There’s an excellent post over at stoush.net by arleeshar on the way perceptions of Rudd/Gillard are being filtered through a gender/sexual politics lens.
<img src="http://larvatusprodeo.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/ruddgillard.jpg"
The Team basked in the glow of approval, Rudd repeating his âbucketloadâ? soundbytes ad nauseum and Gillard looking competent and compliant, and thus they were slightly wrongfooted when at the end of the interview Lisa Wilkinson said something like:âWell, the two of you have very strong body language. You look very comfortable togetherâ?,
leaving Rudd and Gillard looking slightly embarrassed, like two daggy divorcees caught snogging by their teenaged children.
This is an emerging issue for the two, who are increasingly presenting themselves using the same language, imagery and tactics as the dynamic husband-wife team who run the local Lions Club, yet are seeking to distance themselves from the sexual implications of such a partnership. An incident with the press in Brisbane revealed that they are very conscious of the implications of these tactics:
“This show of solidarity did not extend to a photo with their arms around each other. âWeâve both got partners we have to respect,â? Mr Rudd explained.”
Thereâs that one photo that keeps popping up even at this early stage, the same photo taken in a variety of locations and contexts, of Gillard and Rudd on the hustings, body language of a couple of 20 years, laughing like theyâve just won lotto. Heâs speaking about her abilities with husbandly respect and affection, while she demurely smiles and deflects most questions for âKevinâ? to answer with authority, showing him off in his best light. Itâs almost Brady in its perfection, and theyâre trying to make it Brady in its sexlessness.
Much of the impetus for this of course stems from Gillardâs gender â she is the one under the spotlight here, not so much Rudd – but it also stems from the perception that Gillard is more talented than Rudd and, while playing a supportive figure, she would be the driving force behind any popularity that the team might be able to drum up. The scrutiny she faces is linked to her power, and to the way Gillard would approach a role as deputy leader.
It’s the hair.
I want to have babies with her.
Well I would, if I wasn’t gay.
But I despise sexualising politics.
It’s so American.
I’ll say one thing about Rudd, he’s an arsehole but very clever. Alone, he’d never make it as an party leader. He’s too stiff and smug. But in combination with Gillard, he’s a winner.
But its all about their looks, m’dear.
It has somethings to do with their opponent, Bom Boms…
Aaah well, he’s a man, she’s a woman; the sexual psychobabble is inevitable.
Are Beazley and Macklin not virile enough a combination to evoke the same images?
Sexualising politics is usually a problem for women. Enough already.
The other obvious analysis is that Gillard will be waiting to topple Rudd at some point in the near future.
I think the word “sexualising” is a problem as my comment is awaiting moderation.
What if I said…f**k.
“Are Beazley and Macklin not virile enough a combination to evoke the same images?”
They might be but since it was very very rare to see Macklin, let alone the two of them together, how would anyone ever know.