Holding babies won't cut it for Gillard

What is missing in this election is the feeling that “something wonderful is happening”. Many Americans experienced that aura before the election of Barack Obama.

Instead we have one “friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears” type who relishes operating within, above and below dysfunctional, self-serving, patriarchal structures and another candidate who is managing to endorse it.

The result is two political charlatans who wish to have their electoral puffery accepted but who must be conscious that they’re asking voters to believe what they don’t appear to believe themselves. There seems to be nothing concrete in their programs, nothing solid in the candidates: the entire agenda seems to be evasive, equivocal rubbish delivered in a startlingly amateurish style.

But there is one fundamental aspect of this campaign the Gillard camp have overlooked.

This election is not about Julia Gillard, it’s about our perception of her. As Magritte said "Ceci n'est pas une pipe".

As the people form their perceptions of Gillard, gender schemas will inevitably and unavoidably play a significant role.

When we speak of gender we are highlighting our psychological and social conceptions of what it means to be a man or women. "Gender Schemas" refers to our intuitive hypotheses about the behaviour, traits, and preferences of men and women and boys and girls. Correspondingly, the term "gender roles" refers to expectations, to our ideas about how men and women are expected to behave.

All the signs have been there during this campaign. Physiognomy is well and truly at play, and more. We have covered her ear lobes, her marital status, her hair, her clothes, her choice not to have children and so on.

Meta-analysis notes that leaders are likely to be judged in terms of the fit between their sex and the conception of the job. In other words if the job is seen as masculine men will be considered more effective leaders but if the job is characterised as feminine, women will be perceived as better leaders.

In her book Why So Slow?: The Advancement of Women psychologist Virginia Valian said:

... In trying to assume leadership, a woman will have to work overtime to get people’s attention and when she does, is likely to evoke disproportionately negative facial reactions from those she is trying to influence. Those reactions in turn will have a negative effect on other observers who might originally have been neutral or undecided because all concerned are unaware of the extent to which they are affected by the woman’s gender, they will attribute their reactions to a woman’s lessor ability or bossiness. Thus even a woman who is herself completely unaffected by and indifferent to the reactions of those around her will have a tough time being a successful leader ...

Valian goes on to refer to one study that demonstrated that when women actively adopt an assertive leadership style, they are perceived more negatively.

Did you notice that a Daily Telegraph online survey suggests that those polled felt that Gillard is a sneaky, calculating schemer while Tony Abbott is an intelligent, determined man driven by passion.

The 2007 Catalyst report The Double-Bind Dilemma for Women in Leadership: Damned if You Do, Doomed if You Don’t found that when women act in ways that are consistent with gender stereotypes, they are viewed as less competent leaders but when they act in ways that are inconsistent with such stereotypes, they are considered unfeminine. It also points out that women leaders are perceived as competent or liked, but rarely both.

Gillard hasn’t helped her cause. Her acceptance speech confirmed her belief in”... a Government that rewards those who work the hardest not those who complain the loudest ...”. It lacked compassion and served to close the door (unintentionally) on people living in a country at war, where income and wealth distribution is now more skewed than ever before, where a large voluntary sector helps to conceal the deficiencies of governments and where things like ongoing discrimination against Indigenous Australians is tolerated by policy makers.

Sometimes hard workers have to complain.

Then came the alleged comments on parental leave that “people beyond child-bearing age would resent it as would stay-at-home mothers”. Assuming she made the comments she wouldn’t be the first woman (or man) - and certainly won’t be the last - to think or say it. People espousing this view usually do so because they feel that people in a democratic society must take responsibility for their own actions. To her credit, Gillard is a fine example of someone who does. But it’s not a perfect world, and governments can’t force people to be responsible, prevent biological urges, stop people falling in (and out of) love or, dare I say, from being human. It takes a village to raise a child.

Now we see the headline “Gillard will call Rudd to ask for help”. Isn’t this the same man who was christened “Kevin 747”? Who was running the joint in his absence?

Gillard’s team have just over a week to understand and defuse gender schemas, how they work, how they are maintained, and how they influence aspirations and expectations.

Gillard needs to demonstrate her power through expert knowledge. She needs to demonstrate that she knows more about the topic than Abbott. People won’t be distracted by anything less than powerful words from an impressive and focused intellect.

If she wants to discuss the economy she needs to channel Elizabeth Warren; to talk about hope and courage, Maya Angelou; and to inspire young generations Arundhati Roy.

Gillard needs to immerse herself in the company of trusted and informed external experts. If she believes in man-made global warming then she should get on the blower to the best climatologists in the country - the real, practising ones - and have them flanking her at press conferences. It will be too late if she leaves images of powerful associations until the belated “official launch”: leaders legitimise other leaders by vouching for their abilities, so she should bring them forward now to endorse her campaign.

Gillard’s gender should be her greatest strength, not a political weakness. But tackling gender schemas requires more insight and more thought than dropping shiny policy baubles. She needs the electorate to see her seated at head of the table and to be comfortable with that image. Holding babies and kicking footballs with kids falls a long way short of what’s needed to gain true popular acceptance.