My 6-year-old just summed up the entire election with one question.
I took her along with me this morning to witness Australian politics in action (And possibly to enjoy the post-vote democracy sausage). And there we were in the primary school yard when I felt inspired to turn it into a learning experience.
A photo posted by Oz Vega (@ozzyvega) on Sep 6, 2013 at 5:30pm PDT
I grandly explained the democratic process, hoping I was adequately expressing the magnitude, the importance, the freedom and the value of what was about to happen.
She stood there looking at me, with this blank look on her face, and I thought ‘Well, that’s most of us, most of the time’.
But then she blinked and said
“Why isn’t there a girl for me to vote for?”
Because all the faces on the posters were men. Men in suits next to more men in suits, while volunteers thrust flyers with more men in suits at us.
"Why aren't there any girls?"
Because in Primary school, you see, everything is divided fairly between boys and girls because that's what "fair".
And I stood there and stammered, searching for an answer, wondering whether I could explain to a six-year-old the societal and corporate structures, perceptions of leadership, prejudices that run along traditional gender lines, discrimination, how women have been liberated from traditional roles but the same has not been done for men so there is still an imbalance, and the cultural expectations on women and men. The patriarchy, basically. Can you explain that to a six-year-old?
If only there was Sheryl Sandberg on Sesame Street spruiking her messages (post continues after video)
I thought about the day that Julia Gillard came to power, when she was only a baby, and I took a photo of us with the front page of the paper and told her "A woman is our leader, Matilda. This is a historic day".
Babies love history
But before I said anything she piped up again.
"It's not fair." "Why don't girls get to be in charge."
Oh dear. Yes. We should talk about that soon. We should sit down and talk about that soon.
And I suddenly felt very, very tired.
This Glorious Mess is the podcast for tired parents. Join Andrew Daddo and Holly Wainwright as they bring you stories from the frontline of family life. From toddlers to teens, it's parenting for parents who don't have it all figured out. Listen here or subscribe in itunes.
Top Comments
It was pretty equal in my area. I wouldn't expect a candidate to run for gender balance reasons - nor would I vote for someone not representing my views because we had gender in common. That kind of thinking is very simplistic and reductive. I think it's appropriate to teach children to see beyond stereotypical gender characteristics. Imagine if she asked why there were no white people to vote for in an ethic area?
My doctor is a women, but that isn't the reason why she's my doctor. Just as my obstetrician is a man, because he's the best one and I like him, nothing to do with what's between his legs. It's what's in his head and heart that count for us.
This is so sad it's pathetic.
A vagina/penis doesn't represent you. you are voting for the person with the best policies for you, your family and your belief in what this country should stand for.
I voted Pauline Hanson. I felt her policies were what represented me. My decision was not influenced by her having a vagina. Nor do I vote based on someone owning a penis.
Agreed. Though I don't agree with your political voting choice, and guess what. I'm fine with that, since it is based on my views compared to your views.
What I do disagree with is the assertion that as a woman you now need to vote based on the candidates possession of a vagina which seems so popular on this site.
I'm with you Jeremy. Pauline is a strong woman who isn't afraid to stand up for her beliefs and takes all the knockers in her stride.
Go Pauline.
I think ultimately most people vote for the candidate best representing their personal values and concerns. But I am fecking tired of middle-aged and old white men dominating politics and positions of power. At least the voters are now tossing out candidates for unacceptable behaviour I.e Jamie Briggs - what a nerve running after his pathetic carry on in HK, and can't believe Libs would have him run after all that and risk losing such a safe seat, goes to show its more about loyalty to the ranks than the party or the people, put a fresh face in there. Same with Abbott - why did he run? Now talks of another leadership
spill FFS!!