Sexism in politics, or just politics?

That she was meeting with business, responding to business concerns, reiterating the ALP’s position all added to her profile as ministerial material. After all, the public doesn’t expect ministers to agree with every part of the electorate or business community always, or at all times. What the public does expect is that ministers - and would be ministers - have sufficient stature, sense and capacity to interact, initiate and respond to issues of moment affecting the substance of their portfolios or shadow portfolios.

Julia Gillard was doing just that.

Once Heffernan’s comments were published, however, commentators became mesmerised by the question whether or not Heffernan had offended, whether or not his remarks were “sexist”, whether or not Julia Gillard should or shouldn’t have children, could or couldn’t be ministerial material because of it - and on and on.

“Feminists” were called upon as commentators, falling into the trap of justifying their own existence upon the basis of their having children, or - although not having children - having direct and companionable relationships with other peoples’ children. And again - on and on - red herrings rampant.

This is why, surely, we need to recognise Heffernan’s intervention for what it was. An effort to direct attention away from Coalition industrial relations problems, and away from the reason Julia Gillard is there - namely, her role as opposition industrial relations spokesperson, putting arguments of substance, slashing away rigorously and relentlessly at government policy and practice in the field.

Heffernan succeeded in diverting the media and commentators onto an irrelevancy, while all the while they were filling the airwaves with their contentions, expressed in words - hundreds and thousands of them - that the childlessness of Julia Gillard was not, or should not, be an issue. And that Heffernan should not have raised it.

This gave Heffernan precisely what he wanted and, no doubt, left the government gloating at the undercutting (mostly by women professing to be her supporters) of Gillard’s seriousness and standing as a potential industrial relations minister.

Then, with the aplomb of a shockjock, Heffernan diverted attention to himself once again, and to the core of the complaint, by a highly publicised undertaking to call everyone who had expressed affront at his comment, and to apologise to them. Red herrings rampant - once again.

Next, the “I’m not as pretty” plaint. Once again, the public is asked not to focus on what Julia Gillard is saying about industrial relations, her challenge to the government’s system, or how she is rebutting substantive challenges to her own arguments. Joe Hockey seeks to “do a Heffernan”.

Despite media and (feminist) commentators, sexism really has nothing to do with it. Rather, it was a direct attempt to divert the public from Gillard’s role and responsibilities and her evident capacity in handling the job. Luckily, this time, Sydney Morning Herald readers were not fooled. The vast majority saw the ploy for what it was. Yet still, those same commentators are called upon to pronounce upon Hockey’s sexism, the sexism of federal politics, the antediluvian nature of women’s treatment as politicians.

All the while, these commentators fall into the trap set by Hockey, Heffernan et al. One sniff of the red herring and they’re away, running like hares, undercutting Gillard’s stature while all the time professing to be her supporters. Yet with supporters like this, Gillard is ill-served. Fortunately, readers and voters in the polls are not fooled - this time.

Thence to the Rudd-Rein business. Feminist commentators again tell us sex-gender is the issue. They protest that were Rein “Terry” and Rudd “Karen” the matter would have been addressed differently by the media. What we can guarantee is that these same commentators would have been equally affronted had the husband been the businessperson, the wife the politician. Again, the issue would have been projected by the commentators as a sex-gender issue, the argument in that case being that the woman politician was wrongly having attention focused upon her because of her partner-husband’s business.