Gentlemen, there’s no pride in this prejudice

THERE was an age when there was such a thing as “gentlemen’’ who, when speaking about or to women, always did so with a certain level of courtesy and respect.

I know, I’ve read Jane Austen.

Of course, the politeness did not extend to allowing women a full role in society. The glass ceiling in those days was just above the kitchen and damn hard to penetrate.

And even the manners, too, in their own way were quite sexist. Women were to be spoken to in a genteel manner not out of any great respect, but because they were fragile, delicate creatures, prone to swooning at the slightest horror.

The world has changed a lot since then. Few workplaces remain purely male domains, which is most certainly a good thing.

But somewhere along the way, where manners are involved – especially when it comes to how men address women – we have gone from one extreme to another. Women, especially those who dare to take on leadership positions, are subjected to a level of nasty, personalised vitriol rarely imposed on a man.

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk is the latest to be subjected to the ugly trend.

For some unfathomable reason some critics – almost always men – have taken to referring to Ms Palaszczuk as “Palachook’’, a snide, knowingly demeaning sobriquet that seeks to reduce a woman who has led her party to two election victories to the level of a backyard fowl.

You do not need to be a fan of Labor or Ms Palaszczuk to see how very wrong this is.

Accusations of sexism and racism are bandied about far too easily in this age of identity politics. But the sexism in this case is blindingly obvious.

Tell me the male leader who has been given a nickname derived from a farmyard animal? And the use of “chook’’ quite clearly implies the old sexist idea that a woman who provides leadership is automatically to be regarded as bossy.

It’s offensive and entirely unnecessary. The underlying sentiment is a dislike of women in leadership positions.

I have at times harshly criticised Ms Palaszczuk’s Government. From the horrendous mistakes around the Commonwealth Games, to the appalling idea of building a casino fronting the Broadwater Parklands, her Government has repeatedly shown a poor understanding of the Gold Coast.

And that same Government has itself shown a shocking lack of respect for one of Queensland’s most impressive female leaders, Lady Phyllis Cilento, by removing her name from the children’s hospital in Brisbane for petty political reasons.

But none of it justifies a failure to refer to Ms Palaszczuk by her name.

We can disagree, but we need not be so disagreeable.

Julia Gillard suffered even worse abuse when prime minister. Her administration’s many failings meant she deserved to be unpopular. But what she absolutely did not deserve was to be referred to as a “witch’’ or “bitch’’.

And what to make of the extraordinary awfulness of the verbal attacks on Senator Sarah Hanson-Young by fellow senator David Leyonhjelm, whom she alleges told her to “stop shagging men”. Senator Leyonhjelm has not denied the remark.

How, pray tell, would Senator Hanson-Young’s sex life be any of his business?

All such idiocy achieves is to divert attention from the lunatic policies of the Greens, which is all that critics of Senator Hanson-Young should be concerned about.

It’s not just women on the political left who have suffered such abuse.

Peta Credlin was transformed into a hate figure and subjected to vile rumours suggesting she slept with her boss, Tony Abbott, while she served as his chief of staff.

While the utterly unfounded suggestion was offensive to Mr Abbott too, it was clear that Ms Credlin was the intended target.

The accusation cruelly and unjustifiably implied that this was the real reason she had risen to become the then prime minister’s chief of staff, that she otherwise was not capable.

More recently, there have been accusations of sexism and bullying within the LNP, which it is said deter more women from entering politics.

But to my mind the malaise extends far beyond any party room.

The women mentioned certainly have no need for advice from the likes of me – another opinionated, middleaged man – in navigating these issues.

But I can speak to my fellow males, a sad minority of whom are the usual source of the insults.

Name-calling and sexist remarks do nothing to advance anybody’s argument. In reality, they do the opposite.

There is more than enough ammunition in the failings of the Palaszczuk Government, or the loony policies of the Greens, to attack their senior leaders without resorting to snide, sexist taunts.

Debate is far better if it’s focused on the policy, not the person.

Honestly, the moment I see a comment from a reader that uses the term “Palachook’’, I switch off. Anyone so stupid to use that low-rent term can hardly be worth listening to.

People who speak and write in this way are only adding to a coarsening of political debate in this country that in other contexts they would noisily decry.

It needs to stop. We may not need to wheel right back to the stuffy age of Jane Austen novels, but basic manners should still apply.