Holding babies won't cut it for Gillard

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.