Masculinity is a concept which has dominated the realm of Australian politics since Federation, and continues to plague Australian political institutions, shaping their societal mores, hierarchies, and power dynamics. The very foundation of political institutions derives from the notion(s) of hetero, hegemonic, and hyper masculinity. This only acts to disempower, disadvantage, and injure minorities – namely women and queer individuals – who fail to meet the standards of western masculine ideologies. This paper will delve into these ideas further and emphasise how masculinity’s influence over Australian political institutions, molds its structure and hence, creates an environment which is not made nor suitable for the less masculine bodies. It will speak on how these structures actively exclude women from political institutions and creates barriers to entries, sustaining political power in the hands of more men and less women. Additionally, masculinity creates a certain corporate culture and social normalities within political establishments which empowers the white cis-male, hegemonic, and hypermasculine body. This is achieved through gendered leadership positions, gendered discourse, and overall romanticism of masculine traits and qualities in leaders. These social mores which favour masculinity, acts to deter, and disadvantage women and queer individuals from politics, creating a power dynamic between them and the ‘all-mighty’ man. Given this, greater awareness on masculinity’s role in political institutions is needed when looking at these institutions’ structures, hierarchies, dynamics of power, and social mores. To address the challenges in which masculinity brings to these institutions, political parties should continue to advocate for greater representation, and achieve this representation through gender quotas.
Before this paper begins, it is important to note what masculinity means, and what is meant by hegemonic and hypermasculinity. Masculinity, as explained and defined by Connell, cannot simply be defined “as an object (a natural character type, a behavioural average, a norm)” (Connell 2005: 71). Instead, it needs to be defined as “the practices through which men and women engage that place in gender, the effects of these practices in bodily experience, personality and culture.” (Ibid) Hegemonic masculinity is a type of masculinity, which upholds a dominant position over the subordinate, namely women and queer individuals. It consists of male domination (Smith 2013: 862) and is an “idealised version of masculinity [which is in] opposition to [the] ‘other’ subordinate masculinities [and] femininities.” (Crawford and Pini 2011: 86) Lastly, hypermasculinity is the strong condonement of stereotypical masculine ideals, traits, and interests. It “reflects extreme respondent endorsements of stereotypic gender role expectancies associated with calloused attitudes towards individuals who are perceived as being weak and disempowered”(Matson, et al., 2019: 370). When this paper speaks on romanticising, endorsing, and preserving ‘the masculine’ within political institutions, it is speaking on preserving the cis, white, heterosexual, hegemonic and hypermasculine man – this will be referred to as the ‘all-mighty man’ from this point onwards. While this paper mostly speaks on Australian parliament and how masculinity affects women in these institutions, masculinity also plagues other government institutions and can affect a wide range of individuals and minorities.
Australian political institutions prioritise the masculine as they were built for the all-mighty man, by the all-mighty man. The creation of Australian political institutions, especially federal parliament, is a gendered organisation which prioritises the masculine, as it consists of the historic exclusion of the feminine. “Australian women have not been represented with such vigour in Australian constitutional law”(Cass and Rubenstein 2021: 182), nor in the political arena, as there is a “historical exclusion of women”(Ibid) within politics. For, despite Australia’s introduction to equal federal suffrage for the sexes in 1902, the first woman was elected to parliament in 1943 (Tassell 1981: 335), and it wasn’t until 1974 when these women were granted toilets in their parliamentary offices. The lack of women in parliament for 41 years, and the omission of toilets for women within parliament, emphasises how parliament was quite literally not made nor designed for women. “Women have historically been excluded from … political life” (Australian Rights Commission 2022) and parliamentary bodies, for “parliament is [a] gendered [and] masculine space”(Crawford and Pini 2010: 612). This lack of women in politics, results in a space which only considers the all-mighty man. Masculine interests are favoured in politics, as these institutions are deprived of women, and therefore, do not consider women in their processes. Instead, the lack of women and domination of “men produce[s] and reproduce[s] a kind of masculinity [to develop a] particular kind of masculinity culture, which is used to justify the exclusion of women.”(Clarsen 2019: 35) Therefore, parliament does not consider the interests of women as they are not in this space. This is a result of the historic exclusion of women, where the domination of men sustains a masculine culture; parliament’s focus remains with the masculine.
Additionally, this historic rejection of women has created a power dynamic between men and women in parliament; the lack of women has placed power in the hands of men. Parliament continues to remain a gendered organisation (Acker 1990), where “masculine principles dominat[e its] authori[al] structure” (Kanter 1977, 46). It has only ever operated with the all-mighty man, is dominated by the all-mighty man, and thus, favours the all-mighty man. Crawford explains this further, and states that politics is “dominated by men [and] the structures of power that were established within them … ha[ve] been entrenched by men.” (Crawford and Pini citing Hearn and Parkin 2007: 7) Crawford continues, and underlines that “[w]omen whom [were] ‘late entries’ to the institution found themselves excluded or concentrated at the bottom of these political structures.”(Ibid) In addition, the lack of women in these spaces excludes them from “positions of power” (Lovenduski 2005: 2), allocating all political power to the men. Women who enter this realm are, therefore, susceptible to this power dynamic due to their late entry – which was inevitable given the historic exclusion of women. Hence, Australian federal parliament’s focus on the masculine, shapes its gendered hierarchy and power dynamics, where the historic exclusion of women allocates all political power to the all-mighty man.
This masculinised space develops a barrier to entry for not only women, but to queer individuals who want to take part in the political space. Much like women, individuals from the LGBTQI+ community also face barriers to entry, when entering Australian political institutions. This is because they too, deviate from the all-mighty man. The hypermasculine “male norm [of politics] perpet[rates] the exclusion of gendered identities that are not aligned with hegemonic masculinity.” (Jansens 2019: 203) Moreover, “[f]or decades, politicians supported conservative views” (Acker 2020: 307) which were against queer individuals, as these individuals threatened the ‘sanctity of marriage’ and did not align with the traditional views of parliament. The “hegemonic heterosexuality in Australian culture [and politics] is antagonism to gay men”(Connell 2005: 133), as this culture perceives gay men, as men who “lack masculinity.” (Connell 2005: 143) This ‘lack of masculinity’ amongst these men, deters parties and politicians from publicly supporting LGBTQI+ individuals, out of fear of judgment from their peers and followers. In addition, “politicians on both sides of parliament tended to relegate homosexuality to a matter of ‘private’ morality.”(Arrow, 61) Homosexuals were “perceived as immoral and criminal” (Acker 2020: 307), and as such, they were not publicly supported by politicians.
Unfortunately, this stigma continues today, where LGBTQI+ individuals are subjected to political homophobia. This homophobia is evident in the lack of support for homosexual individuals, and endorsement of hateful messages against the queer community. Revell elaborates on this point further and highlights how Scott Morrison “supported and endorsed Liberal candidates who had spread hateful messages about trans people.”(Revell 2023) Morrison also “refused to ban faith schools from expelling and firing queer students and teachers on the basis of their gender identity or sexuality.”(Ibid) This encapsulates the homophobic nature of Australian political institutions, which perpetuates homophobia. This political homophobia is utilised as a political tool, a “populist tool” (Unal 2024: 3), to maintain its conservative and masculine environment. This creates a barrier to entry for queer people who wish to enter Australian politics, as it deters them from entering Australian political institutions.
In addition, parliamentary masculinities reinforce gendered treatment and attitudes towards women who wish to take part in the political process. This further deters women from entering politics. “[I]n a … pre-selection process, a woman candidate with a young family was told to ‘go home and raise your family first’.” (Crawford and Pini 2011: 90) This acknowledgement from a senior Coalition member, highlights the criticism and sexist attitudes women face when entering the realm of Australian politics – all of which is driven by the masculine normalities in which these institutions uphold. Additionally, there is a “double-standard” (Crawford and Pini 2007: 8) where male candidates are “never … questioned about the care of his children” (Ibid). By contrast, female candidates lose support for not fulfilling their ‘role’ as a “nursing … mum at home” (Ibid). Victorian liberals are even “reluctant to accept women into their inner sanctums” (White 1981: 36) and ask “women candidates (and only women candidates) … about their martial and parental status” (Sawer 2013: 106-108).This underscores the difference in treatment between men and women in this political space, further underpinning the gendered norms masculinity brings into these institutions. This degree of asymmetric treatment between the sexes, deters women from entering political positions.
Furthermore, the toxic masculinity in parliament, paints Australian parliament as a patriarchal boys’ club, whose romanticism of the masculine has created a space which condones the mistreatment of women. In Australian political institutions, women are constantly analysed, criticised, scrutinised, and mistreated, due to masculine social norms. “Australian parliaments have hardly been welcoming for women” (Sawer 2013: 111) and thus, disrespect them as a result. As outlined by Sawer, “female politicians [are] subjected to more personal criticism than male politicians.”(Sawer 2013: 113) This is because the masculine ideals within political institutions, shape the social mores in which favours the all-mighty man. These masculinities drive the mistreatment of women in politics, where they have fallen victim to sexual assault, where Brittany Higgins has claimed that she was raped, and masturbatory acts, where a male MP had performed a solo sex act on a female member’s desk. An act which was filmed and shared amongst other male MPs as a ‘joke’. The all-mighty man is not subjected to this mistreatment, for the societal norms in parliament respects and honours the masculine. The toxic-masculinity within this political atmosphere, creates a hostile place for women, whilst simultaneously creating a political playground for the all-mighty man. This mistreatment, criticism, and overall “violence against women in politics is … a significant barrier to women’s political participation.” (Krook 2019: 77) These barriers to entry exist, for women and other individuals who fail to meet the standards of the all-mighty man, challenge the status quo in political institutions. These bodies challenge political institutions’ culture, which is driven by hegemonic and hypermasculine norms and interests. Hence, parliament’s well-entrenched masculine mores, creates a space which condones the mistreatment of women, as they challenge the masculine norms within political institutions.
However, while these barriers to entry arise due to the priority of the masculine, when women eventually enter these spaces, they are nonetheless subjected to gendered roles. Political masculinities and normalities, allocate women into ‘feminine’ positions and men into ‘masculine’ positions; these are the expectations of political institutions. Crawford and Pini outline that in Australian politics, “women have … most often been assigned to portfolios associated with normative definitions of femininity.” (Crawford and Pini 2011: 90) Hence, they are allocated into “‘nurturing portfolios’ such as health, education and welfare.” (Ibid) By contrast, men are granted portfolios with greater “political responsibility and masculinity … because of their biology” (Ibid) – this is a view upheld by a senior Coalition member, and thus, becomes representative of the gendered nature in parliament. This distinction of gender roles creates and “sustains asymmetrical gendered power relations”(Ibid), where women do not have “automatic access to the male power that underpinned political … decision-making.” (Acker 2020: 301). This is elucidated in the roles men and women play in Cabinet, where women are most likely a part of the outer cabinet, which has little decision-making power. Instead, “policy is increasingly made by the inner Cabinet” (Ibid) which is dominated and operated by the all-mighty man. Ultimately, the masculine ideals and gendered perspectives in Australian politics, categorises politicians, and assigns them into gendered roles. This creates a gendered power dynamic and hierarchy, where men are granted traditionally masculine roles and roles of power. Conversely, women are given ‘nurturing’ portfolios, and support roles, which lack decision-making and political power.
This is further reinforced in the gendered discourse within political bodies, where masculinity shapes the perception of leadership and what makes a strong leader. This is constituted through the all-mighty man who exhibits ‘masculine’ traits. “Gender [is] becoming central to the construction of the Prime Minister” (Sawer 2013: 113), this is evident in the sexist treatment endured by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who “was delegitimised as a leader by virtue of being a woman leader.” (Holland and Wright 2017: 589) Gillard’s role as the Prime Minister, challenged the gendered roles within Australian politics, subjecting her to cruelty and misogyny. She was frowned upon as a leader, for the “ masculine-typed qualities [are] more synonymous with (political) leadership.” (Holland and Wright 2017: 590) The gendered norms and nature in political institutions, deems positions of power as masculine. “Power … is vested in men and … their behaviours” (Crawford and Pini citing Martin and Collinson 2007: 258) In political institutions, power is “granted to those who conform and sustain the dominant masculine practices … they also become symbols of the power they represent.” (Ibid) Therefore, the all-mighty man becomes a symbol of power, where masculinities form the standards for positions of power and shape the power dynamics within Australian political institutions. This explains the critique on Gillard, who faced sexist comments and fell victim to misogynistic media, who judged her for her looks, marital status, and lack of children. “[T]hese media representations replicated what [Gillard] experienced during her time as deputy opposition leader [and eventually] became increasingly hostile and visceral” (Fenna 2021: 231), until she was inevitably replaced by Rudd in 2013. Henceforth, Australian political institutions exercise their masculine ideals and normalities through gendered discourse, where leadership positions are portrayed as a masculine role; condemning women who enter such roles of power.
To address the ramifications masculinity brings to these organisations, political parties need to continue advocating for greater representation for women. They can achieve this through gender quotas. “Women do not have the authority to manage the cultural norms … that the traditional culture of masculinity embeds.” (Acker 2020: 306) This is because women cannot change a culture to which they are actively excluded from. Given this, quotas are needed to increase the number of women within political institutions. The presence of women in these institutions, challenges the masculinised culture, which arose due to the domination and preservation of the all-mighty man. However, while these quotas can increase the numerical representation of women in political institutions, this does not necessarily “increase the role of women in decision-making” (Sawer 2013: 108). Indeed, to erode the gendered power dynamics and hierarchies within Australian politics, women also need to play a more active role in decision making. Therefore, while gender quotas are important, political parties also need to ensure that women are placed in roles which allow them to take part in the political process. Greater representation is needed in both a numerical and substantial sense, to adequately target the cruelty masculinities bring to political institutions.
As a result, masculinities shape the power dynamics, hierarchical structure, and societal normalities within Australian political institutions. The masculinities evident within political institutions, acts to disadvantage both queer individuals and women, excluding them from the political process. Additionally, it subjects women to criticism, misogyny, and mistreatment. These gendered norms place men and women into gendered roles, assigning women into subordinate roles if they enter this masculinised space, and condemning them if they enter a role which is perceived to be ‘masculine’. To combat the problems in which these masculinities bring, political parties need to continue advocating for gender equality and increasing women’s representation within these institutions. Greater representation, in both a numerical (through quotas) and substantive (allocating women into roles with greater political power) sense, can reduce the all-mighty man’s domination and allow women to take part in the political process.
Reference List:
Acker, E.V. (2020). 'Gender and Sexuality in Australian Politics', in The Oxford Handbook of Australian Politics, pp. 301-307, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198805465.013.18
Acker, J. (1990). 'Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations', Gender & Society, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 139–158, https://doi.org/10.1177/089124390004002002.
AHRC (Australian Human Rights Commission) (2022) 'Women’s Rights', accessed 14 May 2024, https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/education/womens-rights.
Arrow, M. (2019). The Seventies: The Personal, The Political, and The Making of Modern Australia, NewSouth Publishing, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/monash/detail.action?docID=5735459.
Cass, D., & Rubenstein, K. (2021). 'Representations of Women in the Australian Constitutional System', Traversing the Divide: Honouring Deborah Cass’s Contributions to Public and International Law, ANU Press, pp. 179–226, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1j9mjhx.16.
Clarsen, G. (2019). 'Of Girls and Spanners: Feminist Politics, Women’s Bodies and the Male Trades', Everyday Revolutions: Remaking Gender, Sexuality and Culture in 1970s Australia, ANU Press, pp. 23–36, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvq4c17c.5.
Connell, R.W. (2005) Masculinities, 2nd edn, Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003116479.
Crawford, M.C., & Pini, B.M. (2010). 'Gender Equality in National Politics: The Views of Australian Male Politicians', Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 605-621, https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2010.517177.
Crawford, M.C., & Pini, B.M. (2011). 'The Australian Parliament: A Gendered Organisation', Parliamentary Affairs, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 82-105, https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsq047.
Crawford, M.C., & Pini, B.M. (2007). 'Beyond Women and Politics: Man, Masculinities and the Australian Parliament', Proceedings Australasian Political Studies Association (APSA) Annual Conference, pp. 1-19, https://eprints.qut.edu.au/12424/.
Fenna, A. (2021). Australian Government and Politics, 1st edn, Pearson.
Holland, J., & Wright, K.A.M. (2017). 'The Double Delegitimisation of Julia Gillard: Gender, the Media, and Australian Political Culture', Australian Journal of Politics and History, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 588-602, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajph.12405.
Jansens, F. (2019). 'Suit of Power: Fashion, Politics, and Hegemonic Masculinity in Australia', Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 202-218, https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2019.1567677.
Johnson, C. (2015). 'Playing the Gender Card: The Uses and Abuses of Gender in Australian Politics', Politics & Gender, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 291-319, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-gender/article/abs/playing-the-gender-card-the-uses-and-abuses-of-gender-in-australian-politics/5A4A1A09CE91F42CFEA38B974A064D34.
Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books, New York.
Krook, M.L. (2019). 'Global Feminist Collaborations and the Concept of Violence Against Women in Politics', Journal of International Affairs, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 77–94, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26760833.
Lovenduski, J. (2005). 'Introduction: state feminism and the political representation of women', in State Feminism and Political Representation, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490996.002.
Marian, S. (2013). 'Misogyny and Misrepresentation', Political Science, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 105-117, https://doi.org/10.1177/0032318713488316.
Matson, K., Russell, T.D., & King, A.R. (2019). 'Gun Enthusiasm, Hypermasculinity, Manhood Honor, and Lifetime Aggression', Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 369-383, https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2017.1420722.
Revell, J. (2023). 'Where We Need to Go: The Future of LGBTQIA+ Rights in Australia', The Latch, accessed 15 May 2024, https://thelatch.com.au/gay-rights-in-australia-2023/.
Smith, L. (2013). 'Trading in gender for women in trades: embodying hegemonic masculinity, femininity and being a gender hotrod', Construction Management and Economics, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 861-873, https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2013.833339.
Tassell, G.L.V. (1981). 'Recruitment of Women in Australian National Politics: A Research Note', The Australian Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 334–42, https://doi.org/10.2307/20635131.
Unal, D. (2024). 'Political Homophobia as a Tool of Creating Crisis Narratives and Ontological Insecurities in Illiberal Populist Contexts: Lessons from the 2023 Elections in Turkey', New Perspectives on Turkey, vol. 2024, pp. 1–22, https://doi.org/10.1017/npt.2024.4.
White, K. (1981). 'Women and Party Politics in Australia', The Australian Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 29–39, https://doi.org/10.2307/20635101.
Comments