In all the hoo-ha over Shelley Glover's not at all surprisingly idiotic
ageist slur, I'm surprised no one has yet noted the sloshing sexism.
My immediate reaction was: Would anyone say this about a 68-year-old MALE politician?
No. Because under patriarchy, men are rewarded for aging, while women are punished.
So, how many retirement-age pols have we got in the House?
Getting an
answer was a doddle. There are 14 men and 3 women aged 65 and over. (And five for whom we have no birth date? That's odd, isn't it?)
Contempt Party ® apologists insist Glover was referring to Anita Neville's length of service. So long has she been in the job?
Again, the
answer was easy to find. From newbie
Julian Fantino who at 68 is Minister for Seniors, but has served just 3 months, to Louis Plamondon who at 67 has served 26 years, Anita Neville is mid-pack at 10 years.
There seem to be better candidates whether the criteria is 'long of tooth' of 'long of hanging about' than Neville.
Why Neville then?
Look at this first comment on the
Notional Pest piece on the row.
Maximum Cat: The NDP's deputy leader, Libby Davies, passed her expiration date the second she proposed that 9-11 is an inside job to Parliament.
It has nothing to do with her age. It reflects on her sanity, or lack thereof.
Forbye 'expiry date' has nothing to do with mental health -- unless my yogurt is going quietly batzoid in my fridge -- why pick on another female politician?
I suggest that the sexism implied in Glover's smear is so engrained, so well understood that patriarchal minds leap naturally to another FEMALE target.
And there's also the not-small matter that neither Davies nor Neville ranks very high on the Contempt Party's 'busty-hooker' standard for female appearance.
And people wonder why more women don't go into politics. . .
