Through her misogyny speech, former Australian prime minister Julia Gillard popularised the word misogyny, so much so that her speech went on to become one of the defining moments of her time in office and earned her a name on the TIME shortlist of the most influential leaders of 2013. It also spurned a discussion on broadening the definition of misogyny from a narrow ‘pathological hatred of women’ to an ‘entrenched prejudice against women’.

What prompted her to make this speech was not physical violence against her but some words used to describe her. Words such as ‘bitch’, ‘witch’, ‘make an honest women of yourself’ aimed at Gillard had caused this stir. Many were appalled by the vile descriptions of Gillard as ‘someone’s bitch’ even as she held the office of the Prime Minister in a ‘developed’ and modern country such as Australia. Gillard, however, ably fought back and took a stand to ensure that such words would not be repeated again. Because these words are not simply phrases, they carry prejudices and set biased narratives; they are one form of the manifestation of violence against women. But repeated they are, in Australia and around the world and in different forms.

A misogynist narrative

In recent times, Nepal’s opinion makers appear to be fascinated with women’s ‘bed-warming’ abilities. For example, women members nominated for the Constituent Assembly (CA) through the Proportional Representation (PR) system were described as ‘bed-warmers’ (Prateek Pradhan, Nagarik, January 5) and ‘mistresses’ (Jainendra Jeevan, The Kathmandu Post, January 12). Women were also said to have been nominated because they were wives and lovers. Such descriptions are problematic on many levels.

First is the use of revolting phrases such as ‘bed-warmers’ and ‘mistresses’ to describe women; second are the statements that lovers and ‘mistresses’ were selected without specifying who they are; and third is the generalisation that all women selected under PR fall into one of these categories, even though, as Nirmala Sharma (Kantipur, January 7), has correctly argued, they represent a small number. Currently, seven out of 162 PR women nominees (4 percent) are wives of party leaders. Sharma argues that this is political and character assassination of women. This is true because, implied in these terms, is that women have used sex to gain seats in the CA.

To say that ‘bed-warming’ is a beautiful thing (Bidushi Dhungel, Setopati, January 9) and therefore, feminists should not shrink from using it, is devoid of the context of how these terms were used. It was not meant as a beautiful thing. It was used to refer to women’s inferiority and in particular, their inability to win seats based on merit and the use of sex as a bargaining chip. Hence Mohna Ansari’s statement “women are not bed-warmers” and Dhungel’s statement “yes they are” refer to two totally different phenomena. The first points to prejudice against women and second to the literal act of lovemaking. Lovemaking may be beautiful but it is a private matter and not a criterion for CA membership. To condone such terms is equivalent to Gillard saying ‘yes, I am a bitch’. Instead Gillard countered this and referring to Tony Abbott, the incumbent Prime Minister of Australia, famously said “I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny from this man, not now, not ever.” Feminists in Nepal should shy away

from showing bravado by condoning humiliating terms that come from a misogynist mindset. No, we will not be lectured to by misogynists.

Interestingly, no one raised the issue that if indeed sex has been used to select candidates then should not the men be responsible for immoral conduct? Do we need men in the CA who have ‘mistresses’ and use sex to give party seats? Who is at fault—men who select such women or women who are chosen? Were ‘mistresses’ and lovers selected or were they made to be one by these powerful men; in which case, this would be a sexual offence anyway. Why then does Jeevan label such women nominees as wrong faces but not those who select them (if indeed it did happen)?

Another worrying aspect was that, unlike in Australia, not many people appear to be revolted by such name-calling; very few have protested against it while others have outright supported it. In doing so, a new, dangerous and misogynist narrative has been set in motion, one that insults not only women but the institution of the CA itself.

Merit of quotas

I am not saying that a gender criterion has not been misused in the PR system. In a previous article (‘Not just wives and daughters’ April 13, 2013, Page 6), I have in fact argued that while political reservation is promoted as an overarching solution to women’s problems, it is rather like picking the lowest hanging fruit. Research has shown that, by itself, a quota system cannot solve the complex problems of patriarchy. Moreover, women leaders do not always take up women’s causes or may themselves be misogynists. I maintain that these quotas should be for feminist women leaders who use political positions not as an end but as means to help women’s causes.

There is also another important aspect to this story. In a fair society, participation of women and men should statistically be fifty percent each. However, we don’t live in a fair world but in a patriarchal society, hence the need for reservations. Gender criteria are generally portrayed as needed to save women because they are weak. In fact, it is required because even qualified women are generally barred from powerful positions because of their gender. What irony. Gillard explains this succinctly to point to a broader debate on merit, equality and reservation. She argues, “There is a false debate about equality versus merit. These go hand in hand. Aiming for equality is not the denial of merit, quite the reverse. The proponents of status quo, even though they dress their arguments as merit, are actually ensuring that merit is not rewarded. Women of merit have been excluded.”

I am not aware of comments from the CA women nominees regarding how they feel about the remarks made about them. Maybe they are pointing fingers at others and are smug about their status. But as I have argued, these remarks are so generalised that they malign all women. The new CA women need to take a stand and show that they are more than ‘bed-warmers and mistresses’. It is their job to fight battles for us, not ours to fight for them. The least they could do is to fight this battle.

Khadka is a PhD candidate at Monash University, Australia