Right: Prime Minister Julia Gillard, with partner Tim Mathieson.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in support of 'At Home with Julia'
1. The series may help assist the Prime Minister by humanising her image
Defenders of 'At Home with Julia' have focused on the series affectionate tone and stressed that its intention does not appear to be to ridicule either the Prime Minister of her partner. There are those who have claimed that the series' focus on the Prime Minister's private life may serve to soften her image and reduce public hostility toward her.
Shaun Crowe, an honours student in government and international relations at the University of Sydney has had a comment on 'At Home with Julia' published on the ABC's comment site, The Drum. Crowe noted, 'Satire can often break down the walls between politicians and voters. The interesting thing about the show is that, amongst those who have actually watched it, many left with an inflated perspective of Gillard and our political class. According to viewers, it has been "humanising"...
Indeed, the whole point of the show is that politicians have internal lives that exist outside Parliament House: that they are not simply robots designed to legislate and irritate.
Programs like this are important because rarely has the process of humanisation been more necessary in Australian politics. If the nature of debate has, like many argue, become increasingly coarse and rude, it's largely because we've allowed our fellow Australians to become mere abstractions.'
A broadly similar point has been made by Dan Barrett writing in The Punch on September 8, 2011. Barrett states, 'The most surprising thing about "At Home With Julia" is just how restrained it was... To the shows benefit, Amanda Bishop delivered Julia with an exceedingly high level of grace and humanity... It's a sly and warm-hearted comedy exploring the humanity that exists within the identities of the political arena.
Referring as well to the treatment of the Mathieson character, Barrett claims, 'At the centre of the series are Julia Gillard and her partner Tim Mathieson. They're portrayed as an everyday Australian couple dealing with the fact that Julia has a much more important and high-profile professional life... They're relatable characters with considerable heart.'
2. As a public figure, the Prime Minister has reduced rights to privacy
It has been claimed that public figures have reduced privacy rights. It is generally considered that those who have successfully run for public office and whose actions affect the lives of most Australians should be more open to scrutiny than a private individual. This is especially the case with as significant a public figure as the Prime Minister.
In an opinion piece published in The Sydney Morning Herald on July 30, 2011, press gallery veteran, Mark Metherell, stated, 'There are no real rules governing what the press gallery reports about the prime minister. A rough guide is that anything the prime minister says or does is fair game if it affects the running of the nation in some way.
Its broad scope can extend to personal matters whose links with affairs of state may appear remote. These might include Paul Keating's Zegna suits, Bob Hawke's hair, John Howard's teeth and eyebrows and church-going Kevin Rudd's predilection for barrack room language when talking to the troops.'
It has further been noted that in pursuing public office many politicians exploit aspects of their lives which would normally be seen as personal. When this has happened, it becomes harder for such politicians to try to regain their supposed right to privacy.
Mark Metherell has commented in relation to Julia Gillard, 'Gillard has a reasonably relaxed relationship with the gallery and pursues media attention no more than her predecessors. But she did invite 60 Minutes into The Lodge to domesticate the image, both hers and Mathieson's.'
Janet Albrechtsen of The Australian has also argued that Julia Gillard encouraged the media to cross the line between public and private. Albrechtsen writes, 'One has to ask, have our politicians, particularly Gillard, invited the intrusion that breaches a contract that should allow politicians to be themselves away from prying, prurient eyes?
From dressing up for a glossy spread in Women's Weekly to giggling for the 60 Minutes cameras outside Mathieson's shed at the Lodge, Gillard has encouraged a level of voyeurism into her private life that does nothing to educate or inform us about the things that really matter. Gillard is not alone here. By trying to manage the media with carefully controlled puff pieces about their private lives, politicians invariably fuel intrusions that may not be so carefully controlled.'
3. Other political figures in Australia have also been the subject of comedy
Defenders of 'At Home with Julia' have noted that Julia Gillard is not the first political figure who has been the target of satire.
On September 22, 2011, Dean Jaensch noted in The Punch, 'Satire about political leaders is nothing new in Australia. The "Rubbery Figures" series showed little respect for John Howard, and cartoonists regularly take the mickey out of almost any political leader. Respect for the office of Prime Minister has never been a strong theme in Australia.'
Mr Jaensch suggested that part of the reason for this is the difference in the way in which the President of the United States comes to power compared to that in which an Australian Prime Minister does. 'The President [of the United States] is directly elected by the people, he draws his constitutional authority from the people, and the office is a symbol of American democracy. A President remains in office for four years, unless an impeachment motion is carried by both houses of the Congress.
There is nothing equivalent in Australia. A Prime Minister is elected by and from the majority party in the parliament, which means by whichever party faction has the numbers. A Prime Minister can also be removed overnight by the faction system, as Kevin Rudd discovered. The office has no Seal or anthem. It is a much lesser object than in most republics.'
Whatever the reason, many social commentators have noted that vigorous and sometimes personal criticism of our Prime Ministers is a prominent feature of Australian political life. Therefore, some argue, the treatment currently being received by Julia Gillard is not unusual.
4. The series is not misogynistic
Defenders of 'At Home with Julia' claim it is not misogynistic, that is, it does not hold the Prime Minister up to ridicule because she is a woman. Rather, its defenders claim, the series makes fun of aspects of the Prime Minister's persona, which include gender-specific behaviours, but these are not its focus.
Its defenders claim Gillard's gender seems to have made the series' detractors hypersensitive and that the misogynist accusations are an over-reaction. The claim that the show is sexually motivated is misplaced as it represents no worse an attack on aspects of the Prime Minister's behaviour and image than many of her male predecessors have endured. This point was made by Janet Albrechtsen in an opinion piece published in The Australian on September 14, 2011.
Albrechtsen states, 'We seem to have reached a point where any strident commentary or even comic send-up of the PM is now sexist just because the PM is a woman. The national broadcaster's latest foray into political satire is hardly sexist when tested against the torrent of political send-ups aimed at former prime minister Howard. Count the weeks that comedy duo on the then 7.30 Report, John Clarke and Brian Dawe, aimed their Friday night fire at Howard. It became tiresomely predictable.'
Similarly, an ABC viewer commented on September 8, 2011, 'Where do people get this idea that this is the first time a sitting PM has ever been impersonated or made fun of?
People like Paul McCarthy and Max Gillies have been dressing up and taking the mickey out of the likes of Whitlam, Hawke, Howard and Keating for donkey's years, including their domestic lives.
This is the first time it has been done in sitcom format, but so what? How does that make it misogynistic?
It wasn't exactly a fierce attack, anyway. The show made her out to be a bit of an Adelaide bogan with a weird voice and a big rear end. Totally correct on all counts.'
It has further been noted that some of the elements of the series which critics of the series see as sexist, for example, its use of the Prime Minster's first name in its title are not the result of her gender. This point has also been made by Janet Albrechtsen who has stated, 'Even a cursory look at Gillard's own campaign strategy - when she unveiled "the real Julia" - reveals that the PM invited us to think of her as Julia. Just as Kevin Rudd said, "My name is Kevin and I'm here to help", at his first ALP national conference as opposition leader and then went on to become Kevin07.'
5. Critics are confounding this series with genuinely hostile treatments of the Prime Minister
It has been argued that though the Prime Minister has been the target of criticisms that seem excessive and misogynistic, 'At Home with Julia' does not represent this extreme trend.
A variety of social commentators have noted the hysterical nature of some of the abuse directed at Julia Gillard, which seems excessively focused on her gender.
As Malcolm Farr noted in The Punch on May 2, 2011, distasteful abuse based on gender bias has been a feature of some the comments made about Gillard for many years.
Farr cited former Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan who once attacked Gillard for being 'deliberately barren'. Mark Latham made a similar point in his Financial Review column, claiming that Gillard's childless state made her an inadequate leader.
Senator Heffernan also stated, 'One of the great understandings in a community is family, and the relationship between mum, dad and a bucket of nappies.' Critics have seen such remarks as an indication that some in Australian politics believe there is a natural gender-based hierarchy which should exclude women from significant office.
On July 17, 2011, Media Watch indicated that many of those who call into talk-back radio programs use Gillard's gender as a focus of abuse and present extreme and misogynistic views. Some of the calls cited included, 'Bonita: Look I can say this, but you can't: she's a menopausal monster, and she needs to resign.
Chris Smith: Ok. Good on you, Bonita. Thank you 'and 'Tony: The Australian taxpayer even pays for the toilet paper she uses.
Does she go down to the chemist to buy her tampons? Or is the Australian taxpayer paying for those as well? ...
In my opinion Julia Gillard is a piece of crap ...
Alan Jones: Ok, well you made a lot of valid points there. We've just got to avoid in our criticism the personal.'
Defenders of 'At Home with Julia' claim that in the context of such extreme and clearly sexist abuse it is a mistake to view the ABC series as misogynist. Its tone is far gentler and it is not attacking the Prime Minister on the basis of her gender.