The women who represent us

Last week in Canberra was sad. It was the last sitting week for a number of brilliant women who have been representing us in the senate. Most high profile was, of course, Natasha Stott Despoja. I'm one of those women who was too young to take in just how important her entry into parliament and her rise to leader of the Democrats was. As I grew older, I started to understand. The more I've worked in and around politics, the more awe I have for what she has achieved. I know that she was one of the elements of my education in feminism; in what we as women were excluded from and were starting to force our way into. In what we were told was there for us to take, but somehow always dangled out of our reach, made inaccessible by a system (call in that dreaded patriarchy if you must) that pretended to welcome us but held us at arms length for as long as possible.

In Natasha I saw someone who refused to compromise or change who they were to conform to an idea of what a Senator should be. She didn't wear those famous boots to make a point, she wore them because that's what she wore. Why should it change? She was voted for them wearing them, she could do her job wearing them. As she developed as a politician, a representative, a woman, grew older, her style changed. By that I mean she grew as a legislator and person. I do not mean, as many do when they speak about her "development", that she stopped wearing boots and dressed more conservatively. I mean she took to this new chapter of her life and she kept living it honestly. She was still outspoken, she wasn't compromised in underhanded and meaningless political games, she took on her responsibilities and it changed her. She stayed honest about those changes, kept developing as our representative and got on with a lot of hard work. I think she showed all the signs of the best kind of politician. She struggled with her own party. She crossed the floor. She lived her life, grew as a person, and let those changes add to what she bought to her job.

I don't want to give the impression that Stott Despoja is somehow a saint. She still played that political game. I'm sure she had more than a few moments where even she herself felt she had compromised her ideals to live with a reality that she couldn't avoid. What I'm trying to get at (and I'm not sure that I've managed to capture it) is that where some people lose their soul in playing the game first, then manage to sort-of-kind-of represent the people and ideals they advertised when we voted for them, Natasha didn't. She's leaving her many years of service with her morals intact. She stood up when it really counted and she spoke out when someone needed to.

The valedictory speeches for the Democrats were hard to hear, there is so much being lost by their departure from the Senate, but it was even harder to hear the valedictory in reply speeches from other Senators for Stott Despoja in particular. Where other Democrats used their valedictory speeches for political tantrums, Stott Despoja spoke eloquently in the same fashion and style, with the same frank and wry approach I've heard for years. In response, other Senators were frequently respectful. Leave it to a male Liberal Senator to sum up her time of dedicated service by announcing to the chamber (and let us not forget saved permanently for all eternity in Hansard) that Natasha had done us all proud by proving that she was both sassy and sexy. I actually missed this as it happened in the chamber. I heard the brief snippet on the news that evening, and, horrified, I went to read Hansard to confirm I hadn't heard it out of context (and yes, I am that much of a politics nerd that I read Hansard). What do you think I found? Nope, no mistake, no context that made it better. He really made those comments, and he really thought that was not only appropriate, but a compliment. Of all the things, at all of the times, to say...

He's not the only person, politician or otherwise, to take note of the fact that Natasha did indeed bring a youth and vibrancy to the Senate. In another context, such as this article by Tracee Hutchison, the words "sexy" and "sassy" are a compliment. And not because she's a woman and therefore it's okay for her to say it. The words, in Hutchison's case, don't objectify and simplify her. Sassy is used next to the descriptors "clever" and "funny", and it does not point to Natasha as "sexy", therefore a sexual object, but credits her for having "made politics sexy". When leaving parliament, the least relevant thing about Natasha is that she is sexy. I've been known to comment on how sexy I find Natasha many times, but it's not the only thing I say and it's not the main point I like to make about her. The fact that a Senator found it the centrepoint of his impressions is a terrible sign for women in parliament. The fact that he thought it was a compliment is a terrible insult to a woman who has both served and represented us and deserves our respect.

If women are to participate in our political system they need to be treated as equals. That would seem elementary, but it's not the reality. In all the valedictory speeches and replies I listened to this week, not one man was complimented on his manly stature, or his fantastic selection of ties, or his ability to make the ladies of the Senate just that little bit happier as his twinkling eyes lit up their life. Men were complimented for the good works they undertook as part of their job. Their personal lives barely rated a mention, bar the usual blokey in jokes. Another male Senator complimented Stott Despoja with managing to combine the usually feminine attributes of care and concern for others with a hard-nosed ability to get the job done. I'm not sure how Natasha took that comment, but to me it reeked of condescension. It was a compliment which seemed to show approval for the fact that she retained a femininity of which he approved... and still kept up with the boys. It seeks to usher her into a club which he feels he has the right to claim as his own. She can play with them, as long as she picks up their toys and gives them a hug when they're feeling down.

I'm also sad to see Greens Senator Kerry Nettle is also leaving. I've had the pleasure of meeting Kerry and (very) briefly seeing her work. She's done some amazing work in the Senate, including tremendous work on VSU and higher education. Kerry has done years of amazing activist and legislative work representing women and their particular interests and issues. Thank you for everything you've done for us, Kerry, both in the chamber and by example with your unrelenting involvement in a political system which too often excludes participation from women. You did the hard yards getting in the doors and you didn't let up while you were there. Luckily for the Greens, one of their incoming Senators is another young woman. Sarah Hanson-Young is under thirty, has recently become a new mother and by all accounts will be a force to be reckoned with when she begins her term.

Women like Sarah can keep us hoping that strong women can find their way through Parliament House's doors, I just wish we saw more of them... particularly young women like Sarah, who are very much in touch with a huge proportion of women that aren't typically represented. Most of the women in the Senate are significantly older. We'll miss Senators Nettle and Stott Despoja. Women from independent parties are all too rare, and their example shows us how much can be achieved when they are supported to participate in the political system.