Case study – the misogyny speech

We’ll use case studies throughout this book to explore communication-in-action, and to provide you with diverse perspectives on the relationship between communication and meaning.

Our first case study takes us back to 2012 and to a speech delivered in parliament by then Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Gillard was Australia’s first female prime minister. She received much media scrutiny and, at times, personalised attacks from other (male) politicians and commentators based on her gender and aspects of her personal life. In particular, the Australian media paid constant attention to her status as an unmarried, childless woman, and to her personal appearance (including her hairstyles and fashion choices). Sexist language was deployed against her by opposition politicians who referred to her as a “witch” and, at times, a “bitch” (ABC news).

The so-called “misogyny speech” was triggered when Gillard was herself accused of sexism during a parliamentary motion by opposition leader Tony Abbott, who months earlier had been photographed standing in front of an anti-Gillard sign emblazoned with the words “ditch the witch”.  Gillard stood up and said, “I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. I will not. And the Government will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man. Not now, not ever.” She spoke for 15 minutes about misogyny and sexism in Australian politics, in a landmark moment of discursive practice and communication-in-action (or communication as action).

Julia Gillard misogyny speech voted most unforgettable Australian TV moment | Guardian News

The speech had immediate ripple effects: it attracted media attention, not just locally but globally, and was widely shared online – essentially, it went viral. The ABC reports that the speech prompted the Macquarie Dictionary to update its definition of the word misogyny from “hatred of women” to “entrenched prejudice against women”.

The meaning shared by Gillard in this speech worked on denotative and connotative levels. At the most straightforward level (denotation), Gillard was expressing her frustration with the sexist attitudes of male politicians, particularly Abbott. What made her speech so resonant, however, were its connotations – its multiple secondary meanings. At the level of connotation, her speech communicated that:

• The Australian parliamentary system was steeped in prejudice;
• Prejudice against women should no longer have a place in Australian politics;
• Female politicians have the power to speak out about sexism;
• Parliament is a place in which such gender politics should be discussed;
• It is no longer appropriate to stay silent on gender inequality;
• Gillard herself was an empowered figure rather than a victim.

In the years since, the speech has been turned into a song (as reported in this article from The Guardian) and its legacy is still being discussed over a decade later, when it circulates on TikTok and is performed on stage (see this article from The Conversation). This tells us much about the flow of meaning in the digital age. Messages can have an afterlife – their capacity to share meaning may be extended if people spread, discuss, recall, and remake them.

This example shows us that an act of communication can intervene in events but also become an event itself. Acts of communication can enforce or challenge power structures, depending on the choices made. Much is at stake when meaning is shared, and the outcome can be the (re)construction of reality itself.