As the Sex Discrimination Commissioner conducts an inquiry into federal parliament’s toxic culture, it is clear that her task is to diagnose misogyny and make recommendations for its removal. The easiest way to achieve this would be to remove men from positions of power.
In their brilliant 1992 satire of Australian political life ‘Up the Greasy Pole: A Year in the Life of Senator Frank Bragger’, Chris Puplick, John Black and Michael Macklin describe a man who brags continually but is never frank.
Senator Bragger has a great deal to say about political women and remembers with nostalgia the day when they made sandwiches, washed up and stuffed envelopes. He caricatures colleagues as Mums, Old Lefties, Career Girls, Permanent Spinsters, Jolly Hockey Sticks and Zealots. He describes their wardrobes as proletarian frump, quietly fashionable or power dressers while claiming he has respect because of his fondness for dark, expensive suits and tasteful ties. Senator Bragger likes women in their place.
Sexual assault and rape are not about sexuality but about the assertion of power. Acts of violence intended to suppress the victims – usually female. These are not private matters such as some consensual relationships might be – although it is also true that many such relationships are confused by power imbalances between participants.
Sexual assaults are public acts of violence and inherently political crimes. They are part of the process of quashing uppity females and rejecting their demands for equality. Their effects linger in creating a threatening milieu so that females are never allowed to feel comfortable or that they have a right to belong. Many are deterred from seeking a parliamentary career and those who do are reminded of a supposed inferiority and vulnerability.
Male dominance drives the devaluation of women in the workplace and the home. Assaults in workplaces including parliament resemble acts of domestic violence in that they assert masculine power and preference. There are unfortunate parallels with male monopoly of the means of violence and with the removal of social sanctions against their use. Prohibitions against hitting women are eroded by the strutting warrior stance encouraged by some sports, or at least the media coverage of them. Stars deserve to have adoring female fans.
The means of violent control include firearms. Men and firearms are a bad mix internationally and around Australia. Civil wars, anarchy and terrorism are fuelled by ready availability of weapons. Domestic violence is more likely where men have access to firearms. Firearms give inordinate power to anyone inclined to seek it. Everyone is vulnerable to firearms. Males are disproportionately likely to seek this form of power.
Firearms ownership and ego are mutually reinforcing. Men need firearms if they are unsure about their gender roles. However, such diffidence among some men is based on illusions of grandeur and power. Put simply, men who have been socialised into stereotypical feelings of inadequacy while thinking they have a right to power are dangerously deluded. No person should think that power over others is a natural right or aspire to it. Few women do.
Perhaps if we males are serious about ending violence against women, we must shun power in all its forms. We should be wary of attributes deemed to be essential in successful politicians, such as ambition and competitiveness. We should be suspicious of the ‘can do’ type who expects to be able to achieve something just because they can.
Women should not be made the sole guardians of good behaviour. In the current case of a Liberal staffer allegedly raped in the parliamentary precincts it appears that more than one male knew of the incident and similar examples, but did nothing. This is more than an issue of culture but reflects badly on leadership. The onus must be lifted from women.
It is not easy to shun the trappings of power. As a stay-at-home parent in the 1970s, I was aware of difficulties facing anyone challenging traditional gender roles. Resuming work in part time and casual positions I quickly became aware of some of the prejudices faced by women in the workforce. Being ‘only a casual’ I lacked power but found it easier to assert myself than did many female colleagues. We have all heard embarrassing stories of how a woman makes a suggestion only to have it rejected by a male manager and then see her suggestion enthusiastically adopted when proposed by a man.
What parliament needs is something that would benefit every workplace. Just as firearms should be banned because they provide immediate access to a deadly source of power disproportionate to needs, other forms of inappropriate power should also be shunned – like Bragger’s suit and tie. An immediate ‘power audit’ of parliament would establish the points at which power and dominance are easily acquired by those who are likely to use them irresponsibly. Such power nodes include the prime minister’s office, the cabinet room, the party room and the chambers. Either that, or remove males from all positions of power. Why not let parliament lead the way for a change instead of following antiquated and dangerous practices?
Dr Tony Smith is a former political science academic with interests in elections, parliament and political ethics.
Comments
17 responses to “Do we need to remove men from power?”
Power “is a privilege, not a right”. Love that phrase!
Placing a ‘permanently on’ spy camera in every vehicle, is now feasible and would resolve some poor driving practices and might save lives. So too with the great and not so good, all too human?
Politicians need to be continually scrutinised. We need to be able to critique their pyjama choices and know to whom they talk and write. It would be compulsory and we might be able to make a small charge for transmission to the public web. They could be paid more as a result. If this drives out scummy types, or catches outrageous behaviour while drunk drugged or sober, it is a win win, right?
Men have had thousands of years holding almost all the levers of power. Why not give women, say, 30 years in charge. They won’t do worse.
No, only the last 500 years or so. Heinsohn and others, but not Fomenko, show that we are deceived by ‘our’ history. Women were powerful for 500 years before that. They ran the Temples.
Let’s try to share and care more?
First of all we need to remove all of the psychopaths – starting at the top then working through cabinet.
Agree wholeheartedly. I have watched Morrison closely, not for content but more clinically. His ’empathy’ looks staged and learned. Even bringing his wife in as a empathy prop was telling. Same with Birmingham, Tehan and Dutton. Frydenberg uses numbers to convey empathy – not the individual impact on Australians. Manipulation of numbers is psychopathic.
Trouble is… just about anyone who joins parliament to ‘make a difference’, is in my mind – more than a bit psychopathic. They are telling us – that they – can run our lives better than we can. Perhaps it’s the anarchist in me coming out.
These psychopaths are very agressive and dominating and what better place to ply your trade. Having been smashed by a psychopath years ago, and seriously wounded by the experience, I feel confident that I can spot them a mile off now. The enormous energy applied to cultivating compliant supporters, bullying and belittleing opponents, pouring on the charm, the sense of grandiosity – you name it. But the most obvious is the complete lack of empathy, morality, shamelessness and the incapability of appearing honest and sincere (Porter’s media conference defence performance of the alledged rape for example).
Porter’s press coverage had a lot in common with Nicolle Flint’s speech in parliament on bullying and harassment. It was all, poor me, I’m the victim here. No real insight into the damage they may be causing to ALL of Australia.
I have originally had reservations about Kristina Keneally, but, the more I see and hear of her the more I realize how wrong I was.
On the Insiders this morning she gave another dominant display (she always does) putting in the shade any responses I have seen from ALP leader Anthony Albanese or his Deputy Richard Marles. (Albos “tin ear” speech in parliament showed promise)
Kristina Keneally is also one of the few who has taken the fight up to Dutton and I might note that the moderator of the Insiders appeared to show due reverence by not interrupting her answers this morning. (probable not game to)
So if the question is about giving Women more power the answer is obvious, and the ALP is blessed with WOMAN POWER, Tanya Plibersek , Penny Wong and Linda Burney to name a few.
I never had reservations. CIA possibly, but still a good pollie for Australia. The gels are better because they have had to survive a threat filled environment.
There’s another, Albert.
The Hon. Rose Jackson, NSW MLC. Her first Parliamentary speech is hypnotic.
Thanks for that Charles, watched the video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkLySCNI1EQ
The young lady shows some sprit and promise I also noticed Linda Burney in the background and note that she is calling on the party to legalize cannabis and drug law reform (drugs should be a health issue). as well as calling for strong industrial relations reform, like criminalizing wage theft, and criminal justice reform in NSW.
Bodes well for the Labor party, obviously one to watch.
Thanks, Albert. I could not agree more.
No, we do not need to remove men from positions of power. We do, however, need to put into place procedures that ensure only good and responsible men, and women, attain positions of power.
Cleaning up our media would be a good place to start, and preselection processes in both major parties need overhauling as well.
Mr Duell: that makes sense. The post identifies the issue as abuse of power, with a gender overlay. If correct, a sex discrimination (only) investigation is well short of what is needed for PH. I think pursuit of personal power by mistreatment of people – including women by women, and men by men – although not in the league of the very serious criminality of rape or major assault, can create a pervasive environment in which not only do ‘things happen’ but they are ignored/glossed over, and the good and responsible have an increasingly hard time of it. More likely in places where ‘power’ is worshipped? Regards
I like your thinking, Hal, but I must ask you: what conceptual framework could we use for such purpose?
It’s an ages-old problem, isn’t it? Power corrupts. Jesus on the mountaintop managed it, but that’s a bar too high for most. Corporate lobbying plays a big part, as do minor officials at the preselection level. I suspect that power at any level is addictive, and self-justifying.
The power of the media is formidable, whether Murdoch, Facebook or Google. This site is a rare beacon joining a few others.
A conceptual framework to ensure that only the good and responsible attain positions of power, and having attained power, remain good and responsible? The conceptual framework might be the easy part, the practical application maybe not.
In short, I don’t know.
Love your honesty, Hal!! (I think you are in excellent company!)
I’ve been doing a bit of work on this.
As briefly as possible, Chris Golis’ (Sydney) (look him up) elucidation of the single most practical personality matrix I’ve yet encountered – the ‘Humm-Wadsworth’ model incorporating 7 ‘temperament’ types/biases – offers such a conceptual model. One of those types is ‘politician’, another is ‘hustler’. Each of 6 types, when negatively expressed, is an extension of 6 types of mental illness. The seventh type (‘normal’) regulates each of the other 6. Politicans’ and hustlers’ illnesses involve components of ‘Dark Triadism’ (narcissism, psychopathy and machiavellianism). The Dark Triad syndrome is complex (involving an interdependency between ‘internal’ (psychological) realities and ‘external’ (sociological) realities). Further, academic work in this arena is relatively recent. Further again, its direct use and popularisation may have been somewhat inhibited by laws of slander and defamation.
Nonetheless, I firmly believe that nominative (applications) and behavioural (e. g. checkable references, applicative role plays) checks based on the Humm model can efficiently filter applicants whose temperaments are not only self-destructive but also help destroy the organisations which hire them.