As Ambit Gambit’s self-appointed commentator on some things gender, I thought spending an hour and a half in a suburban multiplex watching the new version of The Stepford Wives would supply the sort of ideas you’d enjoy to read my analysis of.
Unfortunately, my desire to entertain was rewarded with a confused cinematic experience, saved only by a few chuckles, some pretty cinematography and a toffee Magnum.
While the 1950s images of brides, happy housewives and post-war consumerism used during the opening credits promised much and provoked a thought (“do I have time to get some popcorn?”), the characters were so unanimously unlikeable, even the ones you’re supposed to like, and caricatured that the film failed to deliver.
Without any exaggeration, and recognising the film is based on anachronistic stereotypes, I was nearly in shock to realise Nicole Kidman’s network executive Joanna Ebehart wasn’t an automaton for any part of the movie since her “Manhattan career bitch in black” could have been invented by the most misogynist robot maker in the world: i.e. Ball Breaking Androids ‘R’ Us.
Pull a string and she’d probably say, when not spouting American television supremo speak that is, “Must emasculate, must neglect children, must take over the world” (insert laughter in manner of neurotic female Dr Evil).
When a male victim of one of Joanna’s reality shows attempts to shoot her while screaming words to the effect that he should do away with all women, there’s nothing at that point or after to suggest we shouldn’t believe she hasn’t been threatened with what she deserves.
Even if Catherine Orenstein, a feminist deconstructor of fairy tales, was correct to point out when interviewed by Ms. Magazine that “at least the remake…moves beyond the premise of the original…that men are villains”, it’s curious that Joanna as successful professional woman is such an unsympathetic figure.
At the close of the movie, when she’s working again, but is softer and with a short blonde bob that is middle ground between her previously dark hair and the long flaxen locks worn when pretending to be a Stepford Wife, the audience understands this is one modern gal who has learnt her lesson.
Of course, husband Walter, played by Matthew Broderick, already realised he didn’t want to be married to an acquiescent bombshell with microchips in her brain, which evidently makes him a “man”, but hardly goes down as the feminist awakening of our time.
In any instance, the filmmaker decides to confirm the movie’s depoliticisation, which was hinted at earlier, by putting Joanna and Walter’s woes down to an unrealistic longing for perfection, rather than war between the sexes.
Before schmaltz sets in, however, we’re incited to dislike, along with Joanna and purposely or not, the “Wives”, their husbands, conservatives, sell-out homosexuals, Walter and obnoxious kids.
Indeed, The Stepford Wives has a misanthropic tone about it that left me wondering who I should, in the American vernacular, be rooting for.
According to The Nation’s Katha Pollitt, “basically (the screenwriter) wants to have his cupcakes and eat them too: Thus men are sexist weaklings and housewives are servile bimbos and ambitious women are obnoxious but will either mellow through love or turn the tables on men because They Can Do Better – take your pick” (Pollitt’s italics).
“The movie, she adds, “is such a confused satire of its original premise – this time, the ultimate villain is an ultratraditional woman – that the characters seem to utter all their lines as if they are speaking in scare quotes”.
Making Glenn Close’s character responsible for “Stepford” might be an attempt not to alienate male viewers; after all, she dies, while members of the Men’s Association only have to push trolleys around a supermarket for their sins.
Overall, I give The Stepford Wives two out of five and recommend you see Shrek 2 instead, because it has a cute cat in it.
Read another article by Darlene on Feminist Journal.

In today’s AFR John Quiggin argues that one source of savings from which Mark Latham could pay for policy initiatives would be the abolition of negative gearing. In passing John also blames negative gearing in part for the housing boom. contrasting it with the US where property losses are quarantined against the eventual profits made from a property.
I also notice from John’s blog today that he is following one of John Maynard Keynes’ most significant policies. When accosted by a journalist who accused him of inconsistency because he has changed his opinion, Keynes said “When I find that I am wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?” Commendably, John lists a number of issues where he has changed as a result of what the facts have shown.
This post is hoping to add to the list.
The argument against negative gearing proceeds from the perception that negative gearing is a tax dodge which unjustly diminishes the tax taken by the government. Evidence generally produced in favour of this proposition is that more expenses are deducted from property than the total of income derived from it. John puts the deficit at $700 million.
But the deficit does not support the argument because it only deals with the equity side of the investment. When viewed in its totality a housing investment returns money to both the owner and the financier. In the typical negatively geared investment the owner agrees to forego a positive income in the hope of earning a positive capital profit at some later date. To do this he has to pass the income to someone else who is not interested in capital profit. So, while the owner might indeed make a loss and receive a tax deduction that does not mean that the revenue escapes the tax net. In fact it is captured as it goes through first the hands of the primary financier – the bank or other intermediary – and then into the hands of the depositor.
Australia’s housing stock is returning gross income of around 3.5%, and all of that, one way or another, pays dues to Michael Carmody.
The other argument that tends to be refuted by the facts is that negative gearing has led to the housing boom. This paper from Barry Zigas at the National Summit on Housing Affordability tends to suggest that the US situation where losses are quarantined makes little difference because it shows a chart of renter affordability in the US over the last 14 years with very similar fluctations to ours. If anything it may show a worse result. (Should be noted I’m making an assumption that rents and housing repayments tend to track each other which is not necessarily a good assumption).
The bottom line (a hackneyed phrase but I think justified in this analysis) is that housing booms and busts and consequent fluctuations in housing affordability are responses to changes in supply and demand rather than enduring taxation arrangements. That’s something that I would think modified Keynesians and economic liberals could both agree on.

THE recent media feasting over details of Mark Latham’s personal and political lives has probably not harmed his chances of being Australia’s next Prime Minister, but is the cause of getting the best candidates to seek public office the real loser?
I fear it is. And that does not augur well for a parliamentary democracy, and public office, already held in low regard by many, if not most, Australians.
I thought the Channel Nine “expose” on Mark Latham was dissapointing, and, in terms of the lead-up promotion give to it, misleading. Virtually every matter covered had been reported on months and weeks earlier by various media outlets.
Last weekend’s profile which trawled through his upbringing, his university days, his bucks party, and even a family party, was more like we used to read in the unlamented “Melbourne Truth” rather than in the respected daily press.
The next round of opinion polls will give some idea of what the “mob” think, and I suspect they won’t think much of it at all. At this stage in the political cycle, the citizenry seem more interested in who’s in, and who’s out, in Big Brother (and who’s being “outed” in Big Brother) or, rightly, more interested in the rugby league state of origin or the state of the AFL ladder.
But it does raise a serious question that all sides of politics, and the media, need to give careful consideration to – where does the boundary line between the right of a politician, or any public figure for that matter, the basic privacy and the right of the voter to know lie?
In the UK, and increasingly the US, there is no boundary line at all – and both democracies are poorer as a result.
The “in depth” exposure of the private lives of Australian political figures does not have a long history, with rare exception.
The politician I admire most in Australian political history is Henry Edward Bolte, Liberal Premier of Victoria from 1955 to 1972. Henry Bolte was as tough as they come. He had a predilection to strong drink, he smoked, as I recall, Ardath unfiltered fags, and was not only a keen punter, but a successful race horse owner.
He gave no quarter and asked for none. He dished out as much to the Country Party as he did to the Labor Party – and I suspect he hated the former considerably more than the latter.
I recall having lunch at Tattersalls Club in Brisbane when I was in my early 20’s with Clive Stoneham, the long time Labor Opposition Leader in Victoria when Bolte was Premier. The late Ansett Executive, Kevin Crawford, who died just a week or two ago, brought him along and the lunch extended well into the afternoon (as they often did in those days).
Naturally I quizzed Mr Stoneham about the man he sat across the Chamber from for so long. Now while he did say that Bolte was an “old c…”, he hastened to add that he was totally without malice, and never delved into the personal lives of his opponents (though Clive did say Henry knew more than he needed to about his Ministers).
After a few more drinks, he conceded that he actually liked Henry Bolte, and wasn’t even angry with him for giving him a walloping in three or four state elections in a row!
But there are few “Henry Bolte’s” in politics today and we are the poorer for it.
Reading all the gossip about Mark Latham – for that is what it really is – reminded me of an incident during a by-election many years ago. I won’t name the seat to protect the guilty.
The by-election was in a regional seat, and Keith Livingstone, David Watts and I were seconded from Liberal Party headquarters to run the Liberal campaign in a three cornered contest by-election that attracted wide media interest.
Our Labor Party counterparts, including the late Bart Lourigan and the late Jack Stanaway, stayed at the same hotel as we did. There was nothing unusual about that because Labor House and Liberal Headquarters were then both located in Edward Street and we often drank together at either the Exchange or the Victory, both conveniently located half way between the two offices.
Naturally we met after a hard days campaigning for a drink or two, or more, with our Labor opponents. I recall as if was yesterday Bart Lourigan buying a round of drinks, sucking on his pipe, and then telling us “if you have trouble finding your candidate in the morning, he’ll be outside the ………Club at 5 to 10 waiting for the doors to open”.
“I think he might have a serious drinking problem,” Bart added.
“But we are not going to make anything of it in the campaign”.
We were genuinely surprised. We knew our candidate did not mind a drink, but it had not occurred to us why we could never find him in the mornings (and that is not helpful in an election campaign).
Within a matter of days we discovered our candidate – who had a distinguished war and business record – was an alcoholic. Our Labor opponents knew that as well.
By that stage nominations had closed and the option of changing candidates did not exist. We “staggered” through (and so did our candidate)……and he won the seat.
He had not been in Parliament two weeks when the late Brian Harris, the “Telegraph’s” veteran state political writer rang me to say that he thought our new Member had a “problem”. Brian used to have a couple of drinks at a certain hotel, well away from Parliament House, on his way to Question Time.
He noted that the new MP popped in, went to the very corner of the bar, and had two pots with rum chasers in about 10 minutes! (We subsequently discovered he had two pots with rum chasers at 2 other pubs each morning as well).
The whole press gallery knew our MP’s “history” within days – but it was never published, or even alluded to. The late Tom Aikens, veteran Independent MP for Townsville South, was “tipped off”, but old Tom told me that as he was a reformed drunk himself he would not do anything about it.
Haven’t times changed? But have they changed for the better?
The Labor Party would have been entitled to raise questions about the fitness of our candidate – he was clearly unfit for public office – but did not do so. Our opponents accepted we knew nothing about his “problem” when he was endorsed……………..but that is often the case with alcoholics.
Of all the gossip that has been written about Mark Latham, how much of it has been of genuine public interest, or benefit?
Not much, in my view. Perhaps some of his record as Mayor of Liverpool is of genuine public interest and relevance, but what happened at his bucks party, or his sisters birthday party? Give me a break!
I believe the boundary line needs to be drawn very firmly, otherwise the quality of the men and women seeking public office will diminish even further.
The private lives of politicians, and would-be politicians, ought only be exposed to public scrutiny when aspects of the private life directly impact on their ability, or suitability, for high office.
If, for example, a candidate has a record of business failures that harmed a lot of innocent customers, suppliers or investors, the there is surely an entitlement for that to be made public.
The other area – and this is a difficult one – is where the private behaviour of a candidate or politician is in total and hypocritical contrast with his or her public views and voting record.
I will give two examples, one contemporary, – again leaving out the names.
In the early Bjelke-Petersen Cabinets there was at least one gay Minister. The Opposition new about him, and so did the media. It was common knowledge around town at the time.
Even though the Bjelke-Petersen Government was notorious for its gay bashing and “moralising”, the Minister concerned never participated in it, and was generally a model of, shall we say, discretion.
Most fair minded people would agree he was entitled to his privacy.
But today there is least one Federal MP whose hypocrisy absolutely reeks. In his electorate, the MP has a long history for being homophobic and aligning himself, for political advantage, with Christian groups noted for their intolerance. He espouses traditional family values.
But in Canberra he is in a form of a “relationship” with a young male staff member. It must be a turbulent affair because the MP occasionally sports a black eye!
The fact that he and his wife have separated may be a mitigating factor…………but if he continues to espouse homophobic views in his electorate the way he has done for years, is his entitlement to privacy forfeited?
I think the “outing” of public figures, including sporting figures and show business personalities, is wrong……………..unless, of course, they “out” themselves.
The MP concerned may well be an exception.
The people of Australia will, when the election is actually called, judge Mark Latham, and John Howard, on their policies, and their performance. I doubt whether any of the gossip and scuttlebutt reported so extensively over the last 10 days will make a fig of a difference to the outcome.
And that is how it should ever be!

It has been suggested that many women are abandoning paid work for the home.
If this is an accurate appraisal, and not just wishful thinking on the part of some, then the Ladies Against Feminism (LAF) are surely this trend’s most radical faction.
Armed with a Bible, an Edwardian Apron Pattern and the booklet of Christian Modesty, the LAF are fighting for, or at least demurely crafting, a version of femaleness that probably only existed in pre-twentieth century romantic fiction.
LAF’s website, which was no doubt embroidered one day when columnist Mrs. Stanley Sherman’s husband was calling on parishioners and her bairns were playing impetuous, but Godly, games, is adorned with the kind of treacly images that suggests it could be a parody.
A modest perusal of How to Get Back Home and Responsible Manhood reveals, however, that these “ladies” aren’t taking the piss.
Unsurprisingly, there are no pictures from olden times of over-worked females in factories, servants cleaning day and night for a pittance or destitute wives surrounded by hungry and grubby kids.
Like much of the retrogressive advice aimed at women, LAF is pure bourgeois fantasy and could be used as evidence that watching too many BBC costume dramas addles the brain.
It’s also unadulterated hogwash; imagine a site called Negroes Opposed to the Civil Rights Movement (NOCRM), with sections devoted to appropriate slave wear and tips on how to behave around your owner.
“NOCRM recommends silver chains and a permanently bowed head so he knows who’s boss”.
Most of those currently promoting domesticity as the height of female achievement, such as Dr Laura Schlessinger, author of The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands (what a title – is she saying blokes are like helpless puppies?), and the New Yorker’s Caitlin Flanagan, are more modern than LAF; after all they hold down jobs outside the home so they can’t be trying to deny that right to others, can they?
Mind you, a chap in short sleeves, shorts and long socks would seem more hip than the LAF Mesdames.
The likes of Schlessinger and Flanagan are exploiting both the entrenched belief that certain roles and qualities are innately male or female and the insecurity that has arisen since this idea has been, partially, challenged.
Indeed, they’re taking advantage of a place deep inside us where a LAF member lives untroubled by three waves of feminism, or, for that matter, the end of the 19th century.
Lakshmi Chaudhry in Stepford Wife: You’ve Come the Wrong Way, Baby adeptly assessed Flanagan as someone, “…who represents that part of us that wants to throw in the towel, to give up the good fight in the hope that surrender will bring a better, more perfect happiness than the contradictions and confusions of a partly-liberated life”.
It looks, then, as if the centrality of individual contentment (as opposed to fighting for the rights of a group), as well as anxiety about contemporary living, allows these commentators to peddle their reactionary cure, but, as Chaudhry properly argues, “whatever we do there is no guarantee of happiness, there never was – how much the hardy band of anti-feminists may insist to the contrary”.
Although LAF obviously don’t champion women’s rights, elements of Mrs. Chancey’s dissertation on feminism demonstrate they do think females are morally superior and more dependable than men, till they start emulating them that is.
In this view, it’s a wife’s influence that frees a man from “promiscuity” and living without accountability.
That women civilize was accepted by some first-wave feminists, and given the harshness of early Australia not unreasonably, but persisting with this notion asks too much of women and not enough of men.
Dr Schlessinger doesn’t mind; in an article in The Courier-Mail recently, wherein she damned modern women, she claimed men are “simple”.
While possessing the emotional complexity of a children’s show host may be better than being amoral and “irresponsible”, when Schlessinger says this, and puts the onus on women to make a relationship work, isn’t she saying men aren’t capable of much?
Imagine the ballyhoo from right-wing boys if a feminist suggested this.
With all respect to the good doctor, and the LAF, activities like changing nappies, washing dishes, nurturing, needlepoint and working outside the home are not inherently gendered and both men and women are capable of doing them.
We should keep striving until the home and the labour market reflect this reality.
Darlene’s website.

Mark Latham’s performance on Monday was what I would call a “reverse smear” – it did to his opponents what he is claiming they are doing to him, and did it by playing the victim card. It is a legitimate tactic, but will it work?
In this election campaign, one of the most powerful forces that Latham has on his side at the moment is the balance of hatred. While Howard supporters respect Howard, they will not die in a ditch for him. Latham supporters are drawn not so much to Latham, but to the possibility of deposing Howard, and they hate Howard passionately. As political contests are most often won by the least disliked, this is a problem for Howard.
Latham’s press conference appeals firstly and most directly to the Howard haters. They are ready to believe the worst of “Honest John” and therefore don’t need much proof. The allegation that ex Peter Reith staffer, Ian Hanke is involved in a “dirt unit” which is the source of these allegations is enough to bring up visions of “children overboard” which will resonate with these voters. Ex-Costello staffer Nikki Savva is also alleged to be involved in the same unit, but don’t expect to hear many Labor references to her because she doesn’t have the same connections.
It will also resonate with decent Australians who don’t like personality politics. The risk for Latham is that these Australians will decide that his press conference was just a stage-managed ploy, or worse.
There are a number of reasons that they might come to that conclusion. For one, there is Latham’s sudden change in demeanour. On Friday when he talked to John Laws he was robust, joking and blokey, then on Monday he is tearful. Yet the allegations that the Nine programme aired were all old hat and not the sensation that they had been promoted as. Most of us would be relieved to find that this was all they had – why wasn’t he?
Latham also has a reputation for being aggressive, uncaring, and in his own words, a “hater”. How does that square with his apparent sensitivity about his own position? He will justify it by saying that he has never attacked anyone’s family – and I can’t see an example of him doing that – but will the public care? Or will they say, even if you haven’t done that, you’ve contributed to the vicious atmosphere of today’s politics, so it’s a meaningless distinction.
Latham names three possible sources of the smears – his ex-wife, former Labor Party colleagues and the Liberal Party – but he tends to load all of the blame on the Liberal Party. When you examine the material that surfaced on the weekend, all of it comes from his former comrades and former spouse – why blame the Liberal Party?
Then there is the fact that in his press conference he introduced a number of allegations of which most of us, including established outlets for gossip, rumour and innuendo, like Crikey!, were unaware. He referred to an allegation of sexual harassment, and also that he had broken a man’s collarbone.
Interestingly he referred to allegations about his father. But as Tim Blair points out on his aptly named blog “Spleenville” the only allegations in the public domain about Latham’s father are allegations that he made himself sometime last year.
Yesterday morning on ABC radio Latham said that people were inquiring about what his wife had done at school, and into things about his then 13 year old sister.
Latham would no doubt argue that he is inoculating the public against further allegations, but the government might argue that he is deliberately attributing to them the work of journalists who might be trying to find legitimate non-contentious background on him and his family, which he is representing as a conspiracy. Why would a political party be interested in these sorts of details, even one that was planning to smear him? The government might even assert that these things are the work of Latham’s imagination and never in fact happened.
The ordinary voter might also wonder whether the “dirt unit” is real. A number of senior gallery journalists, including Michelle Grattan, Glen Milne, Dennis Shanahan, and Laurie Oakes, have said that the Liberal Party has never approached them with a personal Latham smear. If, as Latham claims, journalists are being approached by the Liberal Party and then approaching his office for comment, which journalists in particular are these? Of course, this question can be settled quite easily by journalists coming forward and admitting they have been approached. I assume that Latham’s office is already on the case as they apparently know who the journalists are.
There is no issue of confidentiality of sources, so the matter should be easily able to be cleared up. If these journalists need a middleman who will protect their identities, then I’m available. If no journalists come forward, then Latham has some explaining to do to ordinary Australians.
One of the strengths of the reverse smear is that it plays to a strong and well-accepted narrative in our society. Australians love victims and under-dogs waltzing their matildas or being gunned down in their home-made armour. We are suckers for Robin Hood and Sherwood Forest.
It also is a variation of “the boy who cried wolf”. In the traditional version of that tune, it is the boy who is not believed. In the reverse smear, by accusing the other side of underhand tactics you ensure that anything they say will be seen as underhand, and no matter what your opponents say they will not be believed, and the more they say it the less they will be believed.
Latham’s performance also had something messianic about it. Labor is good at themes and mythology. Latham presents himself as the fulfillment of the Labor tradition. So, just as Gough Whitlam made his mark by withdrawing the troops from Vietnam, Latham pegs his reputation on bringing our boys and girls home from Iraq. When the centenary of the elevation of future Labor Rat and at the time, first and youngest ever, Australian Labor Prime Minister Chris Watson comes around, Latham is cast as the new Watson, (without any mention of Watson’s subsequent defection). Now that there is an aspersion against his name, he does an impression of Bob Hawke, Labor’s most successful Australian Prime Minister. Latham is the embodiment of the tradition, and we can expect him to do Curtin and Chifley before too long.
He is also an admirer of Bill Clinton, and this tactic is very similar to that used by Clinton to deflect attention from his personal life in the US elections. This leaves Latham open once more to the charge of plagiarism.
This election is shaping up to be one of the nastiest yet. At the moment Latham has more motivated people on his side than Howard. That can change. If the election becomes a competition between two politicians who will do “whatever it takes” to win, then he may stir up passions on the other side of politics from people who to date feel no animosity towards him, and who are even well-disposed towards him. Most of us vote in line with habit, even if we flirt around between elections, and do not need too many excuses to vote as we did last time again. Monday’s press conference will either break some of those habits, or confirm them.