Post-faux-debate and the buzz is on the gender divide. Last night’s political humdrum firmed up speculation that women favour Gillard. And spotlighted that men are less convinced.
Polling is as much an art as it is a science. When worms show lady dials turning to Gillard and men to Abbott, the data can be read as support. Equally can it be read as strong opposition to the alternative.
I’ve written previously about being unconvinced of a sisterhood. I make such a claim in a world where women judge each other mercilessly and where allegiances based on like-genitals are delusions. To read polling data and claim women blindly support Gillard is offensive. And ignores history.
Women lose political races all the time. The premierships of Carmen Lawrence, Joan Kirner and Kristina Keneally each have asterisks. Women run. Women vote. Women lose.
To pretend that female voters see earrings and lipstick and instinctively pump their fists is farcical. Sure, many women – myself included – are delighted to have a female PM. But we wouldn’t have supported just any woman. My own laundry list is certainly longer than two X chromosomes.
A woman’s vote for Gillard may be a vote for the moving forward rhetoric. It may be a vote for a more progressive leader. It may also be a vote against Abbott. Against sexual conservatism. Against political conservatism. Against sartorial unconservatism. And the men’s vote is equally complex. To speculate that men don’t like Gillard – that Labor needs to court their votes – is simplistic. Men might like Abbott. Men might hate him but sympathise with Rudd. Men might actively dislike Gillard.
Last night’s carefully-scripted non-debate was boring. It was long, it was unexciting and it was clearly no Masterchef. The data is slightly more interesting. Not because we can draw any conclusions, not because it will prove predictive or prophetic, but because it shows just how many more questions need to be answered before August 21.
Dr Lauren Rosewarne
School of Social and Political Sciences, 26 July 2010