Tory Shepherd: To attack the ineffable ‘Sisterhood’ is to disguise your own sexism

Tory Shepherd: By setting up The Sisterhood as a big straw (wo)man, the outraged replace the messy reality of feminism with rules they want to make themselves.

I must have been behind the shed smoking Alpines when The Sisterhood initiation rituals took place.

Because I’m still not really sure what it is. Various dictionaries describe The Sisterhood as “women involved in actions to improve women’s rights”, or “a society of women living a religious life”, or “the solidarity of women”.

You hear about The Sisterhood quite a lot in a colloquial sense. As in “Hey, welcome to The Sisterhood!” when a woman displays that female solidarity.

Then there’s Sisterhood Australia, which exists “to give expression to and unleash the feminine heart across the landscape of Influencers Church”. There’s a Hillsong Sisterhood, and Sisterhood Activewear, whose Instagram account features eeny meeny neon pink bikinis.

But recently, when people invoke The Sisterhood, they seem to be referring to some mystical female connection, as though we’re all bonded via the moon tides into a big group that is meant to be nice to each other all the time.

And there are all these hall monitors keeping an eye on The Sisterhood and anyone who steps outside its arcane rules.

This week, it was Alan Jones (yes! Alan “I just wonder whether Scott Morrison’s going to be fully briefed to shove a sock down Jacinda Ardern’s throat” Jones!) who was ranting about the sanctity of The Sisterhood.

His target was comedian Magda Szubanski.

In response to a photo of Jenny Morrison standing behind her husband as he signed a condolence letter to the Queen, Szubanski tweeted: “I genuinely thought this was a photoshopped Handmaid’s Tale meme. But no, it’s 21st Century Aussie life.” (That comment was attached to a retweet of the photo that called it “creepy” and “ominous”).

Jones – among others – was outraged. The Sisterhood only protects those on the left, he said.

One Nation senator Pauline Hanson talked about “pathetic little insignificant people” attacking nuclear families. Others called it an “example of Left hypocrisy”.

“The sisterhood need to stop picking and choosing which sisters to protect; all women deserve to be treated with respect,” said South Australian federal Liberal MP Nicolle Flint, who is stepping aside from politics after being on the receiving end of some very poor treatment.

Even if Szubanski had actually commented on Mrs Morrison’s clothes (which was part of the accusations), the response was wildly disproportionate. As it was, she did no such thing; she just commented that the photo looked like something out of the TV series The Handmaid’s Tale.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison, his wife Jenny to the left, and Governor-General David Hurley and his wife Linda. Picture: Julian Andrews

To me, it did. It had the same muted tones, with spots of red. The motif of a man busy at important work while a woman looked on, like Fred Waterford (The Commander) in his study.

But why is Jones, and his ilk, so apoplectic about a tweet?

I’d venture: Because everything the so-called Left does makes him apoplectic.

Because by enlarging and distorting what Szubanski actually said, he’s allowed to accuse the Left of hypocrisy, thereby undermining their own claims of sexism and misogyny.

Because, by invoking the ineffable Sisterhood, he’s working to put women into a neat little box.

A box where we follow the rules and we’re nice to other women and we even cheer on women such as men’s rights activist Bettina Arndt just because she has ovaries.

It’s exceedingly weird to watch the motley crew pile on to Szubanski, when there are so many other things to be outraged about – until you think about who benefits. In politics and the culture wars, as in crime novels, always look at who benefits.

By setting up The Sisterhood as a big straw (wo)man, they replace the messy reality of feminism with something whose rules they can design themselves.

Under those rules, women are not meant to criticise other women at all, and those who do are somehow witchy traitors. The “good” women are the obedient ones, who accept their place in this imagined womanly world.

Then, people such as Jones can lash out at feminists and pretend they’re doing it on behalf of the good women. They can try to silence those who won’t be corralled into the roles they deem appropriate.

Women are meant to act as a cohesive collective for the betterment of humankind – or they’ll be punished.

Women should be Wives, or Handmaids, or Aunts, or Marthas. In Gilead, if they’re none of these things, they are Unwomen.