Do you think men and women are still assigned gender roles in Australia or are they now

interchangeable? Consider this question with specific reference to the following article:

Summers, A. (2007) “Labor's women of power turn a page in politics”,

Sydney Morning Herald, 21 December 2007.

Throughout history, there have been many records of gender roles dictating the position of
men and women in society. Particularly in Australia, the political landscape is a largely male-
dominated system, with women emerging only recently as prominent political figures. This
suggests that positions in the workforce are moving away from a gendered structure, however
discursive ideologies on gender roles means the maintenance of a psychosocial assigning that
prohibits the interchanging of gender roles. There are expectations on what career people
should pursue and how the family is stabilised. Gender governs how a relationship develops,
and there is still a strong encouragement for a dominant male to partner a submissive female
while homosexual relationships are often stereotyped and categorised in the opposite gender
(gays being effeminate and lesbians being ‘butch’). Gender and gender roles are, on the
surface, interchangeable (and increasingly so in contemporary times), but it is limited by pre-
idealised systems.

One of the largest gender role changes is the advent of women in prominent positions in
politics. The election of the Rudd government in 2007 brought with it four female cabinet
members, who not only displayed political ambition, but a strong sense of motherhood
(Summers, 2007), which proved that political feminism did not have to be based on the type
of misandry that the New Zealand government promoted, where men became ‘responsible for
all evil’ and marriage is simply ‘female enslavement’ (Stuart, 2003). The emphasis was on
the paid workforce, and ‘minimis[ing] time away from childbirth and parenting’. There is an
identity crisis (Webster, 2002) that relates to the New Zealand government’s Action Act of
2003, in that women in positions political power are breaking gender conventions- and so
must display appropriate feministic viewpoints. It is the result of the rejection of the
sex/gender distinction that, Webster notes, is the reason for narrow-minded feminism.

Stuart disagrees with the Action Act, noting that political feminism is not representative in the
number of women in spotlight positions, ‘but the results of the decisions they are making’
(Stuart, 2003). In the new Australian 2007 government, the female cabinet ministers were
given the positions of the most contemporary media-publicised issues- Climate change,
Education, Employment, Health and Indigenous Affairs. The notion that these women are not
only tackling the “big issues”, but also are committed mothers sends a ‘powerful signal’
(Summers, 2007) to the general population- that women are more than capable of surviving
in perceptually what is still a male-dominated society, without the need to burn men at the
stake.
But despite the flourishing of females in the public sphere, it is in the local social sector that
evidence of discrimination and male dominance is strongest. Amanda Keddie’s article (2007)
on sexual harassment in schools noted the relationship with masculinity and the
objectification of women in the education system. Using a case study of an all boys Catholic
school, the subject was a young female teacher that experienced power struggles between
herself and the male students of her class, particularly the older grades. In the school, sport is
highly valued and was a definition of the elite students. Masculinity is developed and
modelled on a daily basis without the input of femininity, apart from the small percentage of
female teachers.

There was an incident that Sally, the teacher, saw as the epitome of her harassment. She was
sent sexually explicit emails that objectified her and undermined her ‘institutional authority
as [an] adult and teacher’ (Keddie, 2007). Sally noted that her daily ‘run-ins’ with the
students often centred around her dismissal, and in one case it was only the intervention of
the male deputy head that had an effect on the student’s attitude. However, Keddie notes that
it is also Sally’s mentality that contributes to this. She is conscious of her appearance, and
attempts to integrate feminist interpretations as part of her English course content. She
blamed herself for the email incident, reflecting that she should have been ‘more careful
about what she wore’. Katy Richmond (1996) explains that gender identity is socially
constructed, and that the discursive ideologies of gender roles shape not only how we
develop, but how those around us develop. Dalley-Trim (2006) suggests that a ‘recognisable
masculine identity’ is constructed by the preconceptions of elemental maleness, the idea that
‘boys will be boys’ and it is the intersection of the male with the female that provides the
patriarchal hegemony in schools.

Essentially, boys are boys because girls are girls, and ‘training’ of these roles is ‘learnt in the
context of specific social environments’ (Richmond, 1996). The boys at Sally’s school
constructed their masculinity as aggressive because that was part of the ‘training’ they
underwent. They reflected their society, where the strong sexual male holds the dominant
position of the relationship. Anne Manne (2006) blames the ‘porno-isation’ of western
society and increasing sexualisation of teens.

The subjectification of women has always been a feature of pornography. But as the images
and situations become more “hardcore”, a desensitisation on these images and situations
occur:

Anal sex was seen as something most women don't want; it had an edge to
it. When anal sex became routine in pornography, the gonzo genre started
pushing the boundaries into things like double-penetrations and gag-
inducing oral sex – again, acts that men believe women generally will not
want. The more pornography becomes normalized and mainstreamed, the
 more pornography has to search for that edge. And that edge most
commonly is cruelty.
-Robert Jensen, cited in Manne, 2006.

It is the idea that women are just ‘three holes and two hands’ (Jensen, cited in Manne, 2006)
that emphasises the submissive female to partner a dominant male. Essentially, society (and
the increasing accessibility to pornographic material) shapes society in forming sexual
gendered beings.

It is crucial in the development of masculinity and femininity. Sexual dynamics (such as the
power struggle experience at Sally’s school) feature as defining maleness and the
accompanying femaleness. One way to analyse this is through Children’s Literature. Fiction
has generally been a medium of social commentating, and a reflection of discursive
ideologies. Naarah Sawers (2008) states that:

Understanding sexual difference and sexuality is always a priority in such

acculturation, and a significant aspect of children’s texts is their function
as a template for gender formation.

In particular, David Almond’s novels Skellig (1998) and Clay (2005) highlight the defining
of maleness through social and sexual dominance. In Skellig, Michael’s character needs to
assert his status with his father and achieve ‘hetero-normative success’ (Sawers, 2008).
Skellig, the humanoid creature in the shed is, in Sawers words, ‘ontologically uncertain’. He
represents the uncertainties in Michaels life: life, death, religion, age and truth. He is
everything that prevents Michael from becoming a strong, socially assertive male, and it is
only after Skellig leaves that Michael is emotionally free from his burdens.

The character of Mina serves as the key to this achievement. Mina is an intelligent, assertive
female, unafraid to challenge Michael’s masculinity. Mina is sensual bordering on sexual,
and takes control of Skellig, to the point where Michael realises he ‘had to rely on Mina’
(Skellig, p122) in order to see Skellig. He also relies on Mina for sexual experience, and their
encounters grow in intensity until Michael’s initial ‘stunned silence’ (p43) transforms into a
full sexual identity, and Mina becomes the submissive reliant partner, tentative and
vulnerable and seeking reassurance (p121). Almond challenges gender roles- the power
dynamics of the novel’s psychosocial characterisations are formed against one another.
Michael’s sensitivity and pre-oedipal insecurities are juxtaposed against Mina’s feministic
authority. It is the reversal of this that allows Michael to excel in his masculinity- his football
performance is better and he and his father develop a respectful relationship.

Skellig ‘relies on the submission of the powerful female’ (Sawers, 2008) in achieving social
normative status. While initially the gender roles are more reflective of un-stereotyped
hegemony both socially and sexually, the novel’s resolution resides in patriarchal dominance.
So does Clay (2005), though in a different form. Clay identifies homosexuality as a threat to
the social and sexual development of masculinity. Sawers suggests Clay relies on ‘the
expulsion of queerness’ in order to overcome the emasculation that protagonist Davie
undergoes by Stephen. Almond uses the golem (aptly named Clay) to demonstrate the
construction of masculinities, as Stephen attempts to form Davie into a suitable companion.

Like Michael, Davie needs to ascertain his role according to his gender. He begins as an
uncertain character, who’s actions reflect a need to fit in, and not his true identity (Sawers,
2008). Stephen asks him ‘you tell lies, Davie, don’t you?’ (p56) in response to an initial
question about his future. Davie seems to be the only person who is uncertain in himself.
Stephen plays on this- he challenges Davie to think and imagine, and forces Davie to rely on
him in order to understand himself. Stephen’s strange power is dangerous and alluring, and
Davie struggles with the acceptance of reality from illusion and Stephen’s seduction. He is
unable to break away from Stephen, and the novel reflects the shift in control- where Davie
once imagined Stephen saying ‘let me make you… you’re mine’ (p75-76), physical closeness
then prevails, with Stephen often stroking Davie’s face and at one point in time, kissing him.

Davie is offered a way out through Maria’s interest. His previous attempts to engage in a pre-
sexual relationship with her is thwarted by either his own insecurities, or Stephen’s
burgeoning control. Maria is a way for Davie to identify with the normal sense of
masculinity- despite her initial assertiveness in pursuing Davie, she represents the submissive
female that Davie needs. Maria is quick to fall back into her gender role, waiting for Davie to
make the next move and remaining content to follow him, unlike Michael’s Mina. As Davie
‘reassert[s] himself within this space as a mature masculine subject’, Sawers (2008) notes, he
gains ‘[an] ability to forge ahead in his relationship with Maria’. As Davie says:

As we kissed I began to forget Stephen Rose and Mouldy …it was like
Maria was some kind of guardian.
-Clay, 2005. p280.

Davie’s transformation into a hetero-normative subject is complete only after he rejects

homosexuality, destroys the perverse illusion of masculinity (represented by Clay), embraces
Maria as his sexual partner and confronts the three primary authoritative figures in his life
(police, parents and the church). Davie’s role is fulfilled as Michael’s is- as a fully developed
social masculine being, that engages in the subconscious ideology of male gender roles.

It is not logical to categorise Australia as a separate entity when referring to gender roles.
Popular media enables texts such as book, television and film to influence and mediate
Australian discursive ideologies. Gender roles transcend politics and political boundaries.
Ideologies permeate the development of teenagers in forming sexual and social identities.
They govern career paths and underlie discriminatory campaigns. Gender roles are reflected
in what clothes are worn and what music is most appropriate. As Richmond (1996) notes:

Gender roles are social constructions framed around social constructions

of biology, and these sets of social constructions- although connected in
diverse ways- are always in flux and differ from one social context to
another.

It is not a matter of a “clear-cut” identity. Gender roles are designed to reflect the time and
space in which they are viewed, which in itself is a construction of various times and spaces
simultaneously. Those individuals that do challenge major gender roles- whether it be
through sexuality or career or political positioning- still remain a minority, a sub-culture of
self-contained confident individuality. However, gender roles are not set, and it is becoming
increasingly apparent that social acceptance of these sorts of challenges to gender roles are
indicators of the malleable nature of these roles. Yet they can not be wholly interchangeable
while social ideologies and stigma still exist.
References:

Almond, D. (1998) Skellig. New York, Random House.

Almond, D. (2006) Clay. Suffolk, Hodder Children’s Books.

Dalley-Trim, L. (2006). 'Just boys being boys'? [By constructing themselves as identifiably
masculine subjects, boys engage in a sophisticated set of performance practices.]
[online]. Youth Studies Australia, v.25, no.3.

Keddie A. (2007). Issues of power, masculinity, and gender justice : Sally's story of teaching
boys. [online]. Discourse; v.28 n.1 pp.21-35.

Richmond, K. (1996). ‘The gendered self’, Social Self, Global Culture: An Introduction to
Sociological Ideas, A. Kellehear (ed). Melbourne, Oxford University Press, pp22-33.

Sawers, N. (2008). ‘You Molded Me Like Clay’: David Almond's Sexualised Monsters
[online]. Papers: Explorations into Children's Literature; Volume 18, Issue 1; pp20-
29

Stuart, A. (2003). ‘Big sister: is New Zealand the first feminist state?’ [online]. Policy (St
Leonards, NSW), v.19, no.2, pp15-20.

Summers, A. (2007) “Labor's women of power turn a page in politics”, Sydney Morning
Herald, 21 December, 2007

Webster, F. (2002). Do bodies matter? sex, gender and politics [online]. Australian Feminist
Studies, v.17, no.38, pp191-205.