JAM: Did they put their clocks back to the 1950s by accident?

Yesterday, Sydney’s Sunday Telegraph devoted an entire page to describing a lawyer who put on her wig and gown before addressing the court.

So, why did this seemingly ordinary and routine act receive full page, full colour, multiple photo attention in one of the country’s most read newspapers? Because this wasn’t just any lawyer. This was a lady lawyer. A sexy lady lawyer. And she was wearing a fitted skirt.

In her role as Crown prosecutor, Gina O’Rourke (pictured in the left of this image) has spent the past six weeks prosecuting the Crown’s case against former Hey Dad star Robert Hughes. Hughes is charged with multiple counts of child sexual abuse and has pleaded not guilty to each of them. Given the nature of the charges and the high public profile of the defendant, the case has, unsurprisingly, received extensive media attention.

But Sunday’s Telegraph article was something else entirely and has caused many to check their calendars to make sure ‘winding back the clocks’ at the end of daylight savings did not mean back to the 1950s.

The female journalist who wrote the column described the Crown prosecutor’s presence in the courtroom as “sexy” and “compelling”, and her outfit as one that “would even turn heads in the most glamorous offices in the CBD”. O’Rourke’s skirt in particular was described in detail as “so body hugging that it left little to the imagination”. A fact that apparently kept the men in the public gallery “enthralled”.

The column went on to provide some thrilling background information: Gina O’Rourke has tried other cases (!), presumably where she was equally as hot (!!), and including one where the charge was MURDER (like a real-deal proper lawyer – only hot!!). O’Rourke also has the same job as another hot lady lawyer called Gina (Liano) who stars in Foxtel’s reality television program the Real Housewives of Melbourne (context!).

Incredibly, the word ‘salacious’ is used to describe the evidence given at the trial, including a graphic interrogation between the Crown prosecutor and the defendant, Robert Hughes which is helpfully included:

“You liked females seeing your penis,” O’Rourke suggested to Hughes (who has pleaded not guilty).

“You’re wrong,” he replied.

“You get a thrill out of them seeing your penis,” she continued.

“I do not,” he responded.

The reason for including this transcript in an article about the physical attributes and fashion sense of the Crown prosecutor is unclear, beyond ‘Oh look, the hot lady said penis, hahahaha’.

The Sunday Telegraph concludes by suggesting O’Rourke’s methodical legal questioning paled in comparison to her ability to maintain her ‘composure and femininity’ and ‘strong, personal style’ throughout the trial.

Because that’s what most of us look for in a public prosecutor in a child abuse case – an air of girlish whimsy, coupled with a consistent sartorial approach.

Now forgive me for pointing out the bleeding obvious but this isn’t an episode of Ally McBeal. Nobody is ducking out for a water fight and a quickie in the unisex bathroom when the judge agrees to break for lunch. This is NSW’s Downing Centre District Court, where a 65-year-old man is facing 11 separate charges of child sexual abuse against five alleged victims.

It is not glamorous. It is not hot. It is not sexy. It is a court of law, where a judge and jury are undertaking the incredibly complex task of determining whether or not acts of child sex abuse actually took place.

A barrister wears a gown and wig to inspire respect for the law and its practitioners, and importantly, to maintain their anonymity. That is, the dress code provides a visual separation between the lawyer’s personal persona and that of the job they have to do as an officer in a court.

Legal regalia plays a small but critical role in ensuring that every person – no matter how heinous the crime with which they have been charged – has access to a defence lawyer. By putting on the robe and placing that silly looking wig on their head, a barrister is reminded that ultimately they are a servant of the justice system and that the system doesn’t work unless everyone gets to put forward their side of the story.

But while the courtroom setting makes the sexism on display in this article all the more distasteful, sadly, it is not unusual. The media has forever intertwined powerful women’s accomplishments with their physical appearance.

And even in 2014, it is a habit that the press seems unable to shake.

When it comes to arenas of influence, women continue to be most visible in ‘cheerleader’ roles; ones that lend value to the powerful men they surround rather than being powerful in their own right. The media cannot resist commenting on a woman’s hair, on her shoes, on her diet, and on her body, in a way that would seem weird and irrelevant when speaking about a man.

The result? A woman’s accomplishments are diminished. Her abilities are appreciated to a lesser degree. And the causes that she champions fade from view. The public, slowly but surely, come to measure her value based on how she looks instead of by what she has achieved.

And while a man’s attractiveness serves to enhance his position as a powerful, intelligent individual, a woman’s attractiveness or sexuality is used to undermine that very same power. The appearance of any woman in the public eye is either the subject of total derision or of sexualised praise.

A woman’s appearance, their physicality, their hair can never just be. It quickly develops a persona of its own until – it defines them. Don’t believe me? Try asking Hillary Clinton (pants suits, bad fringe), Angela Merkel (cleavage, dowdy dresser), or Julia Gillard (big arse, red hair).

In the case of Gina O’Rourke, an article like this will no doubt prove to be a double-edged sword. For every idiot who gets a bit hot under the collar thinking about the babe prosecutor, there will be another who thinks it’s inappropriate for the litigator to have worn a skirt that didn’t cover her knees.

Why is this even being discussed?

The praise for O’Rourke’s ‘femininity’ in the courtroom is actually code for ‘she didn’t look too butch or act too aggressive’. Because heaven forbid a prosecutor gets a bit passionate and speak forcefully when trying to put an alleged child abuser behind bars.

The final word, I feel, should probably be left to Gina O’Rourke. After all, hers is the decidedly silent voice in this scenario. A spokesperson for the Department of Public Prosecution told the Daily Telegaph on her behalf that “the Crown prosecutors rarely speak with the media, and will never agree to be interviewed while they’re in trial”.

In other words: bugger off and let me get on with the job.

Do you think it’s appropriate to reduce women to the clothes that they wear?

Follow Jamila on Facebook

At Mamamia absolutely everything is up for discussion: from pop culture to politics, body image to motherhood, feminism to fashion. We unashamedly cover what everyone is talking about today: whether that’s stories which will make you laugh out loud, cover your mouth in shock, help you get informed or start you thinking about an issue in a different way and sometimes, we help you to just switch off the brain power from a few sweet minutes and kick back.