Jenna Price | Brittany Higgins, Linda Reynolds Zampatti jacket saga has all too common thread

You will know that this is about an alleged sexual assault, a stumbling catastrophe of various legal actions and, at the heart, respect in our parliamentary workplaces.

Love that today new research from the University of Sydney says women want more respect at work. We aren't there yet.

Instead, we have two duelling books, teams of lawyers at the ready, and at its heart, the question of how we treat each other at work and in life.

For Higgins and Lehrmann, who has always denied sexually assaulting his ex-colleague, this cannot be any kind of a life with unending scrutiny on every conversation you have, every breath you take, every garment you wear.

Truly, I've been writing about the shitfulness of gender wars for decades. I thought nothing could surprise me until I read The Australian suggesting that Linda Reynolds, the senator for whom Higgins worked, was now also a victim.

You could have knocked me over with a feather and I can assure you I am a sturdy item.

The stories, written by Janet Albrechtsen, are sympathetic to Reynolds. There have been many stories sympathetic to Higgins. I can't find any sympathetic to Lehrmann which doesn't mean that there aren't any.

But the question remains - why has Reynolds decided to compete at a pity party where, so far, no good has come to anyone involved? Not the main protagonists. Not the journalists covering the story. No-one.

I often wonder about the standard of advice given to the main players in various crises. Who advises them to make themselves the centre of the narrative? What could make things worse than trying to position yourself at the heart of the matter?

Yet here we are again, looking for perpetrators and victims and positioning a senior woman with power and story as the one who suffered.

I do not doubt for one minute that Reynolds feels bad about what happened.

Higgins's story makes Reynolds look like an unfeeling human being and that's underscored by a recollection Reynolds shares in her interview.

It's a story about what women wear and what that says about them. It's a recollection about a black and white Carla Zampatti jacket.

Higgins was wearing that jacket on the night of the alleged assault. Higgins told police: "I borrowed a jacket from the goodwill box."

According to the Albrechtsen story, there was no goodwill box: "The jacket is emblematic of the doubts and disagreements about that night and what happened after."

Why does it matter what Higgins was wearing? What does a Carla Zampatti jacket actually mean? I'll be honest, I've never worn an item of the legendary Zampatti clothing line.

Of course, I've looked, especially in those neat and tidy days post-baby and pre-menopause, but it would never have been a good fit with my ample bosom.

And my grasp of fashion is limited. I'd take you through inspiring lectures I had as an undergraduate from the legendary academic Bill Bonney on semiotics, on signs and signifiers, but that might not be your jam so I asked a fashion expert about what Carla Zampatti means.

Lydia Edwards is the author of How to Read A Dress and an academic at Edith Cowan University.

Let me say this, Edwards is not wildly engaged with Australian politics nor whether the jacket was in a goodwill box or not - but she homes right in on the key meanings of the attacks.

Carla Zampatti, the woman, the label, is iconic. For me, the fact that she was a successful migrant, worked, had children, continued to work, revealed a glorious realm of possibility.

The label itself has a vibe. Chic. Mostly for the skinny among us. Exxy. I'm not sure how Allegra Spender, noted Teal and daughter of Zampatti, feels at her mother's name, the family label, being dragged into this sorry mess. I do know that for many of us, Zampatti was a shining example of what was possible.

As the name/label was bandied about this week, not too many would have grasped the intricacies of the goodwill box - but certainly, the name and all it stands for, sticks hard.

READ MORE:

Why does Edwards think the Carla Zampatti jacket has become a thing?

Says Edwards: "I think it is largely to do with the fact that it's a designer jacket, and therefore expensive.

"It seems to have been suggested that a woman who can afford this garment is somehow less 'deserving' of compensation, because she 'clearly' has money? So problematic, however you look at it."

And never mind the teensy implication Higgins "borrowed" the jacket from her boss.

Seriously. Why would this be of concern? Good to know that this is an important line of questioning for some of us. I borrowed a shawl from a colleague once because I was freezing. I asked for forgiveness not permission.

As Edwards put it, one of Zampatti's enduring legacies was her view that women were often far more capable than they imagined.

"In the '80s she was something of a figurehead as a professional woman who successfully balanced family life and commitments. Her designs were described as 'unashamedly feminine', which was quite a statement in a time of conflicting ideas around what it meant to be a woman (think power suit influence).

"She was also a favourite of Julia Gillard, which links her to Australian politics and gender history in various ways."

What would Zampatti herself make of this? I think she would be pleased her classic label still matters and still gets attention.

But I think she would be bitterly disappointed that we still attribute characteristics to women based on what they wear. Just another form of blaming women.

Zampatti hoped for a world where women would have power and autonomy. We aren't there yet even for those who wear the classics.