Edwina and sexism
Gordon Brown attempted to make a virtue of his personality, just as Edwina has done
DENIS Campbell has an opinionated piece on UK Progressive arguing that Edwina Hart’s chances of becoming Welsh Labour’s next leader are being damaged by sexist attitudes. He makes two charges: that women in general are held to a higher standard in politics, and that a subtle campaign of discrimination is being waged against the Gower AM, particularly by commentators.
The first is hard to disagree with. As someone who spent a number of years in front line Welsh politics, I witnessed numerous examples of female politicians who were judged by their appearances, while less presentable male colleagues were discussed only in terms of their intellectual qualities and personalities. Equally, while aggression and dominating behaviour from men was taken for granted (and even commended) remotely similar behaviour from a woman invited gender-laden criticisms of coldness (an accusation charged with sexual innuendo) and personality disorder, as if taking control was unnatural behaviour for a woman. These attitudes emanated frequently from females, incidentally.
The second, that Edwina is the victim of subtle whispering campaign, is necessarily harder to verify. And Denis does not help his case by alighting on some odd illustrations. He picks on a description made on this site by Daran Hill, in which he suggests that Edwina’s campaign “was about turning her strong personality traits into an advantage”. Dennis argues that this is code, and that no male candidate would have to endure accusations of aggression.
I just don’t see it. Daran can speak for himself, of course, but his point was surely not that Edwina was unacceptably aggressive for a woman, but rather that she chose to put her plain-talking style at the centre of her campaign. This was not pre-ordained. Team Hart could easily have attempted to airbrush this aspect of Edwina’s character, choosing to pitch her into situations where she was effusive, charming and conciliatory. They could have downplayed the plain-talking, arguing that as First Minister, she would take a more collegiate approach. They chose instead to highlight this trait, and present it as a good quality in a potential leader.
Every candidate running for high office, man or woman, is obliged to examine and decide whether to amplify or minimise a given personality trait, or public perception. Gordon Brown briefly made much of his dour character (see above). In 2003, Labour did the same, arguing that “there’s only one Rhodri” and hence amplifying his maverick appeal. Edwina being styled as blunt is not so different from Rhodri being styled as “a character”; both suggest an unspun personality that voters seem to like. Quite how it is sexist code to talk of Edwina in this way escapes me.
And what is more, Denis is guilty of being highly selective. Had he read this from Daran he would have seen an analysis that stated “Edwina’s political vision has been clear. Socialism, radicalism, devolution. These have been the watchwords of an approach that has left no doubt that Edwina is firmly part of the radical left tradition of Welsh Labour politics.” It’s hard to see how he is guilty of overlooking her ideology on grounds of latent sexism.
Let’s attack sexist attitudes when they occur. The fact is that women often do have to live up to a higher standard than men to make headway, and this is not fair. But let’s make sure that we don’t end up suggesting that any and all discussion of a female politician’s personality, especially ones they themselves have highlighted, become off-limits. That would end up producing sexism of an even more pernicious type.
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flickr
Thank you for your comment on my article Adam.
It is an important issue that needs debating. The article has generated an interesting “I am not sexist” and “sexism does not exist” furore. I also think you may have been referring to the original article as posted and not the updated piece from last night which might have affected your commentary.
I absolutely confess to writing an opinion blog/e-zine, guilty as charged. Does that then deserve the use of the more charged (and by implication ‘unprofessional’) word ‘opinionated’? Your readers can decide as this blog would also fall into that category, so we should all be careful about the words we use to characterise others.
I will tell you that I feel very responsible to get it right and therefore work even harder to balance any charge I make. Late last evening as I re-read both the posting and an e-mail from Daran Hill where he felt I was being unfair for singling him out, I concurred that I was not being fair as his was the only reference. It also was not about him, WalesHome (I do enjoy reading here) or Positif Politics.
He had a point. So I spent another hour on an already published story researching other comments of a similar nature. I could have just included anecdotal and overheard references but only wanted items already in print. Would The Western Mail, any other major daily or broadcast channel admit to being mistaken in their execution and update a post anywhere but on the inside bottom left hand corner of Page 17?
Media (and indeed campaigns) in the 21st century is (are) about engaging in dialogue, vs. just blasting and sniggering. So I look forward to further dialogue in the future.
All best.
Denis Campbell
UK Progressive
Having now read both articles, I am not sure why Adam Higgitt feels that he has to take Denis Campbell to task over his contention that there is sexism in politics and that this is manifested in subtle ways through the use of language by certain so-called commentators. I don’t think that he is implying that Daran Hill or WalesHome is necessarily or uniquely guilty of this because he cites various other additional sources including BBC’s Betsan Powys who, as most people have already noticed, is …a woman. Denis’ article strikes me as being a legitimate ‘opinion piece’ by an important blogger.
Sexism like ageism and other forms of …ism are endemic in British society but it is not as overt as it used to be in this ‘politically correct’ day and age. Sexism is, of course, to be deplored in all its forms and we can all agree on that.
Cambria
I haven’t taken Denis to task for “his contention that there is sexism in politics and that this is manifested in subtle ways”. I acknowledge that there is sexism in politics. I then say that the “subtle code” discrimination is harder to prove. That’s because it’s subtle.
My point of disagreement is in Denis’s use of Daran’s quote as evidence of that subtle code. Daran, as I make clear, was to my mind describing the blunt-speaking side of Edwina’s personality that we know exists and which she has chosen to highlight. Denis seems to imply this kind of analysis is off-limits and wouldn’t be applied to male politicians. I disagree.
Denis
I have not used the word “opinionated” in a pejorative sense, but merely to distinguish your piece from a more neutral or objective analysis. Opinion is important in debate, and online. WalesHome.org exists to give a platform to as wide a spectrum of opinions as possible. My own article of this morning was opinionated.
Yes, you have amended your article. But it still cites Daran’s words as evidence of “subtle code” sexism that would not be used about male politicians. I disagree, and I’ve provided examples of where the personality traits of male politicians has been openly discussed. I’m not asking you to withdrawn this suggestion or make any further amendments, I’m just disagreeing with you. If you want to take issue with my argument, please do so.
Best
Adam