By JAMILA RIZVI
No, Minister Bishop. I repeat: No, Minister.
Earlier today you told the National Press Club that you’re not a feminist. When asked the question directly from a journalist, you said “I don’t find the need to self-describe in that way [as a feminist]… [it’s] not a term that I find particularly useful these days”.
Now, I recognise that being a feminist isn’t a label that would be warmly embraced in Liberal Party circles. Your female parliamentary colleagues such as Michaelia Cash and Fiona Scott have both publicly distanced themselves from feminism; maintaining it contradicts their belief in advancement based on ‘merit’. And I suspect few, if any, of your counterparts in the federal cabinet – male or female (oh, wait, you’re the only female, right?) – would self identify with the term.
Feminism in Australia has become increasingly associated with the the left of politics, particularly after Julia Gillard’s prime ministership came to the end. So it makes sense that a high-profile, conservative political figure like yourself might have misgivings about using the word to describe yourself.
But here’s the thing, Minister – whether you call yourself a feminist or not. You are one.
You may chose to reject the label but that doesn’t mean your behaviours and achievements aren’t consistent with the movement.
You are a feminist because you are a product of feminism. You benefit each and every day from the achievements of women who came before you and you are forging a path that will make it easier for the women who come after you. Your very presence in federal cabinet as the lone female voice, makes you a partner in the fight for gender equality in this country. And you don’t have to own it for it to be true.
Top Comments
So interesting to see Julie Bishop practically ignored by Gillard-clone and Guardianista Katherine Murphy in her introduction to the NPC event. And Murphy was the first to put Bishop under the pump about her feminist credentials. Funny thing, though, with all that attention to Julie Bishop, no mention of exactly what variety of feminism Murphy was talking about. Was it postmodern feminism which sees gender roles as socially constructed, or was it good ol' essentialist feminism which pits woman against man, with the former cast as victim and the latter cast as oppressor. Or is it the Australian version where the essentialist is dressed up as the postmodern (with a pair of Julia's slim fashion spectacles thrown in for good measure?) I think that is why Bishop sometimes refers to there being no benefit in playing the victim card. It is disempowering. I also see the opposing point of view. It seems from her answers to the gentle but targeted probing she endured that day in the Press Club, that Bishop is alive to the inequity that exists overseas and in ethnic minorities (the proverbial noble cause), but is quite blind to any inequality that exists right under her nose at home here in Australia. It never ceases to amaze how pollies love to frolic like children under the cleansing fountain of multiculturalism which incidentally washes away all their other transgressions and egregious omissions.
Now does this look like a feminist to you...telling the girls to put the claws away!