Climate Change and Gender Analysis: Struggles with Neoconservative Backlash in Australian Politics by Uschi Bay and Deborah Western

Why is Gender Relevant to Climate Change?

Thousands of scientists voluntarily contribute to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by reviewing and assessing the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide related to understanding climate change. The IPCC was established in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). The IPCC is an intergovernmental scientific organisation with input from 195 countries and bases its reports on the most recent scientific evidence on climate change and its potential impact. The IPCC has reported that the scientific consensus worldwide is that the earth’s climate is being impacted by human activities that increase greenhouse gas emissions. The IPCC is not alone in coming to this assessment that planet earth is warming and that climate change is likely to have an increasing impact on people’s lives and livelihoods.

The International Energy Agency (IEA), for instance, founded in 1973/74 in response to the oil crisis to help 28 member countries (all of whom are also Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) members) to co-ordinate solutions to major disruptions in oil supply, indicated that in May 2011 carbon emissions had increased by a record amount in 2010. The IEA’s chief economist Fatih Birol stated that this highest level of “carbon output in history, [is] putting hopes of holding global warming to safe levels all but out of reach” [1]. Scientists claim the threshold for “dangerous climate change” is a temperature rise of more than two degrees Celsius.

In short, the scientific consensus worldwide is that increased carbon emissions caused by human activity are contributing to the warming of the planet and leading to severe and unpredictable climatic changes, weather events and threats to species and agricultural productivity.  The effects on the livelihoods and lifestyles of the people most vulnerable to climate change are enormous and life changing [2]. The consequences of climate change have a disproportionate impact on marginal populations, especially in the developing world, and to an even greater degree on women.

A gendered analysis and understanding of climate change and its consequences is crucial because women and men comprehend and respond to climatic changes in different ways [3]. Gender needs to be afforded priority in any such analysis as research continues to show that women are disproportionately impacted by climate change events due to their vulnerability through their livelihoods, social roles and family responsibilities. Research is revealing that woman are much more likely to die in severe climate events and are more likely to suffer malnourishment, poverty and the effects of water and food shortages after these events [4]. These gendered effects are most researched in developing countries, or the global South. Recent research by Margaret Alston and colleagues conducted in Australia confirms that climate change and its effects are gendered especially in rural settings. Men are at higher risk of social isolation, depression and suicide, while women are supporting families with odd farm work and caring for the health and wellbeing of their families while neglecting their own needs [5]. In the long term these adaptation strategies are unlikely to be effective or sustainable, hence policy and support services are needed that take into account the gendered nature of climate change.

The Response to Climate Change and the Neo-Conservative Backlash in Australian Politics

Climate change has been hotly debated in Australian politics especially over the last five to ten years. The Liberal-National Howard government (1996-2007) was a strong agent of neoliberalism, favouring the market and competition as mechanisms for policy development and implementation. This government denied the existence of climate change and was considered neoconservative in many policy areas, especially policies impacting on women and on the environment. The Howard government undermined women’s gender equality through federal policy that reflected “a commitment to keeping women in the home, doing the unpaid domestic and childcare work in the private sphere (Harris 2007; Probert 2002), whilst being subjected to harsh penalties for working” [6]. The nostalgic celebration of out-dated family values, promoting women’s lives as centred only in the kitchen and in caring for family members, was a hallmark of this government’s neo-conservatism.

In the lead up to the 1997 Kyoto agreement the Howard government argued that Australia should be treated as a special case and allowed differentiated greenhouse gas emission targets because the cost to its economy would be unfairly high compared to the United States of America and the average European economy. During Howard’s Prime Ministership Australia refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol; this positioned Australia as unwilling to address climate change seriously in collaboration with other nations. Policy analysts posit that the Howard government was in alliance with big-business interests in setting its climate change policy and that this “cabal of powerful fossil fuel lobbyists represented the very corporations whose commercial interest would be most affected by any move to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions” [7]. This reliance on alliances with big business interests is another hallmark of the Howard government’s neo-conservatism. Another element of neo-conservatism is the habitual frustration of debate on serious issues by dismissing dissenting voices and the use of techniques like unfair name-calling aimed at diverting the debate to familiar divisive issues such as the role of women in the family or in politics.

In contrast, the Australian Labor government under Prime Minister Kevin Rudd elected in 2007 highlighted climate change as a priority issue and Rudd personally aimed to play a major role in negotiating collaborative outcomes at the World Climate Change Forum in Copenhagen in 2009. The Opposition leader at that time Malcolm Turnbull also considered climate change a central issue. However, the political landscape altered quickly and both these leaders were ousted, Turnbull because his more progressive position on climate change was unpopular with many of the neoconservatives in the Liberal/National opposition. The Labor party replaced Rudd with Julia Gillard who gained government in a hung parliament that necessitated increased Labor party negotiation with rural independents and the Greens party, both of which were in favour of creating policy to address climate change.

As the first female Prime Minister in Australia, Julia Gillard was the butt of many comments that reflect the neoconservatives’ views of both women and climate change. For example, the leader of the federal Opposition, Tony Abbott “demanded that Gillard “‘make an honest woman of herself’” by taking the carbon tax to an election” [8]. Implied in this phrase is the idea that a woman has to marry in order to have legitimacy or needs to be given marital status because of becoming pregnant outside marriage. The use of this phrase implies that Julia Gillard is somehow illegitimate in her dealings or dishonest with her electorate in how she is tackling climate change. Using a phrase like “make an honest woman of herself”, a comment applied only to women in some traditionally shameful strife, highlights how Gillard’s gender was used in the climate change policy debate to undermine her and to marginalise the issue.

Framing the Climate Change Debate

Research indicates a rigid attitude towards the science and politics of climate change by the U.S. American conservative establishment. [9].  According to McCright and Dunlap, “the American conservative movement mobilised economically…politically… and culturally” through heavily funding a “network of conservative foundations [including] think-tanks” in order to “reassert the dominance of industrial capitalism…by directly challenging progressive social movements and the use of impact science” [10]. McCright and Dunlap differentiate between ‘impact science’ and ‘productive science’ by indicating that the purpose of productive science is to increase the efficiency of science in supporting industrial capitalism. ‘Impact science’ in contrast deals with the unintended and negative effects of industrial capitalism, including the unanticipated effects on the natural environment [11]. The strategies used by the American conservative movement, over the last decade, include the “mobilization of bias” to mock ‘impact science’ to keep the issue of climate change from being taken seriously by the general public [12].

In 2010 Naomi Oreskes, a U.S. American science historian, and Erik Conway published a book titled Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Oreskes and Conway argue that the way science is portrayed by some mass media outlets plays into the climate change deniers’ desire to preserve the status quo. Climate change science is wrongly presented as providing absolute answers and positive proof. Scientific knowledge processes engage with uncertainty and slowly arrive at consensus through processes that deliberately aim to disprove any claims made. Some of the mainstream radio media in Australia fails to indicate the importance of the role of scientific institutions in continually challenging knowledge claims and thus the significance of gaining a global consensus on climate change. The peer review processes in climate science arrived at a reasonable consensus on the basis of complicated, verified and interconnected data cross referenced with many sources across the globe. The meaning and implications of this kind of scientific consensus on climate change is not clearly communicated to media audiences. Rather some mainstream radio media commentators state that they seek to put forward a balanced debate on whether climate change is happening and whether it is caused by human activity. To put forward this notion of a ‘balanced debate’ to radio and television audiences sometimes means that a single expert, usually not a climate scientist but someone who is opposing climate change, is interviewed by a radio or television program host to refute the worldwide consensus by hundreds of scientists who are experts in this area. In effect this strategy of giving both a single ‘expert’ and the consensus of hundreds of climate scientists equal weight in the debate continues to cast doubt on ‘impact science’ [13]. Increasingly evident are the ways neoconservative politicians, neoliberal and conservative think tanks and mainstream radio media adopt similar strategies to frame the climate change debate in Australia.

Neoconservative think tanks such as the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) and the Lavoisier Group influenced the issue of climate change during the recent Australian federal election (2010). The IPA “describes itself as supporting the traditional ideals of liberalism, …free markets and capital flows, small government and representative democracy” [14]. Commentators usually refer to the IPA as “being associated with the conservative side of politics in Australia” [15]. Cahill argues the independent think tanks were instrumental in “sowing the seeds of doubt about the existence and extent of the greenhouse effect and in promoting market-based solutions to environmental problems” [16]. In 2010 the IPA hosted 40 events around Australia to campaign against the Federal Gillard Government’s proposed carbon tax and devoted considerable resources to staging these public meetings [17]. “Wealthy individuals actively promoted the campaign to attack the credibility of the world’s top climate scientists and create the impression that there is controversy about the main propositions of global warming science” through anonymously funding the IPA [18].

Neoconservatives, right wing independent think tanks and politicians aligned with a neoliberal agenda cast doubt on the ‘reality’ or scientific consensus on climate change in order to “‘reassert the certitude of the industrial capitalist social order’” [19]. The impression given by some in the Australian mainstream media and neoconservative politicians is that there is still a major debate about whether climate change is actually happening or is ‘real’. They continue to structure the debate around whether or not climate change is caused by human activity, despite the fact that scientists have been progressively testing this hypothesis for the last forty years and are clearly positing that human activity is, indeed, increasing carbon emissions and contributing to climate change [20].

Climate Change Sceptics on Commercial Radio

A recent television program called ‘Mediawatch’ on the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) channel in Australia reviewed the highest-rating commercial radio talk programs in each of the mainland state capitals in relation to their stance on climate change science. Several of the breakfast and afternoon commercial radio hosts, drawing very large audiences, were shown to be proud climate change deniers that consistently attacked ‘impact science’ [21]. Several of these commercial radio hosts indicated that they regarded the Gillard government as unbalanced in its views on climate change because it takes advice from “the CSIRO, The Australian Academy of Science, the Bureau of Meteorology, NASA, the National Atmospheric Administration, and every reputable climate change scientist in the world” and is not taking advice from those experts who question climate change [22]. The basis for action on climate change is undermined when the general public is misled into thinking there is no scientific consensus on climate change.

For example, several commercial radio hosts were ‘vehemently opposed to the government’s proposed carbon price’ [24]. According to Jonathan Holmes, host of Mediawatch, “there’s no doubt there’s genuine anger out there about the carbon tax. And channelling popular anger is what talk show hosts do best. But one reason that people are so angry is that fewer and fewer believe that human-induced global warming is actually happening. And that’s while the actual scientific evidence, as the government’s adviser Professor Ross Garnaut said last week, shows that it’s happening more rapidly than the IPCC forecast just four years ago” [25].

Climate change and global warming presents a challenge to the world and all its citizens that requires new ways of thinking, as well as major social, economic and political transformations.

In this paper our task is not only to highlight the strategies used to attack ‘impact science’ in order to maintain the currently unequal status quo, but to explore how gender relations are used in this debate to reinforce long-standing neoconservative and neoliberal agendas. The ways in which these debates are both derailed and enhanced by the inclusion of the notion of gender require further highlighting. We will now address and analyse the politics of how gendered concerns are raised and, in combination with a carbon tax, used as a vehicle for moralising about and destabilising the (woman) Prime Minister and the federal government.

Women, Politics and Climate Change

In light of this conflicted positioning in which women find themselves, or more accurately in which they have been placed, further gendered and feminist analysis of women’s involvement in climate change education and policy development is instructive.  The importance of gender as a category of analysis was underscored in March 2011 in Australia.  Numerous public protests were held in cities throughout Australia, the most notable in Canberra, the nation’s capital, where an estimated three thousand protesters gathered outside Parliament House to criticise Prime Minister Gillard, her government and its proposed carbon tax.  Joining the protesters was the leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, and other politicians from the Liberal-National Coalition, in a nationally televised coverage of the protests.

Of most concern at this protest was the presence of placards and banners that delivered a personal and misogynistic attack on Julia Gillard.  Signs read ‘Ditch the witch’, ‘Juliar’ and ‘Bob Browns (sic) Bitch’.  This latter phrase referred to the leader of the Greens party, Bob Brown, and his party’s emphasis on the immediate need to respond to climate change.  Protesters viewed Gillard and her government as ‘puppets’ whose strings were being pulled by the Greens in relation to the development of environmental and economic policies. Tony Abbott, until recently a non-believer in the human contribution to climate change, spoke to the protesters in front of these placards without any apparent concern about their meaning.  When questioned later, his response was that people were angry about Gillard changing her mind about introducing a price on carbon, or in his words, “A great big tax”, after being elected back into government by the slenderest of margins.   Protesters and some Opposition politicians defended the protests by saying that if Gillard had not ‘lied’, people would not have been so angry.  In other words, it was Gillard’s own fault and she was to blame.

A gendered and feminist analysis of this scenario highlights the continuing inherent and simmering nature of sexism and the ‘blame the victim’ thinking underlying the neo-conservative backlash.  Women who are subject to violence, including verbal and emotional abuse, are often blamed for causing this violence in the first place [26, 27].  Whilst violence against women is largely acknowledged as unacceptable in Australia, (note the recent release of the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children, [28]), protests like the one described above indicate that, in practice, behaviour does not necessarily follow espoused beliefs.

Terms such as bitch and witch are clearly gendered terms; they are not applied to men and have a different connotation from any name-calling directed to male politicians.  Australian feminist, journalist and author Anne Summers believes the attacks on Julia Gillard have been gendered in nature as do many of the women politicians, from both political parties, she interviewed [29].  Judi Moylan, the Liberal member for the federal seat of Pearce in the state of Western Australia and a former minister for women, wondered if there was a comparable male term to bitch and could not think of one.  Joan Kirner who was Labor Premier of the state of Victoria from 1990-1992 commented that she could not remember attacks such as ‘Ditch the witch’ occurring before in politics nor being sanctioned by the appearance of the opposition leader. According to Joan Kirner, “The level of media and political sanction that has been given to this gender bias attack is greater” [29].  Nicola Roxon, Australia’s former Attorney-General, believes “the level of personal abuse and vitriol in the current parliamentary debates are of a substantially different nature from anything we have seen in the past.” [29]

Further gender analysis of the language used shows that the words, bitch and witch, have historically been used in pejorative ways against women; they are used to insult, demean and disempower women.  Witches were stereotypically considered ‘evil’, unpredictable, deviant and trouble-makers.  As Elspeth Whitney [30] explains “the collective image of the witch was that of an ill-tempered, older woman” who did not know her place and was acting outside her prescribed social role.  Julia Gillard is not married and has no children for which she has been criticised by a number of opposition politicians, most notably by National Senator Bill Heffernan as “deliberately barren” [29].  Women are often referred to as bitches when they are seen as competitive, aggressive, non-feminine, selfish and vindictive. As Schlehofer, Casad, Bligh & Grotto note, “When women violate their gender role by being agentic leaders, such as political leaders, they often are unfavorably evaluated particularly by those who endorse traditional gender roles”[31]. Further, these authors found that evaluations of women in a male dominated career such as politics can be influenced by media commentary, particularly negative commentary.

In a culture where violence against women and opposition to gender equity is still silently unchecked by some in the community, protesters and others opposed to the stance taken by Gillard and her government are able to frame Gillard as a ‘liar’.  This not only positions her as untrustworthy and unpredictable, the bitch and the witch, it shifts and derails climate change discussions to debates about the woman prime minister’s morality.  In so doing, it amplifies the tactics of the opposition which reflect the anti-reflexivity identified by McCright and Dunlap [32] within the U.S. American conservative movement.

In the case of the ad hominem attacks on Gillard, we can see that the neoconservative political forces have aimed to prevent widespread understanding and support for progressive climate change policies by creating an irrelevant agenda, or new rules, that take attention away from the primary issue of concern, climate change and how best to respond and manage it.  Rather than an open debate about the merits of a price on carbon and/or a carbon tax and the further development of a climate policy – a debate which after the 2007 federal election seemed to have been amenable to the majority of Australian voters – there is a debate about the trustworthiness of a woman-led government.  If the Prime Minister cannot be trusted to keep her word, how can she be trusted to tell the truth about the impact on the economy of a carbon tax or other climate change related policies?  Gillard’s critics amplify their arguments about her untrustworthiness by reminding voters of the way in which she originally became Prime Minister.  Tony Abbott described the change as “an ugly assassination” [33] and the transition of leaders is now widely referred to as the “knifing” of Kevin Rudd.  Research undertaken by Okimoto and Brescoll [34] provides us with further insight into reasons for the sustained attacks on Gillard.  They found that voting preferences for women politicians were often negatively affected by what was perceived as power-seeking intentions, although tellingly, this was not the case for male politicians.  Reinforcing the findings by Schlehofer et al, Okimoto and Brescoll noted that these different reactions could, in part, be explained “by the perceived lack of communality implied by women’s power-seeking intentions, resulting in lower perceived competence and feelings of moral outrage. The presence of moral-emotional reactions suggests that backlash against women politicians arises from the violation of communal prescriptions” [35]. In other words, women are expected to fulfil conservative, acceptable and non-threatening gender roles: caring, comforting, compassionate and home-based.

Momentum has shifted from an appetite for informed social transition and change to one of fear, blame and concern about what many in the community now perceive as a great big tax on one’s individual way of life imposed by an untrustworthy and morally corrupt woman heading an equally dishonest and unreliable government.  The neoconservative trend toward a focus on economic development and capitalistic accumulation, use of the environment and individuation has reasserted itself in the context of generated fear, distrust, negativity and violence.

The gains to be achieved in employing gender as a lens for analysis in the protests and adverse political responses to climate change and related proposed policy is that the motives and tactics of those opposed to these changes and developments can be identified and named.  The issue of violence against women, although not presented as the central focus in these debates, can also be highlighted and faced.  The links between gender inequality and lack of care for the environment can be made and suggestions for considered and courageous ways to respond to the impact of climate change can be encouraged.  As for the losses, gendered and feminist informed ways of viewing and understanding the world consistently raise criticism and ridicule, most typically from neoconservative individuals and movements.  The response to this is to persevere in order to protect, advocate for and with, and achieve social change for those who are most at risk from the impact of global warming and climate change; women, children and other oppressed populations.  One method of resisting the criticism and negative responses is to undertake feminist and gendered research into climate change and subsequently raise awareness and build knowledge and evidence.

Climate Change and Feminist and Gendered Research

The gendered dimensions of climate change require careful consideration in policy development. Women have been taking a lead in researching the gendered implications of climate change.  International organisations like the United Nations advocate a gender perspective on climate change and emphasise the inclusion of women in addressing climate change. Few national governments, according to Ulrike Roehr, incorporate gender in their national plans and policies [36]. The message is clear: for climate change adaptation policies and measures to be successful, both developing and developed nations need to be gender sensitive.  The United Nations advocates that “In the formulation of global and national approaches, as well as in the strategic responses to specific sectors, gender awareness, substantive analysis and inclusive engagement will be necessary” [37].

Climate change and drought policy in Australia has been extensively researched through a gendered lens by Margaret Alston.  Widespread areas within rural Australia experienced drought throughout the first decade of this century and Alston’s research has shown that drought is a gendered experience; women and men often experience and react to drought in different ways.  Alston has called for the concept of “gender mainstreaming” to be fully realised and activated across not only the organisations working with farming families experiencing drought, but across governments and nations [38].  Gender mainstreaming in relation to drought, and climate change more generally, is a process which enables the issue of gender to be considered as a core rather than an additional concern when legislation, policies and decisions are developed and implemented.  The ultimate aim is to achieve gender equality and prevent gender discrimination.

In practice, the goals of gender mainstreaming have yet to be achieved. This limitation illustrates another struggle with the neoconservative backlash in Australian politics in relation to gender and climate change.  Alston demonstrates that agriculture and drought policies in Australia frequently focus solely on the role of men within farming and agriculture without considering the changing roles of women who have contributed in myriad ways to maintain and hold onto family farms during drought.  She notes that “… gender equity is subsumed to male normative considerations embedded in agricultural policy” [38].  Where an understanding of, and a commitment to, gender equity is lacking, the notion of gender mainstreaming will be largely meaningless to those unfamiliar with or opposed to gender equality.

The attitudes and assumptions of conservative politicians about the ways in which agriculture is structured in Australia and the roles that women play in generating off farm income and resources have failed to evolve with the social changes that have occurred in response to prolonged drought and consequences of climate change. The notion of anti-reflexivity, or the unwillingness to entertain new and challenging viewpoints, can again be employed as a way in which to situate and understand neoconservative perspectives about the roles of women in agriculture in Australia. Since the iconic image of the ‘man on the land’ remains a symbol of rurality and ruggedness in the face of trouble and ultimate conquering of the environment, attention to the invisibility of women in agriculture is diverted by neoconservatives who create a new rule, or a new agenda, by questioning the research and women’s experiences therefore subverting the importance of the original concern.

The gain in employing a gender analysis of agriculture and drought policy is that once the gaps and insufficiencies are identified, recommendations for social change can be provided.  Alston does just that by recommending that the contextual nature of gender mainstreaming be revealed and understood and that “gender expert units” in government departments be developed in order to generate models of gender equity and to identify and monitor the differential impacts of policies on women and men. These recommendations to include a gender sensitive focus in addressing climate change require the opposite of an anti-reflexive approach. They require politicians, policy makers and advisors to be open, reflective and reflexive in order to clearly and unflinchingly challenge and refuse perspectives and behaviours that cause women to be marginalized, “invisibilised” [39] and muted in responses to, and planning for resolutions to, climate change.

Conclusion

We have explored the way some mass media and neoconservative politicians frame the climate change debate drawing on the analyses and lessons of various authors from the U.S. Similar strategies are also being used in Australian public life by neoconservative-oriented politicians and other high profile figures in the conservative media. We have indicated the shortcomings of these strategies for mobilising the discussions citizens need to have about the social, political and economic changes for the response to, and the prevention of climate change.

Gender relations are a significant aspect within climate change policy, response and management, or mitigation and adaptation.  We have shown that some in the mass media and some neoconservative politicians tend to denigrate women politicians and prominent women who speak out on climate change in ways that seek to undermine their legitimacy and trustworthiness. It is our hope that by exploring the strategies used to frame this ‘debate’, by naming them and indicating their effects on the climate change discussions, we may stimulate further reflection on these strategies. Exploring the way that gender is framed through these strategies has indicated that these strategies are not new but rather age-old reactions to women in public life. Gender can be attributed prominence in climate change policy, response and management. Women around the globe indicate they are part of the solution to climate change and we are encouraged by how women are taking leadership nationally and internationally in addressing climate change.

Postscript

(1) On 10 October 2012 Prime Minister Gillard gave an impromptu speech in the Australian Parliament which subsequently became known as ‘The Misogyny Speech”.  It appeared on social media throughout the world.

(2) In a Labor party leadership spill on June 26 2013, Julia Gillard was replaced by Kevin Rudd as Labor leader and as Prime Minister.

 

Notes

[1] Fiona Harvey, “Environmental reporter”, The Guardian, 29 May 2011, ‘Worst ever carbon emissions leave climate on the brink’ available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/carbon-emissions-nuclearpower, accessed June 15, 2011.

[2] Tamer Afifi, Radha Govil, Patrick Sakdapolrak and Koko Warner.  “Climate change, vulnerability and human mobility: Perspectives of refugees from the East and Horn of Africa.” Report No. 1 June, 2012. United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security and the United Nations Refugee Agency. available at: http://www.ehs.unu.edu/file/get/9951.pdf, accessed September 2012.

[3] Alston, Margaret. “Gender and climate change: variable adaptions of women and men.” Just Policy, 46, 2007. Pp29-35.

[4] Sultana, Farhana. “Living in hazardous waterscapes: Gendered vulnerabilities and experiences of floods and disasters.” Environmental Hazards, 9, 1, Pp43-53.

[5] Alston, Margaret.  “Gender and Climate Change in Australia.”  Journal of Sociology, 47, 2011. Pp53-70.

[6] Morley, Christine and Selma Macfarlane. “The continued importance of a feminist analysis: gendered inequalities visible through a critique of Howard government policy on domestic violence.” Just Policy: A Journal of Australian Social Policy, 47, Pp.31-37.

[7] Hamilton, Clive. SCORCHER: The Dirty Politics of climate change. Black Inc. Agenda, Melbourne. 2007. p 3.

[8] Summers, Anne. “ Conspiracy of silence lets persecution of PM fester.” The Sydney Morning Herald. Tuesday 4 August. 2012. Anne Summers is a well known author and journalist as well as former Head of the Office of the Status of Women and advisor to several Australian Prime Ministers on women’s issues.

[9] McCright, Aaron and Riley Dunlap.  “Anti-reflexivity: The American Conservative Movement’s Success in Undermining Climate Science and Policy.”  Theory, Culture and Society.  27, 2010.  Pp 100-133.

[10] McCright, Aaron and Riley Dunlap.  “Anti-reflexivity: The American Conservative Movement’s Success in Undermining Climate Science and Policy.”  Theory, Culture and Society.  27, 2010.  Pp 100-133.

[11] McCright, Aaron and Riley Dunlap.  “Anti-reflexivity: The American Conservative Movement’s Success in Undermining Climate Science and Policy.”  Theory, Culture and Society.  27, 2010.  Pp 100-133.

[12] McCright, Aaron and Riley Dunlap.  “Anti-reflexivity: The American Conservative Movement’s Success in Undermining Climate Science and Policy.”  Theory, Culture and Society.  27, 2010.  Pp 100-133.

[13] Oreskes Naomi and Erik, M. Conway. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury Press, London. 2010.

[14] LeMay, Renai. “IPA damns “extraordinary data retention policy.” Delimiter. 31 August 2012. Available at: http://delimiter.com.au/2012/08/31/ipa-damns-extraordinary-data-retention-policy/. Accessed August 2012.

[15] LeMay, Renai. “IPA damns “extraordinary data retention policy.” Delimiter. 31 August 2012. Available at: http://delimiter.com.au/2012/08/31/ipa-damns-extraordinary-data-retention-policy/. Accessed August 2012.

[16] Cahill, Damien. “Think Tanks and public policy.” Australian Review of Public Affairs. February. 2008. Available at: http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2008/02/cahill.html. Accessed August 2012.

[17] Hamilton, Clive. “ The Shadowy world of IPA finances.” The Drum Opinion. 24 February 2012. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3849006.html. Accessed August 2012.

[18] Hamilton, Clive. “ The Shadowy world of IPA finances.” The Drum Opinion. 24 February 2012. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3849006.html. Accessed August 2012.

[19] McCright, Aaron and Riley Dunlap.  “Anti-reflexivity: The American Conservative Movement’s Success in Undermining Climate Science and Policy.”  Theory, Culture and Society.  27, 2010.  p 101.

[20] McCright, Aaron and Riley Dunlap.  “Anti-reflexivity: The American Conservative Movement’s Success in Undermining Climate Science and Policy.”  Theory, Culture and Society.  27, 2010.  p 105.

[21] Naomi Oreskes, “Answering Climate change Skeptics”. The Spring 2010 Vetlesen Lecture Series: People and Planet Global, Environmental change. Accessible at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXyTpY0NCp0, accessed 15 June 2011.

[22] Naomi Oreskes, “Answering Climate change Skeptics”. The Spring 2010 Vetlesen Lecture Series: People and Planet Global, Environmental change. Accessible at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXyTpY0NCp0, accessed 15 June 2011.

[23] Holmes, Jonathan “ Balancing a hot debate” Mediawatch, Episode 07, 21 March 2011, Australian Broadcasting Commission. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3230982.htm, accessed 15 June 2011.

[24] Holmes, Jonathan. “ Balancing a hot debate” Mediawatch, Episode 07, 21 March 2011, Australian Broadcasting Commission. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3230982.htm, accessed 15 June 2011.

[25] Holmes, Jonathan. “ Balancing a hot debate” Mediawatch, Episode 07, 21 March 2011, Australian Broadcasting Commission. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3230982.htm, accessed 15 June 2011.

[26] Holmes, Jonathan. “ Balancing a hot debate” Mediawatch, Episode 07, 21 March 2011, Australian Broadcasting Commission. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3230982.htm, accessed 15 June 2011.

[27] Holmes, Jonathan. “ Balancing a hot debate” Mediawatch, Episode 07, 21 March 2011, Australian Broadcasting Commission. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3230982.htm, accessed 15 June 2011.

[28] Clark, Haley and Antonia Quadara.  Insights into sexual assault perpetration: Giving voice to victim/survivors’ knowledge.  (Research Report No. 18). Australian Institute of Family Studies. 2010.

[29] VicHealth. National Survey on Community Attitudes to Violence Against Women 2009: Changing cultures, changing attitudes – preventing violence against women. Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth).  2010.

[30] Commonwealth of Australia.  National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children.  Canberra.  2011.

[31] Summers, Anne.  “The Gender Agenda: Gillard and the Politics of Sexism”.  The Age.  February 26, 2012.  Available at: http://m.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/the-gender-agenda-gillard-and-the-politics-of-sexism-20120225-1tv7n.html.  Accessed 31 July 2012.

[32] Whitney, Elspeth.  “The Witch “She”/The Historian “He”: Gender and the Historiography of the European Witch-Hunts.”  Journal of Women’s History.  7, 3. 1995.  Pp77-101. (p78)

[33] Schlehofer, Michele, Casad, Bettina, and Michelle Bligh and Angela Grotto.  “Navigating Public Prejudices: The Impact of Media and Attitudes on High-Profile Female Political Leaders”.  Sex Roles, 65, 2011.  Pp 69-82 (p71).

[34] McCright, Aaron and Riley Dunlap.  “Anti-reflexivity: The American Conservative Movement’s Success in Undermining Climate Science and Policy.”  Theory, Culture and Society.  27, 2010.  Pp 100-133.

[35] The Sydney Morning Herald, “Labor has new leader, same policy: Abbott”.  June 24, 2010.  Available at: 16/8/2012: http://www.smh.com.au/national/labor-has-new-leader-same-policy-abbott-20100624-z1q1.html?rand=1277351527421.  Accessed 31 July 2012.

[36] Okimoto, Tyler and Victoria Brescoll.  “The Price of Power: Power-seeking and Backlash against Female Politicians”.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.  36(7), 2010.   Pp 923-936.

[37]  Okimoto, Tyler and Victoria Brescoll.  “The Price of Power: Power-seeking and Backlash against Female Politicians”.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.  36(7), 2010.   Pp 923-936. (p923).

[38] Roehr, Ulrike cited in Fidells, Zvomuya “Women Feel the Impact of Climate Change”, Climate media partnership. June 10, 2010 http://www.climatemediapartnership.org/reporting/stories/women-feel-the-impact-of-climate-change/

[39] Women Watch. Information and Resources on gender equality and empowerment of women. “The threats of Climate Change are not Gender-Neutral.” Inter-Agency Network on Women and Gender Equality. Available at: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/feature/climate_change/. Accessed September, 2012.

[40] Alston, Margaret et al. “Drought Policy in Australia: Gender Mainstreaming or Gender Blindness?”  Gender, Place and Culture.  16, 2.  2009.  Pp139-154.  (p140)

[41] MacGregor, Sherilyn.  “A Stranger Silence Still: The Need for Feminist Social Research on Climate Change.”  Sociological Review.  57.  2010.  Pp124-140.

This entry was posted in Articles and edition . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • Pages

  • Categories

  • Issues