As Season 5 of Mad Men approaches with the promise of more excoriating social commentary, it’s fitting to reflect on the media, gender roles and misogyny. Especially when we have Sky Sports (UK) commentators making sexist gaffes about female referees. But good thing those mad men, Andy Gray and Richard Keys did, or else we wouldn’t know we were still living in the decade of Don Drapers.

If you’re unfamiliar, Don Draper (Jon Hamm) is the central character of Mad Men – a series about Madison Avenue’s elite 1960s admen. Draper, creative director of fictional Ad agency Sterling Cooper, is a figure of philandering, pinstriped machismo. In short, he is at the heart of the Mad Men phenomenon.

The title of a recent op-ed by magazine jezebel.com said it all: ‘The Don Draper Effect: Why Do Feminists Still Love Assholes?’ The operative word, some might argue, is still.

As a form of commentary, Mad Men should show us how far we’ve come. According to AMCTV, the series depicts the roles of men and women “while exploring the true human nature beneath the guise of 1960s traditional family values”. ‘Beneath the guise’, gender roles were violently shifting. Today, we spectate on the shift in comfort, as if it were merely archival footage. We permit ourselves the luxury of loving Don Draper (who dispatches his secretary Lois by telling her “Stick to the switchboard”) because we consider him a ghost. In serial land, being an asshole is no obstacle to being loved.

But when Keys and Gray were recorded and broadcast on-air talking off-air, for a moment, the archive came to life, and reality shimmered like a 60s hair commercial. “Urrgh. The game’s gone mad,” Richard Keys is heard saying as he finishes his rant.

Upon reflection, the guise of Stepford values was never shattered at all - only retouched.

For reasons that aren’t relevant here, I recently joined a Mad Men discussion group. Its membership includes Professor Stevi Jackson, Director of the Centre for Women’s Studies at the University of York. Her Wikipedia profile states her idea of utopia is “an egalitarian world without gender where ‘your genitals matter as little as your hair colour’”.

It’s a statement that would sound flippant were it not for the fact that Jackson was founding co-editor of Feminist Theory.

The sentiment, applied here, needs little elaboration. Football’s ‘linesmen’ includes women. No, they don’t have penises. What the f*ck do they know about the offside rule? As much as any drunken yob shouting at the big screen - if that yob had been ref’ing for ten years, had done hard time with affiliated partner leagues, had been progressed through academy and semi-professional football, had turned pro two years ago and had taken the night off to act like a lout.

Unfortunately, we don’t live in utopia. No one discriminates on the basis of hair colour but they do on the basis of genitals.

The latest gaffe reminds us that sexism persists. We need a leaked recording, not a cult serial, to see that it has been repressed and recycled into ‘off-air’ forms, like studio banter (the locker room, minus the jock straps) and - no great revelation - advertising.

Advertising has created a litany of corporate cosmetic imperatives. Skin must be smooth; lips, glossy; legs, hairless, breasts, large etc. The former tends to reflect these.

The media is full of crude cosmetic standards. It’s a useful prism because it conflates locker rooms and advertising. Women are told that unless you’re pretty, you can’t be a newsreader; female politicians offer airbrushed photo-ops for women’s magazines. Meanwhile, female celebrities offer up an itinerant commerce of changing looks.

Women enter intellectual and sporting life in violation of a social norm that inscribes the female body as reproductive. To referee football, as much as to present the weather, is to transgress. As a result, they must be erotically feminised, or completely excluded - just like the women of Mad Men.

And yet here we are debating hard about whether the chador should be banned in public. On account of what? Cultural oppression of women by men? Pfft. Western women can do whatever they like. Western women can wear skirts short or long, they have the right to choose - to self-determine - they can even dye their hair any colour they please.

Under the cosmetic rule of law, hair colour holds special status. It appears innocuous, but the trend towards dyeing/bleaching reveals a distorted female body image built on learned-discontent. Natural is not pretty enough, say the Admen, not shiny enough, not bright enough. A dye job says ‘I have improved on Nature’, even as its roots confess the crowning lie.

Some defend changes in hair colour as ‘creative self-expression’, like tattooing. They say that any attempt to graft onto hair discussions of gender, is akin to a two-day rinse. But what they miss is that body image is mediated from head to toe; there is little self in the expression and much mass. Peak into an inner city bar on a Friday night and witness the sea of bleach.

Others, even those who eschew the label ‘feminist’, may object to a man claiming that women who dye their hair are unhappy. I acknowledge how constructions of sex and gender delegitimise my argument. Further, men are targets of cosmetic tyranny too (the equivalent: ‘Bigorexia’).

The point is, a defence of the right to dye takes as its premise the same principle that divides the debate on the veil – a debate on which Western feminists are quick to opine. It is an implicit defence of agency. Recall that after Iranian monarch, Reza Pahlavi tried to modernise Iran in 1935 by banning the veil, women wore it during the revolution as a symbol of liberation. According to Pulitzer Prize-winner Geraldine Brooks, this paralleled the denim overalls worn by militant feminists of the same era.

Agency is not as straightforward as we think. Taken alone, it ignores the culture of influence.

But why single out this augmentation as an index of sexism? What about implants, collagen, vagazzling – aren’t there more serious lies warranting critique? Probably, yes. Hair colour, however, is off-the-shelf change. Unlike the others, it doesn’t require piles of money. Dyeing is an act of physical air-brushing that begins at the supermarket and ends with your head in the tub, matching your hair to a picture.

Take Mad Men’s redhead bombshell, Christina Hendricks, who has spawned a forest-fire of red heads: a real blonde, it turns out. She’s been dyeing since she was 10.

Maybe Hendricks holds the key to Mad Men’s raging success. At once funny and cringeworthy, we watch because we see figures of ourselves. MM is magical realism – but the magic isn’t being transported to a soda commercial advertising sex (ie the 1960s), it’s being struck by the social realism of gender relations in 2011.

Far from being archived, sexism is real, and it’s not simply the province of belt-loosening misogynists at Sky. Women bear responsibility too - responsibility-in-complicity - through daily choices. The first step towards a sexism-free society is to acknowledge complicity in the social structure. Opposition begins when we realise we have all been conditioned by the dominant culture.

So before we rush to decry the oppression of women by Islam, before we smile too smugly at TV - we might watch an episode of Mad Men, and then look in the mirror. It may just spawn a generation of women who wave bottles in the streets instead of bras.

Most commented

45 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      05:58am | 19/02/11

      Why is any comment that offends women “misogyny”? Do you think Don Draper hates women? Or those two sportcasters?

      Misogyny is one of the most overused and misused words in the English language. It’s used willy-nilly any time a man says something that some feminist doesn’t like. True misogyny is rare, but it does exist. The main cause of misogyny is feminism.

    • Bilby says:

      09:27am | 19/02/11

      To be fair Erick, I don’t believe that true misogyny is that rare at all. It is the counter point to the ever increasing rates of misandry (just noticed that the spell checker knows misogyny, but not misandy, make of that what you will). I’ve found that normal, educated women are prepared to make revolting misandristic statements in front of me without fear, and when I challenge them the feeling I get is that they’ve never been challenged before. I can defend myself, but for those that can’t, misogyny is a perfectly reasonable response.

      Btw… I have to say that if I were forced to take sides, I’d be on your side. My fear is that if I do have to take sides, the battle is lost. The major problem with feminism is its inability to engage the enemy in rational discourse. Let us not make the same mistake.

    • Erick says:

      10:02am | 19/02/11

      Well, Bilby, I’ve already admitted that true misogyny exists. You only have to read the link I posted above, and the comments to it, to see that. Maybe it’s more common than I think it is, or maybe not.

      But the first point I’m making here is that it’s a whole lot less common than feminist commentators would have us believe. They pretty much claim that any man who criticises any woman, ever, is a misogynist. Even more crazily, they claim that men who like looking at pictures of naked women are misogynists! As if being sexually attracted to women is somehow equivalent to hating them! What could be more insane?

      I’m all for rational discourse, but in a climate like that, it’s pretty difficult. The best I can do is ignore the abuse and accusations, and just keep plugging away.

      There should not be a war between men and women, but feminists have started one. How can it be stopped?

    • Horald says:

      12:23pm | 19/02/11

      Absolutely correct, Erick.

      The article spent some time focusing on the female method of changing herself to suit what advertisers deemd important as some sort of evidence of sexism, or even misogyny.

      It fails to recognise that there are similar things levelled at men.

      While it did mention “bigorexia” it fails to mention that a man is nothing in the eyes of attractive women unless he has a 6 figure income, a European sports car and a house in the Eastern suburbs with views of the harbour.

      A selective article designed to reinforce the author’s prejudices. Epic fail.

    • Bilby says:

      12:59pm | 19/02/11

      So long as the enemy keep attacking, then there will be a war, so I do see your point. My argument is that we should seek to end this protracted confrontation without bludgeoning the other side the way they do. That makes us no better than them.

      Herald - Find a different crowd. Most of my mates are married to attractive women without needing to be rich. Being very attractive men ourselves helps of course wink

    • Erick says:

      06:07am | 19/02/11

      Of course, the above article completely ignores misandry - the hatred of men - even though this is far more common than misogyny.

      Here are some further thoughts from the Men’s Rights forum on Reddit, worth quoting.

      “I believe misandry is intrinsic to feminism. Many feminists are misandrists, either overtly or covertly. Even those who are not are complicit by participating in and supporting a misandrist ideology.

      Feminism is structurally and ideologically opposed to men’s rights, in many ways which time allows only the briefest outline here:

        *    The patriarchy theory casts all men as oppressors and all women as the oppressed, despite all evidence to the contrary.

        *    The perversion of the word “privilege” is used to redefine men’s inalienable rights as contingent privileges which may be removed, thereby justifying attacks on those rights.

        *    The “one-sided inequality”, whereby any inequality against women is an outrage to be corrected, while any inequality suffered by men is ignored or discounted, is used to celebrate inequality for males as victories for women.
       
      *    The feminist attack on ‘patriarchy’ is in fact an attack on fatherhood, whereby the power of the state is employed through family court, welfare programs, child support services, domestic violence laws, and policing policies to forcibly remove fathers from their families.

      Furthermore, those feminists who are pose as allies to the men’s rights movement only serve as cover and concealment for those feminists who are attacking men’s rights. In the same vein, “feminism is about equality” is the cover story that obscures the political actions that feminists take everyday to weaken men’s rights.

      By contrast, MRAs are not intrinsically misogynist (though some are). We dislike the ideology and politics of feminism, not women. Neither are MRAs intrinsically opposed to women’s rights or gender equality (though some are). We are opposed to the feminist pursuit of unilateral empowerment for women under the guise of equaltiy.

      Feminists are like witches, but this isn’t the The Land of Oz, Dorothy. There are good women, but no good feminists.”

    • Carz says:

      11:27am | 19/02/11

      “The patriarchy theory casts all men as oppressors and all women as the oppressed, despite all evidence to the contrary.”

      What evidence? I don’t see anything in that link that remotely resembles evidence.

      The definition of patriarchy (from Dictionary.com) is: 1. a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father’s clan or tribe.
      2. a society, community, or country based on this social organization.
      So effectively you disagree with women attacking a system that is based on male authority, not on fatherhood.

      And isn’t it funny how you can spout so much about men’s rights but fail completely to mention men’s responsibilities. I don’t see women’s rights organisations saying give us everything and we will give nothing in return yet that seems to be the focus of men’s rights groups.

      Erick, I have come to see you are a complete hypocrite. You demonise all feminists as radical ball-breaking bitches yet you support some of the more militant men’s rights organisations. It is not worth the effort to have a reasonable debate with you. You simply cannot see that most women, feminists or not, truly want equal rights and opportunities for all. Instead it seems that you can only see that maybe someone might be getting something you aren’t and in your mind that is wrong.

    • Erick says:

      11:56am | 19/02/11

      @Carz: “It is not worth the effort to have a reasonable debate with you.”

      I agree.

    • james milton says:

      05:46pm | 19/02/11

      @Carz “I don’t see women’s rights organisations saying give us everything and we will give nothing in return yet that seems to be the focus of men’s rights groups.”

      Are you serious?? There are so many women’s rights organisations that do nothing but demand more and more and more, constantly, all at the cost of men getting less.

      Remember that victim organisations can never back down and say things are fair now, the second they do that, their reason for existing is gone, the funds won’t roll in like before, and they won’t make any more headlines. That’s why they will all be ‘oppressed’ until the end of time, whether poor misunderstood muslims, feminists, gays, refugees, and all of the rich white lawyers who represent them.

      It’s all one long gravy train.

    • acotrel says:

      10:26pm | 19/02/11

      I think you blokes haven’t got enough to worry about!  Perhaps you’ve had a lot of knockbacks lately?  You need to develop selective cognitive dissonance?  I don’t even hear feminist comment, anything about gay marriage, religion, any advertising or other lies.  None of it computes!

    • acotrel says:

      07:37am | 19/02/11

      Women should stick to making babies, and leave the secret men’s business to the men!  Mr B.A Santamaria had it right! - Ask Tony Abbott!

    • VC says:

      12:06pm | 19/02/11

      Good point - that’s why it’s “men’s” business… simple really.

    • acotrel says:

      07:43am | 19/02/11

      To Anthony Levin - I loved the video clip, I’ll be looking for more on You Tube!

    • Mayday says:

      08:19am | 19/02/11

      Animals, particularly mammals groom themselves for all sorts of reasons and we are no different, we have just refined the process.

      “No one discriminates on the basis of hair colour” - not true and you seem to be taking that tack with the following statement…..... “but the trend towards dyeing/bleaching reveals a distorted female body image built on learned-discontent.”  how supercilious!

      We have moved on from the hairy armpit form of feminism, we can be attractive women and still be feminists!

      “What about implants, collagen, vagazzling – aren’t there more serious lies warranting critique? Probably, yes.”  No, no, no I would have thought cutting womens body parts in order to “improve” them are far more dangerous than touching up hair roots.

      from this perspective the preoccupation with Gender to the point were it can be studied at University undermines the original intent of feminism which was and still is about choice…...so what if people want to colour their hair!

    • BK says:

      10:08am | 19/02/11

      Many women obsess over their looks, because of the power that they hope good looks might bring them. Attractive women get an easy ride through life, being handed a range benefits that the rest of us work for. Somehow, all this generally gets twisted in a way that makes women into victims.

    • Mayday says:

      02:06pm | 19/02/11

      Men also preen and gay men have really punched on in this regard.

    • marley says:

      07:48pm | 19/02/11

      @BK - and no man has ever obsessed over looks.  Who the heck do you think the term “metrosexual” refers to?

      Good looking people get an advantage - male, female, makes no difference.  That’s reality.  Gender doesn’t have a lot to do with it.

    • acotrel says:

      06:43am | 20/02/11

      You men are all ANIMALS! - ‘Specially Erick!

    • Chris L says:

      12:29pm | 20/02/11

      Marley, how many men’s fashion magazines are there compared to women"s. Yes most men probably try to clean themselves up before they head out of home, but for the majority of us it is not an obsession. Don’t get me wrong, I have no objection to women making themselves pretty, as long as they don’t then accuse me of leering when I take the time to appreciate their efforts.

      Simply put, women want to be admired and men are happy to oblige.

    • marley says:

      01:48pm | 20/02/11

      @Chris - sure, there are more women’s fashion magazines, just like there are more men’s sports magazines.  And women, or some of them, spend more time on appearance than men, just as men, or some of them, spend more time on sports than women.  But that’s not the same thing as an obsession, and it does go both ways.  Just as there are a lot of guys out there reading GQ or whatever, there are a lot of girls watching footy.  And none of it makes anyone a victim.

    • BK says:

      08:29pm | 20/02/11

      @Mayday/ Marley

      Some women’s biggest ambition is to use good looks to snare a rich bloke who will take them shopping. Attractive women get preferential treatment from many employers, police, nightclub bouncers, male salespeople etc. Blokes get none of this, no matter what we look like.

      Metrosexuals are largely motivated to impress women, to sleep around. Women can have a head like a half chewed mango and still have the option of sleeping around.

    • Zac de Spudnut says:

      08:39am | 19/02/11

      Lefties or militant secularists are Mr and Ms. Misogynists. Here is what I mean:

      “Like for most feminists, it was a no-brainer for me to become a Democrat. Liberal men, not conservatives, were the ones devoted to women’s issues. They marched at my side in support of abortion rights. They were enthusiastic about women succeeding in the workplace.

      As time went on, I had many experiences that should have made me rethink my certainty. But I remained nestled in cognitive dissonance—therapy jargon for not wanting to see what I didn’t want to see.

      One clue: the miscreants who were brutalizing me didn’t exactly look Reagan-esque. In middle and high schools, they were minority kids enraged about forced busing. On the streets of New York City and Berkeley, they were derelicts and hoodlums.

      Another red flag: while liberal men did indeed hold up those picket signs, they didn’t do anything else to protect me. In fact, their social programs enabled bad behavior and bred chaos in urban America. And when I was accosted by thugs, those leftist men were missing in action.

      What else should have tipped me off? Perhaps the fact that so many men in ultra-left Berkeley are sleazebags. Rarely a week goes by that I don’t hear stories from my young female clients about middle-aged men preying on them. With the rationale of moral relativism, these creeps feel they can do anything they please.

      What finally woke me up were the utterances of “bitch,” “witch,” and “monster” toward Hillary Clinton and her supporters early last year. I was shocked into reality: the trash-talk wasn’t coming from conservatives, but from male and female liberals. 

      I finally beheld what my eyes had refused to see: that leftists are Mr. and Ms. Misogyny. Neither the males nor the females care a whit about women.

      Women are continually sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. If under radical Islam women are enshrouded and stoned and beheaded, so be it.

      My other epiphanies: those ponytailed guys were marching for abortion rights not because they cherished women’s reproductive freedom, but to keep women available for free and easy sex.” 

      Robin is a psychotherapist and a recovering liberal in Berkeley.

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_wilding_of_sarah_palin.html

    • mary says:

      09:12am | 19/02/11

      //“Those ponytailed guys were marching for abortion rights not because they cherished women’s reproductive freedom, but to keep women available for free and easy sex.” // The only thing I don’t get about that is, ‘Why did it take so long for people to realise this?’

      And sorry to break this one to you Robin but here’s another little eye opener for you, this one about Hilary.

      “Hillary Clinton talks of freedom without pause while watching Ray McGovern be beat up by guards/goons.”

      http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/rights-abuse-clintons-rights-talk

    • acotrel says:

      09:33am | 19/02/11

      God bless America?

    • Zac de Spudnut says:

      09:49am | 19/02/11

      mary,

      A good tactic to deflect the inconvenient truth from a “recovering liberal”. Michael Moore has a long history of extremism and you expect me to believe this guy? He is another Al Gore - ultra liberal who molests women and lives in multi-million dollar mansions in the name of some fictional “climate change”.

    • Tim says:

      11:05am | 19/02/11

      Ha Ha,
      This article was just written to Troll Erick right?

    • Erick says:

      11:59am | 19/02/11

      No way! smile

      Though I have to admit that the last two-thirds of the article are near-unreadable gibberish. I feel sad for our universities.

    • marley says:

      07:51pm | 19/02/11

      @Erick - I think you’re being generous.  So far as I can see,  the entire article is gibberish.

    • Shane Fom Melbourne says:

      07:55pm | 20/02/11

      The OP is a lawyer. He gets paid to spout gibberish.

    • Warren says:

      01:06pm | 19/02/11

      Erick I’d love to know what you studied at university, it anything at all. You were exposed as a phoney when you attempted to discredit Dr Rob Morrison’s (Professorial Fellow at Flinders University) arguments as “pseudo scientific garbage” in the post on race, and thereby revealed your prejudice & ignorance. You have definitely never studied science. I doubt it was the arts, too left wing. Perhaps accountancy, do tell us.

      http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/science-shows-we-should-get-rid-of-race/

    • Uncle Bob says:

      08:43pm | 19/02/11

      @Erick
      ...“I have to admit that the last two-thirds of the article are near-unreadable gibberish”.

      Touché bro. It read like a load of pseudo-academic lefty, pc wank to me.

    • Klaus Acht says:

      02:25pm | 19/02/11

      You WILL keep your hands off Christina’s arse. That’s an order!  Now, you WILL purge your filthy minds of what I just said!  Do you understand!!  Do..you..understand!!  Right. Now, instead of gaping at me like Jesus is here to send you to hell, move your vacuous heads 180 degrees red, port, and you will see an image purported to be of a Star Trek photograph, depicting in the foreground, a large penis, with a person in the background. You will ignore this photograph. It has nothing to do with the subject material, only an attempt at sublimated photographic persuasion to carry on reading this sordid piece, of which I have already instructed you. You WILL find, however, many stupid but innocuous comments in this article, nevertheless, you WILL NOT partake in commentary. That is not in the purview of your responsibility. You must at all costs, preserve the common decency of our men in the ad business, that of keeping the women at home, looking after babies, having a decent meal when we arrive at our cave, the freedom to screw any newbie according to our wishes, and other perks, availabe to our wishes. Ignore this Miss Ogyny. It’s the typing pool for her.

    • Shelley says:

      05:35pm | 19/02/11

      I’ll take this article serious when a woman and a man are both stoned to death for dying their hair.

      I acknowledge gender conditioning in role play is alive and well in Australian culture. Female children tend to get given dolls while the male children are given fire trucks.  Nothing has changed here. You’ll get no argument from me on this issue. And it’s something that is seen from birth in all forms of advertising. It’s pink sugar and spice for girls while blue snails and puppy dog tails for boys.

      Even our PM is in high heels and dyes her hair.

      The difference here is when people judge her it’s on ability. Not gender. Not the colour of her dyed hair. Not her high heels.

      The biggie for me is no one gets to be denied an education, employment, freedom of dress,  the right to marry or not, the right to dye their hair or go al natural, etc.

      Sure the system isn’t perfect. I feel myself the regression of female equality.

      Which is why I so NO! to multiculturalism! Make a stand before we have uneducated children in arranged marriages and people stoned to death!

    • marley says:

      06:26pm | 19/02/11

      Well, I’ve read this article three times. I have only the vaguest sense of what the author is trying to convey.  So, when it comes to coherence and making a point, this is an enormous “fail.”

      I do, however, gather that the author thinks women are being driven by some sort of masculine paradigm about beauty and are therefore trampling over each other to get the latest in cosmetics, hair colouring and god knows what.  I guess he thinks women are being manipulated by Big Advertising, and too dumb to realize it.

      Guess what?  Women are as capable of guys of recognizing the “big sell”  when we see it.  But a lot of women happen to like changing the colour of their hair with the seasons or their moods.  So what?  A lot of women like wearing makeup and slinky clothes.  Again.  So what? 

      Who is Mr. Levin to make judgements on what women do or do not wish to do, wear, think, feel?  If he believes he’s got a better grasp on women’s issues (including which brand of lipstick to wear) then he’s just another guy who thinks the “little woman” is too dumb to figure out she’s being manipulated.  That sort of condescension should have disappeared about 30 years ago.

      Women like to dye their hair.  So bloody what?  It’s not always for the guys, you know.  Sometimes, we just enjoy the look. Duh.  Women wear makeup.  Absolutely. So did Nefertiti.  And Elizabeth I.  It’s what women do.  Big deal.  Yes, appearance is important. It’s important for men, too, in case no one noticed.  Otherwise, we’d all be wearing sacks and walking around in leather flip-flops, not paying good money for suits and elegant Italian shoes.  And no one would be shaving or touching up their hair or using aftershave or deodorant or cologne.

      Geesh.  I hate being patronized.  And this article is patronizing.  Fail.

    • George says:

      09:07pm | 19/02/11

      Amen Marley!

    • zoe says:

      08:18pm | 19/02/11

      Wow I just wasted 5 minutes of my life reading that gibberish, did you even have a point?  I am so sick of this whole mysogyny/ feminist articles that appear on the punch.  I witness just as many women making derogatory, sexist comments about men as I do men saying them about women.  It’s after reading articles like this that I really think Erick has a point.

      Another thing I really need to point out is that Mad Men is a TV show get it it’s fiction, made up, not real.

    • Lisa H. says:

      08:32pm | 19/02/11

      The culture of women dying their hair is related to the rejection and even revulsion ‘we’ as a group hold for aging women. Particularly women that are still reproductive, but grey.
      Women dye to help protect their power structures - such as they are - which tend to be extended via male approval, family and sexuality.
      To ‘opt out’ of dominate culture, to refuse to play, can mean a reduced access to opportunities and resources.

      On a wider level, modern bright young women begin to experience sexism only after they have had their first child or two, and their choices are already largely made.

      As women move away from the paid workforce to mother their children, they become beggars in their own families, essentially expected to ‘work for food’.
      Access to economic power becomes more limited and accessible only through the husband, who therefore is the only opportunity for the wife for ‘success’.

      Most wives are very active in assisting their husband in day to day life, whether giving advice, doing ‘hack work ’ or unpleasant jobs behind the scenes for his work, signing as financial guarantor on his business ventures, moving home as required for a better husbandly income, washing clothes or shopping and providing food.

      And yet, like the silent maid or mule, a woman must stay silent as the man and society pays little tribute to the role of wife, beyond personal sentiment.
      It is the rare husband that will back a wife’s business ventures, sign documentation, do hack work etc etc.

      The supports a wife gives is tangible, and reflected in the improved career, well being and social status of the married man and father.

      However, so pervasive is the silence that for many women, the penny only drops after they have their own kids. Not saying we have to change this reality, but it would be nice to recognise it for what it is.

      Telling women simply to ‘go get a job’ or build themselves an empire doesn’t really address the power structures and expectations in family life. Who wants to sacrifice a marriage and happy family simply to prove a point?

    • marley says:

      09:07am | 20/02/11

      Nonsense.  Some women dye their hair as they get older - because they don’t like to be reminded that their aging.  Some men do too, by the way.  That’s about our relationship with aging and death, not gender. 

      Anyway, most women I know who dye their hair have been experimenting since they were in their teens - highlights, tints, or maybe they’re just going through a green phase and want shamrock coloured hair.  Or they want to see how they look as platinum blondes. For them, it’s got nothing to do with age issues any more than wearing red shoes is a statement of leftist polticial beliefs.  It’s because they like the damn colour.

      As for the rest of your comment, the key is in your own phrase - “women begin to experience sexism only after they have had their first child or two, and their choices are already largely made.”  The key is the word “choices.”  50 years ago, women had few choices; today they have many.  They can choose to marry or not;  they can choose to have kids, or not (never forget, that didn’t used to be a choice, before the Pill); they can choose to stay at home with the kids, work at a casual job or pursue a career.  Choice.  That’s what matters.

      Feminism was always about giving women the right to have choices.  And women now have choices.  If they make choices they later regret (stay at home mom vs career for example), well, so do men.  I know lots of guys who’ve made mistakes - bad job or career choice, early marriage and mortgage which has taken away their flexibility.  We all have to cope with the fact that when we make choices in one direction, we lose opportunities in another.  Decisions have consequences for everyone.  That’s not a gender issue, that’s life.

      And frankly, the mindset that says “I should be able to be a “stay at home” mom without sacrificing some financial independence” is a mindset that fails to grasp one simple truth:  you cannot have it all.  Not men, not women.

    • Melrusk says:

      10:32am | 20/02/11

      Lisa, I agree that the penny usually only drop’s once we are at our most vunerable. That is the point at which the true nature of the relationship reveals itself.
      I also believe this hold’s true for both men & women equally.
      To explain to any young person the need to develope oneself as an indevidual is a vital & tough enough job as it is. This is hardly encouraged by popular media.
      I suspect all we really have is the old lead by example card.

    • Asrael says:

      11:53am | 20/02/11

      “Most wives are very active in assisting their husband in day to day life, whether giving advice, doing ‘hack work ’ or unpleasant jobs behind the scenes for his work, signing as financial guarantor on his business ventures, moving home as required for a better husbandly income, washing clothes or shopping and providing food.”

      So describes my 20 years as an army wife!

    • Markus says:

      01:09pm | 20/02/11

      “Most wives are very active in assisting their husband in day to day life, whether giving advice, doing ‘hack work ’ or unpleasant jobs behind the scenes for his work”.
      Most husbands are very active in assisting their wife in day to day life by, say, working fulltime, for their entire life, in a job they hate, knowing that without his income his family will be on the street. Women can feel free to take this burden any time they want.

      “It is the rare husband that will back a wife’s business ventures, sign documentation, do hack work etc etc.”
      It is even rarer that a woman will find herself attracted to a man whose career opportunities and ambitions do not match or exceed her own.

      Don’t go after a lawyer or banker and then act shocked that he is more interested in furthering his own career than in yours.

    • Joha Salamba says:

      11:17am | 10/07/11

      oh my god, its just hair. a girl can colour blonde if she wants.
      we want to have fun with our hair… that’s one of th superficial reasons why we have it on our scapls in this day and age… it’s just hair… it WILL grow back. you can even shave it off! *gasp* imagine that??!! and then have it return!!

    • jim morris says:

      10:01pm | 19/02/11

      Australian women are the most pampered and privileged people on our planet yet they still have affirmative action legislation based on the premise that they are disadvantaged. Some are, but the feminist elite are riding on their backs.

    • Thommo says:

      12:19pm | 21/02/11

      Most women mistake misanthropy for misogyny. get over youselves princesses.

    • Joha Salamba says:

      11:14am | 10/07/11

      Why don’t you get over us first???

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @JoshuaWithers: Have you seen the Australian version of Breaking bad? He get's cancer and Medicare covers his costs and the series ends.

Paul Colgan

How the totally awesome weather in Australia recently is hurting retailers http://t.co/4dvDwDlNZG

Paul Colgan

Hell, your name is Excel and Powerpoint.

Anthony Sharwood

Great fun yarn by @the_mattyoung and @DebKillalea. What the hell annoys you about the evening commute? http://t.co/Eyi82lHiBQ

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter