"Men get away with not having to front press conferences in tears. Men get away with choosing to rein back in a live television program rather than fetching a cold compress and a glass of flat lemonade. Men get away with not hair stroking or back rubbing or cooing “there, there”. Because showing their feelings is not their burden."

Which men?

Names, or numbers of men please, or is it all being made up?

I'm really don't think this has anything to do with Mirabella being a woman. I think it's got more to do about the pre-existing assumptions people have about her as a person. It's pretty clear that Mirabella has a lot of enemies in the Twitterverse, and her reaction played into their thesis that Mirabella is a pretty unpleasant character (I don't want to get into a discussion about the veracity or otherwise of this thesis as it's beside the point).

Had the person sitting next to Simon Sheik been (a) not a politician, as we're predisposed to seeing politicians in the worst possible light and (b) a person who enjoyed wider popularity, I don' think this would have become an issue.

I'm amazed that this suddenly becomes a feminist issue. A person collapses, the person sitting closest recoils from them with a look of distaste on their face. Other people rush in to help when it's apparent that it's a serious health issue. The person closest to the collapsed person still stays rooted to their chair, unmoved. How is this a feminist issue, it's a humanity issue? It has nothing to do with gender or politics, it's just reflects on that person.

The antipathy towards Sophie Mirabella has nothing to do with "the failure to appropriately – to femininely – emote".

Sophie emotes with the best of them; she does breast-beating, she does shrieking she also does confected outrage, dripping sarcasm and she is more patronising than almost anyone in federal politics.

People don't think she is "cold, unfeeling and calculating" because she shied away from an "opportunity to appropriately emote".

They think she is calculating, manipulative political propagandist based on a long experience of her. That she failed to behave in the way many half decent people would when confronted with a "real situation" simply cements the view many have of her.

Double standard certainly abound but attempting to shoe horn Sophie into the victim role is misguided and ultimately you end up as ...an apologist.

Sorry Guys as much as I dislike Sophie most people react differently to situations and I would have reacted similar to Sophie in this case. Stop this BS!

As a medical doctor having spent many hours around people who not infrequently suddenly become unresponsive or collapse, I've seen dozens of people react in the same way as Miss Mirabella, men and women, mothers and fathers, other medical colleagues and general citizens, and myself included. Knowing what to do in such situation does not seem natural at the time and is difficult to learn.

It may be unfair to suggest that an individual on national television (which I imagine is an incredibly stressful activity) is an uncaring person just because they failed to act quickly and decisively when someone unexpectedly became suddenly unwell. We all may have well acted similarly in the same situation.

I am totally appalled at the stupidity shown by most who have posted here.
The complete inability of people to actually analysis the situation leads me to the conclusion that most readers of The Conversation - with a few notable exceptions - can never claim an average level of intelligence.
Firstly, of all the people in the studio the person who had the least amount of information to analyse the situation was Sophie Mirabella.
As Simon collapsed, her head was turned away. When she turned back all the information she had was conveyed via the back view of a person face down on a desk. Was Simon smiling, grimacing. She did not know. Was it a stunt that Simon was pulling? She did not know.
Tony Jones runs Q&A as a controlling teacher might run a class in a fishbowl.
He turns attention from one member of the panel to the other. Would anybody have been surprised if he had "thrown" to a face-down Simon with a pre-arranged question? The most "powerful" or dominant person in the room is Tony Jones. Anybody who challenges this is given short shrift.
The best witnesses to the collapse were the people sitting within five metres of the panel, on the same side as Simon. Both Simon and Greg Combet would have been in their central field of vision. However they chose to do nothing. Yet they have not been criticized.
Of course, the height of the stage sends a message of lower status to the audience in the front rows.
I have often been involved in incidents at sports events. It is generally best left to the people with appropriate roles and responsibility. Other busybodies often rush in with inappropriate advice, and start moving the patient putting them at risk of further injury. I recall some pumping peoples' legs to solve a winding problem, without considering the possibility of broken ribs.

In the case of Q&A, the best action would have been for Tony Jones to identify the best qualified person in the room to deal with the situation, and to ask for external assistance be called for.

I agree with everyone who thinks the negative reaction tho Sophie Mirrabella has nothing to do with her gender. Her reaction didn't seem right for a concerned or empathetic human. The person next to you faints you lean in to see what's happening not away. That is, if you have concern for them, which you'd have less of if you don't like them. I can say as a psychology academic that it is very basic fact of psychology is that we approach what and who we like and avoid what and who we dislike. It is no surprise that a political conservative doesn't like political liberal. Her reaction is what you might expect of someone to the sudden illness of their enemy.

I find this article odd.

A stereotypical politician is not a very nice person.

They are generally a control freak with an overeager desire for power. They spend most of their day plotting. The majority of plotting time is actually plotting against their own so they can climb the ladder of success. I don’t know about others but I pay them to represent and not to plot. Of course there are exceptions who do not plot but they would be the exception.

In terms of dear Sophie, it is more important she is in with those at the head table at the liberal party conference then the electorate. The head table will do infinitely more for her election chances then her own efforts ever will.

With that as background, we can now read into dear Sophie’s recoil. We can also read into this article to see it is completely off the mark. Nothing to do with being female. Plenty to do with being a politician.

So my conclusion is dear Sophie is an ambitious politician and behaved as such. Her crime is she forgot she is supposed to portray the impression that she cares for her fellow man.

It seems from the author's comment ".. Greg Combet was rabbiting on about something vaguely sleep-inducing" that we can safely assume she is not a supporter of Combet or his politics, and from that we might assume she is a liberal supporter.
It would have been better perhaps for her to have been upfront about this before she entered into her defence of Sophie Mirabella's behaviour instead of disguising it as a feminist issue.
This is not a feminist issue - it is an issue of compassion and leadership, two key qualities we look for in politicians.
It seems to me Sophie Mirabella failed to exhibit either, and it is for that reason she has attracted such ridicule.

Interesting comments, from the perspective of a human response, Ms Mirabella recoiled. Her body language possibly indicated 'oh look another stunt'
Its not a political thing its the human response, or lack of. Ms Mirabella, has for several years now been one of the more 'outspoken' Liberals in the respective Government's and Opposition. Her 'outspoken-ness has preceeded her as evidenced by the comments here and in other media, since simon sheik hit the desktop.
Either you are concerned for the wellbeing of your fellow mankind or you are not. The Road Traffic Act in the States & Territories has provision for criminal charges to be laid for 'Failing to stop and render assistance at the scene of MVA'
This is not of course covered by the Act in question, this is about the look on Ms Mirabella's face and her lack of compassion / movement, although moving slightly stage left!.
Perhaps running around saying NO all the time in cohoots with T Abbott has blunted the lack of humanity in Ms Mirabella and the Liberal ilk at large.

I do agree with Lauren's comment about Greg Combet's rambling on, but hey, how about we refrain once in a while from dividing the world up between men and women, and taking such umbrage at something said of a woman as an attack by all men, worse launching such a tirade as this against all men.

Such rambling is even more sleep-worthy . . . .

If this is contemporary public policy, no suprise so many of us are simply disengaging, no longer participating.

I'm sorry Lauren, but I would have to say, "what happened to intuition", whether as a woman or mother and Sophie is both.
Many is the time I have preferred to make a fool of myself and be sure, than just sit/stand there as a bystander and do nothing.

It is articles like these that sully the reputation of the feminist movement. The anti Mirabella comments I have read refer to her lack of humanity, or link her other perceived personality flaws to explain her reaction, or comment on her politics being different from Simons to explain it. The pro Mirabella comments I have read refer to her lack of training, or shock, to explain her reaction.
The author, in making this a feminist issue, insults those women whose circumstances still need the assistance the good work of feminism can bring them and devalues the feminist movement by insisting women be excluded from judgement based on the humanity of their actions/inactions.