female politicians and the ‘Lady Macbeth bias’

When the new parliament convenes after the recent election, it will feature a rarity in Australian politics. Women will lead two significant political parties at the same time: the Liberal Party’s Sussan Ley^[1] and the Greens’ Larissa Waters^[2].

When female political leaders show ambition, they are often portrayed in the media as grasping, selfish and power-seeking. In other words, they are the embodiment of Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth.

The recent negative media coverage of Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s^[3] move to the Liberal Party was reminiscent of the depiction of Julia Gillard^[4] when she became Labor leader. Price’s ambition reportedly made her selfish^[5], while Gillard’s ambition was framed as a “moral wrong^[6]”.

The pervasive misrepresentation of female politicians who display ambition can be thought of as “the Lady Macbeth bias”. This negative framing of ambition associates female politicians with ruthlessness and power at any cost. The prejudice reflects the central character theme^[7] in Shakespeare’s tragic play, Macbeth, of a woman whose scheming was her undoing.

Lady Macbeth’s ambition is depicted as morally suspect and unnatural. This ambition leads to her demise.

Highly gendered ambition

With two new women leaders rising to the top and a record number^[8] of new female politicians in the 48th parliament, how will they be portrayed as their ambition plays out?

The media representation of women who aspire to leadership typically depicts female ambition as a negative. This is a distraction from any objective criticism of the person. This kind of gendered approach to female politicians could be a deterrent for women^[9] who have political aspirations.

There is a significant evidence base in academic literature that demonstrates ambition is a social construct that is highly gendered. Women politicians who show ambition are seen as unrelatable and unfeminine^[11], while ambitious male politicians are described as visionary or strong.

Take, for example, this recent article^[12] on Paul Keating, whose ambition is lauded, making him a “rare leader”. Let us not forgot that Keating became prime minister by challenging Bob Hawke.

Compare the praise of Keating to the demonising of Gillard, who also challenged a sitting prime minister (Kevin Rudd) and you will see the opposite commentary. Ambition featured strongly in analysis^[13] of Gillard’s rise to power. Instead of praise for her ambition, she was often vilified, with her morality called into question.

Rudd’s comment^[14] to her in 2010 typifies this perspective: “Julia, you’re a good person, why are you doing this?”

The double bind

So what is the outcome of this negative media portrayal of women in politics?

Female politicians with ambition are perceived as less likeable and take a hit in popularity and electoral success^[15]. This phenomena has been termed the double bind^[16], which is a paradox^[17] experienced by women leaders. To be viewed as competent, they need to display traits typically associated with men, such as ambition, competitiveness and drive. However, when they do, this in turn makes them appear not feminine enough.

The result of this violation of gender stereotypes ranges from negative perceptions to backlash. Women can be overlooked for roles, receive less money^[18] and in the case of politics, face electoral retaliation.

So like Lady Macbeth, ambitious leaders are punished for defying the natural order of femininity. A lose-lose situation.

Normalise female ambition

So what should be done? First the media need to take responsibility for the language used in headlines and stories about female politicians. A more androgynous approach^[19] to reporting on political leaders would go a long way to addressing this problem.

Second, we the public need to decry the use of overused stereotypes in media coverage, such as the Lady Macbeth tropes, when our female leaders are critiqued. While politicians should be held to high standards of accountability, transparency and ethics, a gendered approach undermines this scrutiny and weakens our democratic system.

References

1. ^{^} Sussan Ley (www.abc.net.au)
2. ^{^} Larissa Waters (www.abc.net.au)
3. ^{^} Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s (www.youtube.com)
4. ^{^} Julia Gillard (theconversation.com)
5. ^{^} selfish (www.abc.net.au)
6. ^{^} moral wrong (newmatilda.com)
7. ^{^} central character theme (www.bbc.co.uk)
8. ^{^} record number (www.abc.net.au)
9. ^{^} deterrent for women (www.tandfonline.com)
10. ^{^} Bianca De Marchi/AAP (photos.aap.com.au)
11. ^{^} unrelatable and unfeminine (bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
12. ^{^} article (www.afr.com)
13. ^{^} analysis (bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
14. ^{^} Rudd’s comment (www.independent.co.uk)
15. ^{^} popularity and electoral success (bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
16. ^{^} the double bind (academic.oup.com)
17. ^{^} paradox (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
18. ^{^} overlooked for roles, receive less money (www.researchwithrutgers.com)
19. ^{^} androgynous approach (www.forbes.com)
20. ^{^} Joel Carrett/AAP (photos.aap.com.au)
21. ^{^} leadership qualities from gendered stereotypes (www.forbes.com)