’ll react when something unexpected happens? ManFriend fainted at a gig once (Spod, at the Hoey), and the man he fell on caught him on the way down, had him on his side in the safety position in a second and immediately asked me what he’d taken. (Nothing. It was incredibly hot and stuffy and he keeled over as we tried to get out.) I can’t say for sure that if a stranger fell on me that my reaction would be the same. Considering the number of times I’ve been groped in public, my instinct would probably be to shove him off me. And then I’d look like a big jerk.

Sure, Mirabella’s response wasn’t warm or caring, but so what? Let’s crack a joke about how we hope she’s not the person closest to us when we faint, and move on. But if you think this isn’t about policing women’s behaviour, when’s the last time a male politician was criticised for not being warm or caring? As much as I disagree with all of Mirabella’s views, my feminism does not allow me to say “this woman is worthy of defence from sexist attacks but that woman is not”. Because that stance says that some sexism is ok.

Which brings me to the mainstream media, where public behaviour is policed. This story was BIG all day. As though Mirabella’s response was of national importance. Journos love “scandal” stories about something that happened on tv. They’re easy to write – no research required and AAP usually files copy as it happens – plus, most of the quotes come from twitter. This is where my head disappears up my own arse, because I’m going to quote my article for The King’s Tribune, on Lara Bingle and the female celebrity redemption game:

Communication researcher Zohar Kampf suggests that journalists love these “social dramas of apology” because it legitimises what they do. It allows them to perform their role as “norm enforcers” by exposing the transgression, demanding accountability and, once they get the apology, score points with the public for making sure no one gets away with acting outside mainstream standards (2011, p. 74).

(Psst, I think The King’s Tribune is a great publication and if you want to read good, interesting writing on a range of topics, you should support it. There are print and online subscriptions.)

Now, before you say “you’re just defending Mirabella because she’s a woman and you’re a feminist and blah blah blah sisterhood”, let me make two points:

1. Tony Jones, sitting on the other side of Mirabella, had exactly the same response, yet he’s not being criticised. It’s his show so it’s reasonable to expect that he’d demonstrate leadership, but he just sat there. And then quickly moved on like nothing had happened.

2. Of all the things to criticise Mirabella for – and there are many, such as standing in front of this poster and calling MP Belinda Neal a “man hater” and insulting Gillard about not having kids, and everything she writes for The Punch, plus, her politics – how she reacts when someone faints is pretty minor.

Reference:
Kampf, Z., 2011, ‘Journalists as actors in social dramas of apology’, Journalism, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 71-87.

The casual misogyny of QandA

Did you see QandA last night? A bunch of supposedly intelligent people gossiping about the private lives and personal characters of women they don’t know. One woman was called a “tart” because of her job. Another was called a “floozy” because she was an ex-girlfriend. And in another charming moment, Barry Humphries referred to Gina Rinehart’s “neverending hole”. Which was applauded. Hoo hoo hee hee, how funny. This is how our “intelligentsia” discusses women and gee, doesn’t it make you proud?

You can see the episode on the ABC website. The transcript will apparently be up from 2pm today.

A lot of the blame for the stupid should be directed at Tony Jones and the QandA team. Firstly, for choosing questions like this:

Emelia Starbright asked via facebook: Why is Gina Rinehart so greedy?

Rinehart is a businesswoman. Her job is to make money. I don’t hear Andrew Forrest or Frank Lowy or Gerry Harvey or Harry Triguboff or James Packer or Ivan Glasenberg (the second richest in the country) being called greedy for doing their jobs. The lack of a culture of philanthropy in Australia is a serious issue, but that’s not what’s being discussed with this question about greed: Rinehart is rich, and she wants to make more money, how much does one woman need, she’s ambitious so clearly she is unhappy and maybe if she was a better mother then she wouldn’t need so much money.

And secondly, for encouraging the panel, one by one, to discuss Rinehart’s character. Like this, from David Marr:

Well, I think it’s a personal question, isn’t it, really? [And then goes on to be very personal] She’s the richest woman in the world and she’s humiliating herself and her family in the courts in order not to have to pay her children the money that is pouring into the estate so that she can control it and dole it out exactly as she wants. This is amazingly perverse behaviour. But as I understand it, behind it all lies this towering ambition to fund in her own right, to get up this immense iron ore mine, and for that she seems to be willing to appear as greedy as all get out, she’s willing to appear brutally cruel to her own family. And so she goes. There is a funny way in which huge amounts of money in some people don’t actually sate the appetite but make them crave more, it’s something about us human beings… There are ways of behaving when you are one of the richest people in the world, with a little more grace than she behaves, particularly vis a vis her own family, and she appears to display a quite remarkable wish to control every cent that goes through her hands.

I see David Marr is also lacking in grace.

Thing is, how the fuck would he – or any of us – know what goes on in the Rinehart family? There have been a few court stories published, but since it’s an ongoing case they don’t give the full picture. Perhaps Rinehart does want to be in charge of all the money? Perhaps the children are incompetent with money? Perhaps it’s just like any other family argument except that when you can afford lawyers, you say “fuck it, let’s get the lawyers”? The point is that we don’t know and it’s really none of our business what Rinehart does with her own money and this sort of character assassination of someone I’m pretty sure they have never met is pretty disgusting. Good on Jacki Weaver for saying, “I think we are getting a bit unkind about Mrs Rinehart” and trying to change the topic. But then Jones brings it back by asking Miriam Margolyes what she thinks of Rinehart, and she mentions Rinehart’s appearance and apparent lack of generosity. Obviously, being a big lefty, I do not support mining companies digging shit out of the ground without giving money back to the country. I do not support Rinehart trying to get out of paying for the pollution her business creates. And I certainly do not support the casual misogyny that’s encouraged on QandA every time they talk about women.

It’s funny* (*not funny), Marr was happy to say nasty things about Rinehart, but later comments that the “vicious” attacks on Cate Blanchett for “joining political debate” were “unfair”. The word you want here, David, is hypocrite.

And then we get into “no one’s sayin’ it but we’re all thinkin’ it: who’d believe a sex worker?” territory. From Marr: “I don’t really think we need the testimony of the tart”.

Then Humphries refers to Clive James’ ex as “some floozy”, and calls Craig Thomson a heap of names in order to get a cheap laugh. It’s all oh so funny.

And then a video question about how women have too much power and have emasculated men:

Newton Gatoff asked: G’day mate, in a country where women are the richest in business and most powerful in politics, has the Ozzie machismo lost its mojo on the international stage?

Directed at a man who dresses as a woman on the “world stage”. The question was rubbished by the panel, and quite rightly. So why waste our time with it, when I’m sure there were plenty of intelligent questions submitted for the show. I don’t know why I keep expecting QandA to be intelligent, because most of what I see certainly isn’t.

What should have been an interesting show because it wasn’t filled with politicians staying “on message” with their boring talking points (and I’m not the only person bored by that, since last night was the show’s biggest audience of the year), was dominated by misogynist drivel that was encouraged by the show’s host. The one politician on the show, John Hewson, just looked like he was politely tolerating idiots the whole time.

Shoegate, aka how the Australian news media is failing their readers

Let’s play a little game I like to call “Fun with the Snipping Tool”.

At 9.20am, this how the main news websites in Australia are covering last night’s opportunity for the public to ask questions of the second-longest serving prime minister – one who took Australia into two wars – which was televised on the national public broadcaster.

At smh.com.au, it’s in the top spot, so it’s considered the most important story on the website:

At brisbanetimes.com.au, it’s also the most important story on the website:

At theage.com.au, it’s in the top spot:

At heraldsun.com.au, it’s in the top spot:

At news.com.au, it gets the main pic treatment:

At theaustralian.com.au, it’s the main pic:

At watoday.com.au, it’s also the main pic:

At perthnow.com.au, it’s in the spot for the second most important story of the day:

At dailytelegraph.com.au, it’s in the second spot:

At couriermail.com.au, it’s in the second spot:

AdelaideNow is the only major news website in Australia NOT giving this story top billing:

Now, if you think the purpose of the news media is to entertain, then you probably don’t give a shit about this. But there are plenty of other things that are genuinely entertaining, so why would you bother watching the news to get a giggle?

But if – like me – you think the purpose of the news media is to inform their audience about what’s going on in their world, and give them the information they need to make decisions about their world, then this is a colossal failure.

This post is not about Fairfax or News Ltd. It’s about the Australian news media, because the shoe thrower has been all over ABC Radio this morning as well. I note that his question about Australia’s involvement in the war in Iraq was never really answered:

And still hasn’t been answered.

Update: A story needs to “move on” and so news organisations are falling over themselves to get comment from the shoe thrower. Why? Watch the footage from QandA – it’s pretty clear why he threw his shoes at John Howard. So why not chase Howard for an answer to his question about Australia’s involvement in the war in Iraq? Or for answers to any questions, since he’s clearly in media whore mode to plug his book.

Update 2: I care about this because I am a journalist and I think we’re doing a completely shit job at being relevant. Once those paywalls go up, we’ve got nothing to offer our readers.