When the political media gets confused, its usual step is to imagine another world, and we saw a fair bit of that this week.
Firstly we had the situation of Palmer United Party (PUP) Senator, Jacqui Lambie, in an FM radio interview joking any prospective suitor “must have heaps of cash and they’ve got to have a package between their legs”.
Many, usually sensible journalists, thought the appropriate response was to imagine the reaction if a man had said something similar – such as his saying he wanted a woman with “massive boobs” .
It’s not surprising that this need for imagination was spurred on by a PUP Senator because let's face it - most of the press gallery have no idea how to cover them. Any derivation from the nice two party system often leads to an awkward lack of understanding.
Senator Lambie has nothing to apologise for. If the best you can do to be outraged is say “imagine if a man said it” and cry “double standards” what it really means is you are not actually offended by what she said.
It’s why, when writing about the Greens over the past 6 years, many journalists just imagined that the Greens were the Democrats and then imagined when Bob Brown left that the Greens would disintegrate amidst massive in-fighting.
I guess Lee Rhiannon is just playing the long game ...
With PUP it’s even worse. One member of the press gallery was so outraged he took to bleating that democracy was effectively to blame and the voters had got it wrong.
So true! How dare voters stray from the two main parties!
While the shift from the easy two-party system might cause some journalists to despair, it didn’t excuse the descent to stupidity we saw with the response to Senator Lambie’s comments.
“Imagine if a man said it”? Okay, sounds good.
But while we’re at it, can we also imagine a world where a man’s physical appearance is a hindrance to his career? Or how about we imagine a world where purely being a woman is not a disadvantage for those seeking power in business, politics or the media - or just about any other field.
But hey, let's not stop there. Can we also imagine a world where a woman’s breast size does not for some people suggest a lack of intelligence or competence? (“Jill, if you really want to be taken seriously you should try not to show any cleavage while at work.”)
First though, can we pause and take a moment to mourn the careers of men whose large penis has stopped their rise to the top. (“John, if you really want to be taken seriously...”)
While we’re at it, imagine a single male politician being asked about his ideal partner.
Oh, wait. No, that doesn’t happen.
Cripes people, this is basic stuff.
Having a big dick is not only not viewed as a negative, but many as a positive – and not just “in the bedroom”, but in the boardroom. There’s a reason why the phrase “big swinging dicks” exists. It came from the book Liar’s Poker about successful men on Wall Street – men who were so successful, in the words of Michael Lewis, they “became that most revered of all species: a Big Swinging Dick”.
Imagine if a man said it? It's like reporting on a rugby game by writing, “imagine if an AFL player threw the ball like that”.
The rules are different.
If you think the rules aren’t different, imagine - since we’re in fantasyland now - the reaction if a senior female politician was photographed in a bikini like Tony Abbot is in his Speedos.
Senator Lambie has nothing to apologise for. If the best you can do to be outraged is say “imagine if a man said it” and cry “double standards” what it really means is you are not actually offended by what she said.
Double standards? Yes, because the entire system operates under a double standard.
Senator Lambie does not need to maintain any press-gallery defined standards about what a politician must do or say. If the voters don’t like what she says or does, they will not vote for her next time; if they do, they will.
Welcome to democracy.
The other bit of imagination this week was that somehow Tony Abbott has turned a corner and become a true leader in the wake of his reaction to the MH17 crash.
Now, I thought the tone of his response to the crash was good – Australians had a right to be angry, especially given the disingenuous response from the Russian government. Let’s not pretend he jumped the gun by blaming the Russian separatists. They did it. Everyone knew that was the case. There was no need to be wishy-washy about it.
But this wasn’t Tony Abbott reinventing himself. This was Tony Abbot, the ultra-masculine male who thinks every debate or contest is a test of strength, for once finding himself in a situation where that persona was fit for the purpose.
Even while his poll numbers (for all that matters) will likely go up, it won’t change the way anyone really thinks about him because his response just reinforced his own image. It’s just that this week for the first time ever that image was a positive.
But even by mid-week his persona betrayed him when he overreached by giving the response a militaristic taint and calling it “Operation Bring them Home”.
We are not at war. This was not 9/11. Not even the most stupid commentators are suggesting the separatists planned to shoot down the plane.
Yes, it was a crime; but it was not terrorism. It was the murder of innocent people in a war zone due to gross incompetence, reckless indifference and wilful negligence on behalf of those who both shot the missile and those who allowed those weapons to be in such people’s hands. And they should be held to account.
But 9/11 changed the way people thought about the world. If we are honest with ourselves, despite the events being unspeakably horrific for the family and friends of the victims, the most this tragedy will mean for many is a change to the airline they choose to book when flying to Europe.
Those who imagine this will change the way people think about Abbott are like the commentators who imagined Abbott would “flick the switch to positive” in 2010, or 2011, or 2012, or 2013 ...
Perhaps we should stick with reality, rather than imagining what might be.
