Misogyny is easy to claim, but sexism is really far more complex to understand, and in this instance I am prepared to even suggest extremely difficult to accurately identify – particularly if it suits some purpose to “find” it.
Abbott’s support was 4% lower women compared to men – this, his self evident problem with women.
Gillard’s support was 7% lower men compared to women – this, her concealed problem with…?
Exploring VOTE COMPASS it becomes easier to see that some/much/a lot (?) of this difference is explained by the gender differences in “most important issue”. Specifically the higher priority of the economy (for men) compared to asylum seekers, and health and hospitals (for women).
Watching Gillard’s resignation speech live, I was very impressed, and remember thinking where has this version of Julia Gillard been? She was articulate, honest, insightful and lead us. She shaped a narrative and changed the community’s understanding and view of an issue – at least incrementally.
Referencing her gender in her resignation speech Gillard said “It doesn’t explain everything, it doesn’t explain nothing, it explains some things. And it is for the nation to think in a sophisticated way about those shades of grey.”
When people want to say Abbott has “a problem with women voters” they need to consider the voters weighting of the “economy”. It doesn’t explain everything, it doesn’t explain nothing, it explains some things. And it is for the nation to think in a sophisticated way about those shades of grey.
For those who will write the history and of Gillard’s Prime Ministership I hope they weight her resignation speech far more highly than the misogyny speech, in understanding her contribution to Australian public life.