Games of Silence

When my son was born, I posted the following comment on Facebook:

Introducing Benjamin: intellectual, athlete, artist and leader of men

Who me?

My wife and I are currently expecting our second child (although, I now think I’ve figured out what’s causing the problem) and this morning we were delighted to learn that the next addition to our family will be a girl.  This caused me to reflect on that I had written upon the birth of my son and ask myself: what am I going to say when my daughter arrives?  What are my aspirations for her?  How do I express that one of those aspirations is for her to feel free of stereotypical gender norms?  While on the one hand I do hope she grows up to be caring, sensitive and attuned to the needs of others, I don’t want to suggest that such qualities are essential only to being female.  I want her to be brave, smart and proud in equal share.

The Australian media, however, has no such qualms about reinforcing – even manipulating – gender stereotypes.  Yesterday, Prime Minister Julia Gillard introduced legislation into the parliament to pave the way for the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme or DisabilityCare, as it now to be known (they must have stayed up all night thinking of that name!).  As any feeling person would, when thinking about the human implications of this policy, the Prime Minister became emotional during her speech.  The shock of it reverberated around the country.  For anyone who doubted that “leadership” is still a highly masculinised concept, one only has to look at the political media’s reaction to Gillard speech. So incongruous is emotion to our conception of leadership that Julia’s near-tears became the story itself.  Furthermore, Julia was not only emotional, she was “choking back” tears – as a woman, obviously, she is not control of her emotions, they are control of her. Sue Dunleavy and Jessica Marszalek of The Herald Sun wrote of the PM’s “emotional outburst” as follows, “Ms Gillard's voice wavered and she had difficulty speaking because her feelings were so strong.”  Comments such as these were repeated ad-nauseum, with their common implicit theme of emotion over-riding rationality.  Comments that are almost complementary on the one hand, but, through the very way the incident has been sensationalised, really only serve to reinforce a masculine and clinical model of leadership, and a fragile conception of femininity.

Now, this approach to the reporting of the DisabilityCare bill may be an interesting, albeit somewhat academic, issue in itself, apart from one thing … It wasn’t even the most interesting aspect of the story.  Indeed, the News Ltd media could almost be forgiven for also playing up the “levy hike” angle, because at least that is something that has relevance and impact on people’s lives.  But even that slimy and manipulative angle was not the most surprising element to this story.  No, the one thing that raised my eyebrows as though I’d just stepped on one of Benny’s toys was the fact that the Opposition was almost entirely absent from Parliament for the bill.

Hello?

The Opposition’s absence raises many questions – the kind of questions that the commentariat generally like to get into a froth about.  Does it signal an underlying lack of support for or belief in DisabilityCare?  If so, what will happen when they are inevitably voted into office?  Was it simply crude political expedience to distant themselves from a tax increase, while, hypocritically, publicly supporting the concept?  If so, what will “the voter” make of this two-faced trickery?  Or perhaps most importantly: was the absence a vulgar display of a lack of respect for the disabled community, let alone disrespect for parliament, in that the Opposition were too busy with media engagements and self-promotion to be present for this bill?  The bottom line being that the Opposition’s absence from parliament yesterday provides enormous opportunity for the kind of speculation, hypothesis and “intellectual masturbation” generally loved by political writers around the country.

The silence has been deafening.

But, why?  Why has this angle been let go through to the keeper?  Apparently, a show of warm emotion from a Prime Minister is more spectacular than a display of petulance or arrogance or hypocrisy from an Opposition Leader.  It is perhaps telling to reflect upon which form of behaviour the media, through its selectivity, is condoning here.  One thing is for certain: I shall have to think very hard about the Facebook post for my daughter’s arrival, as what I don’t say might be as important as what I do ... [fades to static]