WHM 2003 Discussion Archives

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Welcome

Posted by: domhd 02 Mar - 05:47 pm

Welcome to all. This topic takes its name from Ada Evans who was the first woman to graduate in law in 1902. The first woman to enter the legal profession in Australia was Flos Grieg who was admitted as a barrister in Victoria in 1905. Marie Beuzeville Byles became the first female solicitor in NSW in 1924. In 1925 in Adelaide, Mary Kitson and Dorothy Sommerville established the first female legal partnership.

In 2002, the NSW Law Society published a report - After Ada3 - on women and partnership. The paper critically evaluates the role and experience of women in the legal profession and provides an agenda for change. The number of women in the legal profession throughout Australia has grown rapidly - at least at entry level - during the last ten years - but women still make up only a small percentage of management and leadership positions. Many are finding difficulty juggling work/life/family responsibilities and winning acceptance for the choices they make. These are some of the issues you might like to discuss during the month - so please join in.

The discussion is being moderated by Dominique Hogan-Doran, a barrister from Sydney, who is the President of Australian Women Lawyers, and mother of three young children.

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Statistical Profile

Posted by: domhd 02 Mar - 05:42 pm

Women at the NSW Bar

In February 2003, of the 1929 barristers holding NSW practising certificates and practising in NSW, only 269 were women (a ratio of men to women of approximately 9:1). Of the 264 senior counsel practising in NSW, only 8 are women. Only 1 woman was appointed in the last round of 28 new silk appointments (by contrast, 6 women were appointed in Victoria in December 2001). To look at it from another perspective, there are only 13 more female barristers in total than there are male silks practising at the NSW Bar.

The largest group of women - 108 of the 251 women practising members of the NSW Bar Association � is the 0-4 years practice group; the next largest is 57 women in the 5-9 years practice group. By contrast, the largest group of men � 326 of the 1600 men practising members � is the 10- 14 years practice group; the next largest is 303 men in the 0-4 years practice group.

Posted by: MarySexton 26 Mar - 08:30 pm

I assume the situation is much the same in other States/Territories. Silk ceilings no less

Introduction - Posted on behalf of Susan Hawthorne

Posted by: Gillian Polack 28 Feb - 05:30 am

Lesbians have existed as long as humanity has. But to most people this is an unbelievable proposition. Certainly, lesbian culture exists cross culturally and the written records of Sappho suggest a much longer history

So why is it that lesbians are considered to have no culture of their own. Just as the colonists return to the empire saying "the natives have no culture", those who favour patriarchy say "lesbians have no culture". Included among them are lesbians who deny their own reality.

What can we as lesbians do to develop the recognition of lesbian culture?

Posted by: sybils 28 Feb - 10:09 pm

Thanks for that introduction Susan. :)

For me lesbian culture is at its best when we come together as lesbians, speaking as lesbians for lesbians, sharing our stories, our lives, the struggles and celebrations, the foods we prepare and share, the crafts and arts we practise, the songs we sing the music we play.

My own personal experience of lesbian culture has been totally enriched by attending national lebian festivals. These gatherings provide affordable accessable meeting spaces which have networked me with a rich tapestry of lesbians Australia wide.

It is the combination of lesbian & feminst politics that led to my involvement with the Coalition of Activist Lesbians-Australia. COAL is a lesbian feminist human rights lobby & advocay group with United Nations accreditation and formed in 1994 for the 4th World Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995.

It is important to me that lesbians have a voice of their own and not only be heard when included with the voices of gay men or heterosexual women.

There is a uniqueness of experience when one is in the sole company of lesbians which is a celebration of being a woman.

Posted by: sybils 28 Feb - 10:12 pm

woops

I didnt introduce myself or sign in. My name is Jack Draper. I work in the Illawarra in NSW as a Lesbian Community Development Worker & am currently the CoConvenor for the Coalition of Activist Lesbians Australia.

Posted by: sand 28 Feb - 11:06 pm

This is fun!

Hi I'm Sand Hall

I live near the sea, near Wollongong and hour south of Sydney.

Jack and I are partners - in many senses of the word, including with our creative and political involvement of lesbian culture.

Originally from Aotearoa (New Zealand) I first came to Australia 1977 and lived on Women's Land in NSW for most of 1978. That was it! There I found lesbian culture (a sister culture of my life in Aotearoa) in a form that combined big nature, freedom unlike anything I'd ever experienced, and amazing opportunity. And of course there were the interpersonal dynamics of dozens of women, each with powerful and personal associations with that particular piece of land with all its possibilities, experiences and opportunities.

Twenty five years later I still have an active and significant relationship with that Women's Land.

In 1992 I commited to working on the Lesbian Space Project (LSP) in Sydney. We (Georgina Abrahams and myself initially) set out to fundraise $250,000 by the end of 1993 with which to buy and help set up a lesbian cultural and community centre in inner Sydney.

December 10 (International Human Rights Day) 1993, by the end of a dramatic concert at the Sydney Town Hall we (the 100s of lesbians who participated in LSP) thought we had raised that $250,000. The final pledge of $50,000 was later withdrawn and we were urged to continue with $200,000 - after having said, from the beginning, that if we didn't raise the full $250,000 by the end of the Town Hall concert we would give all the money back. We weren't prepared to muck around for ages trying to raise enough money - it all an all or nothing type commitment.

Then the huge issue of transgender membership of LSP emerged and the project basically split down the middle into a kind of evolutionary branching, thus dividing the good will and physical involvement of Australian (and some international) lesbians.

A building was bought and then sold a couple of years later (increasing the pot of gold the project had generated by about $100,000) due to lack of community involvement and the ongoing conflict about membership.

LSP transformed into LINC (Lesbians Incorporated) which primarily exists to manage the invested funds (generated by LSP) and administer an Australian-wide lesbian grants project, with income from that investment.

I'm also, since 1994, connected with the Coalition of Activist Lesbians Australia (COAL), went as a COAL delegate to the '95 Beijing UN 4th World Conference of Women. There I represented the Asia Pacific Region on the co-ordinating committee for the Lesbian Tent set up at the NGO Forum - first time of lesbian space in China, and first lesbian space created within UN territory.

These days I'm a Fear of Crime Worker with Wollongong City Council's Safe Community Action Team. There, as one of the things I do, I convene a Lesbian Issues Interagency primarily made up of reps from local agencies.

So, whilst I feel emersed in lesbian culture I experience internalised lesbophobia, to varying degrees, that constantly informs the form my lesbian culture takes.

Posted by: Susan Hawthorne 02 Mar - 11:38 pm

Susan here. I live in Melbourne and am a member of the Performing Older Women's Circus - you have to be over 40 to join. It's the only circus in Australia which has as one of its aims to foster lesbian visibility. I'm also a writer and have been thinking a lot about how to make sense of the world as a lesbian. For me a lesbian is a political decision rather than a lifestyle.

I am really thrilled to be a part of this discussion. What I am interested in is how other lesbians and posters on this discussion recognise something that we call lesbian culture. I'm not suggesting that we over define it or make it rigid, but as someone who has lived in lesbian culture for around 30 years I know how it feels to be a part of it. For me, it means that I feel at home in a world where I so rarely feel at home.

Some of this is based in the arts and creativity and some in politics. Moslty it's a blending of these elements.

Posted by: Veronica 03 Mar - 05:04 am

Hi

My name is Veronica Wensing and I am in the Canberra Gay and lesbian Qwire. Although not entirley lesbians of course, being in the qwire has helped me feel very much a part of something. Although not all of our songs are about being a lesbian, I have noticed that when they are I am extremely proud to sing them. i love the visibility we have and have gained a strong sense of belonging through being a member.

for me, being a lesbian is also a political decision rather than a lifestyle. I came out quite late in life and was firmly femimist and women identified before I did. part of what gave me the courage to leave my husband at the time was being surrounded by lots of lesbians.

I have been fairly fortunate in that my work environments over the last 15 years have always had a large lesbian presence. Even whilst I was living a straight life though, I did not feel like I was one of them. It was however that experience of lesbian culture that firmed my conviction to come out. I knew I would not be alone, although I had no real idea of the day to day experience.

that to me is what lesbian culture is about - that day to day experience of life, where you have to choose whether you come out , where you get used to living with less rights and inequality and where you can share that with others who understand and experience that too.

just by the way i have noticed as I logged on tonight that this disciussion has drawn the most viewers, many of whom have not contributed yet.

I am really excited that this topic is being covered in the discussions as I think that already contributes to a greater awareness of us, our issues and our culture. thanks to Susan and Jack

veronica

Posted by: Jennifer 11 Mar - 04:48 am

Hi,

I am Jenny and am responding to a comment made by Veronica. Veronica made a point (which I am paraphrasing)that this thread had many viewers who had not posted.

I'll ask this question on my own behalf (although it may apply to others): I am not a lesbian but I am interested in many of the thoughts I've read here. Is it okay for me to join in?

Jenny in Canberra

Posted by: sybils 12 Mar - 02:28 am

Dear Jenny,

Its fine for you to join in tonight wed is the live chat. Any woman can be a lesbian and its fine to just want to talk with some lesbians to get to know what being a lesbian can be like. I personally feel uncomfortable with men being a part of this conversation because the bulk of my experience is that they use my sexuality as some sort of turn on and its not available for that. Many women come out as older women, at all ages really, its never too late. In my job as a Lesbian Community Development Worker just as many women over 40 and even in their 60's & 70s come out as do young women under 25. cheers Jack

Posted by: Jennifer 12 Mar - 03:22 am

Dear Jack,

thanks for your reply. I didn't want to seem disrespectful by jumping into a conversation, and I didn't want to just 'watch'.

I can appreciate your view about being uncomfortable with men participating. Being comfortable is really important, in any forum.

I struggle with what it means to be a woman and I guess I live within the broadly accepted stereotype. I have seen, though, some of the discrimination directed at lesbians (although I can't judge whether it is specific or general) and I wonder how that impacts on you? Or on anyone else who might like to comment?

Cheers,
Jenny

Posted by: Virginia 13 Mar - 06:15 pm

Hello all and thanks Jack and Sand for starting the thread and Susan for the intro. My name is Virginia and I live in country Victoria these days having lived in many different places around Australia.

Lesbian culture is very important to me and one of the things that I struggle with is the lack of 'it' these days unless one has access to capital cities. It seems that there is not the same openess that there was previously where the circle just kept getting larger as new lesbians entered (metaphorically speaking) - these days if you look different or there is something about you (and who knows what that is) it is harder to join the circle. This is in direct contrast to when I come back to the city where I meet up with people that I have known in the past and we pick up where we left off.

I wonder what has changed and whether the ideals we had as feminists seem to have been so diluted that the embracing of difference and change have all but left us?

In many ways I feel starved in an era where my access to all things lesbian is more than it has been ever before - more movies - more music - more plays etc. but the womyn to womyn contact with friends seems to be much harder to engage in and in the area where I now live I could be anybody any place and in any space in time.

This is not to say that there are not lesbians living in this town - they are - but there is a hesitation to meet up with new people and expand your friendship network.

Anyway just a few thoughts for now
Cheers - Virginia

Kate Parr & The Working Class

Posted by: Wendy Z 21 Feb - 09:47 am

My name is Wendy Zollo, and I'm the listowner of the penmanreview. The list is made up of people of diverse backgrounds and a range of distictive knowledge. Obviously , this is our chosen subject this year.

I'd like to open this thread by comparing a well known historical figure (Katherine Parr) with some lesser known medieval women and assesses the contrast between the two as the thread continues.

What is generally recalled about Katherine Parr is her marriage to King Henry VIII and her survival of said marriage. What 'may' not be known is she was a learned woman who followed (secretly until her fourth marriage to Thomas Seymour, uncle to King Edward VII) the 'new' religion (Protestantism).

What is most worthy about noting about Queen Katherine is she married four times in her young life, twice to eradicate her father's debts, once to a man (Henry) who would not suffer a denial or rebuff and only once for love. In Katherine's case marriage was a duty and virtually an occupation. She was born to splendor and a 'good name' and was expected to make the best of it; therefore (even if she so desired) she would not have the 'benefit' of partaking in a trade like the other women I shall discuss.

Naturally, there were women of the medieval period (especially widows) who kept and ran businesses of their own. Yet, they are often overlooked by the glamour of the nobility.

Rose of Burford was working alongside her husband in the wool trade, even before he was ailing with the disease that would eventually take his life. After his death, Rose became even more enthusiastic, spirited and forceful in 'her' trade. She allowed no one's debts to go unpaid, not even those of King Edward II himself!

Then there are the women of the Fine Arts (of only one I will share with you now), in the vien of Christine de Pisan, an Italian daughter of a clairvoyant, who was determined to see her educated, (and she was), yet, still she married, had children and was widowed young, so she used her aptitude as an essayist to produce an income.

Would Katherine Parr have switched places with the likes of a Christine de Pisan?

Each class of the medieval woman holds its owns cage and its own key.

Posted by: Wendy Z 24 Feb - 09:14 am

I'd like to add some additional thoughts on Katherine Parr prior to the continuation of the thread.

Katherine Parr enters into the very end of the medieval period, almost bordering on the Renaissance. Nevertheless, she was still restricted by the decrees that 'restricted' medieval women.

1. She was educated from the start of her life to believe she was of a substandard grade of gender to men.

2. It is a known fact that the teaching of both medieval and (early) Renaissance women was drastically fashioned by The Church who obviously gave preferential dealings to men.

3. Women were taught by The Church that they were apparatur' of demons, a notion that surrounded their daily lives, therefore, likely makeing 'much' sense to them.

4.The majority of girls/women were taught the arts of needlework, herbs to guide them in medicinal skills, and their obligation to their future spouses. 'But foremost was their strong religious training.'

(www.questia.comPageManagetHTMLmediator.qst?action=openPageViewer&docid=9694584)

So, though Katherine Parr may be considered a subject of the late medieval period (and the advancement of the English Renaissance), I believe she makes an attractive and fascinating subject of both debate/arguement <g> on the topic of Medieval Women.

Wendy Z

Posted by: Gillian Polack 28 Feb - 06:39 am

My big question is which medieval women *do* we know. Wendy has named two: Katherine Parr and Christine de Pisan. I am going to add Marie de France (because I love her poetry) and the various queens Eleanor and Marie de Champagne. There is Margery Kempe, and Julian of Norwich.

If we move beyond the court circles and religious notables we are getting to women who we know because they appear in trials records and guilds. Or coronial inquiries - like the London woman and her maid who died fighting in the kitchen - they fell into a pot of mash.

Maybe people can tell us about their favourite Mediveal women, to start the ball rolling?

Gillian

Posted by: Susan 28 Feb - 02:55 pm

The lives of Medieval women in history, apart from the great and good, are not often reported and to gain a glimpse into the way they lived often means trawling for snippets through obscure records, reading between and looking under the lines, and examining the artefacts and archaeology of the period. When an interesting snippet or artefact does turn up, then it's a pleasure and leads the discoverer to want to run out and share with all and sundry!

Gillian's detail concerning the woman and her maid who had a fight in the kitchen and fell into a pot of mash, reminds me of a case in the crown pleas of the Warwickshire Eyres in 1285. One Agnes le Wolf struck Matilda de Folkeshull on the arm with a scythe and killed her. Agnes then ran for it and at the date of the Eyre had not been caught! Meanwhile the sisters Alina, Matilda and Margery were accused of doing away with Alina's husband. However the jury found them not guilty and that one William de Aneslye had accused them of the crime out of spite.

Glancing through these records which are part of a book dealing with the early records of Medieval Coventry, I notice that many women (mainly widows) speak for themselves in grants and charters. They are owners of property and they arrange gifts and services concerned

with these properties. Interestingly enough, wives are often mentioned in cahoots with their husbands in these charters too. And there are examples of women passing property on through the female line. e.g. (late 1270's)

'Charter of Beatrice, widow of Richard le Mastlingbeter giving to Maria her daughter (in free marriage) for her service, a certain messuage in Gosford St. Coventry between the land of William de Kenylworth on the one hand and the land of Henry de le Mor on the other with an adjacent curtilage and all appurtenances according to the metes and bounds made there; to be held to her and the heirs issuing from her freely, by rendering annually to the lords of that fee the service due and accustomed, namely at the four fixed terms in Coventry. Should Maria die without heir of her body the entire aforesaid land will descend to Margery, daughter of Alice the grantor's sister...so not a man in sight

A female character who interested me (well actually it was her father who was my interest) is Mabel FitzWarin, daughter of the 13thC outlaw Fulke FitzWarin. If women are hard to find in history, then disabled women are very rarely mentioned indeed and their existence only turns up by pure chance. There is no overt reference to the fact that Mabel had a disability, but during her lifetime she neither married nor entered a nunnery - either of which would have been de rigeur for a baronial daughter in the 13thC. Also, her father, in his will, gave the revenue of his wealthiest manor (Lambourn) for her upkeep and made his son and heir swear an oath that he would uphold the terms of that will. What eventually happened to Mabel I don't know. All that exists is a tantalising glimpse behind the curtain and a touching glimpse of paternal concern.

I know I'm rambling here, but since it's the way I write and I wanted to contribute something at least, I thought folk wouldn't mind, and might be able to pick something out for further discussion.

Susan - Penman list member and author of historical fiction in the day job.

Posted by: Wendy Z 28 Feb - 05:06 pm

(From Susan's reply)

"However the jury found them not guilty and that one William de Aneslye had accused them of the crime out of spite".

It's remarkable what one mere sentence out of many triggers your mind to shift in another direction.

Power, what were 'their' rights, how few or how many did medieval women have? The sway of the nobility is obvious, (yet, still they were restricted by their gender and one has only to look at Queen Mary Tudor to see most of the possibility's of those restrictions, a good number of which she heartily believed in.)

Persuasion and influence cooperated greatly when bearing in mind the affairs of medieval women.

The medieval period generally saw a deterioration in the liberties of the female's clout. Marriage and the begetting of heirs granted a 'sort' of unceremonious power, any ownership of land or coin bestowed, authorized rights which vanished with the mariage and sometimes during the state of widowhood, (I'm sure examples of exceptions of these could be found, one of which I made mention in my intro), unless they were the exception to the rule and made their mark by leaving behind the 'traditional' traits/characteristics of their gender.

Wendy Z

Posted by: Susan 28 Feb - 05:40 pm

Wendy said in her latest post:

Power, what were 'their' rights, how few or how many did medieval women have? The sway of the nobility is obvious, (yet, still they were restricted by their gender and one has only to look at Queen Mary Tudor to see most of the possibility's of those restrictions, a good number of which she heartily believed in.)

I'd have to leave the above subject to the academics - I could only answer it in the vaguest of terms and the 'rights' of women changed as the Middle Ages progressed. I would suspect though, that life became mopre restrictive as the MA advanced.

However many women, I suspect, had 'unwritten' power that depended on their characters and the circumstances of their upbringing. Thinking of my own family background for e.g. I am a fairly confident, forthright person and have always perceived myself as equal to men - not in a competitive way, but in a 'we are all human beings' type of scenario. I think no small part of my attitude is due to the fact that my father was an only child brought up mainly by 2 strong women (his own father died young, leaving him in the charge of his mother - my gran - and her spinster sister). They in their turn had been born to a mother who ran her own business, and the family tree goes back to 1785, showing a preponderance of girls in the family and girls knowing their own minds. My mother is one of 2 sisters and her father also died young. Family support came from 5 maternal aunties. When my parents married, my mother immediately donned the trousers so to speak. Yes, she stayed at home to raise a family, but my father tipped over his wages to her and she gave HIM spending money. He might have the final say, but it was usually based on her opinion!

What I'm saying is that while women down the ages got a raw deal where legislation and rights were concerned and there was a hell of a lot of exploitation, there were also women who had the power of personality or upbringing to be able to hold their own or even dominate.

Again, we don't see these in the record unless they are of high status, but I am positive that they existed. Of course, given the wrong circumstances they could wind up wearing a scold's bridle

Susan

Posted by: Wendy Z 01 Mar - 02:42 pm

Susan - "I would suspect though, that life became more restrictive as the MA advanced."

The above statement seems to be quite true from what I have been able to delve into: without being intensely wordy, I'll share a very small bit of *the lot* I looked up.

Men did impart more distiction to the female gender in the Early Middle Ages. Women were justified to hold the legal rights to land and to trade or sell that land themselves. They were also allowed to stand up for themselves in a court of law and to bear witness upon others.

"She was in short, very much more independent than were women after the Norman Conquest."

Whitelock - '94

Wendy Z

Posted by: Wendy Z 10 Mar - 10:26 am

So, though Katherine Parr may be considered a subject of the late medieval period (and the advancement of the English Renaissance), I believe she makes an attractive and fascinating subject of both debate/arguement <g> on the topic of Medieval Women.

Wendy Z

I was just wondering if people thought there was a huge difference in women of the later medieval period and the early Renaissance; especially in the classes of women?

Posted by: Wendy Z 12 Mar - 09:18 am

What I'm saying is that while women down the ages got a raw deal where legislation and rights were concerned and there was a hell of a lot of exploitation, there were also women who had the power of personality or upbringing to be able to hold their own or even dominate.

Susan H

Better later than never - Medieval females faced inequity as laborers AND as humans which was purely centered on their gender. They were regarded as the assets and property of first their father's (or the eldest male {usually} in the household) and then their husbands. I can't say if they lived through personal humiliation, in spite of that, I think that human emotions (while they obviously evovle with the centuries) still reflect a quantity of what we feel today?

Wendy Z

Medieval Women's Rights - because we really want to sort them out

Posted by: Gillian Polack 28 Feb - 08:14 pm

Uitz says that women had more rights in the thirteenth century than later on. And I tend to agree with her (it just depends on what woman we are talking about - town women were less constricted in movement than many peasant women, for instance.

I love telling my students that the early 19th century had lower levels of women's rights than the twelfth century.

But this talk has got me thinking - what rights do we assume that women *should* have had. It is no use saying "Women had no voting rights" - because basically no-one had much of them. Right to inherit or to leave possessions to someone? Right to govern self? Right to full hearings during trials? Right not to be beaten or raped or otherwise abused? What else is there? And who (what regions) ahd what levels of rights? There are such *ranges* in Medieval women's lifestyles - everything from businesswomen through to nuns, from dominant potically to technically servile, and even the members of different religious groups had different rights and power. Jewish women could divcorce, for instance, Christian women could not.

And if we really want to have a fun argument we could talk about sexual rights and the development of notions of chastity .

Gillian

Posted by: Wendy Z 28 Feb - 09:09 pm

"What I'm saying is that while women down the ages got a raw deal where legislation and rights were concerned and there was a hell of a lot of exploitation, there were also women who had the power of personality or upbringing to be able to hold their own or even dominate."

(Susan's post in K. Parr & the working class)

Makes sense to me and if it wasn't so late I'd be banging the books looking for some examples!

Hopefully, we can expect some tomorrow.

Wendy Z

Posted by: Tamara Mazzei 02 Mar - 06:44 am

Wendy: Power, what were 'their' rights, how few or how many did medieval women have? The sway of the nobility is obvious, (yet, still they were restricted by their gender and one has only to look at Queen Mary Tudor to see most of the possibility's of those restrictions, a good number of which she heartily believed in.)

I think the concept of rights is difficult to apply to medieval (and even later) women because it's so very rare to find women in historical works dealing with the development of rights. I can't even count the times in which I've read a statement that 'women didn't do this' and then found an obvious exception of a woman (or many!) who did something that 'women didn't do'. Whenever I read these sorts of conclusions now, I wonder how many exceptions were skipped over.

Susan: ...I could only answer it in the vaguest of terms and the 'rights' of women changed as the Middle Ages progressed. I would suspect though, that life became mopre restrictive as the MA advanced. However many women, I suspect, had 'unwritten' power that depended on their characters and the circumstances of their upbringing.

I think this 'unwritten' power is a very important consideration when looking at medieval women. Some had more than others, but nothing tells us how they got it. One of my favorite examples of this is Nicholaa de la Haye. She was the eldest daughter of a baron in 12th century England. She inherited her father's English estates and she kept them. Always. She defended Lincoln castle many times in her life, and she held the castle for John during the rebellion, even after the town of Lincoln itself had fallen. John made her the sheriff of Lincoln just before he died. A lady sheriff? Women didn't do that. But Nicholaa did. And she wasn't the only one.

Gillian: There are such *ranges* in Medieval women's lifestyles - everything from businesswomen through to nuns, from dominant potically to technically servile, and even the members of different religious groups had different rights and power. Jewish women could divcorce, for instance, Christian women could not.

Gillian mentions lifestyle ranges and that immediately brings to mind the many times I've seen statements about women only rarely being involved in business. Yet Jewish women engaged in business and paid tallages just as men did. And not only as widows or wives, but in their own right. According to Jacobs, around 10% of the tax paying Jews in the 12th century were women paying on their own behalf. To name just a few:

In the mid-1100s, Richard of Anesty fought for possession of the estates of his deceased uncle, William de Sackville, from William's daughter, Mabel de Francheville. Richard had to borrow to pay the costs of his suit. He recorded 21 loans from 8 different lenders, two of whom, Comitissa of Cambridge and Mirabella of Newport, were women. Nothing about these loans from women differentiated them from loans from men except for the names of the lenders. In other words, it wasn't strange; it wasn't an exception!

Richard I Pipe Roll 10 (1199) notes that Avigay the Jewess and other Jews of London owe £3,122 7s. 2d. This suggests that Avigay owed more, and had to pay more, than anyone else.

And then there was Licoricia of Winchester, whose clients included Simon de Montfort and Winchester Cathedral. Licoricia was a big-time financier. When Henry III was building Westminster Abbey he taxed the Jews to pay for it. Licoricia's contribution of over £2,500 represented nearly 1.5% of the total £170,000 collected. There is a lot more that could be said about Licoricia (e.g., she and her Christian maid were murdered), but I'll leave that for another time.

Tamara

Sexuality and the Church

Posted by: mnewton56 01 Mar - 09:45 am

Jumping from Wendy's comment about the begetting of heirs, and Gillian's about reproductive rights (I think)! We have all probably read of primitive contraceptive methods such as placing a vinegar-soaked sponge into the vagina prior to intercourse, and the use of abortifacient herbs to try to induce a miscarriage (can't think of names off the top of my head).

During the MA, life could be short as well as unpredictable and dangerous. I wonder how widespread any contraceptive measures may have been -- haven't researched the issue, but I have some thoughts.

For the nobility, marriages were often arranged in the cradle, although consummation was deferred in most cases until both parties were physically mature enough. In order to assure succession it seems that the couple would try to have quite a few children. With wet nurses to feed the children, the natural contraceptive effect of breastfeeding would not be available to space pregnancies at intervals to preserve the woman's health. We see one example of this with Mary de Bohun, first wife of Henry IV of England. Mary was also married to Henry at a young age, became pregnant very young (a case in which consummation was not delayed); her family then separated her from Henry until she was physically mature enough to bear a child more safely. When they were reunited, she had 5-6 children in swift succession, and died in her very early 20's worn out from childbearing (I did read this in a novel, so some facts may be shaky :-)).

Edward I's wife, Eleanor, had 10-12 or more children, a number of whom died in early childhood. Elizabeth Woodville, Edward IV's consort, bore him 10 children, of whom 5 were dead before adulthood. Eleanor of Aquitaine bore Henry II at least 8 children over a twenty-year period in spite of frequent separations and the fact that she was already about 30 when they married; she had borne her first husband Louis of France, 2 daughters.

It wuld seem that for the nobility, numerous children were necessary and desirable, due to the risk of losing them. At the same time, each pregnancy posed a greater risk thatn women face today, due to the chance of infection. This would be especially true with difficult births, as there was no surgical option -- the combination of lack of knowledge and infection risk meant that any woman who underwent a Caesarean procedure would be dead in a short time.

For the lower orders of the social scale, it would seem more likely that some contraceptve measures would be used. More children meant not only more help in the fields, but more mouths to feed and more bodies to clothe. The need for the woman to rise from childbed to continue her normal duties would be such that she would probably not want to be incapacitated too often. However, these women were also more likely to benefit from the natural contraceptive effect of breastfeeding with its suppressio of ovulation. At the same time, the lactating woman needs better nutrition and sufficient rest.

On another list recently there was quite a discussion of how the Rh factor could have been related to pregnancy loss with Anne Boleyn. Of course the Rh factor was unknown until the 20th century. I am not sure that after 500 years we could ever find out the blood types of Anne and Henry VIII, to begin to see if this was a possible explanation. However, it seems logical that this factor could have affected reproduction in the MA just as it does today.

And what about cases where a woman bore one child and never delivered another (that we know about)? Anne Neville, wife of Richard III, and Margaret Beauort, mother to Henry VII, are two well-known cases. Although Margaret is known to have been of small stature, we don't know about Anne's build. A narrow pelvis, for example, wouldn't necessarily prevent pregnancy, but an injury to the uterus during a difficult delivery could have resulted in an incompetent cervix (where the woman would be unable to carry a pregnancy to term, because the cervix would open too early (often in the second trimester). This is my own pet theory about Anne.

Most of these thoughts involve the nobility/royalty because those are the ones with whom I have the most familiarity. I'd love to see the thoughts of others who really have more background in the period.

Best regards,
Mary

Posted by: Wendy Z 01 Mar - 02:51 pm

Fantastic topic, Mary!

Naturally the mind starts spinning, so I have a sort of theory/question (up for grabs!):

Due to the astounding trouncing a woman's body took because of numerous pregnancies, do you think women of the lower class *may* have ever denied their bodies on the ground of religious beliefs? My thought being since The Church loomed so largely in thier lives *would* they have some inspiration (overflowing with some natural intelligence <g>) by rejecting sex on the grounds they could be denying the 'evil spirits/demons' that were theoretically occupying their bodies?

Wendy Z

Posted by: Susan 01 Mar - 02:58 pm

In the previous post, Mary said:

'For the nobility, marriages were often arranged in the cradle, although consummation was deferred in most cases until both parties were physically mature enough. '

I have often thought that this is the reason why King John and Isobella of Angouleme didn't have children for approx the first 6 yrs of their marriage. She was only about 12yrs old when they married and given that in the Middle Ages, the onset of menstruation was later than it is today, I think (although without concrete provenance) that John abstained from intercourse with Isobella until she was sufficiently mature for child-bearing.

Mary also said:

In order to assure succession it seems that the couple would try to have quite a few children. With wet nurses to feed the children, the natural contraceptive effect of breastfeeding would not be available to space pregnancies at intervals to preserve the woman's health.

The presence or non-presence of wet nurses is interesting. I have read that wet nurses were an integral part of a baronial household. However there is a popular tale of a highborn lady insisting that only her own milk was of a high enoughs standard (meaning morally and status wise) to feed her offspring. Catching a nurse feeding the baby, the mother made the child vomit back up the 'inferior' milk it had swallowed.

Even with the protection of breastfeeding, as the child moves onto a more varied diet, the protective hormone level (is it progesterone?) will drop and pregnancy becomes more likely.

Re Mary's interesting comments concerning contraception: We've recently been discussing contraception on another list. There were lots of remedies around, some that were actually efficacious and others that probably wouldn't do much good. But since many of these remedies are written down by learned men (and occasionally women) one wonders how far they were disseminated into the population as a whole.

Apparently putting vervain under your male partner's pillow was supposed to wilt his erection for seven days...so jolly useful for the fertile period Casanova was aware that half a lemon, inserted high in the vagina was a preventative. Sheep's wool or moss soaked in sour milk or vinegar was also thought to do the trick - and would indeed have killed off a lot of sperm. The plant called Queen Anne's Lace was a known contraceptive in the Medieval period. It contains progesterones which might have inhibited the implantation of a fertilised egg in the wall of the womb. Many remedies were written down 'to promote the menses.' As such they were taken in the early stages of pregnancy to effect an early termination. Tea made from tansy, for example, would bring on a miscarriage.

I would like to write more, particularly about the contradictory attitudes and perception of attitudes towards sex, but I'm afraid I've got to go. I'll try and come back to the subject later.

Best
Susan

Posted by: Gillian Polack 02 Mar - 06:51 am

Quite a few herbals have vague references to the equivalent of night after medications (they claim it is to bring on early menstruation). I have a list of herbs that were supposed to help with this. If anyone is interested, I can post them.

Gillian

Posted by: mnewton56 02 Mar - 11:21 am

Thanks, Wendy, Susan, and Gillian, for your replies to my post. Re: Wendy's question about lower-class women possibly denying sex due to instinct re: evil spirits related to pregnancy (If I understood you correctly :-)).

Although the church (Christian) was a strong and everpresent force in the lives of many people, I believe the upper classes probably had more access to actual teaching; learned more about their religious beliefs, and were more influenced by Church rules (being around more learned churchmen more often). The influence of the Church on the ordinary villager/peasant, may have been less, as they would have been more directly concerned with meeting their basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter. Of course, the church believed in demons, but pregnancy being related to evil spirits -- I don't know about that.

As we know, sexual intercourse wa prohibited by the Christian Church on certain days of the week as well as during the woman's menstrual period and during pregnancy. While I question how widely this proscription was obeyed, the woman would have a basis for denying sex due to the risk to their souls. Of course, if she did, the man may have gone elsewhere for satisfaction (altho sex outside marriage was also sinful and we know that didn't stop a lot of people!)

I forgot to mention withdrawal as a contraceptive method. Susan's comment about the use of a lemon half in the vagina was interesting. The juice would have an acidifying effect, just as vinegar or buttermilk; while if the reference is to placing an inverted half of a rind up into the vagina, it could serve the purpose of a diaphragm (but seems rather uncomfortable for both parties).

Again, as I understand it, all contraceptive methods were considered sinful(among Christians) as blocking God's purpose of creating new life. But one may assume that as there is quite a bit of writing devoted to such methods which has come down to us, spacing pregnancies (at least) was important then to couples, as it is now.

Certainly the level of actual medical knowledge about reproduction was very low. Superstitious practices such as unbinding hair, opening doors, untying ribbons, etc., during a woman's labor to prevent the baby getting stuck, have no basis in effectiveness. Sexual intercourse was known to cause pregnancy, but fetal development was not understood too well.

Church rules limiting intercourse, if followed, would have provided a certain natural level of contraception, but whether these rules had any physiological basis is unknown to me. Some of the rules undoubtedly came down by way of ancient Jewish teachings, such as a woman's churching after a birth, and not allowing sex during the menstrual period.

Best,
Mary

Posted by: Wendy Z 02 Mar - 05:27 pm

Sorry Gillian, I was getting *techie* there. I'd love to see the list of herbs if you don't mind posting them.

Wendy Z

Posted by: Wendy Z 02 Mar - 06:26 pm

Although the church (Christian) was a strong and everpresent force in the lives of many people, I believe the upper classes probably had more access to actual teaching; learned more about their religious beliefs, and were more influenced by Church rules (being around more learned churchmen more often). The influence of the Church on the ordinary villager/peasant, may have been less, as they would have been more directly concerned with meeting their basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter. Quote - Mary

The Church did loom large over the lower class of medieval women. From some of what I've been reading, I'm genuinely beginning to cement *these* opinions that the local clergy found this as a way to bolster their image and control.

We know the church was profoundly guarded when dealing with sexuality. It's already been mentioned that they forbided sex on certain days and during Lent, and even the enjoyment of sex was considered a sin (though I'm not positive if anyone has mentioned that w/o scrolling up and down <g>). Though it is cited often that mutual organisms would enhance procreation, making it the only desirable time for a woman to find pleasure without sin.

Notwithstanding, we still have to recall the enviromment, they lived in, 'dirt' shelters/huts (depending on what period of the MA), endured persistent illnesses (for the most part, exceptions noted), a pitiable pattern of eating and a harsh workload. None, of which (if you *really* <g> think about it) would increase 'anyone's 'sexual pleasure, putting aside the thought conception!

Wendy Z

Posted by: Gillian Polack 03 Mar - 03:39 am

OK Wendy, here is my list. It is not complete - it is the best -attested stuff, and even then peple didn't actually say directly that abortion is what they did - and if anyone wants to discuss how we get at and interpret stuff like this, I suggest my Writing Women Into History discussion is a nice place to talk about it <shameless plug>. It comes from early (pre 15th century) herbals. I have not tested any of these for the purpose described <g>. And let me start off on a virtuous note - if you want to promote chaste dreams and prevent any need for dire remdies, agnus castus (chaste tree) is the way to go.

And can I give another warning - there is a lot of popular and entirely unattested ideas floating around on Medieval sexuality. Most of the interesting stuff has yet to be proven! (well, except the really monkish or medical interesting stuff - we have evidence for what the priesthood thought their charges might get up to, and also a rather nice theory of mobile wombs).

Basil (possibly - I am not happy with the evidence)
Blackberry (used internally for menstruation - whether to induce or reduce, I am not certain)
Cabbage
Wild celery
Centaury
Elecampane (also useful for coughs <g>)
Ginger
Hellebore
Nasturtium
Pennyroyal
Queen Anne's Lace (as Susan has already pointed out - but what I wonder is if this ancestral carrot having such potential properties means that carrots also have interesting properties)
Rue
Sage
Tansy
Wormwood

In my government days working on these things I came across warnings for pregnant women for several of these herbs and spices. But I would really like to see a thorough examination of them all. Did they work separately or together? Did any of them not work at all? Are we misreading the texts and just *wanting* to see evidence of them used in this fashion?

So many questions..

Gillian

Posted by: Wendy Z 04 Mar - 07:21 am

Just found this (Lord, what AM I doing at this hour? <vbg>

(www.dfx.com/medieval_cult.html)

Days when a woman was forbidded to engage in sex:
When one's wife is menustrating, pregnant or nursing
During Lent, Advent, Whitsun Week, of Easter week
During Daylight (love that one!)
If you are naked....huh?
If you are in a church....seems reasonable
Unless you are trying to produce a child

Wendy Z

Posted by: Gillian Polack 04 Mar - 07:43 am

There were more restrictions than that even Wendy. James Brundage lists them somewhere. He has basically drawn them from canon law - whihc just goes to show how far removed Medieval canon law can be from most people's dream lives.

And this is where I say very proudly I am Jewish. Cos Jewish women had much more sexual freedom than Christian women. Yes, we could even have sex naked. And on Wednesdays.

Gillian

Posted by: Wendy Z 04 Mar - 10:42 am

[Gillian Polack, 04 Mar 03 - 07:43 am] There were more restrictions than that even Wendy. James Brundage lists them somewhere. He has basically drawn them from canon law - whihc just goes to show how far removed Medieval canon law can be from most people's dream lives.

And this is where I say very proudly I am Jewish. Cos Jewish women had much more sexual freedom than Christian women. Yes, we could even have sex naked. And on Wednesdays.

Gillian

Naked, makes sense, (so kill me!) Now, we just happen to know where all the Jewish people were on Wednesdays.

(I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist ~lol~)

Wendy Z

Posted by: Susan 04 Mar - 05:03 pm

QUOTE

Wendy: If you are naked....huh?

So what's with all these drawings in illuminated manuscripts where couples are shown in the nuddy and just about to enjoy each other.

Or are they not considered 'naked' because they've (usually) still got their hats/wimples on?

Susan

Posted by: Susan 04 Mar - 05:29 pm

It occurs to me that side by side with the church's view of women and the entire vexatious matter of sex - from which the impression is often received that Medieval priests would like to ban it altogether - runs a powerful thread of joyous bawdiness (the notorious Millers, Reeves and Merchants Tales of Geoffrey Chaucer for e.g. or some of the troubadour literature) and the belief in calling a spade a spade. e.g. Today's Rue de Pelican in Paris was, in the Middle Ages Rue de Poile-Con or Cunt Trimming Street.

Alongside the saintly badges garnered from holy shrines, the Medieval pilgrim could also sport astonishingly graphic good luck tokens in lead and tin e.g. a brooch in the shape of an erect phallus on little legs with a bird pecking at the head? Or how about three of them carrying a vulva on an open litter? Or what about the brothel keeper who was fined before the ecclesiastical court in Essex charged with 'giving her clients to drink from a glass like unto a pintle and a pair of ballocks.'

The 11thC English midwife Trotula excelled at the medical school of Salerno and wrote one of the earliest surviving health manuals written by a woman. In it she gives detailed advice of how a woman should prepare herself to lie with someone. This includes washing the genitalia thoroughly. 'then let her take some powder in her mouth and chew, and rub her hands, chest and nipples; let her sprinkle rose water on her pubis genitals and face. Thus nicely made up, let her approach the man.'

So, despite all these church rules, I wonder how much was actually observed and how much was ignored...I don't know the answer, I just find it interesting that amid all the rules of 'You can't do this, that and the other' (especially the other <vbg>!) there should be this contrasting swamp of bawdiness.

Best
Susan

Posted by: Wendy Z 05 Mar - 08:47 am

The 11thC English midwife Trotula excelled at the medical school of Salerno and wrote one of the earliest surviving health manuals written by a woman - Susan

Didn't she also have men study under/with her which I'm assuming would be a rarity at that time?

Wendy Z

Posted by: mnewton56 06 Mar - 09:27 am

Susan mentioned that the contraceptive effect of breastfeeding (related to suppression of ovulation) goes down as the infant begins to eat a more varied diet and hormone levels in the mother's body change.

True. A mother who is exclusively breastfeeding for 6 months should be safe from pregnancy for that time, but at any time that reduced lactation allows the drop in progesterone enough to allow release of an egg, she can become pregnant even before the first menstrual period. So, it is true that as the child begins to eat a more varied diet, the ovulation-supressing effect is less and less. As Wendy mentioned, women were supposed to refrain from sex while breastfeeding anyway, so couples who wanted to space pregnancies, and obey the rule of the Church had a difficult time! Sexual needs are considered pretty high on the hierarchy of needs, after all.

Susan's comment about the highborn lady who wouldn't allow her child to be fed "inferior" milk by a wet nurse was interesting. I've also read that the wetnurse was standard in baronial houses, so one wonders if we can really speak with certainty on this issue, i.e., there may have been more variety in attitudes than we have realized.

I loved Susan's examples of the bawdy, sensual aspects of writing and teaching about sex which went alongside the strict religious rules and regulations!

In defense (maybe) of the Christian Church, in the Christian/Catholic tradition, worship has always involved the senses in enhancing the experience. In turn, this comes down from Jewish tradition with the use of incense, oils for anointing, even music and dancing. I'm not sure about Jewish beliefs regarding art (tho I know images of the Deity were/are forbidden) but from earliest times, Christians used art to again, involve the senses in their worship. From Byzantium to wall paintings in medieval England, to statues and magnificent buildings such as York Minster and the cathedral of Notre Dame, and stained glass windows, images were filled with symbolism for those who viewed them.

So I'd say that the body and its function as a temple for the Holy Spirit were celebrated. Sex was known as a mysterious part of life-creation, holy because it was created by God, which was at the same time highly pleasurable as it involved the senses. The power of sense experience was well-appreciated, which caused those in authority to feel it must be controlled. Attempts to control this powerful urge resulted in the many rules and regulations, some of which have been discussed. Self-discipline has always been highly valued by religious as well as secular authorities. And people, who could very well appreciate the enjoyment of sex but felt they had good reasons for avoiding the consequences, were in a dilemma just as we still see today, with fewer options available to them.

Best,
Mary

Posted by: mnewton56 06 Mar - 11:51 am

QUOTE (Wendy Z @ 02 Mar 03 - 06:26 pm)
The Church did loom large over the lower class of medieval women.  From some of what I've been reading, I'm genuinely beginning to cement *these* opinions that the local clergy found this as a way to bolster their image and control.

I agree that local clergy had a lot of influence on the lower classes, and were supposed (at least) to make sure the people obeyed Church law. But there were many instances in which the local clergy were nearly as illiterate and ignorant as their parishioners. Some could just get by saying the Mass in Latin and performing the sacraments. Many had only the barest amount of theological training. And of course, there were those, like Chaucer's clerk, who indulged in illicit sexual relationships despite vows of chastity. Of course, when pregnancy was the result, I'm sure the woman usually received the blame.

Some of the grassroots reformers (before Henry VIII in England) both those who tried to reform the Church from inside, and those who went outside, recognized the hypocrisy of these situations. They spoke up either for stricter attention to the celibacy rule (or for abolishing celibacy and promoting chastity within marriage).

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Strong Medieval Women

Posted by: pat 02 Mar - 07:15 am

Two medieval women whose lives have fascinated me for some time are Matilda, Queen of England, and Eleanor of Aquitaine, who eventually became Matilda's daughter-in-law. When Henry I's only legitimate male heir, Prince William, drowned in what later became known as the white ship disaster in 1120, the king took steps to assure Matilda's ascension to the throne by having his barons swear fealty to her. When Matilda's cousin, Stephen of Bloise, seized the throne upon Henry I's death, years of civil war ensued as Matilda fought long and hard to recover her throne. Although I have my doubts as to whether she could have ever been an effective ruler since men were extremely reluctant to accept a sole female monarch at that point in time, I have to admire her grit and determination to surmount obstacle after obstacle. And, when all of those efforts eventually failed where her own ambitions were concerned, she continued fighting to assure her son, Henry II's, ascension to the throne. Talk about one determined woman!

Henry II apparently used his mother as a measuring stick when he later married Eleanor of Aquitaine - another very strong and determined woman. Heiress of the rich duchy of Aquitaine and married at the age of 15 to Louis VII, King of France, her divorce from the French king to marry Henry eventually enabled her to add Queen of England to her other titles. Their marriage turned out to be a very stormy one and Eleanor, at one point, even led her sons in an effort to usurp her own husband from England's throne. Although she was unsuccessful in this endeavor and paid for it dearly by being imprisoned by her husband in various fortified buildings over the next fifteen years, her spirit remained strong. Upon Henry II's death in 1189, Eleanor's son, then Richard I, immediately freed his mother, who continued to be a force to be reckoned with for many years to come. While Richard's reign was mostly spent out of England fighting in the holy lands, Eleanor remained on the homefront continually defending his lands and throne and was very instrumental in negotiating his release and securing the ransom for same when he was captured on his way home from one fateful foray. This queen was, in my opinion, one of history's most effective politicians and, considering the times she lived in, her many successes in this regard are truly astounding.

Pat

Posted by: Wendy Z 02 Mar - 08:42 am

[QUOTE]Upon Henry II's death in 1189, Eleanor's son, then Richard I, immediately freed his mother, who continued to be a force to be reckoned with for many years to come. - Pat

Eleanor, without a doubt was a captivating, charismatic and commanding woman. Even before Henry's death she was skilled, in the most maddening way (maddening to men, of course), in her determination to live her life with as many elements of *Eleanor* (the individual) and not be overshadowed by her crowns. Though upon further thought the combination of her Queenships and her strong individuality, makes it most impossible to separate the two.)

During her marriage to Louise, the myths, (and reality) of Eleanor of Aquitaine were set in motion. During the Second Crusade, Eleanor offered hundreds and hundreds of her subjects.....along with herself, arriving in Vezelay fully outfited as an Amazon on a white steed (supposedly?) The Church, and one can only applaud (especially viewing this from the present day), her forward, wholly individual behavior, for it was her intent to depart with her first husband, taking her ladies (which numbered well into the hundreds) with her to *allegedly* care for the injured.

Even into her elder years she journeyed frequently and persistently. She created marriage mergers and administered to her own armies, whilst, managing her own estates.

My most adored and treasured account of Eleanor is her travels to the Pyrenees to gather her son Richard's wife, Berengaria of Navarre. Eleanor was approaching seventy when she undertook this journey; and it brings out nothing but admiration in me for her (even knowing at times she could be her own worst nightmare, still it is that *stock* that is so amazing!)

By far, glancing at her sons, one has to think, 'Would England not have been better left in this brilliant, stubborn, savy woman's hands?

Wendy Z

Posted by: Tamara Mazzei 02 Mar - 10:09 am

To me, Eleanor and Matilda are once again, perfect examples of women who make me ask: How many exceptions does it take to invalidate common 'knowledge'?

Both of these women believed in their ability to rule. Why? Modern feminism didn't exist. They just did what they did and convinced enough people of their abilities that they were taken seriously. They had detractors and supporters, just as men did.

King Stephen was captured by Matilda's army, and Stephen's wife was with his army when they captured Matilda's brother Robert. Robert's wife and Stephen's wife made a deal and traded their hostages.

It's not as if there were millions of women in these particular circumstances, but only three. In this case, these three women were in a position to determine the outcome of major events. And they did. Why do we automatically think they were exceptions?

Tamara

Posted by: Susan 02 Mar - 02:57 pm

Tamara

Quote: To me, Eleanor and Matilda are once again, perfect examples of women who make me ask: How many exceptions does it take to invalidate common 'knowledge'?

I think 'common knowledge' is frequently wrong - after all, how many people 'know' that knights lumbered around on cart horses having been winched into their saddles? Or that Vikings had horns on their helmets?

Last year I came across Morphia of Melitene, 12thC queen of Jerusalem and mother of 3 daughters. When her husband, King Baldwin, was taken captive by a Muslim warlord and his uncle too (who commanded strategic territory in what is modern day Armenia), like Eleanor she had to govern a kingdom, see off its enemies and set about raising a ransom for her husband...a ransom that involved handing over her smallest daughter as a hostage for surety of payment.

Time and again, research and general reading illuminates such women in small puddles of spotlight. If more light was cast, I'm sure we'd see a crowded stage full!

Best
Susan

Posted by: felicity pulman 04 Mar - 12:52 am

Surely the difference between Matilda and Eleanor (as I understand it anyway) was that Matilda was married off by her father to a German Emperor first and subsequently to Geoffrey of Anjou - the latter marriage was certainly against her will; possibly the first was too. Eleanor might have been married off to Louis, but she seems to have had her own way in her marriage to Henry. Surely this is the first 'right' one should consider when looking at women in the middle ages - the right to marry for love rather than advancement? In which case the lower classes possibly had more rights and freedoms than high-born ladies?? Perhaps those highborn ladies, those strong women we think of, came into their power later on, with maturity, but also with a husband's/father's wealth and prestige to make a difference?

Felicity Pulman

Posted by: Wendy Z 04 Mar - 07:14 am

QUOTE (felicity pulman @ 04 Mar 03 - 12:52 am)
Surely the difference between Matilda and Eleanor (as I understand it anyway) was that Matilda was married off by her father to a German Emperor first and subsequently to Geoffrey of Anjou - the latter marriage was certainly against her will; possibly the first was too. Eleanor might have been married off to Louis, but she seems to have had her own way in her marriage to Henry. Surely this is the first 'right' one should consider when looking at women in the middle ages - the right to marry for love rather than advancement? In which case the lower classes possibly had more rights and freedoms than high-born ladies??  Perhaps those highborn ladies, those strong women we think of, came into their power later on, with maturity, but also with a husband's/father's wealth and prestige to make a difference?
Felicity Pulman

There are records/novels (?source) to show that Matilda wanted nothing to do with her second marriage to Geoffry de Anjou.� She was but a child when she married the Emperer - may well have been treated as such intially forming a bond between the two.

Certainly she had more *power* in her hands during her push for England's throne and eventually through her children.

But the basic point is the union of marriage was a combination of guidelines and traditions that were a consequents of the Papcy and Judaism. These formed to create a worldly wise influence that was carried over by the church of the MA.

When we discuss right's, I stumble over the same block (and Susan *has* mentioned the need for documentations). The preference to be married or not (and *not* to be so was in many area's a stigma and an easy road to a nunnery).

The social order of the times (including the lower class, but *I* have to believe the nobility in all their wealth had more say), seldom questioned these traditions, believing as they did that the church *knew it all*.

Wendy Z

Posted by: mnewton56 06 Mar - 09:48 am

QUOTE (felicity pulman @ 04 Mar 03 - 12:52 am)
In which case the lower classes possibly had more rights and freedoms than high-born ladies?? Perhaps those highborn ladies, those strong women we think of, came into their power later on, with maturity, but also with a husband's/father's wealth and prestige to make a difference? Felicity Pulman

Felicity suggests that highborn ladies may have had more say in their fate, and that women lower on the social scale may have had more freedom to marry for love.

Everything I have read suggests that marriage in the Middle Ages was all about improving the economic position of both parties. Of course, love could grow with familiarity, but I think that a potential partner who brought nothing to the table would have been sent away with short shrift, no matter the social class. Some people did defy their families and marry for love, but the majority of these were cut off from their families and had to leave their homes and make their own way as best they could.

The nobility was especially likely to consider the benefits of alliances with friendly/rival families for the control of land, influence at court, or appointment to powerful positions.

The only women I'm aware of who had much freedom in marriage were widows, who were allowed to choose their own husbands if they subsequently married again. Even then, they were generally careful to maintain or bolster their economic position with their choice of mate. Royal widows, such as Maude/Matilda probably had less freedom in this aspect -- her father was still the reigning king when he forced her to marry Geoffrey of Anjou. From the nobility down, widows could and did (often) choose their own mates.

Mary Newton

Posted by: Wendy Z 06 Mar - 02:13 pm

The only women I'm aware of who had much freedom in marriage were widows, who were allowed to choose their own husbands if they subsequently married again. Even then, they were generally careful to maintain or bolster their economic position with their choice of mate. Royal widows, such as Maude/Matilda probably had less freedom in this aspect -- her father was still the reigning king when he forced her to marry Geoffrey of Anjou. From the nobility down, widows could and did (often) choose their own mates.

Mary Newton

I *just* skimmed across this topic which suggested that a widow (and not one of the nobility) would be considered *suspect* of marrying again because of her *enhanced* sexual desires - that being the only reason the church could/did assume one of their ranking (not merchant either) would find the need for them to do so unless it was to procreate.

Wendy Z

Posted by: mnewton56 06 Mar - 04:33 pm

QUOTE (Wendy Z @ 06 Mar 03 - 02:13 pm)
I *just* skimmed across this topic which suggested that a widow (and not one of the nobility) would be considered *suspect* of marrying again because of her *enhanced* sexual desires - that being the only reason the church could/did assume one of their ranking (not merchant either) would find the need for them to do so unless it was to procreate.
Wendy Z

Wendy, if I understand you correctly, widows were suspected of having excessive sexual desire if they remarried for any reason but procreation. This would be in reference to a widow who was not a member of the nobility.

Is that the right interpretation?

If so, that is very interesting. So if a widow already had a child/children, or was past menopause, she would likely be prevented from marrying by the church.

I can't cite any medieval cases, but I thought it was fairly common for (at least) young widows to remarry. According to frances and Joseph Gies _Daily Life in Medieval Times_ (ah, finally a bit of research :-)), a woman could inherit her husband's property if it was not entailed. As well, the Gies' give a number of examples in which property was willed from female to female. So I'm not saying a woman would have to have a husband in order to keep her property, but it would seem to make it easier. The economic benefits; keeping a business going; having a man to do the heavy work such as plowing the fields -- those would seem good reasons for encouraging remarriage. OTOH, it was fairly common for older widows (who could afford the corrody) to retire to a nummery.

Posted by: Wendy Z 07 Mar - 12:09 am

Wendy, if I understand you correctly, widows were suspected of having excessive sexual desire if they remarried for any reason but procreation. This would be in reference to a widow who was not a member of the nobility.

Is that the right interpretation?

If so, that is very interesting. So if a widow already had a child/children, or was past menopause, she would likely be prevented from marrying by the church. - Mary Newton

The above paragraph is correct.

A widow was not prevented from remarrying (as I understood it) but it was frowned upon by the local clery for the reasons I'd already stated.

I'll add some references tomorrow.

Wendy Z

Posted by: Susan 10 Mar - 02:21 pm

Interesting subject Mary and Wendy. I might have read somewhere in passing that widows were not expected to remarry due to moral issues as viewed by the church but I never made much of it. I think it probably did apply to women past child-bearing age. Most aristocratic women of pre-menopausal age were usually married off again if widowed. e.g. aforementioned Empress Matilda, Maude Walter (sister-in-law of Hubert Walter Archbishop of Canterbury) Matilda Countess of Huntingdon, Sybilla Talbot, lady of Ludlow.

In king John's period at least, aristocratic women who had been widowed and did not wish to remarry, could keep their widowhood, providing they paid a fine to do so.

Fulke FitzWarin III's mother, Hawise, paid a fine of 30 marks in the late 1190's in order that she did not have to take a 2nd husband after the death of her husband Fulke le Brun. 30 marks was a substantial sum to cough up, but obviously she thought it was worth it! Whether this was a standard fee or whether it fluctuated according to circumstance, I don't know.

Best
Samwise...oops, I mean Susan

Posted by: Wendy Z 12 Mar - 09:06 am

It's not as if there were millions of women in these particular circumstances, but only three. In this case, these three women were in a position to determine the outcome of major events. And they did. Why do we automatically think they were exceptions? - Tamara Mazzei

Of course there were exceptions and I'll name a few, although they were all women of the nobility.

Melisende, princess of Jerusalem is one. She was her father's heir and married Fulk of France in 1129. Initially (it seems) Fulk seized control but for some deliciously scandalous <g> reasons she soon gained the dominating influence and authority....to the point that her 'husband' scarcely instigated even inconsequential or insignificant issues w/o first consulting her.

Secondly, there is Isabella of Castile, (one really need only mention her name to realize her many acomplisishments 'against' her gender.)

Lastly Catherine de Medici (late MA), who grabbed the political marriage arranged for her and proved throu the reigns of her sons - She was the authority behind the throne.

Wendy Z

Posted by: Tamara Mazzei 12 Mar - 03:58 pm

QUOTE: Of course there were exceptions� and I'll name a few, although they were all women of the nobility. -Wendy Z

Wendy gives more examples of women who were 'exceptions' -- i.e., women who didn't fit the common stereotype of medieval women. These are excellent examples that make me ask, once again, how many exceptions does it take to invalidate a 'rule'?

As Wendy notes, these women were social elites, and that does make a difference. But even so, I think it is possible to fall into a trap and assume that their status somehow made these women different from other women. They may have been, but we *don't* know.

The idea that social class is a useful way to group medieval women is fraught with perils, in my opinion. How does one define 'nobility'? Does it only encompass the landholding class? The warrier class? Does it require liquid wealth? Does it include the daughter of a rich merchant who marries a knight? What about the daughter of a knight who marries a Duke? What about the illegitimate daughter of a Duke who marries...anyone?

The parents of William I (the Bastard/Conqueror) were Herleva/Arlette, the daughter of a tanner, and Robert Duke of Normandy. After the Duke's death, Arlette married one of his barons. She was the daughter of a merchant; the mistress of a duke; and the wife of a lord. How does one define her social class?

Just some thoughts.

~Tamara

Posted by: Wendy Z 12 Mar - 04:09 pm

Just some thoughts.
~Tamara

But my brain is getting tired

Wendy Z aka T.D

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Womens' Work

Posted by: Gillian Polack 04 Mar - 08:46 pm

I am interested in taking up another piece of this thread. Just how big was the range of occupations open to women in the Middle Ages? And how far do we think it is small because tradition tells us it was?

This is not a new topic. Many of the key works on Medieval Women deal with it in some shape or form. David Herlihy and his successors have done some lovely stuff with the Paris tax records - we have known occupations for women in the late thirteenth century ranging from running an employment service to selling pastries. But Tamara's thought elsewhere on requestioning the evidence suddenly struck me - do even the new writers in the field go far enough in establishing what women do.

Women worked - but what did they work at?

Gillian

Posted by: Tamara Mazzei 06 Mar - 12:15 am

Gillian asks:
Women worked - but what did they work at?

This is such a good question, but I'm not entirely sure it's ever been answered. If it has been, it certainly isn't easy to find out where! I am still looking for a work that uses statistical analysis to give a complete picture of life and that includes women. I mean one that includes more than a couple of annecdotes and lumps the rest into a big category or two.

Tamara

Posted by: Wendy Z 10 Mar - 10:18 am

Women worked - but what did they work at?
Gillian

Surfing through some information to *really* discuss the occupations of women in the MA, you'd have to divide them by status.

The lower class of women appeared to maintain such position's as shopkeepers, pastry-cooks/bakers and more often than not weavers. Women, much as they are today, were even more so then, compensated much less than men, forcing them to retain at the least two trades.

There is much debate vs. the working mother and the stay home - if we look back over the centuries we discover (probably?) there was *no* such thing as a 'stay at home mom.' Women worked in the above mentioned occupations and also plugged away in the fields with their spouses and children.(Does this mean they were actually holding down three jobs?)

The situation of the middle class woman was distinctly finer. These women were mainly owners of companies (as widows or by the convenience of marriage.) When their husbands were absent due to trade or war the dependability of managing the assembly and the fiscal bookkeeping and by and large keeping everything functioning was left for them to administer.

Wendy Z

Posted by: Wendy Z 20 Mar - 08:26 am

I thought I'd add a snippet I found from:

www.womeninworldhistory.com/heroinne3.html

'By the second Crusade, experienced men-at-arms, mostly noble, were sought, leaving property and wealth to be administered and protected by women. Women who governed in their husban's name engaged in legal transactions, directed the farming, collected monies in case of ransom and brought up the children. Important female royal regencies rose when the king was away on crusade. King Louise IX, took arms in hi 'holy war.' On his departure in 1247, Louise IX told his mother: 'I leave my 3 children for your wards. I leave this realm of France to you to govern it. Truly I know that they will be well gaurded and it well governed be.' Blanche managed to suppress rebellions, and actually extend the power of the French dynasty. In 1249 she completed the absorption of the midi into the French state and made advantageous alliances. As a result, the Kingdom of France more closely assumed the shape it has today.'

I think the above has some interesting implications?

Wendy Z

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Clergy & Conflicting Views

Posted by: Wendy Z 12 Mar - 09:28 am

It occurs to me that side by side with the church's view of women and the entire vexatious matter of sex - from which the impression is often received that Medieval priests would like to ban it altogether - runs a powerful thread of joyous bawdiness (the notorious Millers, Reeves and Merchants Tales of Geoffrey Chaucer for e.g. or some of the troubadour literature) - Susan H

I seem to be rolling today! THIS is such a contrdictition (not yours - what the statement implies) - I think 'here' is where we as a list would lose it but <g> I think it's a worthwhile thread that I plan on jumping on!

Wendy Z

Posted by: Wendy Z 12 Mar - 09:34 am

Just a quote - (Lynda L. Coon)

"Within early eclesiastical writing by a male priesthood and a masculinized church, women are either repentant desert hermits, wealthy widows, or cloistered nuns."

Not sure how much of that I agree with it but it's up for debate.

Wendy Z

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Welcome

Posted by: Sophie Masson 23 Feb - 11:19 pm

Hello everyone, this is one of your discussion leaders, Sophie Masson, novelist, essayist and aficionado of the Arthurian legend!

Morgana le Fay is one of the most interesting charactes in the legend, and her portrait one of the most complex. We hope to start some good balls rolling both on her portrayal in traditional literature, and now.

Posted by: Wendy Z 28 Feb - 04:22 pm

I give my desires and dreams into your keeping.

By Air I create the seed.

By Fire, I warm it.

By Water, I nourish it.

By Earth, I cause it to grow.

From Spirit, I draw the power to make all things possible.

Join me in celebration of the Goddess.

(maiden ritual)

Intro - Marion Zimmer Bradely

Just wondering what you thought of Zimmer Bradely's impact on le Fay? (Not being overly well read on MLF myself?)

Wendy Z

Posted by: Gillian Polack 04 Mar - 08:30 pm

Just how many faces does this lady have, anyway?

Whenever I teach things Arthurian I come across hugely different views of her from studtents. I can never be sure in advance which Morgana they think I am talking about.

I find it hard to discuss her, not knowing how many people I am takking about. Either that or I just like lists - so what Morganas do people know? And where do we know them from?

Gillian

Posted by: jodurand 05 Mar - 07:42 pm

Hi

I first met Morgaine in 'the Mists of Avalon' and loved her story. I love the stories written by MZ Bradley because of their focus on the female perspective of 'events'.

I have since found another book called 'The Queen's Captive' by Haydn Middleton, where Morgan is exiled to Avalon, and her son Mordred is washed up on the beach of Avalon. It is a completely different take on the character of Morgan from MZBradley's and is quite dark.

I find Morgaine's character powerful because of her influence and input into 'history'. I wasn't even aware until a few months ago that there was a whole discourse around her character and would love to know more.

Jo

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > welcome

Posted by: felicity pulman 01 Mar - 07:07 pm

Hi everyone,

I'm the other presenter of this forum, recently returned from Tasmania (sigh!) and now ready to put my two bob's worth into the discussion. Thanks, Sophie, for starting things off. Briefly, I've just spent quite a few years completing my Shalott trilogy for teenagers (published by Random House) in which five Australian teenagers are zapped back to the world of Camelot. I started out with the stereotypical Guinevere (bitch) and Morgan (evil sorceress) but became very fascinated with both of them in the course of writing the novels. I've explored Guinevere's character quite extensively in Return to Shalott, and both she and Morgan come into their own in the last novel titled Shalott: The Final Journey, to be published in July. I've come to see Morgan on two levels: as an otherworld goddess? priestess? shape-shifter and trickster, but also as a woman who doesn't know how to love or be loved, and who is driven by ambition - for herself, for Mordred and for the good of Camelot itself - at least, that's how I've argued her! So far as Marion Z-B is concerned, in my opinion she's just one of a larger 'sisterhood of writers' of the 20th-21st century who are now giving women more of a voice in the Arthurian texts. I'd welcome your comments!

Felicity Pulman

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Morgan Le Fay's Origins

Posted by: IanAshton 01 Mar - 11:43 pm

Hi, I just want to say, first of all, that I am really excited about this topic being on here and want to say thanks for mentioning it on Arthurnet!

Morgan Le Fay is a character who has fascinated many readers as well as myself, for a long time now for several reasons really. First, there is the enigma that her name, alone, carries with it, to those familiar with Arthuriana, for certain. There are so many different sides to her and a number of different sources giving her different origins. When reading on the character, I mean really reading in depth on her, one must ask themselves, 'Who really is Morgan Le Fay?' The earliest source found up to now using her actual name, Morgen, is in Geoffrey of Monmouths Vita Merlini, referring to her as the chief of nine sisters who inhabit the Isle of Apples(Avalon), where Merlin takes the wounded Arthur to be healed. There is no mention of Morgen and Arthurs kinship in this story. From there her character has shifted and changed in numerous ways, often gradually becoming more grim and malicious, from goddess to sorceress. It has been said that she was confused, at some point, with Arthurs sister Anna Morgause, Queen of the Orkney Isles, and original mother or Mordred, and from that point became his sister. In many later stories, that concept is used again where Morgan and Morgause are actually fused into one character and in many stories, they both exist. Many critical analysts and literary historians have suggested that Morgan was derived from one or two different Celtic goddesses. One deity mentioned is the triple-goddess, the Morrighan(phantom goddess of death) and the other one is the Mother goddess, Modron. Modron, in an early version of the story, Owein, is Oweins mother, the role also taken on later by Morgan.

As I mentioned above, there are so many different roles that Morgan Le Fay has taken on and a number of sources giving her different origins leaving the many readers of her wondering, who she really is. Perhaps its wishful thinking but I often hope that as time goes on and perhaps more discovery is made in reference to the actual existence of Arthur and his court that maybe, just maybe, something might possibley turn as evidence of the existence of the mystical Morgan Le Fay. So, here's to hoping!

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > How did we get here

Posted by: Gillian Polack 10 Mar - 05:12 am

I am starting this thread because two of us met in the chat room and started talking and found out we had come to the Arthurian corpus from entirely different directions.

The direction we meet the books from surely helps determine how we see Morgana?

I came from the twelfth century writtings, mainly, so for me is she is not a major figure (yes, I know, shame on me ). She appears differntly in different works and so I really don't have a fixed opinion.

Gillian

Posted by: jodurand 10 Mar - 05:48 am

Nice to meet you again Gillian!

As I mentioned elsewhere, I met Morgana ( or Morgaine) via 'The Mists of Avalon' by Marion Zimmer Bradley.

Felicity's post highlights the many aspects of Morgana's character, ie goddess/priestess, shape-shifter, trickster, unloved/able and ambitious. I think this is a good description because it is rounded, not single dimensional.

Ian Ashton notes that Morgan's character may even be a blend of a few different women. As is Arthur's character. This is a common theme with legends, isn't it?

I guess I come at the Arthurian legend from the magical perspective, and a story that weaves the magical/spiritual into what is essentially a story about the warring exploits of a few men of Britain, appeals to me alot. I want to read about what the women did in those times, what their influences might have been, what impact anything they did had on the turns of events. In fact, any re-writing of history from a female perspective (herstory) appeals to me.

How has she become such a major figure since the writings that you talk of Gillian?

Regards,
Jo

Posted by: felicity pulman 10 Mar - 09:51 pm

Hi Gillian and Jo,

I think your comments get to the nub of what's going on with recent (re)writings of Arthurian legend. In the past, the legend was predominantly a guy thing told by guys, with no real attempt to understand or explore the central female characters - this is particularly true of the 'English' strand where Guinevere, Morgan et al are fairly stereotyped and one-dimensional. (G being either a conniving bitch or at best, hysterical and inconsistent, and M being an evil-minded sorceress.) Now, with feminism and with a growth in women writers telling the story, the emphasis has shifted so that, more and more, we're getting a new insight into the important female characters in the legend - often contradictory, I grant you, but that's half the fun. At least authors are trying now to get into the hearts of these characters, to find out what makes them act the way they do. Which makes for a much more interesting read, yes? Felicity. PS I don't know if this message is going to make sense; I was trying to attach a smiley face but it's all gone crook. I HATE technology!

Posted by: Tamara Mazzei 12 Mar - 04:28 pm

The popularity of Morgana, and really all things Arthurian, never ceases to amaze me. The trends on the emphasis of certain characters as well as the way they are presented is just fascinating.

If the number of manuscripts submitted to my publishing company is anything to go by, Arthurian fiction is more popular than ever, though they definitely show a pattern of focussing on the 'historical' Arthur (or what passes for him).

I wonder if the modern characterisations of Morgana as a powerful sorceress reflect a growing recognition, at least on the part of women, that traditionally female domains can rival those of men? I also wonder if this vision of Morgana is in a downcycle for the moment. Thoughts, anyone?

~Tamara

Posted by: tracychaloner 16 Mar - 07:35 am

Count me in as an 'Arthurian' as well! Interesting that this is such a common theme.

Jo wrote:
As I mentioned elsewhere, I met Morgana ( or Morgaine) via 'The Mists of Avalon' by Marion Zimmer Bradley.

I am a MZB afficionado as well as having come to the Arthurian legends via Malory when I was a teen.

I loved the romanticism of the stories as a teen, and MZB gave the romanticism an empowering feminist quality that appealed to me as an adult.

I particularly identified with the concept of 'wise women' and elders, of a feminist tradition of herbal lore and environmental 'oneness', and of a liberal but socially cohesive society that really hung together pretty well.

Was MZB an ecofeminist perhaps?

all the best
Tracy

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Fay Sampson's Morgana

Posted by: bbeatie 18 Mar - 06:00 pm

Most of the posts I read, after having been directed to this site by the Arthurnet, seem to refer to Marion Zimmer Bradley's Morgana. Does anyone know Fay Sampson's? Here are the data from my bibliography.

Sampson, Fay. Daughter of Tintagel. Comprising Wise Woman's Telling, White Nun's Telling, Black Smith's Telling, Taliesin's Telling, Herself. London: Headline Books, 1992. The five sections were originally published separately by Headline in 1989-1992.

I occasionally teach a course called "Guinevere's Sisters"--a look at the Arthurian legend, medieval and modern, from the double perspective of the female figures in the legend AND the (esp. 20th century) female contributors to the legend. After having come across Fay Sampson's book, I wanted badly to use it as the core text for my course--and it was already out of print and unavailable.

Posted by: Gillian Polack 18 Mar - 07:19 pm

I have the same trouble with teaching some of the more interesting texts - they are often out of print!!

I know the Sampson - it is quite different from MZB. I am interested that it has never developed that cult status - the level of argument that MZB can produce just does not occur in my experience.

Gillian

WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Ethics and the social - feminist opportunities.

Posted by: evacox 28 Feb - 06:27 pm

We need some more feminist dreamings, some ways of framing futures which give us the optimism to make the worls better. Even if we do not know what the future holds, we need to be able to make a difference and take some control over what is happening. So I want to discuss ways in which we can use some of the current debates on ethics, social cohesion and responsibility to develop our own images and strategies for better feminist futures.

In an uncertain world, there are risks that we could lose much of what we gained. When people are frightened, they become defensive, self interested and inward looking. We need to look at how to develop hope, trust and the other social characteristics that make it possible for us to offer feminist based leadership in ideas and practice.

The mid century years were times of optimism and some convictions that we knew the answers, or could work out how to make utopia work. Progress was good and the future better than the past. It was the sense of being able to change things for the better that made us politically and socially active. By the last couple of decades, the passions were waning and neo liberal economics had take over. Future progress was now often a threat and many dreams had become nightmares. By the end of nineties, the ideas of the social were back on the agenda as the economic lost its dominance.

How do we take on these new possibilities? Can we use debates on ethics and social responsibility to promote fairer societies, workplaces and communities? Can we stop complaining about what is wrong and start putting together some alternatives? the ones on offer are scary and there seem to few alternatives.

where to from here?

Ideas and comments!

eva

Posted by: jodurand 10 Mar - 06:12 am

Wow Eva, where does one start?

One idea I have (although by no means origianal!) is that we continue documenting our achievements and spreading them around. It is amazing how inspiring other women's stories are, especially when you are floundering. The intertnet and email are surely useful tools for this.

The www.communitybuilders.nsw.gov.au website and email list is a great example of sharing stories and questions and is well used by people all over NSW.

Also documenting where things went wrong (I know its embarrassing and disheartening - but so is reading of other peoples successes and not getting any yourself!!).

Have you looked much into Ecofeminism? It provides a holistic social, political and ecological analysis and framework for visioning the future, and draws in all aspects of the feminisms to date.

Jo

WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Making Feminist Futures. Using Debates on Ethics for New Ideas

Posted by: evacox 28 Feb - 07:15 pm

We need some more feminist dreamings, some ways of framing futures which give us the optimism to make the worls better. Even if we do not know what the future holds, we need to be able to make a difference and take some control over what is happening. So I want to discuss ways in which we can use some of the current debates on ethics, social cohesion and responsibility to develop our own images and strategies for better feminist futures.

In an uncertain world, there are risks that we could lose much of what we gained. When people are frightened, they become defensive, self interested and inward looking. We need to look at how to develop hope, trust and the other social characteristics that make it possible for us to offer feminist based leadership in ideas and practice.

The mid century years were times of optimism and some convictions that we knew the answers, or could work out how to make utopia work. Progress was good and the future better than the past. It was the sense of being able to change things for the better that made us politically and socially active. By the last couple of decades, the passions were waning and neo liberal economics had take over. Future progress was now often a threat and many dreams had become nightmares. By the end of nineties, the ideas of the social were back on the agenda as the economic lost its dominance.

How do we take on these new possibilities? Can we use debates on ethics and social responsibility to promote fairer societies, workplaces and communities? Can we stop complaining about what is wrong and start putting together some alternatives? the ones on offer are scary and there seem to few alternatives.

where to from here?

Ideas and comments!

eva

Posted by: tracychaloner 10 Mar - 07:49 am

Sorry, this is long...

I think that the lack of response on this topic is indicative of a pervasive despair that is threatening to jeopardise a feminist vision for the future.

I am unashamedly a 'liberationist' and idealist. I try to live my life through the guidance of Eleanor Roosevelt's words, "The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams" and to emulate her strength and courage as a civil rights activist. "Do what you feel in your heart to be right, for you'll be criticized anyway" is another of her sayings that I am very fond of.

If we have no future vision, no dreams, then despair sets in. I believe that this is one of the many reasons why much of the feminist debate is in the process of stalling. Correct me if you feel that I am isolated in my thinking, but this has been my experience to date, within my circle of friends, political activism and study. The fact that no-one has engaged in this particular debate that Eva started is further evidence that 'mainstream' women are engaging less and less in a feminist centred perspective.

We keep getting told that women have come a long way. But have we really?

I want to bring to the debate some of my own perspective on what is wrong, and then to work from that position to the means by which we can empower more women to frame a future which is inclusive of their needs and their dreams.

First and foremost, I believe that a future that is framed around 'feminine values' is a better future for all humanity. The path we are accelerating along is simply unsustainable, and I place the blame squarely at the feet of our dominant, normatively male, anglo-celtic culture.

The dominant patriarchal structures have become invisibly normative, even moreso now that the world appears to be trending toward fear-based -- and some would even say psychopathic -- conservatism.

Women seem to have become tired of juggling their ever more complex multi-facted lives, and at the same time trying to find the energy to fight for a change to the social culture that will be more generally inclusive, just and equitable. For many it seems easier to accept a partial 'victory', and turn a blind eye to the ongoing disparities and oppression. Some even believe we have gone as far as we ever will. This is quite possibly an accurate observation considering that women's rights are in the process of being quietly eroded.

Some women have become pragmatic and are convincing themselves (or have been convinced) that assimilation, a.k.a. equality, is the end goal, and for many that goal appears to have been superficially reached, hence the term 'post-feminist' coming into vogue.

By engaging within these structures and playing by the rules, some women believe that their mere presence will slowly make change -- slowly being the operative word. Sadly, it is more likely that they will slowly change to fit the status quo, rather than the other way around.

In my experience, the reality is that many women assimilate so well, having been socially engineered to do so within modern educational systems, that they have become invisible within the structures as women, and hence the structures remain unchallenged and unchanged.

Many women are learning the rules of the game all too well -- so well in fact that they have been known to contemptuously turn on their more idealistic systers who are still trying to argue for a feminine space within which to live their lives on their own terms. The patriarchy has successfully pitted woman against woman; the divide and conquer principle triumphs again.

And the 'rewards' are not making anyone any happier. In fact, women are working harder than they ever have, for far less personal, and public, gain.

The masculinisation of women is also well under way. Women have learnt to become defensive, and territorial. Assertive, aggressive, arrogant and stressed, sporting the female equivalent of the business suit (the alpha male uniform), they exist in their harried lives and blindly accept that economic wealth and status means empowerment, and that power on these terms will prove that women have achieved equal status. At the same time women juggle family and domestic chores on an unequal basis. Life and labour have become blurred into a never-ending cycle.

Women have been duped and men of power are laughing all the way to the top. We have become deeply divided.

In my opinion, by learning to accept the entrenched reality, and striving to achieve masculinist goals, women are slowly but surely writing themselves out of the 'future' debate.

We are losing our own cultural identity -- much of it is being taken by from us by stealth, on the grounds of so-called equality. Social cohesion; the feminine values of nurture, consensus and a holistic approach to life; ethical and moral behaviour (in human rights terms) -- these feminine constructs are all under threat of being subsumed into the greater pseudo-equalist paradigm where the overarching legitimacy of economic power still holds sway, even if the influence is sometimes subtle.

Many men, even progressive men, are still extremely territorial. They are heavily vested in the pseudo-equalist paradigm because it helps them to justify their entrenched and privileged position, and maintain the facade of progressivity and so-called equality. Scratch the surface however, and the entrenched conditioning is all too often still there.

Women still carry an unequal burden of labour and responsibility in all facets of life. When all else fails to win the debate against discretely recognising equity (as opposed to equality) and women's rights, when prejudice and bias cannot defeat logic and fact, violence and aggression are invoked, with swift and devastating efficiency. When men want something they have the means to take it.

At the grass roots of the debate on future directions, women are still being marginalised, locked out, vilified, made to feel ineffective or defensive. Many overt feminists, such as myself, find themselves bearing the brunt of hate if they so much as raise questions in a femocentric context.

Forums generated by women for women, such as this one, tend to be a safe space for debate, but are we merely just chatting amongst ourselves and hence chasing our tails? Women love to talk and share, but can we make a difference if that is all we do?

This is one of the many persuasive reasons for continuing to frame the debate about a viable future in feminist and feminine terms. If we capitulate to the aggression and derision, our own space will remain under threat and many of us will continue to be oppressed and violated (and frustrated). Women will continue to be invisible and our culture will slowly be assimilated into the greater gender-blind 'new order' that is framing itself as the means by which 'true equality' will be achieved. However, I believe it will still be normatively male, and so will require women to lose part of their essential selves in order to be achieved, and so the cycle will continue.

We need to stand proud and claim our right to be women, and to frame a future on our terms, no matter how much derision we face. We need to put a stop to the cycle of violence and oppression once and for all.

So, to a feminist vision, since I am not one to be silenced!

I believe that the way forward (that will happen in my lifetime anyway) is to challenge the patriarchy and to do so within the context of a feminist space. To change social structures to the extent necessary to preserve life and ecology, in an effective timeframe, a revolution is required. We need to think and act outside of the pre-defined box that the so-called Western liberalist pseudo-democratic society has neatly placed us in. This means that we need to become mutually focussed on some shared goals, and fast.

We have tried equality and have found that it is really only a male equality that they have begrudgingly let us participate in (and for 'good' reason, we expand the market significantly). Women's rights are tenuous at best (just ask all those battered women) and still heavily reliant on patronage. If that patronage is withdrawn, women's rights go with it, as is currently happening under the Howard/Bush regime. Rights are only as good as the mechanisms by which they are upheld (or undermined).

Women have also tried to make change from within the patriarchal structures, such as EMILY's List in the Labor party, and have had a modicum of success albeit ever so slowly.

However, *effective* representation still relies on patronage. Leading women politicians are still very vulnerable, their credibility tenuous, with the mob (both party and public) only too happy to tear them down at the first sign of faltering (or independence). Despite the Labor party goal of a 40/40/20 split (down from the women's goal of 50/50), there are still only five women in Crean's shadow Ministry of 29, yet there are 29 women MPs to choose from (out of a total of 92). The NSW Labor men have also put a great deal of pressure on the affirmative action movement in the recent pre-selection fiasco for the NSW elections. I am sure that we have not heard the end of that debate.

Despite the rhetoric, women are still not accepted on their own merits, for what they can contribute as 'real women', in the corridors of power. The models and structures are still too masculinised for women to be 'true unto themselves' (especially in parliamentary chambers!). Merit selection is still so easily undermined by the dominant culture, as we saw in the replacement of Mary Gaudron with Dyson Heydon, in spite of extensive calls for a woman replacement from all sides of politics and gender. The 'meritocracy' prevailed.

I have had first-hand experience of the attribution and withdrawal of patronage within the Democrats which, as Marian Sawer noted last year, has become increasingly 'defeminised'... and how! Sadly, to many it is invisible and hence, yet again, the status quo remains unchallenged. The most progressive feminist women were constantly under aggressive attack, with the end result that both myself (as WA Division President for only 7 weeks) and Natasha Stott Despoja ended up being forced to resign, and Liz Oss-Emer (National President) is constantly pressured to do so. In fact, I will be very surprised if she stands for President again. The few other senior women are only able to maintain their positions through patronage, or because they have become adept at playing the masculinised political game.

There is no political party that I am aware of in which women can shape the debate and enact the policy in their own terms, without coming under constant attack. This means that their dreams and vision for the future rarely gets a public airing, and is rarely fully and frankly expressed without tacitly being undermined by fear of how the broader community might respond. In fact, how many wonderfully enlightened and intelligent women are unlikely to even engage in the broader debate any more? There seems to have been a lost of hope.

To overcome these barriers to representation and effective participation, women themselves *must* look toward developing a social framework that recognises and rewards the value of women's contribution to society and their community as carers, nurturers, and bearers of our future generations; that recognises wealth in non-economic terms; and that engenders respect and social priority for issues that women prioritise as most important to them -- such as education, health, environment, welfare and justice.

This has been happening in an ad hoc manner at best, which is largely responsible for the limited progress that has been made over the past century since white women won suffrage.

My own vision encompasses a complete shift in social culture towards a world that values life over goods and sustainability over greed; that measures success and wealth in non-economic terms; and has a space in which both masculine and feminine cultures co-exist equitably and harmoniously, along with other cultures that are defined in ethnic, religious, Indigenous or any other terms.

Science fact has long been borne from science fiction. The beauty of their dreams was invoked into reality because they dared to put them into the public domain. What was once mere conjecture became reality as others said "perhaps we can really do this".

If our dreams are kept out of the public domain, by whatever means, then it is unlikely that we will rally others toward thinking that "perhaps we can really do this".

Women have been ever so effectively silenced, and are likely to remain silenced while the patriarchy controls the public debate, through government and media.

Many women still do not realise that they have incredible power, by virtue of their exclusive ability to bear children, their immense physical and emotional strength, their intelligence and work ethic, and the simple fact that they are in the majority of the population. This power needs to be affirmed and harnessed.

It cannot be done with any integrity within the context of an already entrenched patriarchal structure, as too many compromises have to be made. I learnt this through bitter experience. The game is just too sewn up, and only those that can play it well have any chance of survival, which just leads to a further entrenchment of the dominant culture.

Debates such as this are important in affirming women's own power and strength, in creating community and unity of purpose. It is now time for that community to become publicly cohesive, and not succumb to the divide and conquer tactics that have been so succesful to date in separating women from their own culture, their own empowerment and trust in each other.

I am personally doing my own very small bit by working towards creating a political model that will be based on feminine values. This is a very difficult, challenging and time consuming task. I have had many false starts, and have trusted and learnt the hard way not to trust based on hollow rhetoric.

I started out being inclusive of the so-called progressive men, but ever so quickly they had changed my vision to theirs -- a perennial problem in mixed groups, whether they are classrooms, chatrooms, or boardrooms (amongst others). When I tried to draw this, and other feminist issues, to their attention, they called me any number of names including: feminazi, misandrist, genderist, a wasted intellect, a badly misguided bigot, an "insert expletive here", and a heterosexist. All this for simply trying to share my own perspective of a feminist truth and feminist leadership, which was inclusive, not exclusive, of the role of men in society. They simply saw 'pro-woman' as meaning 'anti-man' without reading for meaning. Feminist leadership is still viewed with suspicion, and intensely scrutinised and criticised.

I know that if I ever get it off the ground (and this is a pretty big dream, I know) that it will be attacked from all quarters. I remain undaunted because it is my belief that women need a space in which to be effective, without having to fight the patriarchy for inclusion or credibility. There are organisations that offer this space on a policy level, but not at the party level.

Too often people cannot see the dream until it burgeons as a reality. They cannot see the invisibly normative culture until they see what it is like to have their own culture. I was blind until my eyes were opened through study, debate and the reality of political experience and am deeply grateful for the women who helped me to see clearly what was previously invisible.

I see the burgeoning recognition of cultural space for Indigenous Australians, ethnic and religious cultures, people with disabiliites, and other distinct cultural groups, yet the same respect and cultural freedom is not yet accorded to women.

Through recognition of a woman's culture, and women's liberation, I believe that we can look forward to a future that will be less violent and less materialistic; ethical, just and holistically complete. If women have the opportunity and space to shape the debate and to participate equitably in decision making that affects them, I can see some hope for a future that may actually be sustainable.

If the status quo prevails, then the human species will be on the brink of extinction very soon, perhaps even in our lifetimes.

It is up to women to rally together and to use whatever ethical means we have available to us to ensure that social change is undertaken a heck of a lot quicker than at the current conservative rate -- where we are losing thousands of species a year; land degradation, salinity, and deforestation are threatening our vital ecosystems; water is becoming critically depleted; women and children are expendible as 'collateral damage' in greed wars; one in three Australian women can expect to be raped in their lifetimes... the list goes on, and on, and on, and on.

It is, in many ways, irresponsible of us _not_ to show leadership before it is too late.

in peace,
Tracy
Quinninup, Western Australia
tracy@cycloneco.com.au
-----
"This planet below you is our campsite," she said, "and you know of no other campground."
Kalpana Chawla
Columbia astronaut and heroine

Posted by: Phil 10 Mar - 10:03 pm

I want to add something on social capital. As a trained economist I have been aware that economics does not include this in any meaningful way.

I was heartened by the Economist of feb 22 that talked about economists grappling with the idea of social capital in the Economic Journal.

it says On the face of it the idea that trust or community can make a difference between wealth and poverty does not fit easily with the basic assumption of orthodox economic theory: that humans are essentially self-centred animals.

Bowles and Gintis of Uni of Massachusetts argue that if social capital is taken into account, economists have to put aside the idea that people are simple, self-interested economic machines. People donate their time to all sorts of things, from voting to teaching in Sunday school, whose costs outwiegh the private benefits. Obviously, they argue, humeans are social animals.

This could be explained away easily, though, by making the assumption that people derive utility from helping others at their own expense. But the authors think that something more sophisiticated is requried. They carried out experiments, using university students, to see how a group of people might encourage each other to act in the interests of the group as a whole. Many subjects, it seems, take pleasure in punishing free-riders. Many respond to the shame of being found out as shirkers,which encourages co-operation. The lesson is that notions of selfish or indeed altruisitic, preferences cannot explain the incentives of people in a village, school or parish. The authors conclude that such communities are the missing ingredient, alongside market and the state in understanding the economy.

I would welcome comment on this by others. I am not sure that i wholly understand the argument but I find it heartening that it is being raised.

Posted by: Jennifer 11 Mar - 12:52 am

I am hesitant (but perhaps not hesitant enough) to join in discussions where my knowledge is wholly experiential without the rigour of academic study.

I agree with Eva that the issues need to be debated. My concern, though, is where (and how) to have the debate so that it is seen as relevant.

When I joined the workfoce (almost 30 years ago), equal pay was discussed by some employers as a nefarious way of forcing them to pay women the same as men. The implied undertone was that the efforts of women did not justify such payment.

When I accessed paid maternity leave almost 22 years ago the explicit (male) view was that pregnancy was a great way of being paid for nothing. Hmm.

I mention this because while some of these attitudes have changed in some workplaces, they have not changed in all.

A broader question, though, might be how do we make feminism more readily understood as being about human (not just women's) rights? That we need to share a collective future, even though we are individuals?

Or have I missed a point (or ten) entirely?

Jenny in Canberra

Posted by: tracychaloner 11 Mar - 04:57 am

Hi Jenny, please don't be hesitant! The 'rigour of academic study' is only one aspect of information acquisition and debate. It is institutionalised and therefore as liable to being as flawed or biased as any other institutionalised knowledge.

Academic institutions now recognise life experience for very good reason, it can inform us just as well as more formalised study.

What is important is an ability to critically evaluate information. Some people do that naturally, some need to be trained. In my experience, one is not more valid than the other.

We also need to know that universities are patriarchal structures, and that the ownership of knowledge is carefully protected. There is much power to be had through the ownership, and the legitimacy, of knowledge.

As for understanding feminism as human, not women's, rights, I will beg to differ.

When we engage in a one size fits all, homogenised view of any social issue, it necessitates compromise. Compromise tends to favour the dominant culture, and the more easily identifiable fringes. The harder, or more invisible issues, such as the continued oppression of women (in the face of rhetoric that states otherwise), tend to become marginalised.

For example, when women gained Federal suffrage in 1902, it was only for white women. Indigenous women did not achieve suffrage until 1962 (along with Indigenous men), and universal suffrage was not achieved until 1983 (compulsory voting for Indigenous people).

The rights and needs of Indigenous Australians have only come to light, and are being addressed, because they are being dealt with discretely, as well as being part of a more comprehensive approach.

Most progress seems to happen when social issues are discretely recognised and dealt with, such as the recognition of the rights and needs of people with disabilities, and the greater community awareness of mental health issues.

In my opinion, there needs to be specific dialogue on women's rights, needs and issues, since women are still being oppressed simply because they are women. Where there is still direct and indirect discrimination being practiced, then the issues need direct attention.

My interpretation of feminism is that it is about speaking women's truth with a woman's voice. The primary reason for doing so is to acknowledge and value the difference in personal experience and perspective that women can bring to the social debate, and to ensure that they are accorded an equitable space to do so.

This should be complemented by looking at the bigger picture of creating an inclusive society, that is socially just and ecologically sustainable. I believe that a multi-faceted approach is necessary in order to make the radical changes that are now necessary after generations of neglect, of both women's interests _and_ the environment. This can be framed in a feminist way in order to empower women to contribute to making these changes.

If this is not done, it is likely that the debate will be framed within the current cultural norm, that of the entrenched partiarchal structure, and women's needs and rights will take second (or third or fourth or fifth) place yet again.

YMMV

all the best
Tracy Chaloner
Quinninup, Western Australia
--
"This planet below you is our campsite," she said, "and you know of no other campground."
Kalpana Chawla
Columbia astronaut and heroine

Posted by: jodurand 11 Mar - 05:49 am

Hi Tracy et al,

Are you aware of ecofeminism? Because you are walking it even if you are not aware of it. Some say it's the third wave of feminism, and encompasses all the different strands of feminism as well as the environmental, peace, indigenous rights movements (to name a few).

In 1999, I wrote my honours thesis, titled "Some Ecofeminist guidelines for making social change". In it I looked at and interviewed women who had participated in political decision-making in various ways. I developed guidelines for assessing the participatory tools from Maria Mies' guidelines for feminist research (can supply this reference if requested).

The guidelines (as I saw it) are:
1. The medium (or participatory tool) acknowledges the socio-economic context of the participants - class, race, gender;
2. The medium gives value to the reproduction of social life ie women's work, and acknowledges an ecocentric perspective;
3. The women become co-decision-makers - blurring boundaries between expert and community;
4. The medium enables women's particpation to be meaninful and effective at the policy-making level;
5. The medium allows the women's experiences to be acknowledged in the making of history; and
6. The medium contributes to women's emancipation from the systemic social subordination and economic appropriation of women and nature.

The idea was to use these guidelines to develop new tools for participation that are equally useful and meaningful for both men and women and combined the social/political/cultural/environmental aspects of us, as different to the current jobs vs environment way of looking at things.

Where am I going with this post? Good question!

Ah, it was an amateur academic approach to the perrenial question of where to go from here? Actually, it was to add further to my post on Eva's other thread, where I introduced the ecofeminism bit, as well as further documenting our stories.

Also for those interested in Australian ecofeminist activities, have a look at www.womenandearth.org

I am now going to go away and think some more about this, so I look forward to reading any further comments.

Jo

Posted by: Jennifer 12 Mar - 03:33 am

Tracy makes a wonderful point:

If we have no future vision, no dreams, then despair sets in. I believe that this is one of the many reasons why much of the feminist debate is in the process of stalling. Correct me if you feel that I am isolated in my thinking, but this has been my experience to date, within my circle of friends, political activism and study

A question for Tracy or anyone else:
Do you think this is a conscious choice, or do you think that we are allowing survival to hijack our dreaming time?

As a young working mother (20 years ago) the notion that there was time to do anything not directly related to survival would have seemed entirely foreign to me. That is no longer the case, and I do have time to dream and I certainly have some thoughts about my own future. And, in my own small way I try to pass on the knowledge gained through life experience. But this is somewhat peripheral - I think - to the broader issue.

I guess my point is: is there a balance between what influence we can have as individuals and how we need to work collectively?

Jenny

Posted by: tracychaloner 13 Mar - 04:49 am

Jenny wrote:

Do you think this is a conscious choice, or do you think that we are allowing survival to hijack our dreaming time?

This is long because the issue as I see it is complex...

I agree that survival is part of the problem -- it is certainly getting very difficult to survive -- juggling motherhood, work, domestic chores, relationships and bill paying. These tasks have become significantly more complex as the bureaucracy finds more ways to entangle us in red tape.

I also believe that feminist women are physically and emotionally excluded from spaces where *real* policy and decision making occurs, and that this is because of the entrenched normalcy of the patriarchal structure, and the means by which it is protected.

Perhaps my own recent experience can help to explain my own perspective on the patriarchy and barriers to participation/means of silencing.

To cut a very long and painful story as short as I can, I was President of the WA Division of the Australian Democrats during the 'democrat in exile' debacle that Murray cooked up last year (with a bit of help behind the scenes), and that resulted in Natasha Stott Despoja resigning the leadership of the party (the desired result of the strategy).

I lasted seven weeks.

In that time I was harassed, vilified privately and publicly, voted no confidence twice (I refused to resign the first time) and officially gagged from speaking on behalf of the party. One of my supporters called it a 'hatchet job". Natasha SD and Liz Oss-Emer (National President) did not fare any better. When I wouldn't go quietly, other more sinister threats were made. In the end I resigned and, a few weeks later when the threats were still coming, left the party.

I had a very strong vision of a just, sustainable and progressive society, that was a little easier and happier to live in, both for the Democrats and Australians. Unfortunately it happened to conflict with the future that the party elite, the male power brokers, had for their own future. They saw this progressive future as a threat to their contacts and credibiity with corporate Australia (lots of skeletons here) and the government (remember the GST?). This is where the real power is and they were knee deep wallowing in it.

[Note: The reformist Serbian Prime Minister was assassinated today. He was committed to cleaning up the corruption and instilling democracy.]

What I found out through this experience was that women who are independent and who challenge the way things are done in politics find themselves being excluded and/or assassinated. Various means are used -- from threats, to smear campaigns, to propaganda and rhetoric, to branch stacking, to pre-selection control, to the patriachal operational structure, to stereotyping, to gender-blindness and so-called 'equality' -- all the while the rhetoric is suggestive of an egalitarian and inclusive approach to women's representation. Hah! Only women who fit the patriarchal mold, and there are a fair few of those in the corridors of power. They enjoy patronage and success because they do not challenge the status quo -- they have either learnt to play the game or just naturally fit into it.

Sadly this means that feminist dreamings and agendas rarely see the light of day, even if more women get into representative positions. They usually only remain there through patronage, since the power is always in the hands of the male elite, which means they either have to play the game, or fit comfortably into the patriarchy, not difficult if you have been socially engineered in elite private schools. Those that remain feminists tend to only be able to chip away at the edges.

There are so many barriers to the effective participation of feminist women that it just becomes disconcertingly frustrating after a while, banging your head bloody against the brick walls. It is also dangerous, to mental and physical health.

What makes it worse is the double standards, the righteousness, the absolute corruption and immorality, that goes on behind the scenes in politics that so many can see plain as day, yet do not have the means to change it because of the way the patriarchal structure works. The powerful elite are usually well entrenched and ruthless in the protection of their privileged position.

So women who are feminists rarely even get a look-in. The attendence at Democrats' women's network functions was usually fairly pitiful, and just as bad in policy formulation, online forums and discussion lists, and committees. There was an ever growing sense of apathy and despair, which in fact was pervasive throughout the progressive membership because of the factional divisions that had developed in the party. The women who did get involved tended to be easily manipulated to support the patriarchy to save their positions. There was a tacit understanding that being able to do a little bit was better than nothing, even if it meant playing the game. I saw many good women struggling with this 'contradictory expectation' of themselves.

My own political dreams have been absolutely shattered, my trust that there was some integrity in progressive politics is similarly destroyed. Even so-called progressive and enlightened men turned when it came to realising that they had to give up their privileged position to accord women equity and social justice, either that or they were more interested in gender-blindness, which included denouncing a women's culture.

I am not alone and have connected with many others who have had similar experiences at the hands of the Democrats' powerful elite. I felt as if it was somehow my own fault, or that I was simply politically naive, until I shared similar stories with others who I knew to be very intelligent, strong, politically experienced people.

I have become extremely cynical of the processes and agendas, of which there are many, and not many of them include power sharing, social justice, equity or sustainability unless it will ensure their election, and then it is just as quickly dumped. These progressive agendas do not fit well with power and wealth accumulation.

Populism, propaganda and power is the name of the game.

These barriers and practices also occur in corporate Australia, in the global debate and international institutions, in community organisations and just about anywhere that there is politics and power to be had. Aggression, pragmatism and ruthlessless are the norm, not the exception.

Jenny also wrote:

I guess my point is: is there a balance between what influence we can have as individuals and how we need to work collectively?

I have come to the conclusion that the only way to maintain a feminist vision, and to keep the dreams alive, is within an exclusively feminist space. I do not believe that it can be done within a mixed space because the dreams and visions are either usurped or marginalised. The 'dog eat dog' aggressive, competitive political model is the norm, and women have to buy into it to survive.

The danger that I fear is that 'masculined women', those that fit well into the patriarchy, will be attracted to the power, combined with a femocentric space, and we will still find that the feminist dreams and visions are usurped by power agendas.

I haven't worked out a way to protect the space from being usurped, but if and when I do I hope to be able to create it. I am unable to conscionably sit by and watch this world disintegrate and watch people suffer unimaginable pain and want, all at the hands of the patriachy, without trying to do something about it. I don't think that I can make much of a difference as an individual, but by mobilising a collective it is possible that we may be able to make change, without having to fight both internally and externally, as I did in the Democrats.

This is my dream and vision -- a safe feminist space, a sustainable future, a happy and more simple way of life with social justice, equity and common sense ascendant over power, greed and aggression.

As Eleanor Roosevelt said:

"In the light of history, it is more intelligent to hope rather than to fear, to try rather than not to try."

As I look out across the sea of suits, I try to hang onto my vision, and not to despair.

in peace,
Tracy
Quinninup, Western Australia

Posted by: evacox 13 Mar - 10:25 pm

I empathise with what Tracy is posting and have had similar experiences, though i didn't rise very far in the ALP because I was not prepared to do what i was told. Over time I have been up and down in erms of trying to make it in any of the current systems. I've started my own consultancy when i was labelled uneployable, and finally have found space in academe. at least I get left to my thing, so far, and being older it will probably outlast my paid work time.

however, the solution his not to find feminist spaces. I have many wounds delivered in feminist circles where i failed to conform to the often quite demanding demands and where dissent was not welcome.

so as a sociologist, I think the prob;lems is organisational and social cultures. that is why I'm now looking at how we set up processes in organisations, communities etc which acknowledge diversities of views, the lack of clear ways to progress and recognises that we need to be creative, dessenting and exploratory, within civil sovcial processes so we can move forward without a set path to utopia.

So can we look at how to create ethical processes which validate feminist views and recognise our needs to move forward. By ethical I mean respectful of diversity of viewpoints, ability to argue civilly and recognition that we do not know the right answers but we can work out how to make the world better. Ethical decision making requires us to take steps which ensure we take all stakeholder needs into account, and recognise power differences, and create equitable processes. Ethical processes means that we do not discriminate, harrass, exclude, persecute, favour or otherwise act in ways which are unfair and fail to recognise power differences.

Ethical organisations incorporate EEO but are better because they are trying to do the right thing, however defined. I think we can make changes but so far have spent lots of time making structural changes, to lkaws and regulations, but we did not make the cultural changes that were equally required. We knwo that informal, social links and power structures are more powerfu; than formal ones, if they are in conflict but we changes the formal ones. Ego, i now want to look at how we create more civil and ethical social and political cultures. It's better than despair and all women's/feminist groups vcreate their own hells because they are not necessarily more ethical in their processes than the blokes. sometimes because we are better at emotions we are also better at shredding each other!

Responses please.

Posted by: Jennifer 15 Mar - 12:29 am

Tracy and Eva,

thank you both for your insightful posts. I need to mull over the issues before replying.

Tracy, I really appreciate your sharing your experience: this cannot have been easy.

Jenny

Posted by: tracychaloner 15 Mar - 03:56 am

Eva... these are really big concepts and writing in a forum doesn't really do justice to the depth and breadth of the issues. I will try to encapsulate a few key ideas that might generate some further discussion, but warn that I am somewhat of a gestalt thinker, so tend to focus on the big pictures rather than distilling issues into their component parts.

Eva wrote:

I've started my own consultancy when i was labelled uneployable, and finally have found space in academe.

This is pretty similar to my history Eva. I am pretty much unemployable because I have always been a non-conformist and not afraid to dissent (not even with 'experts' or professionals). I have always questioned everything that did not 'sit right' with me.

Mostly I have run my own businesses, with sporadic interludes of employment (when I had to pay off the debts) that always ended in disaster. I am now a fulltime student (at 39) and feel a sense of place for the first time in a long time. I hope to have what it takes to create a space in academe too, eventually (should such a concept still exist if Howard has his way with higher ed).

Eva wrote:

however, the solution his not to find feminist spaces. I have many wounds delivered in feminist circles where i failed to conform to the often quite demanding demands and where dissent was not welcome.

Thank you for sharing your experience. I am not surprised, but I guess I am disappointed. I did have some hope... 'systers doin' it for themselves' etc.

I did get an inkling of this problem within the Democrats women's network. A lot of women didn't understand where I was coming from and didn't have the same experiences of being an 'outcast'. Those that did, had by that time left the party.

One of my concerns has been about how not to get 'usurped' after creating a space developed specifically to try to bring about ethical cultural changes. It so often happens, the purity of vision becomes usurped by other more dominant agendas, such as in the gradual takeover of the Democrats (which has been a very long term problem). The principles and philosophy are really good, however it is the usurpation of the structure for other agendas which has dogged the party's existence, and created many a bitter internal divide.

So how do we make ethical social bonds as strong as the bonds created through power relations? I see this as a primary challenge.

(Note: although fickle at an individual level, the broader social context of power relations is very strong.)

Ethical processes means that we do not discriminate, harrass, exclude, persecute, favour or otherwise act in ways which are unfair and fail to recognise power differences.

Thanks for outlining your perspective on ethical processes. Your explanation put it into context for the debate you opened.

Whilst I agree that ideally this list of ethical processes should be viewed as a model for framing ethical social structures and behaviours, it does sound somewhat utopian. A fundamental component of human nature (or is it just testosterone), perhaps genetically 'hardwired', is the propensity for taking care of 'number one' -- nature's way of ensuring 'survival of the fittest'.

It is this aspect of our collective psyche that Howard (and Bush) has so effectively tapped into. Create the bogey of 'the other', generate fear that 'our way of life' is under threat, and as a result an almost hysterical patriotism develops. Dissent becomes 'un-Australian'; ethics goes out the window when we are continuously bombarded by images and propaganda that manipulate us into believing that we are personally under threat. Other authoritarian regimes use similar techniques to retain power.

Democracy 'Western style' IMHO is a sham cover-up of simiarly (and more increasingly) authoritarian regimes, mandated with the manipulated, and largely ignorant or apathetic, consent of the polis. I am still thinking through the concept that democracy, like communism, may not be a good working model in today's reality.

These manipulative techniques are only as strong as the information systems that support them, both educative and through public information distribution.

During the current Iraq crisis the internet has played an unprecedented part in ensuring that people are able to collect together and share their concerns. They have also been able to access a wealth of discerning and dissenting views. The people are practicing informed dissent and it is hitting the imperialists hard.

I see this as a big leap forward in working through many of the barriers that until now have prevented ethical structures, and debate on ethical social development, from getting a real foothold in the broader political context.

Our education structures are also frontiers which need to be challenged and which, at the moment, are mostly there as the means by which society is socially engineered. These ideas will take a whole separate email (if not a thesis!) so I will leave it as a statement to reflect on for now.

so as a sociologist, I think the prob;lems is organisational and social cultures.

I do tend to agree with you. I see the current social culture as normatively competitive (and masculine) -- primarily because we live in a capitalist, industrialised, market driven society, which has now extended to most of the global community. Organisational structures are generally hierarchical. Both these constructs are barriers to ethical development.

It is hard to be completely ethical when you have to fight one another for money, position and power, and have to 'climb the ladder to success' to get validation and reward (and sometimes just to make ends meet).

I have now come to the conclusion that 'money is the root of all evil', when it comes to social equity and the 'livability' of life.

Clive Hamilton and Elizabeth Mail from The Australia Institute have done some research on the phenomenon of 'downshifting', in which a 'back to basics' approach to life is being sought by more and more people. Hamilton and Mail (2003) report that from around 23 percent to over 30 percent of the population could be 'downshifters' to varying degrees.

Additionally, 83% of people say that too much emphasis is being placed on money and materialism, and not on the 'things that matter', which is very heartening. [Hamilton, C., and Mail, E., 2003, 'Downshifing in Australia: A seachange in the pursuit of happiness', The Australia Institute, Canberra, Australia, online at http://www.tai.org.au]

Recently, the Dalai Lama spoke to tens of thousands of people that were searching for meaning and happiness. They came from everywhere to hear his message, and the venues were overflowing.

There seems to be a burgeoning realisation that money, power, status and 'stuff' are not making any of us any happier or giving our lives meaning -- in fact it is making us emotionally and physically worse off. It is also trashing the environment; most people are now at least partially, if not seriously, concerned.

This is a burgeoning social development that needs further exploration in order to start framing the public debate on ethical social cultures and structures in more concrete terms. We need to look at how we can translate the 'what's in it for me' individualism to an 'I win if we all win' social culture, whilst still maintaining the integrity and autonomy of the individual.

One problem facing such radical social change, is that there are the 5% of the population that hold 90% of the world's wealth and who are unlikely to give it up in a hurry. It is this small but entrenched neo-liberalist and/or conservative elite that are driving the current global agendas, with serious consequences.

Money is still the currency of power, which presents one of the most difficult challenges to reframing the social structure to reflect what appears to be a majority concern for a less materialistic, more ethical society

So we also have to work through ways to redistribute (or reduce) the wealth creation base as well as the actual wealth. We also need to work on educative programs that are delivered from early childhood, that have as their primary outcome one of instilling a sense of ethics, symbiosis with the environment and community spirit in the upcoming generations.

These types of efforts are too often undermined by the incredibly determined, powerful and ruthless market (and their advertising minions), and by the wealthy elite perpetuating their privileged status through elite school instititutions (currently supported by an excess of Commonwealth funding) that inculcate an 'us and them' mentality, influence the social balance of higher education, and therefore the social foundations of the decision-making process and structure.

In order words, the wealthy are likely to continue to enjoy a status that will ensure that they retain their grip on power, and their key place in framing the social structure for all, in such a way as to further entrench their grip on power. This perpetual cycle is one which is will be difficult to interrupt until such time as the gap is so wide that revolutionary type thinking is invoked and acted upon.

This is happening to some extent with more than 25% of the electorate choosing a minority party as their first preference, however none of these parties are much better than the two major parties (most politics, by its very nature, is corrupt). So the electorate's 'trust' is misplaced in my view, although at least there is a more representative distribution of power and therefore more likelihood that debate can be influenced (at least in the Senate).

As for perpetuating the capitalist, consumerist, materialist cycle, I have spoken to a number of people, including teachers, who are in despair at the self-centred and individualistic (almost narcissistic) characteristics that this current generation of children seem to be developing. This is a perennial complaint of 'older generations', but is worth looking at carefully in light of global capitalist free-market trends, the exposure to advertising and marketing, and the access to money to fulfil consumerist desires.

Unfortunately, the civic education that is currently available is highly unlikely to challenge the market dominant consumerist approach that governments now also have on their agenda (the membership of government predominantly coming from the ranks of the wealthy 'elite').

So we have duelling perspectives. On the one side is the educational focus on a job ready workforce (hence the trend away from intellectualsim and toward achievement in our educational facilities) but one that has a 'social conscience' so that the government has to pick up less and less of the social tab. Society consumes more, it drives the markets, which (allegedly) drives job creation etc etc. We shop 'til we drop as 'the have nots' starve in the street and the 'have's' become wealthier. 'Middle Australia' becomes the consumption driven workhorse of the economy. This is effectively the status quo.

On the other side is the need to work toward educating for life, developing an awareness of our symbiosis with the environment and each other, generating a renewed emphasis on community and a respect for common sense and intellectualism. In other words, developing a social conscience to develop a more ethical approach to society, thus influencing government in the longer term through a more diverse membership, and generating a holistic cycle.

While our society continues to be seduced by the market, and by consumerism and materialism, it is patently obvious that the competitive, 'dog eat dog' social culture will remain dominant. The evidence, however, tends to point to the fact that 'middle Australia' is in danger of imploding. This, coupled with the threat of war and a downturn in consumer confidence, both of the market and the integrity of business institions, is a recipe for economic disaster of catastrophic proportions.

How do we break this nexus between 'the market' and social culture and structure? Is this an area of social research that has been, or could be, explored and used to inform us of how to progress the vision of a more equitable, sustainable, socially just society?

Posted by: tracychaloner 15 Mar - 04:43 am

thank you both for your insightful posts. I need to mull over the issues before replying. 
Tracy, I really appreciate your sharing your experience: this cannot have been easy.

Thanks Jenny. Yes it is very, very hard and painful. I speak out in order to perhaps save someone else the pain that I went through, and to hopefully sway some people away from supporting the party because it really _is_ smoke and mirrors. Too few people really know how abjectly corrupt our political system really is, sad but true.

The tragedy is that there are a few Democrats, such as Natasha SD and Ros Dundas (ACT MP), who are remarkable women, making a real difference through the work they do. However, the isolated brilliance just doesn't make up for the rest of the abjectly corrupt practices, and entrenched patriarchal power structures.

all the best
Tracy

Posted by: evacox 15 Mar - 08:47 pm

Thank you for some very challenging postings. We may be few but we're thinking! Tracy, I think you are being too pessimistic and contradictory in your assumptions about human society. We are not Tabula Rasa, ie completely shaped by our society as we bring in dispositions and are often different. On the other hand we are not programmed for self interest. this evolutionary biologically fed view is increasingly creeping into social discourses, as it always does when conservatism creeps. After all, if it's natural we don't have to/cannot change it.

I think the evidence is that we have propensities, all of us for good and evil, some maybe more so than others but none of us are purely good or evil. We are shaped by our experiences and expectations, the social cultures rather than just the material ones. Capitalism is part of the problem but relationships to material resources, pace Marx and Smith, is not enough to explain our social diversities.

So nature and nurture are probably indivisible so we can work on the social environment, including the material. I think if we look at people we can see the need to belong, to be values, to be part of something, to make meaning are very powerful. We can see that today in the appeal that fundamentalisms of varying sorts have for people who do not accept the individualism and materialism they are being offered. So people look for something which offers certainty and the safety of belief and group.

If most of us need both the tribe as linkage but also the overlay of modernism which offered us some aspects of freedom, of progress and democracy and the secular, we end up with different analyses from those that assume we have a single explanation. It sets us the problem which come from feminist perspectives of creating models of understanding and prediction which incorporate the social and the individual. How do we manage the contradictions of liberty and equality, of freedom and solidarity, of care and autonomy?

I don't think ecofeminism answers these questions, it's another one explanation and can be quite authoritarian and I can't accept Nature as supreme authority. similarly many of the aniticapitalist movements are too singular in their focus on the cause. It's based on materialist assumptions, on means of production and surplus value whoich ignores the social or assumes interactions are all economic.

I think we need to look further and find less unified explanations, recognise the diversities but also the similarities of the human conditions. I don't want to give up on rationality but to work out how it matches and mixes with emotions. I am interested in working out how questions of trust, respect, optimism, connectedness, ethics and other parts of relationship building fit into a wider social analysis. Recognising our fallibility, the possibility that we need to drive change and progress rather than assume it will happen makes it both harder and more exciting to make pathways to better futures.

Too much? Maybe! But I need to feel the optimism of believing that most of us, given the right opportunities, prefer to do the right thing, however defined. If we are mostly potentially trustworthy, and prefer to be ethical, then we can work out the future. But i feel strongly, the responsibility is ours and no simplistic explanation, theory of everything will work.

Does this make sense or am I raving? Have posted below the text of an Ockham's razor Broadcast I did last August on radio national which explains this further.

Uncertainty and demonising

Talking about uncertainty is risky because the word itself may send a frisson of fear through many listeners. That type of reaction makes pursuing such a conversation important because we need to explore the toxicity of the mix of fear and uncertainty that underpins too many public and private conversations. I think this mix may explain worrying social phenomena such as excessive demands for order, loss of public trust, self interest, fear of strangers, increasing litigiousness and forms of fundamentalism and terrorism.

These are uncertain times because most of us no longer believe that our lives continue to get better and that progress is both good and inevitable. 21st century Western thinking no longer contains easy assumptions that more knowledge will fix our problems and change is necessarily for the better. The 20th century�s search for enlightenment focused on finding definitive models for a better future. Grand theories of everything were hotly debated between major powers and political movements, competing for disciples as they struggled for dominance. Now we are only offered equivocating possibilities following the failures of command economies and the emerging flaws of unfettered markets.

Uncertainty is not a new problem. The rapid changes of the last 100 years plus have often disrupted and worried large sectors of societies. There were problems late in the 19th century when unfettered capital and colonisation created gross inequalities and problems. Fear of revolt and enlightened views resulted in many decades of change and reform interrupted, and sometimes stimulated, by two world wars and a depression.

Sometimes the general moods were darker. The tensions in the depression in the early part of the 20th century offered fertile ground for the rise of extreme movement and threats which culminated in the Second World War. However, by the time peace was declared, some lessons had been learned and there were widespread changes aimed at making the state more accountable and responsible for the well being of its citizens and at reducing the pressures of economic changes.

If I had to identify the difference between growing up in the middle of the last century and now, it was that optimism countered anxieties with assumptions that the future was better and progress was inevitable. So this century�s new adults may be the first generation in the developed world facing a future without beliefs in the inevitability of some forms of utopian future.

My generation saw the benefits of post war reconstruction, decolonisation, expanding responsibilities of nation states, universal suffrage, democracy, expanding economies, new science and technology. The future seemed to offer infinite possibilities, if we avoided nuclear destruction. Post war reactions to Nazism included the UN Conventions on Human Rights, more egalitarian commitments. The welfare state offered collective security, optimism and promises of betterment as a counter to the discontents which had fuelled imperialism, stalinism and fascism.

However, these lessons seem to have been forgotten by those promoting changes over the last couple of decades. These have reduced the scope of the public sphere and emphasised individual autonomy, at the same time as there was increasing uncertainty about the present and future. The lessons learned by mid-century seem now to have been forgotten with developed nations selling off many of those public institutions which offered some guarantees of security by pooling risks So it is not surprising that the reactions to such changes echo some of the disruptions of the 1930�s with new forms of demonising the other, tribalism and nostalgia for some forms of ethnic homogeneity. The rising nationalism is logically puzzling as it is happening despite, or maybe because of, increased globalisation, greater population diversity, mobility and better communication technologies.

Losing certainty has some interesting emerging consequences. One is that uncertainty may increase conservatism because it undermines the process of new ideas overturning received wisdom, the paradigm shifts outlined by Thomas Kuhn. Letting go of existing dysfunctional views without an alternative becomes difficult. So it is hard to find support for views which accept that there are no linear solution, so we need to work on the probabilities of multiple influences on human behaviour.

Science itself has lost popularity as recent advances like genetic manipulation are no longer seen as necessarily good. Changing social sciences recognise they cannot deliver clear directions and a strange mix of neo-liberalism and postmodernism has undermined concepts of collective action. Even physics, the hardest of sciences, recognises fallibility with Heisenberg�s uncertainty principle questioning our ability to explain objectively what we observe.

Political clusters reflect the uncertainties that underpin many discussions on where to from here. In most western democracies, there is little difference between government and oppositions as both lose their commitment to offering identifiable differences as both fight to claim the so called middle ground. Both major political blocs (the old moderate left and right) avoid risks, as they see them, by agreeing that the nation state is in decline to be replaced by globalised alliances and powerful international corporations. The result is a blandness of centrist politics which fails to reassure possible followers that there are any answers to perceived problems or any reasons for passionate engagement.

This major party convergence is described by some as the end of ideologies, of different visions. It plays into the myths promoted under the neo-liberal agenda. It shows clearly how little space there is between their shared base assumptions of both the traditional and new left and right, albeit differently valued, materialist based causality. Both now see rising living standards as indicating the need to pander to individualism and self interest leaving many voters feeling they have no legitimate political voices.

This vacuum of options will push many people into searches for somewhere to belong and believe which may offer them security by claiming to have the answers. Such attachments may diminish their levels of anxiety by offering varied but intensely held viewpoints and demanding loyalty and commitment. Problems arise when adherents may feel they have no legitimate outlets for their passion and attempt to impose these views on others by violence.

Some try to reduce risks by retreating into absolute beliefs and/or familiar small groups with whom they share values. Some look for some forms of spiritual essentialism or turn nature into some almost sentient being; others look in the past for lost certainties about nation or race and reasons to demonise others. One risk, already evident, is that many of those who feel uneasy about their uncertain futures will find some scapegoats to blame for changes which they fear will undermine their ability to deal with the difficulties of daily life.

It is these reactions to disparate and apparently unrelated �worries� that may be usefully linked as reactions to uncertainty. Rising populism and racism, litigiousness, fear of refugees and calls for order are all explicable as being reactions to a combination of uncertainty about the future with distrust of those presently in power. So it is not be surprising to find many who feel they have been left to take care of themselves feeling the need to repel possible risks which may threaten their way of life and resources

Though most of these extreme groups are on the fringe, they are increasingly attracting votes and making coalitions with mainstream parties such as in Europe. Locally, we have seen some of their views adopted by the federal government, exploiting their anxieties in public policy and election campaigns. It is this fertile social soil that was seeded with fear and anger that is still being exploited in border protection and budget fear mongering.

This option for cynical playing for populist power further reduces levels of trust in politics and parties. Evidence is mounting that the withdrawal of the state, evident in neo liberal policies, has increased anxieties. Privatisation policies have increased perceptions of increased individual and family risks. The loss of collective support. has encouraged self interest and increased pressures for individual wealth accumulation and against pooling of resources by paying taxes.

Fear is inimical to collective action for the common good.

If we want forms of social cohesion that are inclusive and responsible, we need to develop processes and institutions that are seen to reduce perceived risks to acceptable levels Uncertainty offers rich opportunities if people can feel positive not anxious. In sum, we need to move on from current narrow givens and explore much richer lode of odd combinations. How do perceptions and feelings, as well as financial resources, affect our ability to manage continuing uncertainty without toxic consequences?

This requires some new theoretical approaches, moving away from assumptions about single linear causes and look at how resilient social structures may result from a range of possible contradictory pressures. We know people are not strictly rational and make decisions on a mix of inputs ranging from perceptions of facts, feelings, resources, influences and expectations. By moving away from assumptions about simple cause and effect, we learn to recognise the complexities of the connections that make us social beings. We need to develop open and dynamic models of social systems which can manage the interactions and tensions that create an acceptable balance, or risk being tipped into unacceptable extremes.

Encouraging civility through collective activities requires awareness of the traps of simple nostrums and the need for continuing place and space for debate and discussion of possible options. Such complexities do not, however, undermine the possibilities of either recording what happens in the social settings, nor of working out what could be done to make things work better. People require some capacity to predict and fulfil expectations if they are not to become immobilised but they also need to recognise these are fallible. Social scientists can create patterns out of social data, perceive trends and predict the probabilities of consequences. So the future is neither a complete mystery but nor is it clearly knowable.

These are the interesting times the old curse warned us about. The interest curse means that we are all more responsible for our futures as they are somewhat unknown. The two crucial questions that we need to address are how to have open and courteous debates about what we can do to make the world better; the other is to find the political good will to recognise that losing security is problematic.

We need to develop new strategies for dealing with ideas and possibilities within much lower levels of certainty. It is always hard selling shades of grey when people feel more committed to black and white, but the assumption of a Manichean split is the root cause of many of the problems we face. The desire for certainty sits uncomfortably with the more cosmopolitan, mobile and post modern relationships we need to nurture. Making futures without assuming that enlightenment will come anyhow requires us to engage actively in working out the next steps.

One priority should be working out what levels of collective security are needed to make it easier to keep an open mind. If we want to avoid returning to tribal barbarism, we need to work out how to remove the tensions and anxieties. If people believe they need to take care of one�s own, as otherwise no one else will do so, they are unlikely to be generous or even fair.

The key to such changes is increasing trust in democratic institutions and processes but trust can be misapplied, as can rationality, without values and ethics. So I am also suggesting the need to reintroduce the concepts of the common good and ethical procedures. Trustworthiness derives from the perception of fairness, not only to you but to all. It is easy to distrust if institutions appear to privilege special interests which are not yours or legitimate. So resilience in trust depends on being seen as able to balance competing interests and make fair decisions. My current interest in triple bottom lines and ethical audit comes in part from my interest in developing such characteristics.

The recent corporate collapses further raise questions of who can be trusted. Ethics are clearly now on the public agenda. My question is how we can use such interest to encourage a more civil society. Living well with uncertainty requires confidence in the good will of others and the assumption that those in charge will act appropriately in the community�s best interest.

Then uncertainty becomes promising and not a threat.

Eva Cox 11/07/2002

so strategies and future policies need to counter the perceptions of unacceptable risks. New strategies are needed to increase trustworthiness of public institutions, social networks, collective resources and political authorities.

John Ralston Saul refers to the desired outcomes as equilibrium between human qualities and identifies ways of these interacting. Claus Offe suggests society is best explained through tensions between markets, state and community; Hannah Arendt saw the good life representing tensions between family, work and public life in the human condition. There are many theorists who see the complexities of apparent contradictions. These defy defining easy causality and facile predictions of human behaviour, and challenge us to explore multiple ways of nurturing or fracturing social connections.

eva

Posted by: tracychaloner 16 Mar - 06:38 am

Eva wrote:

Tracy, I think you are being too pessimistic and contradictory in your assumptions about human society.

I guess that I am showing myself to be a good student of politics, and not of sociology!

All joking aside ... Eva, would you mind being a bit more specific about the condradictory assumptions. I'd like to understand how you interpreted my thinking, but need a bit more elaboration.

Thanks
Tracy

Posted by: tracychaloner 16 Mar - 07:06 am

QUOTE (jodurand @ 11 Mar 03 - 05:49 am)

Hi Tracy et al,

Are you aware of ecofeminism? Because you are walking it even if you are not aware of it. Some say it's the third wave of feminism, and encompasses all the different strands of feminism as well as the environmental, peace, indigenous rights movements (to name a few).

In 1999, I wrote my honours thesis, titled "Some Ecofeminist guidelines for making social change". In it I looked at and interviewed women who had participated in political decision-making in various ways. I developed guidelines for assessing the participatory tools from Maria Mies' guidelines for feminist research (can supply this reference if requested).

The guidelines (as I saw it) are:

1. The medium (or participatory tool) acknowledges the socio-economic context of the participants - class, race, gender;
2. The medium gives value to the reproduction of social life ie women's work, and acknowledges an ecocentric perspective;
3. The women become co-decision-makers - blurring boundaries between expert and community;
4. The medium enables women's particpation to be meaninful and effective at the policy-making level;
5. The medium allows the women's experiences to be acknowledged in the making of history; and
6. The medium contributes to women's emancipation from the systemic social subordination and economic appropriation of women and nature.

The idea was to use these guidelines to develop new tools for participation that are equally useful and meaningful for both men and women and combined the social/political/cultural/environmental aspects of us, as different to the current jobs vs environment way of looking at things.

Where am I going with this post? Good question!

Ah, it was an amateur academic approach to the perrenial question of where to go from here? Actually, it was to add further to my post on Eva's other thread, where I introduced the ecofeminism bit, as well as further documenting our stories.

Also for those interested in Australian ecofeminist activities, have a look at www.womenandearth.org

I am now going to go away and think some more about this, so I look forward to reading any further comments.

Jo

Jo wrote:

Are you aware of ecofeminism?  Because you are walking it even if you are not aware of it.  Some say it's the third wave of feminism, and encompasses all the different strands of feminism as well as the environmental, peace, indigenous rights movements (to name a few).

Hi Jo,

I am aware of ecofeminism and in fact it forms part of the one of units I am doing this semester. I might be walking it but I really don't know much about it at all. I'd love to read your thesis if available. I really enjoyed reading the points about 'the medium' (and identified with them, esp. pt 3 and 6).

I am working toward an understanding that humans are/should be symbiotic with their environment, and not necessarily each other. Somewhat the antithesis of the sociological approach!

I believe that we are officially 'between waves' in feminism, but my understanding is that the third wave was the 80s achievement (acceptance) of the fundamental notion of equality (first, 50 years of suffrage, second, 60s, freedom from domestic and reproductive slavery).

I am interested in looking at the fourth wave -- finally achieving liberation (or emancipation if you prefer). The oppression and violence that many (most?) women continue to endure day after day is simply not acceptable any more, yet the structures and social culture tacitly allows it to continue not only unchallenged, but in many ways invisibly supported.

all the best
Tracy

Posted by: tracychaloner 16 Mar - 07:12 am

Oops... this quote function is not friendly sometimes, or is it only me .

all the best
Tracy

Posted by: evacox 16 Mar - 03:42 pm

just a quick response as i rush out the door to deliver a lecture on the social in policy . the following bit

'Whilst I agree that ideally this list of ethical processes should be viewed as a model for framing ethical social structures and behaviours, it does sound somewhat utopian. A fundamental component of human nature (or is it just testosterone), perhaps genetically 'hardwired', is the propensity for taking care of 'number one' -- nature's way of ensuring 'survival of the fittest'.'

I think saying it's probably hard wired then discussing how to educate it seems to me to be contradictory. I think the assumptions about individual survival are very challengeable and don't fit with much of the rest of it. Also you are assuming in money as the root of all evil, that it is wealth per se, rather than it's cultural anpolitical significance. for instance, I think, once some minimum levels are achieved, that it is percpetions of unfairness and inequality that do most damage.

Otherwisewhat you say makes very good sense, but it is again a critique rather than ways forward. More later, Eva

Posted by: Jennifer 18 Mar - 02:38 am

I am still working though the thoughts posted by Eva and Tracy. I have quite a few thoughts running through my miond, but I want to rein them in a little to try to organise them into some coherency.

Somehow, it seems even more important today to focus on the future, what it might mean and how we might get there.

Jenny

Posted by: tracychaloner 24 Mar - 09:22 pm

Sorry to take so long... been very busy! I hope this is not too late to generate some more discussion.

I wrote:

'Whilst I agree that ideally this list of ethical processes should be viewed as a model for framing ethical social structures and behaviours, it does sound somewhat utopian. A fundamental component of human nature (or is it just testosterone), perhaps genetically 'hardwired', is the propensity for taking care of 'number one' -- nature's way of ensuring 'survival of the fittest'.'

Eva responded:

I think saying it's probably hard wired then discussing how to educate it seems to me to be contradictory.

No, not at all. To view these two concepts as mutually exclusive, or contradictory, relies on the assumption that if something is 'hardwired' it is therefore not changeable, which you alluded to in a previous post.

What I am arguing is that (most) humans are adaptive. They can and do learn to overcome their natural instincts. Rather than saying that the instincts don't exists, or label them as 'propensities' or 'dispositions', I am suggesting that they do exist but that they can (but not necessarily should), in most but not all cases, be manipulated through social engineering undertaken through the education system.

Milgram's experiments [1] on obedience to authority demonstrate that the social inculcation of obedience can successfully override moral judgement in most cases, albeit not without some struggle. However, there were some on the fringe -- those who enjoyed delivering the pain, and those who refused.

These and other experiments demonstrate that we simply cannot be absolute or generalist when discussing nature, nurture, social behaviour etc. The human being is far too complex to so neatly and succinctly analyse with any degree of predictability, and there is still much we don't know, especially about brain function and mind/body interaction.

However, I believe that denying that human instincts for survival exist is to deny a significant piece of the puzzle, and as such will produce flawed theories and outcomes. The way forward might be utopian in theory, but not achievable in reality. That reality has been demonstrated through the failed experiments of communism. The process was usurped time and again by those vested in gaining power and control at any price. If Marx recognised that humans were not necessarily fundamentally good, he may have built into his model some responses to that problem, rather than the more utopian view he espoused.

Eva wrote:

So nature and nurture are probably indivisible so we can work on the social environment, including the material. I think if we look at people we can see the need to belong, to be values, to be part of something, to make meaning are very powerful.

I don't think we can dismiss nature and nuture so simply. It is somewhat convient to do so because it leaves us with only one aspect of humanity to concern ourselves with -- the social (and material) environment -- which makes it all the easier to formulate theories.

This leads me back to my original deconstruction of human society as it is at present. Rather than viewing that deconstruction as pessimism on my part, I prefer to view it as a warts and all look at how it all hangs together. The analysis must be honest[2] in order to allow for a reconstruction that doesn't build in flaws, which will compromise the desired outcomes.

I see the issues that we face as being an amalgum of nature, nurture and society, and that the interconnectedness of this triad makes generalisations or unidimensional theoretical posturings limited in their application.

I also don't believe that *all* of us have propensities for good and evil. I think that this is somewhat idealistic i.e. if we all have a capacity for good then all we have to do is find the way to tap into it and all the evil will be gone.

There are mental health disorders, such as psychopathic personality disorders, that really can make people do and be pure evil. No amount of nurture, or socialisation and behaviour therapy, is going to make some psychopaths a good person. I am certain that there is pure good as well, it is just not as obvious (or ideological acceptable i.e. their is little belief that someone really could be all good and that they must have _some_ flaws).

I think the assumptions about individual survival are very challengeable and don't fit with much of the rest of it.

I believe that instinctive memory returns when stress is present, or when we need to be in survival mode, and the concept of survival mode is variable depending on the expectations and structure of the society. In some it is actual life and death survival, in others such as Australia, middle Australia has been convinced that they don't have everything that they _need_, and so they too are in a survival mode of sorts.

Being in this mode makes it difficult for individual and group altruism. Therefore recognising that survival mode does have an impact on social behaviour, and addressing it accordingly -- such as through discussions of downshifting and the value of material wealth as the means to happiness -- will see a shift from an individualistic society to a more socially cohesive and mutually supportive society.

Another basis of the framework for an optimistic vision must be human rights. One of our immediate goals should be that all nations *must* unequivocally ensure that these rights, and the treaties that nations are signatories to, are completely and totally implemented -- no ifs, no buts. While people live in want and fear it is not possible for them to avert their gaze from life's misery and focus on possibilities.

If we eliminate want and fear, then it is possible that humans may be able to move out of survival mode and into a space where they can generate optimism and trust.

While many of us can see the blatant abuses of human rights, and the exercise of double standards, by first and third world nations, and we can see that these rights are not only _not_ upheld but are blatantly breached time and again, how are we able to develop trust in our social structure, in our fellow human, and in our government systems?

Further, how can we develop an optimistic outlook if we know that the structures are fundamentally flawed and are open to real challenge in very limited ways. The structural change that needs to be made is extensive and urgent, yet history tells us that it will take decades because of the intrinsic conservatism inherent in our Western culture. This too impacts on optimism and a positive vision for the future. Despair can often generate a 'why bother' response and so it is the underlying causes of the despair response that also needs to be recognised and addressed.

The other framework we need is to develop a new feminist cosmology. I will post more extensively on what I mean by this shortly.

After I compiled the above over the last week, today I received the following article that might be of interest: Not Just Genes: Moving Beyond Nature vs. Nurture

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/25/science/25BEHA.html

all the best
Tracy

[1] Milgram, S., (1974) Obedience to Authority, Harper and Row, New York

[2] As I am both the observer, and a part of the observed, there is always the difficulty that I will overlay my experience onto what I may allege to be an objective observation.

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Introduction and overview

Posted by: bronwyn 01 Mar - 06:22 am

Since the time of the French revolution, feminists have argued that 'human rights' have always been primarily about 'men's rights' (as indeed they were originally termed in France, and remain so), with women's rights tacked on as some sort of afterthought, and based on men's needs rather than women's.

Historically speaking, Australia has been considered a leader in some aspects of the advancement of women's rights: suffrage, equal pay, abortion, no-fault divorce, legislation against rape including marital rape and against sexual harassment, lesbian and gay rights (e.g. immigration legislation), and Australia was prominent in the formation and early leadership of the UN.

In 1975, proclaimed International Women's Year, the first UN Conference on Women was held (the fifth took place in New York in 2000); this was followed in 1979 by the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women. There have since been other developments such as the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and the 1994 Declaration on that subject. Women's NGOs have been increasingly incorporated into UN conferences, and the question of women's rights ' and their specificity ' would appear to be firmly on both national and international agendas.

Yet, the facts of women's lives, both within and outside Australia, belie this positive presentation of things. Women are becoming poorer, and in greater numbers, not better off. Sexual violence or extreme discrimination against women is not recognised as grounds for refugee status, and in any case Australia's current treatment of refugees of both sexes is not only in breach of the Geneva Convention but more generally flies in the face of the most basic human rights principles. Violence against women is not decreasing but increasing. Trafficking of women for prostitution or marriage is also on the increase, and Australians are prominently involved in the Asian sex-tourism industry. Women and girls of Muslim background are being targeted for sexualised racist harassment and violence, and the lives of the majority of the country's Indigenous women remain extraordinarily difficult, not only through the effects of structural and systemic racism but also because of domestic violence that is badly dealt with by Australian institutions. The workplace in Australia is less and less friendly to workers in general and to women in particular, notwithstanding current proposals re paid maternity leave (here, Australia has seriously lagged behind most western countries). Indeed, the workplace is becoming downright punitive to women, who are being subjected to various forms of discrimination (including for pregnancy or parental responsibilities), harassment and bullying. Immigrant women from southeast Asia swell the ranks of outworkers, and Australian companies outsource to factories in southeast Asia that employ primarily women who are both badly paid and badly treated.

So, where does this leave the human rights project? Are international treaties and national legislation enough to protect women within an international climate of globalisation and of (increasingly militarised) violence against women? And, given that the idea of 'women's human rights' has often been framed, within UN and Australian political discourse, as 'gender equality', what sort of 'equality' has been achieved or is being achieved, and is this want we want?

Does all of this mean that the human rights project should be abandoned? If so, with what do we replace it? If not, then how can we learn from the lessons of history to make human rights a more effective tool for women?

Posted by: tracychaloner 10 Mar - 09:02 pm

In my experience most of what we see happening is only superficial feel-good rhetoric. As is so often the case, the reality is far different than what those in power would have us all believe.

Rights are only as strong as the means by which they are upheld (or allowed to be undermined). If women do not have the means by which to ensure that they can access their rights, such as through affordable and accessible legal representation, or the means by which to ensure that the rhetoric becomes reality, through political representation on their own terms (not through patronage), then rights will continue to be eroded, both openly and in secret.

Equality means 'same', and with the world's culture being dominantly male, equality simply means that women are allowed to participate in male structures on male terms.

I say allowed, because women still rely heavily on patronage. Without it they are simply not effective and/or cannot participate. Their own credibility is tenuous -- thanks in part to the patriachal media -- so is easily undermined by smear campaigns and belittlement.

Women who fit well into the patriarchy, or learn to play the game, only perpetuate the cycle of oppression, and allow the partriachy to make claims of 'equality' that really do not exist.

To get some stake in the structures and survive the experience, women learn to play the game by the current rules, which means they have to lose an essential part of their intrinsic 'womanness'. This should not be the case and is what we need to be working against.

Those that argue for 'equality' often also argue for gender-blindness, saying that the gender divide is what is causing the inequality. So mothers become parents, maternity leave becomes parenting leave, and the unequal burden that women suffer in society becomes invisible.

The problem is that this is not going to solve the very real problems inherent in being a woman, such as being physically vulnerable to violence, being solely responsible for bearing children and predominantly responsible for raising them, and being more emotionally connected with each other and the environment (not a problem really except when that is exploited as 'weakness').

I like being a woman and do feel that I have a different culture and outlook on life to most men. I don't want to lose that in order to achieve equitable status in society. I should be able to have my culture *and* have the right to equity, just like Indigenous Australians, and ethnic or religious cultures.

Women are working harder for less, have taken on more responsibility for less, are more stressed and dying of what were once considered 'men's diseases' such as heart disease and stress related illness, and still they are treated as second class citizens. Most of us will suffer from some form of violence in our lifetimes, and for many it will be for their (often short) lifetimes.

Yet we are told 'women have come a long way'.

In reality,we haven't even gotten off the starting blocks. We are still heavily reliant on patronage to achieve any modicum 'equal rights' and this must change if women are ever to be free.

Our needs and rights must be framed specifically for women, as they are intrinsically different on many levels to men's needs. It is the same for varying degrees of intellectual or physical impairment, or in recognising that Indigenous cultures are different in many ways to anglo-celts. We no longer expect them to be subsumed into the dominant culture in order to be accorded equitable status in the community (although we still have a heck of a long way to go in achieving this). In fact we now celebrate the beauty and diversity of different cultures and what they have to offer our community.

If and when the men in power withdraw their support, in any way and at any time, women simply do not have a right of reply, or the means to stop it, other than by re-engaging with the patriarchy and being 'good girls' to regain favour.

So for my money, this is not the sort of equality we want. Women need liberation, substantive equality, and equity -- not gender-blind equality which is really only blind to women.

How do we achieve this?

Women need to be affirmed for their intelligence, strength and value.

We need to resist being divided through being manipulated by the patriarchy, and to collect together with some common goals.

We need to reclaim that which makes us women and take ownership -- such as our reproductive rights and our right to be mothers not parents, and to have the right to raise and nuture the children that we bear to adulthood, without the fear of losing them or doing so in poverty.

We need to work towards revaluing and legitimising the social issues that women prioritise, such as education, health, environment, welfare and justice, not the things that men legitimise and prioritise such as defence and the economy.

We need to exert our influence wherever we can by any means that are ethical.

We must stop selling ourselves short.

We are the majority of the population, but we have been socially engineered through modern education systems, and through the divide and conquer mentality of the patriarchy, to fight each other, and not for each other, and to blindly accept the normative culture simply as 'the way it is'.

We have bought into the masculinist future that puts economic wealth above intrinsic worth, at a frightening cost.

It is time for women to go back to the grass roots of what it is to be a woman, and to empower each other. We have power in numbers, in work ethic, in intelligence and in emotional strength. We just need to get organised, and to not take no for an answer.

As Greer said in the preface to 'The Whole Woman' (1999), "It's time to get angry again".

Tracy Chaloner
Quinninup, Western Australia
--
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
�Eleanor Roosevelt, American First Lady, Civil Rights Activist

Posted by: Jennifer 11 Mar - 05:07 am

Tracy writes:

It is time for women to go back to the grass roots of what it is to be a woman, and to empower each other. We have power in numbers, in work ethic, in intelligence and in emotional strength. We just need to get organised, and to not take no for an answer.

There are two aspects of this I'd like to explore further. The first is exactly what is it that constitutes the grass roots of what it is to be a woman? Is there a singular definition that all women would accept? I am wary of collective statements, even though I support the broad objective. How do we define 'being a woman'? Does it need to mean the same thing to each of us?

For me, part of the joy of being a woman is the recognition of diversity. Sadly, the strength that goes with the patriarchy is 'sameness'.

The second aspect is this. If the final sentence in my quote from Tracy's post summarises the issue, then who will bell the cat?

Jenny in Canberra

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Women's refuges written out of history?

Posted by: MarySexton 05 Mar - 05:01 am

The URL in the resources page for this topic will get you straight into the Milestones

They do not appear to include any information on the women's refuges. This is a huge gap in our history just waiting to be filled. If you have had any involvment in the refuges why not post it her.

Posted by: Veronica 07 Mar - 04:28 am

HI

My name is veronica and I am currently the Executive Officer at WESNET - The women's services network. WESNET was set up at the request of the then Labour Government in 1995 to represent women's refuges at a national level.

WESNET did a lot of ground work in terms of getting children to be counted as clients of women's refuges and regular budget submissions, and lobbying for the introduction of the current Centrelink Crisis payment which recognises the need for wome to have money when they leave home etc etc. there is a whole history on the website www.wesnet.org.au.

the women's refuge movement in itself began in Sydney at a place called Elsie's. what a fabulous time that was, women taking over empty houses in Surry Hills and really bringing about awareness of the plight of women escaping domestic violence.

Ludo Mc Ferran who was at Elsies at that time, and went on to be a founding member of WESNET has written a comprehensive account of those days. this can be found at the website of the Australian Federation of Homelessness Organisations - www.afho.org.au

AFHO was set up in 1999/2000 when the Liberal Government decided that it wanted one single homelessness peak, rather than one for youth, one for women and one for familiesand men.

There was huge resistance to this on the part of WESNET who maintained that the analysis of domestic violence and homelessness still required a gender perspective. eventually WESNET was forced to give up its funds for running a secretariat in order for AFHO to eventuate. THis is a classic example of the current government silencing the voices of women. AFHO came about, despite WESNET's resisitance.

WESNET has remained viable and active since then by firstly having a number of projects under the Partnerships Against Domestic Violence Initiative and secondly by membershiop fees, which prior to this time did not exist.

WESNET also became a founding member of AFHO which now has 3 representatives from youth, men and families and women on its Board. THis at least ensured that women's issues remain on the agenda where domestic violence and homelessness is concerned.

In recognising the intersection between domestic violence and homelessness, WESNET re focused on the violence aspect, since homelessness was clearly now the domain of AFHO. It has become, of its own volition and with support from women's services, the national women's peak working to eliminate domestic and family violence. It is still difficult to maintain the momentum in a climate which is clearly not women focussed.

The organisation is un funded, has seriously critiqued government ( at a cost) and is struggling to remain. Yet the issues for women escaping or experiencing domestic violence still exist. And so does WESNET.

Posted by: MarySexton 30 Mar - 05:25 am

thanks Veronica. With that information we can now ask OSW to amend the milestones.

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Women's Bureau

Posted by: MarySexton 06 Mar - 09:48 pm

The Women's Bureau in the Department of Labour and National Service (not Education as in the Milestones) was established by Prime Minister Menzies.

I am seeking confirmation that its head was Alison Stevens. I believe at that time she was one of the most senior, in not the only senior, women the the Commonwealth Public Service.

The Bureau was abolished by Prime Minister Howard some thirty years later.

Posted by: Trudy Moore 19 Mar - 12:59 am

Mary, I've just found some info on the Internet which states that Ms J.G. (Chris) Christensen was the first to hold the position of Director, Women's Bureau, in the Dept of Labour and National Service. The source is:

www.wisbis.qut.edu.au/team.htm

Posted by: MarySexton 22 Mar - 05:44 pm

Trudy how wonderful to have a response. Thank you for that information I will check out the site later.

Anne Summers in the 2003 Pamela Denoon Lecture talks the about the demise of the Women's Bureau and the consequent lack of data on women's employment. It is quite a significant loss.

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Women's Electoral Lobby

Posted by: MarySexton 17 Mar - 12:37 am

From a quick scan of the OSW miliestones I could see no reference to the establishmen of Women's Electoral Lobby in 1972. Nor to the removal of the luxury tax on the pill in 1973 and Edna Ryan's (WEL) victory in the equal pay case of 1974.

These are just a few gaps and I am sure there are many more. It is important that the milestones be updated if they are to provide a full record of work that so many women have put into WEL

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Welcome!

Posted by: DocCamille 28 Feb - 10:24 am

Hello! My name is Dr. Camille Bacon-Smith. I'm a folklorist, novelist, and editor of the online folklore journal NEW DIRECTIONS IN FOLKLORE, and for the month of March, I'll be the discussion leader in this forum. Come in, grab a web-surf board and make yourself comfortable.

This discussion is meant to be about new directions in folklore particularly the online publication of articles relevant not only to scholars but to all readers trying to understand their part--and the part their neighbors play--in the changing world around them.

To start the discussion rolling, I hope people will be interested to go over to New Directions in Folklore (http://www.temple.ed/isllc/newfolk/journal_archive.html) and take a look at some of the articles there. Stephanie Hall's Papa Boas's Children (http://www.temple.ed/isllc/newfolk/boas.html) is a good place to start. It maps out clearly what we mean by New Directions, and how important it is to study the folklore in our own lives and communities as well as in the communities of others. Although it is one of our earliest articles it remains one of our most popular, so I think you will enjoy it.

After we've had a look at "Papa Boas's Children," we can take our discussion in a variety of directions. There are lots of articles by women in the journal, and we can certainly discuss them, and discuss what they mean for exploring the folklore in our own lives. We can think about the articles by male scholars and question how we as women might have approached their subjects differently--though I hope we don't overlook the women's scholarship to focus on one or two items by men. And we can look at the differences the Internet has made in access to publication and to scholarship. Or we can take the conversation in directions I can't even imagine.

Gillian said that if I have rules for discussion I should make them clear at the outset. I do, but they are simple. Anything that seems related to the subjects of folklore, women, or the internet, together or separately, is fine for discussion. All discussion, and all readings, are open to critique and interpretation but not to flaming or trolling. No one is required to read any of the articles in New Directions in Folklore. However, if you wish to critique an article, I do ask that you read it first.

So, go, enjoy! And come back quickly to tell me what you think, please.

DocCamille

Posted by: DocCamille 02 Mar - 11:41 am

Hello? (tap,tap,tap on the screen)

I was wondering if anyone has examples of folklore in their own lives they wanted to mention. Is women's folklore different from what men consider folklore, or do we make too much of the distinction?

DocCamille

Posted by: Gillian Polack 03 Mar - 03:48 am

Camille

There is a lot of folklore that is tied up in the home. And traditionally, much of this is woman's lore. One of the ttsts of a true SNAG might be how much fo this lore he truly knows .

On the Medieval Women discussion there is a stream about reproductive rights and we are just getting into what was possibly used to control reproduction and when and why. But we have very few written records for birth control in the Middle Ages, so the likelihood is that reproductive issues were, on the ground, dominated by folk transmission. Are they today? How much of our knowledge of our bodies and our discussion of them is actually folklore? And does this change as we move outside the smaller circles of our friends and neighbours and into a differnt group of e-friends and e-neighbours.

Gillian

Posted by: DocCamille 03 Mar - 09:05 am

In America the issue of where you get your information about birth control depends on how old you are. The US has institutionalized birth control under medicine, and therefore the province of the medical profession--doctors and nurse-practitioners and midwives--which is where adult women seeking family planning advice find their information. But younger women for whom society establishes an expectation is celibacy still seem to get their information from each other.

the puritan culture says young women shouldn't have sex, and they won't have sex if we don't explain it to them. Which separates them not only from the established medical forms of birth control but also from any knowledgeable advice about other forms of birth control through the usual transmission practice of more experienced women. That's why we have so many teenaged pregnancies.

DocCamille

Posted by: Ged 04 Mar - 06:17 am

my experience is that our family folklore is indeed passed on by the women. I come from a traditional Irish Catholic background full of very strong women, who have a fascinating mix of fierce religious beliefs and almost paganistic superstitions that would be abhorrent to the church.

My grandfather a serious Scot never liked the superstitions, but my granny and her sisters would whisper things to us as kids that made goosepimples stand out and tell us wonderful stories about their mothers and grandmothers. THe men always seemed to be incidental almost. It seemed to me they (the women) "did for them" and then got on with what they wanted to do or had to do. As a child I guess one's impression is somewhat thwarted.

But Gillians thougts on what we discuss about our bodies prompted a memory of the one and only advice relating to sex that my mother ever gave me. and that was "a wife needs to do her duty by her husband". I was shocked and put it down to her 1950s marriage ethic and then understood why she had 10 children in 12 years. But it didn't fit with her life or her mother's. I was pondering this. She is an incredible woman who has achieved so much in her life against many odds. ONe to stand up and be counted.

So I asked her about it. Did you mean lie back and think of England - have children - or did you mean indulge your husband's sexual needs above all else? i asked.

you know she thought about it for a while and then said, oh I hate to say it but it kept him out of my hair! "Kept you pregant" I retorted. (she actually decided to stop having children at 33 which she did successfully through monitoring her menstrual cycle!)

But I looked back at my early impressions of my grandmother's and my great aunts' attitude to their husbands, maybe my perceptions werent so wrong as a child? What on earth messages am I passing on to my daughters? Must watch that.

i wandered off folklore a bit. sorry

Posted by: DocCamille 05 Mar - 11:01 pm

Actually, you didn't wander off of folklore at all. Women's relationships with their mothers are rich in the folklore of family and ethnic identity and popular identity.

Who we are as women is shaped by what our grandmothers taught our mothers, who then decided to do it the same way or to try to change based on new community standards or even ideas from popular culture. How we make all those influences ours and transmit them through the things we do and make or tell or hear is the process of folklore.

DocCamille

Posted by: Val_T 07 Mar - 07:21 pm

QUOTE (DocCamille @ 03 Mar 03 - 09:05 am)
The US has institutionalized birth control under medicine [...] which is where adult women seeking family planning advice find their information.  But younger women for whom society establishes an expectation is celibacy still seem to get their information from each other. 

the puritan culture says young women shouldn't have sex, and they won't have sex if we don't explain it to them.

There's some sex education in schools here, but I don't know how much it's changed from the stark diagrams of seminal vesicles and fallopian tubes we were reluctantly shown in Year 10 (approx. age 16!) in 1965.

An NGO, the Family Planning Association, runs wonderful and inexpensive clinics anyone can go to. They deal with all aspects of reproductive health right up to menopause, and offer appointments during office and non-office hours, which is great. Finally I don't need to go any more, but I used to feel really old waiting for my appointment. Although the clientele I saw was so young, I dare say the FPA doesn't get to advertise in schools. The idea that teenagers won't be sexually active if they're kept in ignorance is strong here too.

At the end of high school in 1967, my friends and I didn't have much of a clue about what sex actually involved. We were fascinated with the question of how long it would take, for example.

I remember in 1969 sitting in the library at the Australian National University with my boyfriend, leafing through elderly biological tomes, trying to pin down the so-called "safe period" before we dispensed with our virginity together. More diagrams of seminal vesicles!

Next day, when I took myself off to the university health service and asked for The Pill, I copped a big lecture about "you young people who jump into bed at the drop of a hat" (we'd been agonising over our decision for a year!) and "you won't be so keen on sex when you have young children".

I'll say nothing of the excruciating embarrassment of taking the prescription to the pharmacy!

I wanted my daughter not to have to go through all that, so I tried to answer all her questions as we went along, and to avoid the negative slant that had been put on the scant information I was given. There was still a fair bit of confusion early on - she sorted it out in a good talk to a friend of mine, so obviously I wasn't as good at being unembarrassed as I'd have liked to be!

With a certain amount of secrecy and giggling, she and her friends gave each other condoms for their 15th birthdays. She told me about this custom, saying they weren't necessarily about to use them; they just thought it was a good idea to have them.

There's a lot more information around than when I was growing up, and a lot more "selling" of sexuality. Some of the information is scary (remember the Grim Reaper ads on TV?) but at least there are numbers to call and leaflets to read - unlike the posters in public loos of the 50s and 60s, hinting darkly about VD, and calling forchastity.

Posted by: DocCamille 08 Mar - 01:09 am

You can find some sex education here too, but it varies from town to town and the trending is pretty strongly determined by region. And I do think sex education in schools, by people who know how to approach the topic in a way that students will listen without making them so embarrassed (or skeptical) that they tune out.

But what I'd like to see here is a lot more folk transmission of sensible and practical information between mothers and aunts and their younger relatives. part of our problem is that age segregation has become so severe, with grandparents isolated in retirement homes and parents working all the time and kids running the streets of otherwise empty bedroom communities. So generations don't ever get a chance to transmit their knowledge to each other.

I think that the current US trend in age segregation is probably the most destructive force in our culture today. Well next to George W.

DocCamille

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > What IS women's folklore anyway?

Posted by: DocCamille 05 Mar - 10:48 pm

I am actually starting this topic in response to Ged over in the Welcome topic. After discussion her matriarchal upbringing, Ged said something about straying away from folklore. Which made me blink because to me, the post was exactly and all about folklore.

So I was wondering what people thought about when they heard the word "folklore" and where they put the distinction, this is, or this is not, folklore.

I'm not looking for a scholarly sounding definition--I've seen plenty of them bite the dust under close the weight of real life. But, keeping in mind that we are all folk of some sort, and so we all have folklore, what is it that each of you think of as the folklore in your lives.

DocCamille

Posted by: Tamara Mazzei 05 Mar - 11:50 pm

I was just getting ready to post a reply to your other topic when I saw this one and thought it might be more appropriate here.

My thoughts on folklore are difficult to articulate because I have heard the word used in so many different ways, some of them pejorative (e.g., as a synonym for 'superstition'). I think a lot of people use the term to refer to stories of the past; the sort of thing that is handed down from generation to generation.

Personally, I love the idea of contemporary folklore, especially in the context of the electronic frontier. I'll bet it has never occurred to a lot of people that even the things we are doing with this discussion forum are new things that our grandchildren may think about in the same way that we think of our own grandparents' lives.

I had the experience of using the pre-web internet, and as it grew, my career changed and grew with it, from corporate instructional design consultant, to software documentation specialist and then web master in a software company. Now I have my own business and do almost all of my work online.

One thing that has really fascinated me is the way that women are embracing the internet now. In the beginning, men were far more likely to be the ones on the electronic frontier. When I was in the software industry, for a couple of years I was the only woman in the entire development department.

In the early days of the web, I think it could be argued that the associated folklore was almost entirely male-oriented. Nearly every man I knew had fantasies of starting a company in his garage and becoming another Bill Gates. Stories about people who had done this were swapped at the water cooler every day.

Now, however, I think womens' participation and the accompanying folklore has really begun to surpass that of men. Women often use the 'net for different things. Like book discussion groups, keeping in touch with friends, trading family photos, support groups, and advocacy. This sort of thing is not only creating a new kind of folklore; it is helping to preserve that of the past.

e.g., when my father was a baby, my grandmother's sister and her best friend used to visit my grandmother nearly every week. The best friend, who is long dead, had a camera that she always brought along. Her daughter found those old photos when she was cleaning out a closet and recognised her mother's best friend (my great-aunt) in one of them. She then used the internet to contact us to see if anyone in the family wanted copies of the photos.

Of course we did, so the daughter scanned them and sent them to us. And I got an envelope of photos of my family taken over 3 years that existed no where else. And better still, the photos reminded my grandmother of all the stories she forgot to tell us about those years. I feel as if both the photos and the remembered stories are direct benefits of the electronic frontier. The scanner made it easy to duplicate the photos and the 'net made it easy for the daughter to find and contact us. So now our family has new folklore about the ways the 'net can help us find our past.

Best wishes,
~Tamara

Posted by: Joannie 06 Mar - 04:27 pm

Hi,

I joined in to this forum responding to the topic of electronic folklore. I won't attempt to give a definition but an example. My son, in particular, is into electronic games (he is also the older one aged 9). My daughter likes them but isn't as obsessive. Anyhow recently Joey discovered the computer game Age of Empires. This is a fantastic concept (talking about history and folklore) because the game moves through the ages, stone, bronze, iron and so on. I have discovered a range of other like games - the Age of Kings and the Age of Mythology. They looked interesting enough for me to put in with Joey (finances) and buy one. I haven't looked at a sample of the Age of Mythology but have seen the front cover on the box - which I'm afraid tells it all - where are the women?

In the Age of Empires you just make workers with the click of a button - I don't think there are any children and I don't think there are male and female - just workers (which of course are men). This is frustrating and disappointing from my point of view but I want to avoid hitting my daughter over the head with more of this kind of thing. Help - any suggestions! I posted a message to the Microsoft site asking for something better for what its worth.

Cheers, Joannie

Posted by: Tamara Mazzei 06 Mar - 10:18 pm

Hi Joannie,

You've hit on one of the most controversial areas in the software industry: games for girls. Your frustration is shared by many other women (including me) because the sort of game you're looking for doesn't yet exist, at least not in easily identifiable form. The female game market is huge (nearly 50% of the total market according to some industry figures), and many game companies are dying to capture it, but they haven't yet and aren't likely to in the near future for one very simple reason: less than 10% of the people doing the design and development of games are women.

As much as I would like to slam the industry for being sexist, I have to say that I think there is more to it than that. For one thing, there is a lot of money at stake in games that women will buy (despite the (male) folklore that game-players are men) and the game companies have tried quite hard to come up with games targeted at women. The problem is that men are designing the games and they don't know what women want. The results have have been games like Digital Makeover Barbie and others that perpetuate negative stereotypes about shopping and appearance.

Speaking as someone with software industry experience, the situation isn't likely to change soon because women are not entering the industry. This isn't because anyone is keeping them out, but rather because they aren't trying to come in; I have seen this first-hand. At one point, my company ran a development job ad in a major US newspaper and received close to 100 replies. And not a single one of them was from a woman.

Perhaps, if your daughter is interested in the Ages of games (and they really are some of the better ones that at least don't objectify women), you might let her play with it and explain to her why there are no women and how there are women who hope to change this (there are, in spite of the low number of female job applicants). I'm biased, but I believe that until girls learn to play those games, they can't learn to design them, or even to tell market researchers what they want in them. And there are never going to be good female characters in them until some of the software creators are women, or until women can at least explain what a good female character is (I say this because many male software developers will argue that there are games with female characters. They're right, but those characters tend not to be the sort that most people would want their daughters to identify with).

Best wishes,
~Tamara

Posted by: DocCamille 07 Mar - 02:01 am

Tamara, I think you bring some really important observations to bear on the problem of girls and games and the invisible majority of women on the net. I bought my first computer in 1987, and I remember the internet back before the web as well.

I found it interesting even then how so much of the male culture was about the technology itself and the women's culture was about making the technology useful as a tool to do what theywanted to do--communicate with one another, express themselves --but in a way that took the wider scale of the whole world of the web and made it into a lot of small communities, even visiting with one another at home or travelling around the world.

Because even back then the women were there on the net. It was difficult to navigate back in the day, as they say around here, but even then there were some places that women hung out, like Genie for science fiction people, and Prodigy for romance fans.

Genie was rough and tumble, and if you were a woman interested in science ficiton you got used to that or you went away. But email lists about all sorts of things--knitting and rubber stamps and books and dogs and television fandoms for some examples--gave women a safer place to express themselves.

Men communicate online too, of course, but in the masculine culture of the net, even conversation is a competitive sport. The problem that presents for women is complex. It isn't necessary to have policies that prohibit women from working in a particular field if you make it so inhospitable that they avoid it out of self-defense.

But if women don't participate that environment will remain hostile to them, either by intent, which is sometimes true, or by an accident of culture clash. Either way it leaves women and girls out in the cold when it comes to all sorts of software issues. Games are an important part of that. so are other software needs of women.

Which urges me to pose another question:

If Bill Gates didn't own the world, and girls really had a say, what would we want our computers to be able to do that they don't do now?

I'm trying not to even think about it as a software question right away. First, I'd like to think of it as a magic box. What would we like that magic box to do?

DocCamille

Posted by: Val_T 07 Mar - 06:24 pm

DocCamille wrote:

Oooooh, this rang some bells with me! I had an article in _geekgirl_ back in 1995 about this (http://www.pcug.org.au/~val/writing/myth1.htm) and not much has changed. I long for the day when women can comfortably post to public newsgroups (Usenet). But it seems to me most Australian women don't even know about them - and don't want to know, when they see what goes on.

(Usenet is the network of newsgroups which are available on the Internet. Newsgroups are public discussion areas. Have a squiz at http://www.google.com/grphp for an idea of the extent of Usenet. If you're feeling brave, have a squiz at http://groups.google.com/groups?q=aus.politics&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search!)

I don't post much on Usenet, but I'm limited as to keying anyway. (A woman with disabilities feeling shut out on both counts...?) I've found one group (one ) out of the 50,000-odd where I would post if I could. It's http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=rec.arts.mystery&meta= and the group consciously rejects that "conversation as a competitive sport" ethos. You guessed it - most of the posters are women.

Val T

Posted by: Tamara Mazzei 07 Mar - 11:44 pm

My experience fits that pattern exactly. I was a business writer doing corporate training manuals. The idea of using email for research purposes was the genesis of my interest. When the web arrived, I learned to do web pages so I could help my grandmother put some genealogy information online. Then I was offered a job at a software company. The web was still so new then that my little genealogy pages were enough to put me into the experienced category. They were enough in fact, to get me put in charge of the company website, in spite of 30 men clamoring for the job, probably because the other candidates said they needed expensive technology courses in order to do the job. I learned to create graphics because I wanted them on my site. I learned to use scripts and alter programs because I wanted them for specific purposes like online bulletin boards for people in my book discussion group to list books they wanted to exchange. I can't recall a single instance in which I was motivated to do something simply because the technology existed!

This is so true! And one thing that really bugs me about it is that even the best programs that try to bring girls into the environment have a big huge hole in them: the concentrated focus on science and maths. I don't mean to suggest that these aren't important, but they aren't the only ways in and the emphasis sends the message that there is only something worthwhile for those with the aptitude to become a computer scientist. I'm a writer/editor type, not a computer scientist. Girls need to know that there is a doorway from the arts too. And a reason to open that door.

Oh dear! You mean it isn't a magic box? I've always thought it was. The only thing I would change is that I wish the different types of magic were a bit more compatible. Three spells at once and it crashes.

~Tamara

Posted by: DocCamille 08 Mar - 01:29 am

Usenet, of course, is where the techno-geek guys honed the whole communication-as-competitive-sport ethos. There are a few topics where women's culture rule, but mostly it continues in the "hostile outpost" vein in which it started. Women are always surprised to discover that the guys who post there don't see it as hostile communication at all, but are quite gleeful at all the "debates."

I'd still like to talk about the magic box, though. It does a lot of the things we love now--like communicating on this forum over contintents and oceans and timelines, for example. But are there things we wish we could do that we haven't thought to ask of our computers yet?

And I was wondering, what kind of folklore do we shareby computer? We've talked about geneology--anything else?

DocCamille

Posted by: Gillian Polack 08 Mar - 05:07 am

One type of folklore I share with people is Jewish women's business. There are a group of women who are spread throughout rural and regional Australia (with one in the US) who are far from communities. We have a mail list and we help each other keep up with festivals, cooking traditions and so forth. When the daughters of listmemebrs moved to the big smoke for university, they were give advice and support.

It is a delightful group to belong to - it feels like being able to chat to a friend about the things one normally chats to a friend about, except by email.

This applies to several mail lists I am on, actually. Most of them develop their own folklore, which is fun. But Chavachat gives women the opportunity to share folklore and religion and identity issues that don't have an immediate physical support group. We also share migraine cures and responses to food allergies - why we all have migraines and food allergies in common is a bit of a mystery.

And most women's online groups I have been a part of (the exception being the ones with a specific agenda eg political) talk about chocolate. Has anyone studied the electronic folklore status of chocolate?

Gillian

Posted by: DocCamille 08 Mar - 03:03 pm

Electronic Chocolate! I the old days we used to send each other virtual Godiva chocolates by slipping them (virtually) into our floppy drives.

I have been curious about a trend I have noticed in the online journal I edit, NEW DIRECTIONS IN FOLKLORE (http://www.temple.edu/isllc/newfolk/journal.html)

When we were a new journal, back in 1997-99, most of our articles came from women. Now that we are more established, most of our authors are men. this is not because we are less hospitable to women, because I am still the editor, as I was from the start.

Back when we were new, it seemed like an adventure. We tried out colors and new web aesthetics. But then in 2000, I shifted to a more professional look that mimicked the look of a paper journal. when that happened, we started getting a lot more articles from men.

I wonder if women were excited by this new space as an experiment. It is now too old to be considered an experiment, but too new to be considered a valuable credit on the cv for things like tenure and promotion. Men seem to be drawn to the large audience (we have about 20,000 hits a month, which is a very large readership for a journal in such a small field.) and the paper-like look makes them comfortable.

Women appreciate their large audiences, of course, but without the sense that they are creating something new and exciting, they seem less interested in contributing their work where it will not garner them career hit-points.

But that is just my guess. I'd love to know what others think of this trend. (which may be softened a bit with the next issue, on military folklore, which has at least two articles by women in it!)

DocCamille

Posted by: tracychaloner 12 Mar - 12:01 am

I have been a web site designer for many years and have recently given it away professionally as a bad joke. I can no longer cope with the amount of stress generated by the sheer stupidity of incompatibility -- between platforms, browser versions and client/user demands.

When clients demand that I make a web site compatible back to Netscape v4 (or earlier!), completely accessible for people with disabilities *and* visually attractive with bells and whistles, my psyche goes into overload. Especially in amongst spurious computer crashes and dealing with code that *should* logically work but doesn't, or it works on four out of six browsers.

I used to love designing, and web site designing, but now I hate it with a passion because it has simply become unworkable (except with a whole lot of emotional pain and time which you never get paid for).

How software developers get away with this, and then manage to charge us for bug fixes in the guise of updates, is a constant source of frustration.

This is what I would want changed: better testing prior to release, better compatibility, better accountability... is it really too much to ask that something works when I have paid big money for it?

So I have decided to drop out (downshift) at age 39 and entered the world of being a student of politics and women's studies at Murdoch Uni in WA. It is *much* more spiritually satisfying than the daily struggles with arcane technology.

It also means that I can turn my energies toward focussing on how to address women's issues in the public domain, which has become a high priority in my life after a disastrous (and painful) flirtation with real politics. I will certainly be drawing on my WWW technology expertise to do so, as I believe that the WWW offers women many fantastic opportunities to make some real, and lasting, progress toward social equity.

all the best
Tracy
Quinninup, Western Australia
----
"The greatest wealth is to live content with little, for there is never want where the mind is satisfied." � Lucretius, Roman poet

Posted by: DocCamille 13 Mar - 03:32 pm

My son was a web designer for four years and lost his job in the dot com crash when the consultant firm he worked for sort of went under. He said a big problem was that nobody would listen to the designers when they said something wouldn't work. Then the designers got the blame when the thing they said wouldn't work didn't, in fact, work.

Prorammers seem to have a mystique that protects them a bit, but everybody thinks they can do design. While I am, of course, dismayed at my son's troubles, I think this problem has hit women in the tech industry harder because, as Tamara said, women in the tech industry seem to be clustered in the areas that focus more on use than on the technology. So when the 'softer" side of the industry crashed, it hit women pretty hard.

DocCamille

Posted by: tracychaloner 13 Mar - 10:30 pm

Is a bit OT for folklore? Perhaps it should be on a new thread.

DocCamille wrote:

I think the problem is that _they_ think they can do design! It is seen as the 'poorer cousin' when it comes to web site construction. So we all end up having to suffer unnavigable web sites with layer upon layer of info, getting lost deep in a site, not being able to find the info or finding it somewhere completely different from where you would expect it, and if it doesn't work properly it gets uploaded anyway and fixed in the 'updates' etc etc.

DocCamille also wrote:

There seemed to be an authority and credibility given to dot com organisations, where men dominated, rather than small design orientated businesses where women appear to have been more prevalent. I was constantly being looked over for big sites but the silly thing was that the dot com teams usually only had a few members anyway, were always behind schedule, were very, very expensive and often made a mess of the site. These issues were always admitted after the fact, but that was too late for me unfortunately.

To this day it bugs me that the programmers charge $100-$150+ an hour and the designers can only charge half that, unless it is an agency of course or 'high design' which also seems male dominated.

It's the whole 'suit and tie' credibility thing that is still keeping women (and some men) out of the loop.

The IT sector has crashed in Perth, and the government work has dried up by 50%. Many agencies and small design firms are going out of business, yet the WA State govt just expanded the Central TAFE design school, inputting millions of dollars and providing state of the art facilities. Good for design students, not good for the industry when all those young designers qualify and work for $20 per hour. Seems to be a greater focus on multimedia now, so it would be interesting to see the student gender stats.

The value of design has also diminished because of WYSIWYG desktop publishing software. Now everyone can just press a button and Word will 'publish' a web page. Brochures and flyers are created that are a mess but they are cheap as it is often now part of a secretary's or PA's job description.

The value of good quality, professional design is diminishing drastically. Even the quality of agency press ads and TV ads is obviously going downhill. Sometimes I wonder who they think their target audiences are, the ads are so puerile! Typography doesn't exist much any more because it is not being taught. Design (including WWW design) has become functional, pragmatic and predictably constructed.

Is this a function of the masculinisation of design... and/or that men develop the WYSIWYG software (and all of its 'impossible to circumvent' control)? Thoughts?

Posted by: DocCamille 14 Mar - 11:37 pm

I should preface this with the explanation that I am an ethnographer, which means I study communities of people--what they do and produce and how they relate to each other, all that neat stuff.

I am working on my thoughts about this as I write. What we are talking about here, actually, is the dominance of a minority folk aesthetic over every bit of advertisting, marketing, and organizational communications savvy possessed by some very sophisticated customers.

The folk aesthetic belonged to college kids with webspace on their university servers. and it was mostly a boys club. The student programmers and html pioneers laid out the streets, so to speak, and they also painted the sidewalks. And all the old guys in their pin striped suits threw out everything they knew.

Women for whom the web, and the net in general, filled all sorts of needs, remained substantially invisible except for the loving-hands-at-home* folk aesthetic of their own growing number of online communities.

So we really have two questions. One is, why did the entire business world believe the skateboarding smart-alecs in the rude tee-shirts when they said that the rules of communication that work everywhere else don't apply to this medium?

And what do women want out of the web, and how can they get it? Not just in for their own personal communication and personal expression, but professionally and culturally and other ways as well.

DocCamille

*(is that an expression here? In America, it meant something like a sweater or skirt that your mother made for you, that wasn't very well executed but you had to wear it anyway because she made it to show that she loved you)

Posted by: Tamara Mazzei 15 Mar - 03:10 pm

I turned away from the software industry for many of the same reasons and decided to use my knowledge to start my own business and for volunteer efforts like this site.

I agree with this, but have come to feel that it isn't such a bad thing after all. At first, I was disappointed that my hard-won skills were being downgraded, but a recent experience with a young female cousin completely changed my outlook. This cousin, whom I hardly knew, asked me if I could help her learn to create her own web page.

She's a 1st year university student planning to become a veterinarian and I had no idea what to expect when I said I would. It turns out that she loves art and anime and wants to have a totally complex site that uses everything I was taught to avoid (think frames inside frames inside frames!). At first, I was dying to tell her what she was doing wrong, but I resisted the urge because I didn't want to turn her off from the web. Now I know my instinct was right because she's totally into it and it is wonderful.

I think the tech crash did hit women hard, but I see hope for women in the unofficial side of things now, as with my young cousin. She doesn't wish to be in the industry, but she's getting comfortable with the idea that technology is not so tough and it can provide a terrific outlet for her creativity. If she sees it that way, then someday, she may have a daughter who won't be discouraged from the possibilities simply because they are technical. That's the beauty of the web. Anyone can have a voice there. My goal now is to help make sure womens' voices aren't drowned out.

I suspect that programmers have this going for them because (arguably) the bottom line is that something that (theoretically) 'works', however ugly it may be, is more useful than something that is pretty, but doesn't work. Of course that isn't always the case, but programmers aren't needed for web pages unless something like interactive forums or a database is actually being programmed.

I think this may be different in the US, or maybe I'm not interpreting it properly. It seems to me that the 'suit and tie' people are the ones who caused both the dot.com bubble and the ensuing crash, mainly because they didn't understand what they were dealing with. At my old company, we hired nearly every woman who darkened the door. But they were so few and far between! Until our company was merged with another that was funded by venture capitalists, there was nary a 'suit and tie' type in the whole place.

I don't see it as masculinising because the diminishing value affects male designers as well as females. I see it more as an industry contraction that had an impact on women, simply because there were so few employed in the industry in the first place. And looking outside my own economic interests, I think desktop publishing and easy web pages are wonderful things for women. They can, e.g., help women without major financial backing to start their own businesses. In the US, labor statistics show this dramatically. From 1997 to 2002, women-owned businesses increased by 14% (double the average), sales by 40% and employment by 30%. Women own more than 28% of all privately-held firms in the US now and the trend doesn't show any signs of ending.

As you indicate, DocCamille, there is fascinating stuff here for an ethnographer. To me, the most amazing part of it is that the suits threw a huge amount of money at it, and for a while it appeared they would win and the web would be reduced to a big glitzy shopping mall where even basic information required some sort of payment. But they lost; the advertising/TV model failed! And the web still grows; even the money to be made from it grows. But not according to the silly 'new economy' predictions of the suits.

Yes. And I think this is key. The women were invisible, but not nonexistent. And now I think they are gradually becoming more visible as well.

I think a lot of it was due to plain ignorance. They wanted to get 'in' on something they really didn't understand. But they didn't take the time to really learn the attraction. And things were talked up by investors and the hype created a viscious circle.

I've been using the web professionally, and in ways that I think are easy for most women to appreciate. My web site is the main 'face' of my publishing company and we host two wildly popular email discussion lists, including one called PenmanReview, which, led by listowner Wendy Zollo, is holding the Medieval Women discussion on this forum. We are selling books from our site, publishing book reviews and original articles, creating fiction databases and lots of other things. And it's working. The ratio of female to male supporters and participants is amazing too; there are probably 20 women for every male participant, though the numbers of both are growing fast. We're working on the cultural angle by supporting things like Women's History Month, interviews with authors (including those published by other companies), general history articles, the fiction databases, and discussions of literature and issues that surround it. It's a very neat thing to have a business that also supports my ideals. It wouldn't have happened without the web.

~Tamara

Posted by: tracychaloner 15 Mar - 07:37 pm

DocCamille wrote:

Would you mind elaborating on this point? What "rules of communication" do you see as relevant in this context?

I should also say that my area of expertise is extreme intellectual giftedness. These 'smart-alec's were clearly way out there in the intelligence realm and for once they had a medium to express the vastness of their intellectual capacity. The excitement and possibilities were endless and that enthusiasm was likely to be both infectious, and exploitable.

Educational and social trends have seen the 'dumbing down' of western societies, and the commensurate focus on entertainment and sports. Anti-intellectualism is a serious social problem that is still largely invisible.

Hence, given an opportunity to let their brains run free, the 'geeks' would have grabbed onto it with both hands, and for the price of a few pizzas. Perhaps they were able to effectively communicate the (very) big picture as they saw it, and the 'suits' got a small inkling of the exploitable possibilities.

DocCamille wrote:

I see the web as an opportunity for congregation. Never before have we been able to access so many 'like-minds' and the empowerment that this generates is not insignificant.

In the realm of extreme giftedness, for example, statistically these people occur in the population at the rate of about 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000,000. There are too many social issues and aspects to extreme giftedness to go into here, but suffice to say that it is an extremely isolating experience for most, and very daunting to live with as a parent, or as the person who is extremely gifted. Finding peers is literally like finding a needle in a haystack. This has quite significant consequences for normal affective development.

The web has enabled this very small group to become a relatively large group. Women as concerned mothers, many with professional IT experience, have joined together and created a number of shared communities, and developed a range of web sites to share their newfound knowledge. In doing so many have discovered their own extreme giftedness and have gained immeasurably in self esteem.

These communities are as much about empowering the women as they are about their children. The ratio of men to women is about 50 to 1. This says to me that the men may not need this level of social congregation (and support) through the web because they seem have more access to it IRL, or perhaps it is just not in their nature.

The web has allowed small groups to spread their message and become larger groups. It has allowed for a (relatively) free flow of all sorts of information. It has allowed people of like-minds to congregate and be empowered. As we enter 'the information age' of 'knowledge economies' it is allowing for a greater awareness and development of all sorts of intellectual, cultural and sociological knowledges.

There really are no barriers except for the limit of our imaginations, and that is perhaps the one single message that needs to be spread far and wide. What women want, they can now have. The danger they face is that these wants will be manipulted and exploited.

This is probably the greater challenge -- not to ask what women want and how do they get it, because I think that in many ways we are beyond that starting point now -- but to ask how can women be empowered to protect their spaces, their knowledges, and their linkages, from manipulation and exploitation.

YMMV
Tracy

Posted by: DocCamille 18 Mar - 11:38 pm

I agree that this issue concerns men in design and useability as well as women. It is more an issue of the devaluing of a humanities-based development of a useable web.

I certainly want to see the web developed as a medium of free expression. There certainly is room for home websites as well as the big corporate presence on the web.

But I think that celebrating the loss of design jobs because their absence brought down the conversion of the web into a giant shopping mall is short-sighted.

For one thing, it means that a lot of people don't have jobs anymore. Some people can start again and build their own businesses, but most people are just out of work.

For another thing, the shopping is still there, only it is ugly and difficult to do on the web--something that listening to designers and communications-based useability people (rather than the engineering ones) might have been able to avoid.

The one market place where the web should serve more efficiently than brick and mortar is the conveyance--for money or for free--of information. But when we go to many of the sites we need for information, they are often cluttered and unreadable and impossible to navigate.

That's no tragedy when you are trying to find out what the state flower is, or how long to cook a roast (or sign up to have a copy of the next Harry Potter sent to you on the release date).

But if you are trying to find information about treatments for a disease, for example, it can be vital. And often, as the information becomes more important, our ability to focus on the intricacies of outsmarting a programmer's idea of knowledge management grows weaker.

That's where good design web-architects could have made a difference.

DocCamille

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > web magazines v. blogs and live journals

Posted by: DocCamille 11 Mar - 10:32 am

Well, I certainly put a stop to the conversation!

I would like to know, however, how people feel about publications online. Do you feel they have as much "authority" as something in a print book?

Does it make a difference if something is "published" in a third-party forum, like an online journal or magazine or if it appears in a blog or live journal?

Do any of the people hanging out here keep blogs or live journals? Do you also (or instead) write for amateur or professional online magazines or journals? How does either (or both) work for you?

DocCamille

Posted by: Tamara Mazzei 11 Mar - 07:17 pm

This is really interesting and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the changes to the look of the journal generated more submissions from men. The Stanford credibility studies came up with results showing that "...nearly half of all consumers (or 46.1%) in the study assessed the credibility of sites based in part on the appeal of the overall visual design of a site, including layout, typography, font size and color schemes." (http://www.webcredibility.org/)

I don't think so yet, but there is a definite trend towards increasing authority for online/electronic materials. I think this is where the source of the materials comes much more into play. And also the reason for consulting the materials in the first place. e.g., I suspect people would scrutinize general information about dog breeds less carefully than they might information to be used to determine their daughter's cancer treatment.

I keep a blog/editorial linked to the main page of this website (www.triviumpublishing.com). It's mostly just curmudgeonly ramblings about books and publishing, but oddly enough, it gets quite a few hits. I also write professionally (software books) and own a publishing company. So far, both the books I have written and those my company publishes have been print books. I don't forsee changes to that yet, but I haven't ruled it out.

~Tamara

Posted by: DocCamille 13 Mar - 03:57 pm

We get good numbers of readers for New Directions in Folklore, but that is in folklore journal terms, where you expect a small readership. And it is free. I don't know how we'd do if people had to pay to read the articles. It is clear, however, that out authors would be lucky to earn lunch money even if our current readers were willing to pay.

I suspect that when people buy something, the emphasis is still heavy on the "thing." But if the web can make information and books available to women that they otherwise might not have access too, at some point that has to be worth paying something for, I would think.

DocCamille

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Women and Television and the Internet

Posted by: DocCamille 15 Mar - 10:05 am

WE have been talking about women on the internet in a variety of ways, and the current campaign started at WWW.SAVEFARSCAPE.COM is a really fun one.

FARSCAPE, for those who don't watch science fiction, is a sweeping epic space romance about a hero from Earth who was shot through a wormhole into a universe of warring aliens. He has been in love with Aeryn Sun, a beautiful space soldier, from the beginning and much of the action has been about their growing connection and the many shocks to the developing relationship that loving in a warzone can bring.

Now, one might think the guys would scoff at this description saying it is really about the hero saving the universe and Aeryn Sun is love interest, nudge nudge wink wink.

But the show-runner has described his product the first way, not the second way. He's been writing an epic love story. Needless to say, lots of women science fiction fans LOVE it! In America, it attracted more women viewers than any other show on the SCIFI network where it was shown. They had a guaranteed fifth season, so they ended on a cliffhanger.

And SCIFI cancelled the show anyway. Since SCIFI was providing about half the production cost, that meant the production was cancelled, so everybody all over the world lost the fifth season.

Most of the save-this-show campaigns have included both men and women. But Bonnie Hammer, the SCIFI president, made the mistake of saying the cable outlet was changing its programming in an effort to attract more women viewers. The women, needless to say, were upset that SCIFI already had them but was dismissing them.

So someone on the WWW.SAVEFARSCAPE.COM bulletin board came up with the Aeryn Go Bra-less campaign. To show that there are many female viewers, women are encouraged to send their bras to SCIFI.

The bra campaign thread exploded on the bulletin board (go here first: http://www.watchfarscape.com/news/article.php?newsid=263 and click on the link in the informational release.)

As the women explained to some of the enthusiastic but not quite with-it guys, besides giving in-your-face evidence of female viewership, bras have a whole symbolic history of women's activism behind them. And, it is a symbolic reminder going to a female executive. A reminder again of where we all, as women, come from in our struggle to be heard.

it works on so many levels of folk protest, and even the bras themselves are a form of self-expression that deny to the suits the luxury of counting people like widgets. This lady viewer is such and such age and wears a lacy push-up, this one wears a nursing bra, this one buys her bras at the dime store. EAch woman demands to be seen for her differences while cooperating in a joint venture of being heard.

I think it is just yummy.

DocCamille

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > language on the e-frontier

Posted by: Gillian Polack 16 Mar - 10:06 am

Every now and again we see terms appearing in the WHM chat and discussion - eg Tracy Challoner just used IRL (In Real Life). For more terms, you might want to look at sites like this: http://www.techdictionary.com/chat.html

To me, this is part of a long term folk phenomenon - the establishment of language that is used for specific purpose. And it suddenly struck me that I have no idea how far the codes used in internet chat and instant mesaging are used by women. Do women share in this linguistic subculture? If so, how? And how extensively?

Camille, would you know? Has there been much work done on this?

Gillian

Posted by: tracychaloner 17 Mar - 07:51 am

FWIW I use the web chat codes extensively. I have been involved with the internet since about 1996 and am an active participant on (too) many forums and e-lists, many dominated by women. I learnt the tech speak more out of survival than for any other reason, although now I really appreciate it because it can so quickly encapsulate a sentiment that everyone seems to similarly understand.

What I don't do, however, is shortcut the English language. So I don't use u for you, or type all in lower case unless it is to family (and even then is it like fingernails on a blackboard <g>). Most of the lists I am on have as their participants people who are similarly pedantic, to the point of sending an email to correct spelling errors!

We are also gentle to 'newbies' and periodically post a list of the most common chat codes. (Thanks for the Tech Dictionary URI, it could be handy.)

My 13 (almost) year old son has a completely different language when engaging on the 'net, depending on his audience. The worst is when it is with teen friends or his grandfather, who is also a 'net junkie. There are less acronymistic codes and far more shortcutting.

YMMV
Tracy

Posted by: DocCamille 17 Mar - 10:37 am

My take on this is that the divide is generational rather than gender-based. First-and second generation internet users and of both sexes tend to use the basic acronyms. Past that you get into tech or non-tech users hitting the arcane vocabulary more or less richly, with women, I think, tending to think in terms of communicationg (using the same hacker's guide terms as the guys, but more sparingly in non-tech environments so that they remain intelligible to a wider audience. ) Old school tech guys still seem, to me, to take arcane speech to a higher leve, figuring, as with documentation, that if you need an explanation you don't belong (and by extension, by heaping the terms one on top of the other, proving in the competition of belongingness that they are indeed the faction that puts the cult in culture.

For the young generation of both sexes today, though, it is different. They are living there and making their own language that comes, I think, in part from the level of the technology, such as IM and text telephone, which revert you to telegram-speak.

DocCamille

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Women and the internet and protest

Posted by: DocCamille 17 Mar - 10:56 am

I do plan to go back and address tracy's comments about the web economy and women but I wanted to throw this topic out there for obvious reasons.

One of the many horrible side effects that I've seen to the recent UN battles about Iraq is that places where many of us have online friends, like Germany and France and Russia, have been labeled "against us" by the current US war policy.

I am not seeing those friends posting or corresponding these days.

The internet is an obvious venue for protest, of course, and we've seen lots of that.

But I am wondering about this other issue--how to we sustain these long-distant relationships across boundaries being thrown up by a small group of men who don't care about our concerns or our wishes or our friendships across the lines they have set up?

The problem is a two-way street, of course. How do we convince our friends that we are not a part of that juggernaut rolling over all of us? Or is it safe or fair to even try at these times?

DocCamille

Posted by: Jennifer 18 Mar - 02:52 am

Doc Camille asks:

I think it depends very much on the nature of the relationship. It is possible (in some fora and with some people) to discuss, debate and ultimately to disagree over a range of issues.

Can we convince our friends that we are not part of that juggernaut? I don't know. For myself, I feel torn between my sense of loyalty to this country (Australia), my acceptance of the role of government, and my own personal beliefs.

To what extent is our discussion as individuals seen as being totally independent from our role as citizens of a particular country?

These are tough issues. In some ways the current world situation 'feels' like that other great undiscussable: religion.

No answers, just more questions.
Jenny

Posted by: DocCamille 18 Mar - 10:17 am

Having spent the entire evening last night watching a Frontline timeline of the situation as it has developed since 1968, it has become clear to me that every single decision ever made by the West about the Middle East has been wrong, and has been based on such egregious misunderstanding and disregard for the culture that it boggles the mind.

The only thing more boggling was how little say anyone outside the little circles of oil money and power have ever had to say about what was being done in their name. Even when we started with a fairly sound ethical position (which didn't happen often) we managed to screw up because we were just plain ignorant.

I think, at least in my own case, I am cowed by my own powerlessness. It is like being on the sidelines shouting "stop!" while two trains race toward each other on the same track. Only what we can't see is that one of the drivers doesn't believe in crashes and the other's got no brakes.

DocCamille

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Welcome

Posted by: karoleew 28 Feb - 03:05 pm

Welcome everyone to this year's 'WHM' - Women on the Land discussion group.

There has certainly been enough happening this year to "talk" about. First a never-ending drought, then fires across Australia, and now the threat of war.

How did rural women handle these and the many other issues affecting them, 50 or a hundred years ago??

Information Technology (IT) has certainly made our lives a lot easier. Read June Lennie's comments on this issue.

But first, let me tell you about myself and the rest of our team.

My husband and I have owned and operated mixed farming and fine/super fine wool properties in rural New South Wales, outback Queensland and regional Victoria since arriving in Australia from the United States with their two young children in 1974. We have recently sold our property in Victoria and are now built a home in South West Rocks, NSW- 6 hours north of Sydney.

I am the NSW Representative for Australian Women in Agriculture (AWiA) and have recently returned from the III World Congress of Rural Women, held in Madrid, Spain on 2-4 October, 2002.

My focus at the moment is on international issues and trade. But, what have been the important issues for Australian rural women during the past 200 years? What stories can you share with us? Please post these and other topics to our website this month.

We will also be adding to our database of books and websites, etc on "Women on the Land". Please include your favourites in your emails. I will add these to the list, which will be posted on the website in the next few days.

The other co-facilitators for this discussion group are:

Margaret Carroll - NSW
Gwendolyn Adams - Tasmania
Sally Tonkin - South Australia
Louise Armstrong - Victoria

We are still looking for women to act as facilitators from the other states. All those interested, contact me for further information. Email: karoleew@bigpond.com

We look forward to all your contributions this month!! Pass the word to your friends and let's get the discussions rolling!

Karolee

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Celebration of Diversity

Posted by: karoleew 28 Feb - 03:16 pm

Hi! I'm Marg Carroll and hail from Molong on a family farm growing sheep, cattle, (3 alpacas!) and crops in central west NSW. In my off-farm life, I work in the regional rural counselling service, facilitating community development in smaller towns. My first book called Ordinary People, Extraordinary Lives, inspiring stories from rural Australia, came out in 2001. I relish the odd challenge to keep the grey matter from rusting. The latest is to research a series for television on inspiring young people in rural Australia. I would be interested in your feedback.

I would love to see this Women's History Month being a celebration of the rich diversity of Australian women, for example through inviting 'herstories' of our grandmothers, mothers, sisters, daughters, friends to be posted on the website, and we women to unite and speak out for peace in our world.

Marg

Posted by: karoleew 01 Mar - 08:14 pm

Hi Marg,

What is one of your favourite stories from your book? Or, can you tell us about the project you are working on now?? Sounds very interesting.

Some of the things that really impressed us when we first came to Australia were:

how friendly everyone was;
they were very willing to assist the new-comers;
everyone did everything together;
how much volunatry time was spent to make their communities a fun and interesting place to live in!

Bye,
Karolee

Posted by: Rachael 08 Mar - 11:10 pm

Hi Marg and Karolee,

I'm with you guys.............one of the things I love most about people and communities is diversity - everyone has a tale to tell and it is that diversity that makes our communities such rich and fertile places of possibility.

When I read you comments Karolee about your first impressions when coming to Australia it does not seem a suprise that people from all over the world would leave their home place (I'm sure not an easy thing to do for many) and make their home in Australia. I guess we have been mulitcultural from the beginning of white settlement in Australia and this is reflective of your comments.

I came across a lady this week and she reminded me of you, Marg. At first I was amazed at her story and how she saw herself as ordinary, when she was clearly extraordinary..........seeing with different eyes I guess. I was communicating with her via the National Relay Service as she had been born deaf. Carole too is an author and is compiling stories from deaf people all around the nation as a record for future generations but also to inspire young deaf people with possibilities and hope for their futures.

I haven't really introduced myself................I'm Rachael Webster and I live about 70km's west of Longreach in Queensland. Three days a week I work for the Dept of Primary Industries in Longreach and the rest of the time is spent out on my partner's family property helping out here. It has certainly been a busy year with the dry times - lots of extra work for all, feeding stock etc. Was hard to find the smiles sometimes.

We had a bit of rain about a fortnight a go which is a huge relief. We were low on water everywhere so the rain has helped ease that sitaution. We were so lucky compared to many others in Queensland who have not had rain in about 3 years.

My background is in public health and health promotion but I'm actually pretty happy working with DPI because I firmly believe that you do not have to work for health to influence health and wellbeing........in fact, sometimes it is better to tackle something from a different angle. Health messages are hard to sell at the best of times. Add that to the culture of people out here, hardworking, stoic etc and it makes for interesting times.

Anyway, it is great to be part of women's history month and I look forward to hearing more from you all,

take care,

Rachael

Posted by: margcarroll 18 Mar - 12:23 am

Good to hear from you, Karolee and Rachael. My apologies for a slow response - one of those untimely involvements cropped up with my mum visiting but neglecting to mention that she had a broken rib or two, severe arthritis and needed full-time care! How stoic they made them in that era (1920s and before).

I interviewed her last week and found that stoicism stemmed from an early age as a country girl, when her father got cancer and spent 18 months in a Sydney hospital, but noone told her he was sick. The first she knew was her brother taking her riding one day and saying their father had died. She was 9.

All of my stories in Ordinary People, Extraordinary Lives are favourites in one way or another. I particularly like the 'bloom where you are planted' philosophy espoused by Australian Women in Agriculture's Cathy McGowan, one of 14 children! It came from her mother and Cathy says, 'I may be a cactus, but I'll be a gorgeous cactus!'

I'm keen to show some of the rich diversity and innovative thinking of young people in rural Australia through the next project, which will be a tv series. In this current frightening climate, does anyone know of an exceptional young peacemaker who is not afraid to speak out about waging war to solve problems?

Marg Carroll

Posted by: Jennifer 18 Mar - 03:02 am

Hi everyone,

I am Jenny and I mostly live in Canberra. But sometimes, I spend quite lengthy periods at Adaminaby in the Snowy Mountains. I am interested in the work Marg mentioned. I am not sure whether the focus is on *inspiring* young people, or on young people who are inspiring. Either way, the needs of our young people outside major cities is important.

Cheers,

Jenny

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Bushfires and non-traditional roles!

Posted by: lma 03 Mar - 01:38 am

Hello to all,

my name is Louise Armstrong and I am one of Karolee's offsiders. I'm a member of Australian Women in Agriculture which is how I met Karolee and became involved in this project. I live in Benalla in North East Victoria and my family run beef cattle - and haven't cattle prices gone up since the rain we had last week! I am the practice manager of a veterinary clinic so am involved in rural life in lots of ways!

I have 4 children aged 23, 19, 18 and 16 and a grandson who's 2 1/2 years old. My eldest daughter has been working for Department of Sustainability and Environment as a firefighter and what a summer she's had! I'm sure there are many of you out there who have stories to tell of the past few weeks and the effect on families, farms, communities and the damage to our alpine environment.

How did women cope in the big fires in years gone by?

As a female firefighter with a young child, my daughter has had to rely heavily on Josh's 2 grandmothers and his dad to take care of him while she performs what has until recently been considered "men's work". I'm very proud of her and all the other firefighters, male and female, paid and volunteer, for the tremendous effort they have made (and are still making) over the last 2 months of this bushfire crisis. I recently read the remarkable and heart-rending story of a female firefighter in the recent ACT fires - there are many stories to be told - what's yours?

I'm looking forward to hearing your stories of life on the land and how you or the women you know have made positive impressions on their families and communities, in times of crisis and despite their gender!

Regards,
Louise

Posted by: karoleew 03 Mar - 03:59 pm

Hi Louise,

Thanks for your email. Your whole extended family must have had a pretty nervous few months! South West Rocks has had bad fires for the second year running. Bob, my husband, was out fighting fires about half an hour from home when I was evacuated - shortly after returning from the Spanish Conference. Still hadn't really settled in, because I just said OK, grabbed a shirt for Bob, some make-up and jewellery, but forgot my rings, and left.

It wasn't until a few days later, that I realized just how close it had come. Jet lag in the extreme!

Does your daughter know Vivien Raphaele? She is a fire fighter near Canberra. She had an extremely demanding few months, too!

I look forward to other stories!

Bye,
Karolee

Posted by: Sanlea 04 Mar - 01:40 am

Hi everyone,

Thankyou Louise for your letter - I would find it really hard to have my child away fighting fires and would at the same time feel very proud. We really need these professional and volunteer fire fighters - they do a great job. Congratulations for having your grandchild while his mum is away fighting fires. That makes the whole situation not only possible but bearable for all.

I remember my Mum in the bushfires in Tassie in 1967. Dad was in the Forestry Commission and was away fighting fires, across the valley. Mum noticed down the hill, a wisp of what she thought was dust from cattle moving about. Maybe 12 minutes later she noticed it was in fact smoke and was growing larger and closer by the minute. She began spraying the house and garden (we were on a dairy farm near Kingston - south of Hobart) and she put buckets of water at each corner of the house so that she could keep putting out the ash which was blowing about. Dad arrived home later that day, exhausted from fighting fires on other peoples places near Longley, and joined my mum in a three day battle against the monster.

There was a fence near the kitchen door, over into a small recently ploughed paddock. Over this fence, mum threw a lot of practical things which she thought her family (three children) would need in the weeks immediately after a fire - in case the house burned. She had always spoken about how she would save photos and irreplaceable things, but when it came to the crunch, it was a favourite toy for each of us, an armful of clothes each, some tins of food, blankets and pillows � very practical.

Also I remember that the cattle dog and the cocker spaniel (arch rivals normally) had to be inside together, and were (incredibly) good as gold.

My sisters and I had been billeted out to different school families on the first day of the worst of the fires (which was the first day of school) - and we didn't see each other or hear from Mum and Dad for three days. I was about 11 at the time, and just remember being confused, but not particularly worried - perhaps the reality was too much for me to conceive.

Anyway my folks saved the place, and it was interesting to note that we would have been better off if the ramshackle old homestead had burned, cos the "welfare" and assistance to rebuild was astounding! The only building they couldn�t save was a huge well built �hall� which had been used locally for dances � had a great dance floor, had boxes of stuff which we had not yet unpacked from when we moved there, three or four years before - impractical goods, like antique china! � Plus it had been called a fire-proof construction!!!!! Maybe there is no such thing!

There was incredible support from friends, family, strangers, Army, our church and the general community � working bees to replace fences and remove rubble from the burned building � another memory: Dad saved large pieces of a beautiful piano which was burned but not completely destroyed, and would throw them onto our lounge room fire in the winter - much to the astonishment of guests � he delighted in their facial expressions.

The recent, almost constant smell of smoke brought back a lot of the feelings from that summer in my beloved Tassie. I sincerely hope that if my kids come close to a major fire in their lifetimes - may they find the courage and level-headedness of their grandmother, wether they decide to leave in good time, or stay and fight.

Here's to a wet winter
Sandy Leatham
Baddaginnie VIC

Posted by: vraffaele 24 Mar - 12:33 am

G Day Everyone

Karolee told me about this website and I havent had time to look it up until now. I am a volunteer and a paid fire fighter in the ACT. I am currently Captain of the Parks Brigade which is made up of paid fire fighters form the Parks & Conservtion area. I have been fighting fires for over 15 years both paid and as a voluteer. My partner has a farm in the Tidbinbilla area which was devastated during january. I had been fighting the fires for 2 weeks before the fire hit the suburbs. I am a single mother with 3 children aged 4, 6, and 8. I have a terrific family around me that provide support, not just during the fires but the endless meetings that I also attend. I am also president of the Fire Controllers group in the ACT and juggle all these commitments with work. people always ask how I cope as you still have all the day to day normal things such as the school P&C. My standard reply is that I have 3 fantastic children and without thier support I could never achieve what I do. My fire story is very long and intense after the fire storms I stayed on the farm to assist with cataloging the damage and shooting stock and basically trying to get power water and phone reinstated. The house and the shearing shed etc was saved but hte pastures and all the bales etc were decimated. Alot of stock was sold due to no feed and still suffering drought conditions on top of the fires. I had to rreturn to work on the Thursday after the fires to fire duty to the north of the ACT, by the time the state of emergency was over and the fire officially out, I was left with 4 reserves that I managed 3 were badly burnt. One of those areas is Cooleman Ridge which runs behind Chapman one of the suburbs that sustained alot of damage. So work has not been easy and all the issues keep coming, everyone wants to help and do things striaght away which adds extra pressure, not inlcuding the injured wildlife that seemed to be never ending. I still have not had a break, so I will be having the whole of april off with my children and we will be getting in the car and driving, no phone no pager no e-mail. My children after the event were quite stressed mainly because they hardly seen me. I managed to get a couple of days off when they returned to school, I spoke with the school counceller who was fantastic and help both me and the children immensley. I found that they have such an in depth understanding of what I do and she helped them to draw pictures of all my safety gear that helps to keep mummy safe. I guess the children since before they were born have always came with me for feild days and training, it has helped so much in terms of our team work togeher as a family that they unerstood. It hasnt been an easy time and one I never want to live through again. Being a women on the fire ground especaiily when you are in charge has been a very gratifying experience, I had trained alot of those people and they all performed magnificiently. It was a very proud moment when I got to get up in front of everyone at a thankyou ceremoy as president of the Fire controllers group and look at all these wonderful faces and say thankyou and how proud i was of their commitment time and proffesional efforts. We had no major injuries which was amazing and we have all lived to tell our story. I wrote my story down and it ended up being 30 pages long. I was quite relieved to of completed this story as it covered so many of my emotions and my experinces. Life now continues even though some aspects may never be the same. The one thing which had effected me was my normal support network of friends and family were just as effected by everything as what I was. I have always been surrounded by a great support network , and then it was gone, one thing I had never considered. So I reached out to alot of friends on the chatlist for Australian Women in Agriculture and the support they gave me was indescribable. The emails just kept on flowing with support, without them I would of had a very tough time of it. They kept me going and gave me hope in one of my darkest hours. If its one thing that I have learnt through all of this is to accept help and to not always be the strong person that people believe I am. I opened my heart and was blessed with the response, it helped me to get through and gave me hope amongst all the devastation. I have made many new friends and am very grateful for that. Who knows where the future will go, but i do know I have a wonderfuul support network with my family and friends and far beyond that all over Australia and even overseas. I have always been a very strong and competant women, but when faced with such an overwhelming exerpience I learnt to accept the love and support without judgement and just by accepting this i then gave them something back in return. I want to thank everyone for thier support.

Cheers VIV

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Books and Websites

Posted by: karoleew 04 Mar - 06:31 pm

Hi Everyone,

I am getting ready to go to Canberra to assist in the Launch of the AWiA Report on the III World Congress of Rural Women that was held in Madrid, Spain on 2-4 October 2002.

But, before I leave I want to give you the list of books and websites that was started last year, so you can add to it. Just put you suggestions on this website, and I will up-date the list and send it out periodically.

I can't attach it, but you can go to the site below:

www.trivium.net/womenshistorymonth/resources/womenontheland.htm

I'll start with a book that I am reading at the moment: "Outback Women" By Melissa McCord. And, we thought we had it tough (sometimes!) Read this for some real insights from women in the Pilbara, Eastern Goldfields, Gascoyne, Kimberleys, the NT, Gulf, Cape York, Far North Queensland (we were friends of two of these women while in Richmond), Central, Central Highlands, Central Burnett and the Channel Country of Queensland.

I look forward to your contributions to this list.

Bye,
Karolee

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Pioneer Women's Quild

Posted by: karoleew 12 Mar - 11:17 pm

Hi Everyone,

Below is some information on the National Pioneer Women's Hall of Fame. This is the first I had heard of it, but it sounds fantastic. And, I will be leaving for the Northern Territory in a week, so will stop in at Alice and meet Pauline.

My husband, Bob, and I will be at Newhaven Station (6 hours northwest of Alice) for several months acting as honorary Rangers on Birds Australia's new flora and fauna reserve. It will be quite an experience and I will certainly have tales to tell as we get further into our trip!!

Bye for now,
Karolee

------------------

We are celebrating International Women�s Day this year with the launch of the first stage of our unique, history-making Signature Quilt Project.

Known as the Patchwork of Empowerment, this inspirational project celebrates the achievements of Australian women over the last century, containing almost 350 signatures of women who were first in a variety of fields from the arts to zoology, from banking to winemaking, and has been almost 2 years in the making.

More information about the project and a complete list of the women who contributed their signatures and details of their �firsts� can be found on our new updated Signature Quilt page.

The Hon Clare Martin, Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, herself a first in her field, officially launched the project on Friday, along with the Tribute to Territory Women, an NT government initiative.

There are other updates to our website, including the WORLDWIDEWOMEN page which lists and hyperlinks where possible all the women�s museums of the world and contains other useful links to archives and libraries devoted to women�s history; while there is also information on the future of Molly's Bash.

But don't forget to visit our real museum based at the Old Courthouse, corner of Hartley and Parsons Streets, Alice Springs, Northern Territory, open every day from 10 am � 5 pm, when you next come to outback Australia!

Pauline Cockrill
Curator
National Pioneer Women's Hall of Fame
curator@pioneerwomen.com.au

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Report on III World Congress of Rural Women

Posted by: karoleew 12 Mar - 11:35 pm

Hello again,

I have spoken with many people about this site. They are all enthusiastic and say that they will contribute, but it is hard finding the time. However, just a few words can start a new topic/thread that can lead to ...who knows where!!!

I have been busy the last few days - I have just returned from Canberra for a meeting with other Australian Women in Agriculture (AWiA) members.

We were launching our report on the III World Congress of Rural Women that was held in Madrid Spain on 2-4 October 2003. If anyone would like a copy, I will be happy to send it to you.

We also met with representatives from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Austrade and AusAID. Agricultural/rural Women will be making history - as they continue to get more involved in the business of exporting our commodities around the world.

I have nominated a Egyptian woman (who I met via email before the Spanish Congress and have continued to correspond with since our return) for a Prize for Women's Creativity in Rural Life. She is turning the Sinia desert into an olive and palm plantation - she has sent me some digital photos and it looks fantastic!

Women's networking, here and around the world, will make a difference in how we view the world - very important in these troubled times!!

Bye,
Karolee

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Women and War

Posted by: karoleew 18 Mar - 05:14 pm

Hi Everyone,

I just received an email from another chat group. It is so timely that, although it is a bit long, I wanted to pass it on.

It is very important that women are included in all efforts to re-establish government and community services after wars and/or disasters. And, our voluntary work following such catastrophes needs to be encouraged and acknowledged!

Bye,
Karolee

This Miraculous Time in History
By Dr. Robert Muller, former assistant secretary general of the United Nations

From a friend...

Dr. Robert Muller, former assistant secretary general of the United Nations, now Chancellor Emeritus of the University of Peace in Costa Rica was one of the people who witnessed the founding of the U.N. and has worked in support of or inside the U.N. ever since. Recently he was in San Francisco to be honored for his service to the world through the U.N. and through his writings and teachings for peace. At age eighty, Dr. Muller surprised, even stunned, many in the audience that day with his most positive assessment of where the world stands now regarding war and peace. I was there at the gathering and I myself was stunned by his remarks. What he said turned my head around and offered me a new way to see what is going on in the world. My synopsis of his remarks is below:

"I'm so honored to be here," he said. "I'm so honored to be alive at such a miraculous time in history. I'm so moved by what's going on in our world today". (I was shocked. I thought -- Where has he been? What has he been reading? Has he seen the newspapers? Is he senile? Has he lost it? What is he talking about?)

Dr. Muller proceeded to say, "Never before in the history of the world has there been a global, visible, public, viable, open dialogue and conversation about the very legitimacy of war". The whole world is in now having this critical and historic dialogue--listening to all kinds of points of view and positions about going to war or not going to war. In a huge global public conversation the world is asking-"Is war legitimate? Is it illegitimate? Is there enough evidence to warrant an attack? Is there not enough evidence to warrant an attack? What will be the consequences? The costs? What will happen after a war? How will this set off other conflicts? What might be peaceful alternatives? What kind of negotiations are we not thinking of? What are the real intentions for declaring war?"

All of this, he noted, is taking place in the context of the United Nations Security Council, the body that was established in 1949 for exactly this purpose. He pointed out that it has taken us more than fifty years to realize that function, the real function of the U.N. And at this moment in history-- the United Nations is at the center of the stage. It is the place where these conversations are happening, and it has become in these last months and weeks, the most powerful governing body on earth, the most powerful container for the world's effort to wage peace rather than war. Dr. Muller was almost in tears in recognition of the fulfillment of this dream.

"We are not at war," he kept saying. We, the world community, are WAGING peace. It is difficult, hard work. It is constant and we must not let up. It is working and it is an historic milestone of immense proportions. It has never happened before-never in human history-and it is happening now-every day every hour-waging peace through a global conversation. He pointed out that the conversation questioning the validity of going to war has gone on for hours, days, weeks, months and now more than a year, and it may go on and on.

"We're in peacetime," he kept saying. "Yes, troops are being moved. Yes, warheads are being lined up. Yes, the aggressor is angry and upset and spending a billion dollars a day preparing to attack. But not one shot has been fired. Not one life has been lost. There is no war. It's all a conversation."

It is tense, it is tough, it is challenging, AND we are in the most significant and potent global conversation and public dialogue in the history of the world. This has not happened before on this scale ever before-not before WWI or WWII, not before Vietnam or Korea, this is new and it is a stunning new era of Global listening, speaking, and responsibility.

In the process, he pointed out, new alliances are being formed. Russia and China on the same side of an issue is an unprecedented outcome. France and Germany working together to wake up the world to a new way of seeing the situation. The largest peace demonstrations in the history of the world are taking place--and we are not at war! Most peace demonstrations in recent history took place when a war was already waging, sometimes for years, as in the case of Vietnam.

"So this," he said, "is a miracle. This is what "waging peace" looks like." No matter what happens, history will record that this is a new era, and that the 21st century has been initiated with the world in a global dialogue looking deeply, profoundly and responsibly as a global community at the legitimacy of the actions of a nation that is desperate to go to war.

Through these global peace-waging efforts, the leaders of that nation are being engaged in further dialogue, forcing them to rethink, and allowing all nations to participate in the serious and horrific decision to go to war or not. Dr. Muller also made reference to a recent New York Times article that pointed out that up until now there has been just one superpower-the United States, and that that has created a kind of blindness in the vision of the U.S. But now, Dr. Muller asserts, there are two superpowers: the United States and the merging, surging voice of the people of the world. All around the world, people are waging peace.

To Robert Muller, one of the great advocates of the United Nations, it is nothing short of a miracle and it is working.

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Women in Unions

Posted by: Ged 03 Mar - 04:36 am

REcently Melbourne was host to the International Council of Free Trade Unions Women's conference. Sharan Burrow, the ACTU president (and proudly female) gave a stirring opening speech. SHe spoke of how 2/3 of the world's work is done by women, yet they earn only 5% of the income. OF the paid work, globally, women contribute around 40%, their share of the wealth is less than half that. And unsurprisingly 70% of women's work is unpaid. SHe speaks of a world of family friendly workplaces where work is balanced with family, and of the shameful but true situation Australia is in regarding paid maternity leave.

Women make up 46% of the workforce, and their participation rate is increasing. OVer the last 2 years the number of women who are union members increased by nearly 40,000 representing 43% of union members. Yet their representation amongst the leadership in unions is not reflective of the situation.

History has shown women to be major activists in bringing about changes to labour conditions, and although we have equal pay for equal work do we really have equality?

"Gender equity is fundamental human right" as Sharan Burrow said, and in a socially just world "women's aspirations and life choices and achievements would not be threatened by the question of gender."

Women need trade unions, and trade unions needwomen.

Posted by: MarySexton 07 Mar - 11:55 pm

I am concerned about the point about equal pay - it is not the case for all women. The resources for Anne's Summers Chat include a link to her Pamela Denon Lecture where she touches on this matter.

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Writing Women into history

Posted by: Gillian Polack 21 Feb - 06:21 am

Think of half the human race and all of human history. Compare it to the histories that have been written and preserved. Women are under-represented. Women's activities and roles in society are under-represented.

How do we revive our (women's ) past?

We could teach and write history from new angles (and some of us do) - ones that include women. We could revisit the history of our own families and see where we and our female ancestors fit in and what contribution they have made. We can question the histories and public statements that are on the ground already and deepen our understanding of them and how they came about. We can create archives that reflect womenstuff, so that future historians have more resources. All this and more...

But maybe not all in this month and in this particular discussion .

What we aim to do here is talk with each other about writing women's history. For each main interest, there will be a different subject line. You can follow the line that someone else has started, or you can start your own. If you want technical help or advice on how you can approach things then just email the current discussion leader and ask for it!!

If your interest in women's history is personal - and you want to talk about or find out about the role that family tradition plays, then say so. Or start chatting about your family's recipes and folk practices. Talk about who you are and where you come from, and the role women play in your family life.

If you want a theoretical discussion about how women miss out in many standard histories, then either start or follow a thread about that.

There is no limitation on the number of threads you make. Your posts can be profound, or profoundly fun. The only thing we ask is that you respect other people who post - no insults, for instance.

To start the ball rolling, could people introduce themselves (go back and look for the topic under Writing Women Into History that calls itself "Introduction") and also maybe post some ideas that you would like to see discussed this month.

Welcome to this topic!!

Gillian

Posted by: Gillian Polack 03 Mar - 04:04 am

Since you are all still thnking, and some really relevant discussion has started to appear elsewhere ( on reproductive rights and how we can find out what they were at a given time in historty, on power, on civil rights, on women as bushfire fighters etc) I was wondering if we could use this topic to bring out underlying issues/

To start with, what written records to we have for women? When? Where are they stored? How are they accessed? And what information do they give us? Are they written by women or men?

If you ahve a favourite topic and can tell us anything about the records that exist for it, that would be a wonderful start.

Gillian

Posted by: Tamara Mazzei 03 Mar - 11:27 am

Gillian asks:

I posted some of my ideas about records in the Medieval Women discussion, since that's my primary interest. But I think they may be relevant (if a bit early) here as well.

I have found many instances of women in records such as English Pipe Rolls, but even in recent secondary works that use those Rolls to draw conclusions, the women often seem to be left out. I don't necessarily mean that I think they were intentionally ignored or that grand pronouncements are made that women didn't participate in one thing or another. But just skipped altogether.

To give an example, I noticed in the Richard I & John Pipe Rolls, 3 separate instances of a married woman paying a fine to the king in order for her (3) daughters to marry "where they choose". This, presumably, indicates that she wanted to allow her daughters to choose their spouse or to choose the spouses herself, rather than letting the king select someone (fairly common for 12th/13th C. mid-level nobility).

I have never seen any secondary works (and believe me; I've searched!) discussing why something like this (a married woman paying for these privileges on her own) might occur. It wouldn't be so uncommon if the woman's husband had paid the fines, but he didn't. There are some easy assumptions one could make here, e.g., that the woman was a widow or that the husband was away fighting a war or something, but the woman's husband was recorded paying a scutage fine on the same page, in fact, in the next line of the Roll. So he seems to have been present.

This is just one example, but it's one that makes me wonder how many others there are that have simply been overlooked. It also makes me wonder how much the preconceived notions of the relative unimportance of women by the Victorian transcribers of many of our earlier sources of history influenced the thinking of later historians who use these sources to create new works.

~Tamara

Posted by: Gillian Polack 04 Mar - 08:24 pm

One of my big issues for all types of history is how we find what we have left out. And trying to sort out the mechanisms at work that help us leave things out. To me, this is what cultural history is all about - realising that we are making this sort of choice all the time about the world we deal with, and working out where our choices are not the one we really want or need to make to make.

Christina may be able to help here, because she sees a similar mechanism of just not *realising* that the mind has skipped things, in policy development on disabilities. Christina, have you found any patterns in *how* people ignore things? Can this help us study women's history?

Gillian

Posted by: Tamara Mazzei 06 Mar - 06:26 am

I think "not realising" is a very important part of the reason why the history of women can sometimes seem shallow! It's easy to do this even when it involves *us*.

Recently, for example, I used the large scale online map provided by my local government to check the elevation of my house for flood safety purposes. I had used the map before, but I did not realise that only my husband's name was shown as the owner of the house. The first time I looked at that map, I skipped myself!

It may not seem important as I am most definitely a full joint owner of my home; name on the deed and all. But what if some historian of the future uses that database? I wonder how many other inaccuracies it contains.

Tamara

Posted by: Gillian Polack 06 Mar - 07:05 pm

Tamara

That was an excellent example. Because it is not just that the record was incorrect and didn't reflect the female half of the ownership (which means that historians will be more liable to interpretative errors). You looked at it and used the information, without processing the fact that you were not written down. We do this all the time. It is part of our acculturation - we use symbols and references and data without thinking "This does not actually show me."

It is part of the way we see the world. Until we write data so that it reflects women, and learn how to read it so that we can see women, we are severely limited in how we write women into history. We need to see how we see ourselves and how we look at other people.

I would really love to ear more examples, of women being left out, or of us not realising that women were left out. And not the big stuff: it is the supposedly little things, like Tamara's example, that really help us see how we see the world.

Gillian

Posted by: PaulineC 11 Mar - 11:40 pm

Hi, I'm the curator of the National Pioneer Women's Hall of Fame in Alice Springs. The NPWHF is dedicated to preserving the place of women in history and their special contribution to Australia's heritage. I think I have the best job in the world - rewriting women into history.

One of my favourite - as in poignant - stories of women being left out of history is the story of Mrs Norman Jones. And I tell this often when I'm trying to explain what the NPWHF is all about.

This is the story of Mrs Norman Jones. Yes you heard correctly - Mrs Norman Jones.

As was correct etiquette in the 20s and 30s, she was always addressed by her husband's name. She arrived in The Alice (then known as Stuart - even the town was male then!) in 1911, to run the local pub, the Stuart Arms with her then husband Mr Lampe. When he died shortly afterwards, she ran the pub singlehandedly (as Mrs Lampe of course) and then married her neighbour across the street, Norman Jones.

Norman was the first storekeeper in the town and as such now has a street named after him - Norman Jones Street - which I pass often on my way to work. Norman later went bankrupt and committed suicide just prior to WWII. He not only has a street named after him, he also has an ornate gravestone in the local cemetery. Mrs Norman Jones died a recluse in 1958 and was buried in an unmarked grave.

However she was central to the social life of the town during its early days, organising dances and fancy dress parties in her garden and the annual Christmas party with tree and Santa Claus for the local children both in town and those on cattle stations. (This was prior to any cinema or theatre in town). She was also active in the CWA which was formed here in 1933.

On further research I discovered Mrs Norman Jones's name was Mabel, and after more research I found her marriage certificate which included the name with which she was christened - the rather more exotic Eugeneta Mabel which seems to aptly fit her extraordinary strength and spirit to survive in such an isolated area where there were also so few women.

She played an incredibly important role in the early life of the town and yet she is almost forgotten both in name and deed. I see our role here at the NPWHF to reclaim these women's names and stories and rewrite them into history. I come across so many disheartening old photos in my job with titles such as "unknown woman". What stories they could have told!

Mabel Jones's story can be found in our museum as well as online on our website, Australia's first virtual women's museum www.pioneerwomen.com.au

We have also just launched for IWD a Signature Quilt which has been 2 years in the making, containing the signatures of 342 women who have been first in their field throughout Australia. It is a Patchwork of Empowerment. See our webpage www.pioneerwomen.com.au/sigquilt.htm

We actively accept women's stories both at the museum and online for our Herstory Archive, now containing information on around 600 women, and we also have a growing reference library of around 500 books.

This is a great forum and the internet has certainly helped bring women together to ensure history is herstory too!

Pauline

Posted by: jodurand 12 Mar - 05:32 am

Hi,

the whole women's name changes after marriage is unbelievable still. I recently got married, and decided to take my husband's name for a number of reasons. To my dismay, I started receiving letters as Mrs Ric Durand!! Who is that??? Even considered sending them back with 'no such person at this address' written on them! Mostly sorted now, but it was a great shock at first.

As for writing women into history - bring it on. I love to read about my fore-mothers and their lives. I need context for my own life, and also draw strength from other women's stories.

Jo

Posted by: Samantha Faulkner 12 Mar - 05:53 am

Yep, I'd love to read more about women. Pauline's tale of Mrs Norman Jones (Eugeneta Mabel) was very interesting and I think we can all find something in women's history as Jo states.

Each woman has a story to tell (if not more) We should be encouraging women from all walks of life to write their stories and share them. It's often the case that you don't know what you have until it's not there.

Does anyone have any similar stories told by Pauline to share? I'm sure we'd love to hear more !!!!!!

Samantha

Posted by: Gillian Polack 14 Mar - 05:51 am

Just at this instant, I am even more curious about present stories (like Tamara's) as I am about past ones. How do we leave ourselves and our friends out of the record? When don't we notice these things?

What information is missing from records (public , private - any!) about women. How do we find out what they are and how commonly they occur?

One way to explore potential problems is forums like these. Unless we talk openly about instances where we have been registered in someone else's name, or with a male title when we are women, it may be hard in 100 years time to track that this has happened.

For instance, since I have a doctorate I am in quite a few databases as Dr Polack. I am in several others as Mr Polack - because some clever people think that all people with the title of Dr must be male. I have to admit, it is mildly amusing when salespeople ring me and ask for Mr Polack and I say that he is dead (well, my father was Mr Polack, and he is very much dead). But one-liners aren't answers - they just vent frustration.

We think of these sorts of things as private annoyances - but they are more than that. They have an effect on the historical record. The misnomers and poor descriptions all-too-often remain in archives.

So now I am curious - has anyone else been miscalled as male when they are female? Or been registered in someone else's name? How chronic are these problems? And what sort of areas do they cover?

Gillian

Posted by: Christina Ryan 17 Mar - 01:21 am

I haven't got any examples of being miscalled, but I am interested in the concept of being missed.

Many women with disabilities are still very isolated in our community, by many factors, and can simply be missed by our history writing and by our policy making.

In my experience if someone isn't under your nose making a noise about their issue it is forgotten. This is what Gillian was referring to by my "being missed" concept. Because women with disabilities are rarely in leadership or decision making positions our voices simply don't get heard, which also means that they don't get written into history either.

Gillian has also just referred to being on a database, an interesting thought, and what this highlighted to me was that most of the people that we get in our history to study are those that somehow got their names included somewhere in a primary source. Even Mrs Norman Jones was recorded, if by her husband's name, so she was known to have existed.

What about those women who have not been the name attached to something? I make a point these days of getting my name into places so that women with disabilities are visible in the records. Might seem a bit over the top, but that is how all those men become important in history sources - they have been included as having done something!

A follow on from this is making sure that the issues of importance to women with disabilities, or the perspective, is taken on board. Only when we can get this rolling for so many groups in our community will we know that some of the history lying around in a 100 years or more will have some depth to it.

Christina

Posted by: Gillian Polack 17 Mar - 08:13 am

You can layer the levels of being missed. There is getting onto records at all. There is geting onto records as someone other than yourself (your husband or father, for instance). There is getting onto records and being ignored.

If we want to change things we ened to work in a number of directions at once. Everything from getting more women nominated for honours and awards, so they are recorded more extensively, to getting women in databases such as the AWAP, to making sure that we ourselves are not neglected. Because we can do all sorts of work for women in general, and then not be recognised ourselves . This is what a lot of second wave feminsits are finding, I fear.

So there are strategies that individuals need to use to ensure they are recorded - not simply recorded, but recorded accurately. There are strategies that women's groups need to use to raise the profile of women and women's issues and to ensure that they are a high priority. And then there are the strategies historians use to interpret everything. And I am sure I am missing things.

I would be very interested to hear what people are doing in any of these areas. For instance, Christina, what are you doing to make sure you are seen?

Gillian

Posted by: Tamara Mazzei 18 Mar - 12:23 pm

Though all of these things are important, there is one thing that is possibly even more so: teaching people to *value* this information. What does it matter if a woman is recorded somewhere, if those who come later don't care to note her presence?

All thoughout history, women have been recorded doing things that go against stereotypes, yet when conclusions are drawn later, they are often skipped altogether or noted as anomalies. Historians do important work to provide the rest of us with analysis, but we are dependent on their worldview and if it doesn't assign importance to this data, the resulting conclusions will be no different than if women were never recorded at all.

This is one reason for my STRONG support for programs like Women's History Month. I believe we must stop reinventing the wheel with each new generation if we are ever going to improve our lot. Not reinventing the wheel means remembering and valuing what women have already done, and making sure that it isn't just a few of us who do that, but society as a whole. In my opinion, the best way we can do this is to increase awareness that women's history is history!

To me, this goes beyond making sure that we're recorded doing things, and it also goes beyond focusing on one or two 'exceptional' women and acting as if the rest didn't exist. We need to work on making sure *everybody* grasps the fact that women are doing things and have always done them. If we are only included in 'women's' history, then we remain marginalised.

~Tamara

Posted by: Christina Ryan 18 Mar - 06:06 pm

Brilliant Tamara! this really hits it on the head doesn't it?

So, how can we put together strategies for highlighting women's history (apart from this worthy example) and take them forward.

One example I have is the women's media handbook that Helen Leonard put together. It provided references for quite a lot of women who could be spokespeople around particular issues. It was organised by issue, and alphabetically. The reason I think this is a good example is that it was used by the media, while it was current, and it got women heard so they went down as legitimate voices in the historical mix.

The women's archive project is probably another type of thing to work on as it provides info on women of all types in all sorts of fields.

Of course there is also the need to use our fora to lead. EMILY'S List is like this. When I was being a candidate the men got quite stroppy about not having the level of training and assistance that the women candidates got from EL. This raised the status of EL and it has become a nationally respected voice of Labor women. WEL has done similar things with its successes over the years.

In 100 years time some of the women attached to these organisations will probably achieve the same sort of historical status as women like Vida Goldstein, just as an example.

Christina

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Introduction

Posted by: Gillian Polack 21 Feb - 06:31 am

I am Gillian, one of the three leaders of this discussion.

I am an historian (mostly Middle Ages) and a writer and adult educator. If you want to know more about me (the silly side of me rather than the sober and respectable), my publisher made me write a profile and if you prefer the sober and respectable, then try this sober profile. I am part of the WHM committee, and have been since its inception in 2000.

Gillian

Posted by: Christina Ryan 23 Feb - 05:37 pm

Hi, I'm Christina another discussion leader for this discussion.

I guess you'd call me a political activist if I had to have any label at all. I've worked most of my life in all sorts of women's rights campaigns, and more recently have worked on the rights of women with disabilities. So, I do women when I do disability rights, and disability when I'm doing women. Although it isn't always so clear cut.

At the moment I also take an active interest in peace activities in my local area and am a member of Women in Black Canberra. War is a big creator of people with disabilities, and it also takes a lot of money from social support services, so it is important to many of us in the disability movement.

Women with disabilities have been so hidden through out history. From the mad woman in the attic scenario, to the embarrassment that is still caused when we speak about our needs, women with disabilities are still preferred as not even seen let alone heard.

I work at being a visible woman with a disability in my community and support other women with disabilities to undertake leadership roles. The more of us out there the better it is, I reckon. It was in this context that I ran for parliament a couple of years ago, and was the first Australian woman who uses a wheelchair to do so.

Christina

Posted by: Samantha Faulkner 24 Feb - 03:34 am

And finally, Hi, I'm Samantha Faulkner the third moderator/discussion leader. I'm a Torres Strait Islander woman who lives in Canberra too. Long way from home but enjoying it down here. (The Torres Strait is between Papua New Guinea and mainland Australia)

I've lived in Canberra for about 10 years and am interested in raising awareness and promoting Torres Strait history and culture. Torres Strait Islander people are often classified as a "minority within a minority" being of a less greater number than the Aboriginal population. But every good woman likes a challenge eh !!!!!!

I'm passionate about recording history and am just about finishing a manuscript on the life of my grandfather. I'm still learning a lot though and look forward to contributing to the topic.

Posted by: Jennifer 11 Mar - 01:01 am

I am Jenny, also in Canberra, and particularly interested in a role for women with disabilities. Combining physical disability and psychiatric illness with full-time work is especially hard in my experience. And when an aspect of the illness is severe, chronic depression is it difficult to find ways of interracting with and relating to others.

Sometimes survival is almost a full-time job leaving little time to thrive.

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Women who inspire me

Posted by: Jennifer 11 Mar - 04:18 am

I've had a look at the fabulous femmes, and one thing has led to another.

I'm suggesting that Dame Enid Lyons be added to the list (and will do an appropriate note as soon as I get the nod).

But the musing tangent is this: how/why do we decide which women inspire us?

Dame Enid Lyons is obvious to me. Not only was she Tasmanian but she was the first woman in the Australian House of Representatives and the first female member of cabinet. So, the firsts certainly appeal.

But there was more to Dame Enid than this.

I'll be thinking more about this issue. Would anyone else like to share their views about women who have inspired?

Jenny

Posted by: Gillian Polack 11 Mar - 04:28 am

I found Helen Leonard inspirational - largely because she approved of my excessive coffee drinking, convinced me that being stroppy was a good idea, and just kept on doing things till people paid attention and the world changed in reponse.

I also find Tamara Mazzei that way - she is one of those rare people who can bring other people's visions to life as well as her own.

Gillian

Posted by: Jennifer 11 Mar - 04:41 am

Jenny Morawska-Ahearn and Meredith Edwards are two women I've had the privilege of working with and learning from. Jenny's ability to draw together many different things 'on the fly' left me exhausted but has done wonderful things for my ability to explore possibilities. Meredith's honesty and accessibilty helped me immensely during a rough period and I admire her energy. I can't comment on coffee drinking but I welcomed an opportunity to learn from two highly intelligent women who provided vastly different female role models from those I had grown up with.

Jenny (who tends to prefer caffeine cold)

Posted by: Samantha Faulkner 12 Mar - 05:41 am

On the topic of women who inspire me I would have to look more close to home. Women like my mother, sister and aunt inspire me. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community tend to look inward and I suppose it's usually someone you know/met/can touch.

My mother has always been there for me and cooks delicious meals. My sister moves in a similar world to me and understands, advises and supports me. My aunt recently went back to uni to study and I'm proud of her for doing that.

I'd like to hear of similar women who inspire in your daily lives.

On a broader level there are women like Jackie Huggins the academic, historian and writer; Pat Turner former CEO of ATSIC and now Deputy CEO of Centrelink and Dawn Casey, current head of the National Museum of Australia. These women have their own personal stories to tell and have overcome numerous barriers in the process to get where they are today.

I've also recently met strong women such as Dr Anita Heiss, Cathy Craigie and Terri Janke and it encourages and spurs me on that there are such brilliant, intelligent women out there who are inspirational women and lead by example.

Is there anyone else out there who'd like to add to this topic? I'd like to hear more.

Samantha

Posted by: Wendy Z 12 Mar - 11:08 am

Just so you know, I'm the one lurking behind that penamreview list.

I've always been stimulated by the written word so it's natural for me to look to authors and their characters for inpsiration.

Agatha Christie, Jean Plaidy, Margaret Mitchell (Scarlett O'Hara - southern belle and dreadfully the opposite of in one...), Anya Seton, Elizabeth Chadwick and Sharon Kay Penman; all have motivated me to write and of being more than I thought I could be. I think logically they leave the taste of fine wine (or Sake, really like Sake <g>) and a rousing/calling to a young or mature female to the highest summits.

There is also a woman of mature years who encouraged me (she holds a second degree black belt at the age of 53) to take up at the age of 40 the sport of Taekwondo. One doesn't have to be celebrated to encourage people to forever move forward.

Wendy Z

Posted by: Gillian Polack 14 Mar - 05:33 am

Wendy

With your list of inspirational authors, how much of the inspiration came from the lives of these women, and how much from their works? This is a loaded question, I guess, because one of the themes in women's history that led to the creation of Women's History Month was how little we know about a lot of amazing women. I know (me pretending to be an all-wise historian ) that at least two of the authors you list are personal friends of yours - were they big influences on you before they became friends - through the quality and interest of their written work - or since - because of their personal qualities?

Don't feel impelled to answer this if it is too private for such a public forum!!

I am asking this because I saw your response as a really interesting one in that it really does open up a possible distinction between the public and the private. My examples were both private ones - I became friends with both and worked with them closely in order to be totally bowled over by them as people. But I am slower on these the uptake of these sorts of things than most. When we are told to find role models in my childhood, I looked at all the fabulous women around me and thought "I don't want to be like them - I want to be like me".

Gillian

Posted by: Christina Ryan 17 Mar - 01:35 am

Thanks for getting this thread going Jennifer.

I guess I am lucky in my life to have been surrounded by strong women, many of whom were greatly inspiring.

My grandmother would be on the list of course, and for many other women too I know. Edna was politically active for most of her life and kept going until 2 weeks before she dropped off the perch at 92. This is a good thing to know because it means I have about 60 years of good activism left in me - watch out!

Another real inspiration for me was Beryl Henderson. It is after her that our first women's refuge in Canberra is named. Beryl was a great friend and also died in her 90s. She had stories about all sorts of things in her youth, like the first cars with no windscreen wipers, not being allowed to go to the swimming pool because her swimmers were "unacceptable", and not being allowed to do things her brother did. She also lost her love in the first world war and never married.

Beryl was really beautiful, tall with fine white hair, and a Lancashire accent. She would not suffer inappropriate language saying that there were plenty of words in the dictionary (she was a teacher) that could be used before women had to go debasing themselves. She always stood very upright too, and didn't go much on seeing women smoke either. This all makes her sound a bit of a prude but in reality she was on about women valuing ourselves rather than joining the lowest common denominator.

Beryl was banned from ABC radio for some years after she used the word cunt in its literal sense to illustrate that it shouldn't be used otherwise. She was about 80 at the time!

These women have both been my guiding lights I guess and all though I have many other women who have been personal mentors it is these 2 who really are with me every day when I'm out there changing the world.

Christina

Posted by: Jennifer 18 Mar - 02:34 am

Samantha's post started me thinking about the role of women in my early life.

I have to look further afield than immediate family, and when I do I can find some women who gave me hope. But there is this huge gap in my experience: a loving grandmother who died before I was 10; a tremendously encouraging 'little' mum who gave me refuge through some of my teen years and again a few years ago. My own mother loves me but we are not close.

A lot of my experience has been overwhelmingly negative, and I think that drives me towards idealising people (male and female).

Still, I have learned much - just perhaps not at the time it might have been more useful.

Perhaps, though, my mother inspired me more than I recognise. If I learned nothing else, I learned that women did have choices.

Jenny

Posted by: Samantha Faulkner 19 Mar - 05:20 am

Christina, that was lovely to hear about Beryl's story. I think there's a bit of the rebel in us all. Do you have any more stories to tell?

Jennifer's comments made me think about self-reflection and how we view ourselves. Do we think about how others see us? I know this topic is about writing women into history but who does that? There would also be many different perspectives of the one person (hopefully not too many). Which one gets written and by whom and why? Just a few thoughts to add to the discussion !!!!!!!

Posted by: Gillian Polack 19 Mar - 09:39 am

The self-reflective thing is important. Tamara pointed it out elsewhere, in terms of self-valuation.

A nicely traditional approach is that women should work quietly in the background , in a Martha -like fashion. We introduce ourselves in terms of our family, not in terms of our own achievements or personality. We won't get the rewards, but our work will be just as quietly appreciated.

I am afraid these days I like to argue that we need self-respect, first and foremost. We can still work in the background if that is what suits us as individuals, and our families can be as central to our lives as possible, but we need to value ourselves. And if we don't look at ourselves and if we try to focus attention on other people 100% of the time, then it is not very surprising that somehow the hsitorical record fails to include us.

I am not talking narcissism here- I am talking simple self-respect.

Gillian

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Part 1 - Transcript of Ged's Chat on 4 March

Posted by: Trudy Moore 06 Mar - 01:14 am

'Women in Trade Unions' - Live Chat with Ged Cowin, President, Australian Nurses Federation ��.Tuesday 4 March 2003 ��. Part One

Mary Sexton: Ged do you have any particular aspects of women in trade unions you want to discuss tonight?

Ged Cowin: I thought it might be interesting to start off by discussing the image or perception of women in unions.

Ged Cowin: It is often not what is expected.

Gillian Polack [0/] Login:

Gillian Polack: Hi

Ged Cowin: Hi there!!

Mary Sexton: Well that is an interesting statement - what is expected?

Ged Cowin: Mary in answer to your question

Ged Cowin: A CEO of a rural hospital said me to me recently:

Ged Cowin: You don't seem like a union woman - you're not a hard faced bitch!

Mary Sexton: Oh I was afraid that may be the case. To fit with the general antipathy to unions, even from union members.

Gillian Polack: I get the same thing about having a PhD. And being a feminist.

Gillian Polack: It is something to do with being a woman

Ged Cowin: Yes sadly, I think sometimes it is about being a woman with something to say

Gillian Polack: Or with less than traditional interests (should that be more than traditional?)

Ged Cowin: maybe other than.

Gillian Polack: I have been embedded in Medieval law and occupations and finance today. SO I am more aggro than usual about men running things

Ged Cowin: It's interesting you know. The ANF is thought of in union circles as "soft" not really a union.

Gillian Polack: You do *not* want to look at 12th century taxation.

Gillian Polack: So even within the system, it gets hierarchised.

Ged Cowin: We'll cheer you up!

Mary Sexton: Wow that is amazing given the successful actions they have run.

Gillian Polack: How does the CPA regard you?

Ged Cowin: Yep. I have been told by an ACTU person that we are more of a professional organisation rather than a union

Ged Cowin: The CPA and the ANF actually have a good relationship.

Mary Sexton: What about other unions with a predominantly female membership - are they also 'soft'?

Gillian Polack: The teaching bit can't be - it has produced too many senior ACTU people, surely?

Ged Cowin: Well not so the teachers unions.

Ged Cowin: Yes you are right - in Victoria anyway.

Ged Cowin: The female dominated unions are the only ones with any growth.

Gillian Polack: The reason I wondered about the CPA is their newspaper editor is my cousin and she has only ever said good things about the ANF.

Mary Sexton: Does the growth say something about the position of women in the workforce?

Ged Cowin: Partly but I really think it has something to do with female leadership!

Gillian Polack: Also what is happening in terms of political leadership right now, perhaps. Women know we need to fight to even maintain conditions

Gillian Polack: I do *not* like our country at this moment in time!!

Mary Sexton: That is interesting particularly given the roles of Jenni George and Sharon Burrows

Ged Cowin: I can understand that.

Gillian Polack: Ged, I know you know this already, but I thought you might like a reminder, that no-one who logs in can see earlier parts of the chat.

Ged Cowin: I think Sharon Burrows is terrific and will make a difference.

Ged Cowin: Thanks Gillian - do we recap at all?

Gillian Polack: You get to decide when you need to recap.

Gillian Polack: Or explain recent comments or whatever.

Ged Cowin: OK.

Gillian Polack: But you might want to do a proper intro a bit after 8.30 (allowing for latecomers).

Ged Cowin: OK.

Gillian Polack: And Mary is your real support tonight - I am butting in cos I thought you would be interesting. Sorry, Mary.

Trudy [0/] Login:

Ged Cowin: I am really enjoying your discussion groups.

Ged Cowin: Hi Trudy.

Mary Sexton: That's fine with me.

Gillian Polack: Hi Trudy.

Trudy: Hi everyone.

Mary Sexton: Ged have you had any action on your discussion group?

Ged Cowin: No not yet, but I was late getting my intro up.

Gillian Polack: It can take a little for people to respond.

Mary Sexton: I could sure use some input on mine in respect of the ANF and the famous strikes of yours union.

Gillian Polack: Except for Medieval Women - that discussion is phenomenal!!

Ged Cowin: Mary, do I have to go to another URL for your discussion?

Ged Cowin: I had a look last night and was confused.

Mary Sexton: No.

Gillian Polack: You do the same thing you did to post your intro - but you look for Mary's.

Gillian Polack: It is on the same opening page.

Gillian Polack: Hi again Trudy lol.

Ged Cowin: Hmmm. I will try again, it said something about the page being under construction.

Gillian Polack: It isn't.

Gillian Polack: It is fully operational.

Ged Cowin: Hi Trudy, do you have any particular interest in women in unions or just interested?

Gillian Polack: If you can hang on a few minutes after you close the chat tonight, I can walk you through it if you want.

Ged Cowin: Thanks Gillian.

Mary Sexton: Ged what do you see as the most important things unions should be working?

Ged Cowin: Going back to the issue of people having images of women with interests other than traditional.

Trudy: Ged, some years back I was a union rep in the public service and am interested not just in women in the unions but what is happening with unionism now.

Mary Sexton: Hear hear

Ged Cowin: The ANF membership is predominantly a public sector union.

Ged Cowin: We do have membership in the private sector but not so strongly - getting better!

Ged Cowin: But the public sector and predominantly female unions are the only ones growing in membership.

Ged Cowin: The "traditional" blue collar unions are declining in membership rapidly.

Mary Sexton: Is there a correlation with the overall decline in blue collar work/

Ged Cowin: It is of course reflective of the workforce changes.

Trudy: It would be interesting to know your approx membership levels and how you maintain them.

Gillian Polack: How about voting patterns?

Mary Sexton: Or is it the change in working arrangements, such as contract work etc.

Ged Cowin: The ANF federally has almost 130,000 members.

Ged Cowin: We have about a 60% density which is way above the average density mark.

Gillian Polack: How much of your workforce hasn't joined yet? Or is that the vast majority of potential members.

Ged Cowin: A 60% density indicates that 40% of nurses are not members.

Gillian Polack: So you still have some growth potential.

Ged Cowin: Most definitely.

Gillian Polack: Sorry- I was typing the question while you were typing the answer

Ged Cowin: I saw that - I will get used to the time lag!

Gillian Polack: And the telepathy that obviously happened at that point.

Mary Sexton: I am still interested in the nature of predominantly female unions and the ANF's success.

Mary Sexton: It would appear that the increase number of men in nursing have not had an impact of the union.

Gillian Polack: How big is that increase, though?

Ged Cowin: Well Mary, I might be biased or even a little sexist, but I truly believe that the female leadership is more responsive

Gillian Polack: I know it gets talked about a lot - but what % of nurses are male.

Ged Cowin: The male nurses make up 8-10% and this has been steady now for some years.

Ged Cowin: Despite some affirmative marketing!

Ged Cowin: It is interesting to note however that men still over represented in administrative positions.

Gillian Polack: Which means we really are talking about a female phenomenon - and one that is vastly different to the unions of the 70s?

Ged Cowin: Yes. Although if you look at the history of unionism the women feature very strongly!

Ged Cowin: Especially in the textiles industry

Mary Sexton: Where are men in the profession - are they disproportionably represented in senior and teaching positions.

Ged Cowin: Yes Mary, that's absolutely right.

Mary Sexton: MMMM happened in libraries too.

Gillian Polack: And throughout the education sector.

Mary Sexton: Well I am not sure that women were ever well represented in senior position in teaching.

Gillian Polack: I was thinking proportionately - that men in each of these professions is more likely to get certain promotions and experiences.

Mary Sexton: I could do with a spell checker on this.

Gillian Polack: I just need typing lessons!

Ged Cowin: I think it is more so in education but yes

Ged Cowin: The ACTU now has an affirmative action policy - what are your thoughts on that?

Gillian Polack: It is a cultural constant - there are some very deep reflexes that need changing.

Gillian Polack: I am hoping it will help - something has to.

Ged Cowin: I agree. I think it starts the ball rolling and chips into the culture a bit.

Mary Sexton: The ACTU was a great support for women unionists in the 1970's.

Ged Cowin: Many think of it as tokenism though.

Ged Cowin: Do you have personal experience Mary?

Mary Sexton: They supported the 'working women's centre for about 20 years.

Ged Cowin: What was that?

Ged Cowin: I should know.

Gillian Polack: I suspect that we need to move in an unthreatening way - if we can get lots and lots of token gestures, that is a lot better than one untoken gesture that gets rolled back immediately.

Mary Sexton: Yes I was a union rep like Trudy. I was also a member of the committee that was involved in the working women's charter.

Ged Cowin: That's a great way of looking at it.

Mary Sexton: I also worked with Edna Ryan in the early 1990s enterprise bargaining.

Ged Cowin: Wow, you were involved in developing the charter! that's great.

Mary Sexton: It is hard to recall the detail. Mary Owen who lived in Sandringham was its director for a long time

Gillian Polack: Recall it . We want to know!

Mary Sexton: It fostered work based child-care, actively worked to improve conditions for women in the workforce,

Mary Sexton: It had an educational role for the ACTU, a very rich history.

Mary Sexton: I can probably locate some info on it for you if you are interested Ged.

Ged Cowin: What happened?

Ged Cowin: I am most interested.

Mary Sexton: Change in leadership at the ACTU if I recall correctly. This reflected the change in the 1980's to women's services

Mary Sexton: There have been lots of things lost in the last 10 years or so. Just look what has happened to the Office of the Status of Women

Trudy: And not just in the leadership and work of the Office, Mary. When I began work there more 10 years ago we had 95% union membership and were quite militant. When I left last year the union membership was down to 20%.

Mary Sexton: Oh I remember those militant days Trudy.

Mary Sexton: I have just checked and the Working Women's Centre was set up with an IWY grant under Whitlam.

Ged Cowin: Sorry, I had to kiss goodnight! missed a bit.

Gillian Polack: Swap stories

Ged Cowin: Yep tell us.

Mary Sexton: It was actually the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Association who started this off.

Gillian Polack: This is me with my historian's hat on - we lose so many women's stories about fabulous things like women as militant unionists because they don't; make the official record. This is our chance to get some of them down.

Mary Sexton: One Bill Richardson in fact.

Gillian Polack: What women were involved?

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Part 2 - Transcript of Ged's Chat of 4 March

Posted by: Trudy Moore 06 Mar - 01:17 am

'Women in Trade Unions' - Live Chat with Ged Cowin, President, Australian Nurses Federation ��.Tuesday 4 March 2003 ��. Part Two

Mary Sexton: The WWC funding was a one-off grant and after the fall of the Whitlam government was supported a number of liberal women.

Mary Sexton: Sylvie Shaw, Mary Owen supported by Edna Ryan

Ged Cowin: What were your battles?

Mary Sexton: There were also some liberal men, subsequently known as the wets, namely Ian MacPhee and Tony Street.

Trudy: Good grief - I'd forgotten them.

Gillian Polack: I was just trying to imagine the Tony Abbotts of this world encouraging something like that. Obviously I have a poor imagination....

Gillian Polack: And the power bases in the liberals have really shifted.

Mary Sexton: Golly that is hard. As a WEL member I had some minor involvement in the 1974 equal pay case won by Edna.

Mary Sexton: WEL of course battled against enterprise bargaining.

Mary Sexton: We also fought for work-based child care - hardly successful at that.

Gillian Polack: Did you use different tactics for each situation? Or was there a standard way of going about things?

Ged Cowin: Now we battle with EBAs

Gillian Polack: Ged and Trudy, this applies as much to your unionism as to Mary's - why don't you compare those experiences.

Mary Sexton: It depended on the case. The enterprise bargaining one was focussed on the Arbitration Commission.

Mary Sexton: Whereas child care was a matter of lobbying with the odd demonstration.

Trudy: My involvement was more with the internal politics of OSW.

Ged Cowin: Internal politics can be all consuming!

Mary Sexton: OSW also fought for nurse to be trained in tertiary institutions - now that was a huge change.

Trudy: We had no compunction about organising impromptu union meetings particularly around staffing issues.

Mary Sexton: Well you were embattled in that environment.

Gillian Polack: I was a bit part player in the overseas credentials part of the tertiary trained nurse thing. Totally confusing!

Trudy: Yes, but because we had the number we usually made our point and won.

Ged Cowin: We are finding more and more that there are local issues in individual workplaces requiring such actions.

Ged Cowin: Usually around staffing as well.

Mary Sexton: What sort of issues?

Mary Sexton: Conditions?

Ged Cowin: Staffing nearly always.

Mary Sexton: Insufficient /

Gillian Polack: Is this the under-funding problem - or are there other important factors?

Mary Sexton: Reluctance to pay nursed what they are worth -

Ged Cowin: Under-funding essentially but also an impression that we simply don't need the staff we claim we do!

Ged Cowin: Night duty is a prime example.

Gillian Polack: So a discrediting of nurse's view of the workplace.

Ged Cowin: Absolutely. Recently we won an historic claim to use patient to nurse ratios.

Gillian Polack: And this wasn't done before?

Gillian Polack: How recently?

Ged Cowin: Last EBA three years ago

Gillian Polack: Sorry. I am a bit stunned. Teachers have been able to use student to staff ratios forever, almost.

Gillian Polack: And they are both service occupations.

Ged Cowin: I believe we are the first to officially gain it!

Gillian Polack: So that ratio *counts*.

Ged Cowin: Yes - there is ample literature to show its benefits to staff and patients.

Mary Sexton: How does this fit with case mix - any connection?

Ged Cowin: Well it has to be funded out of the WEIS allocation

Ged Cowin: Which is based on the case mix.

Ged Cowin: However it is being contested as we speak!

Gillian Polack: Exciting times then.

Mary Sexton: By the government?

Ged Cowin: There is a DHS taskforce looking at using a patient dependency system instead of ratios.

Gillian Polack: But this isn't; the first time that this particular battle has been fought, is it? I seem to remember some of these issues coming back and back.

Mary Sexton: DHS is that the Vic department?

Ged Cowin: Sorry Mary, yes this is a Victorian decision

Mary Sexton: Thanks Ged

Ged Cowin: Yes Gillian, we have been battling forever on this issue, but this is the first IRC decision supporting ratios.

Gillian Polack: How did you get the change?

Gillian Polack: Sheer force of numbers?

Gillian Polack: Or did you use new tactics?

Ged Cowin: WA has won a similar case but it is based on nursing hours

Ged Cowin: How did we win? Well it is really thanks to Belinda Morison, a remarkable woman, and the member sheer bloody mindedness.

Gillian Polack: Tell us more. This is the stuff the newspapers ignore

Ged Cowin: The nurses came in numbers, yes. Like never before. Traditionally non unionised hospitals like the Children's were emphatically involved.

Gillian Polack: Did you have to ask them to come? Or was it a groundswell?

Ged Cowin: Belinda realised that ratios were touching a very raw nerve indeed. It was a groundswell that almost overtook us.

Ged Cowin: Blair was our Commissioner and at one point Belinda followed him on his break to Perth and sat next to him at his daughter's basket ball game!

Gillian Polack: So Belinda worked out the exact point where change could be made and which nurses would support.

Mary Sexton: Wow, what a Sheila.

Gillian Polack: I like those tactics

Ged Cowin: Yes It was interesting because NSW had gone for pay equality with other health professionals - ie physios where we fall behind a bit.

Ged Cowin: We decided in Victoria that conditions were the issue and we were right.

Ged Cowin: It was based on research we commission through ACCIRT.

Gillian Polack: So it wasn't chance you touched on that raw nerve - you looked for it.

Gertrude [0/] Login:

Ged Cowin: Yes we looked for it but it was still a bit of a gamble.

Gillian Polack: Significant change has always got to be a gamble.

Gillian Polack: Hi Gertrude.

Gertrude: Hi Gillian.

Ged Cowin: It was very exciting. We had over 3,000 very excited nurses at all our meetings.

Gertrude: What's the discussion about at the moment?

Mary Sexton: Gertrude we have been talking about the battle for nurse/patient ratios.

Ged Cowin: Hi Gertrude welcome.

Gertrude: Hi Ged.

Gillian Polack: So it developed its own dynamic at that point? Or was there still a to of careful study to make it happen?

Gertrude: It was a real need that was demonstrated wasn't it? Ged.

Ged Cowin: Yes Gertrude, most definitely. We had researched it and had plenty of anecdotal evidence.

Gertrude: What more do you think needs to be done now?

Ged Cowin: But as I said earlier not everyone was convinced it would make a crux of a campaign.

Ged Cowin: We have a very hard battle to keep them.

Ged Cowin: The fact that nurses have control over their own workloads and staffing numbers does not sit easy with our administrators.

Gillian Polack: So it is not as simple as "battle won, game over"?

Ged Cowin: Oh it has just begun.

Gertrude: Surely the facts of nurses returning to the work force is encouraging the "administrators" that is working?

Gillian Polack: Do the people who helped win it by joining in the groundswell realise that yet?

Gillian Polack: Or is there a bunch of education to happen?

Ged Cowin: Gertrude, believe it or not, there is still a battle to be fought this is even despite the govt claiming a lot of the results as their own.

Gertrude: No I mean admin coming more on side.

Ged Cowin: Gillian the members know that the battle is still on.

Gillian Polack: That is a big thing

Ged Cowin: Well, it's difficult to say. My own Director of Nursing (DON) is very supportive of ratios but does not say it out loud!

Mary Sexton: Well that is a bit of help.

Gertrude: I guess it depends on how close you are to the DON to hear it. My DON is quietly supportive too.

Gillian Polack: So it is a matter of changing each and every little operational area in admin? Wow, what a task.

Mary Sexton: So what is holding the DON's back.

Gertrude: Money I would guess.

Ged Cowin: Job security.

Ged Cowin: Allegiances to line management.

Ged Cowin: We can prove the ratios are economically beneficial.

Gillian Polack: Mixed messages? It sounds as if they are a bit caught between the devil and the deep blue sea in terms of allegiances and role.

Gertrude: Yes by better retention of staff when they are recruited.

Ged Cowin: Our agency usage has all but disappeared except for sick leave.

Ged Cowin: Yes, they are in a difficult position as directors of nursing.

Gillian Polack: That should surely improve advance planning, too. So long term stability.

Mary Sexton: We can also demonstrate the savings in health promotion/injury prevention but it does not have the same urgency.

Gertrude: They have to deal with Bean Counters who don't want to necessarily know about the workloads and skill mix which equals quality care.

oftentransientone [0/] Login:

Mary Sexton: Hi.

Gillian Polack: Hi.

Ged Cowin: Hi.

oftentransientone: Hello

Gertrude: Hi

Mary Sexton: I think it is the bean counters masters that are the problem.

Ged Cowin: We have been chatting about the nurse-patient ratios decision in Victoria.

Gillian Polack: So to come down to politics - if you can get them to work, you can get the better ratios to stick?

Mary Sexton: Governments are loath to impose taxes to provide the services we all want.

Gertrude: Definitely, and also people in positions to influence who are out of touch with the realities of nursing today.

Ged Cowin: I think there has been a change in the culture of nursing administration though.

Gertrude: What are some of the initiatives that the public sector have introduced?

Mary Sexton: Its a game of competing priorities which governments play and in order to win you have to have clout.

oftentransientone: And my experience with all health funding issues is that it is one of the worst affected by the Commonwealth/State split and which is also a challenge for wage negotiation.

Ged Cowin: Oh it is always thrown at us.

Gillian Polack: That is something we haven't actually talked about as a factor - the Commonwealth/State split.

Mary Sexton: Unfortunately while the community at large support nurses those same people are not always willing to pay for that.

Gertrude: Good point oftentransientone - take funding for Div 1 courses.

Ged Cowin: And the abominations in aged care!

Gertrude: Exactly - they are doing it extremely tough.

Ged Cowin: The Health Ministers meeting lately was such a farce, an indication of the difficulties.

Mary Sexton: Sounds a bit like child care doesn't it - lots of lip service but no backup with the dollars to pay the workforce.

Gertrude: In what way Ged?

Gillian Polack: It was reported as a farce too - what was it about?

Ged Cowin: Kay Patterson the Federal Minister for Health, refused to go when she read the State Ministers' submission.

Ged Cowin: For reform of the system.

Gillian Polack: So it was exactly as reported.

Gillian Polack: That is bad.

oftentransientone: There has been an attempt to move the 5 year funding arrangements between States and Commonwealth to focus on health priorities and it keeps coming back to whose paying at the end of the day.

Gertrude: How can she do that - as far as I'm concerned if she's the elected Rep she has too take the good with the bad!!

Ged Cowin: Well I guess she had a hostile quorum all being ALP.

Gillian Polack: But all Federal Ministers have that.

Mary Sexton: Yes but health is a big budget item and sensitive politically.

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Part 3 - Transcript of Ged's Chat of 4 March

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Anne Summers - Part One

Posted by: Trudy Moore 15 Mar - 06:04 pm

'The End of Equality? Australian Women and the Howard Government' - Live Chat with Anne Summers ��. Monday 10 March 2003 ��. Part One

Mary Sexton: The main resource for this chat is the Pamela Denoon Lecture at www.wel.org.au
Mary Sexton: Hi Anne -
Anne Summers: Hello everyone (anyone?) I am here to begin our chat.
Mary Sexton: This is disappointing, let's hope a few more turn up shortly.
Anne Summers: Hi Mary - it was a great turnout in Canberra the other night.
Mary Sexton: Overall the chats don't attract a great number of people but I did hope that your lecture would stir more to action.
Mary Sexton: Yes, it was a great lecture and the subject matter is very valuable.
Anne Summers: Everyone probably wants to watch Sex and the City! It's a new series tonight!
Mary Sexton: We were talking about how we could use it or disseminate it more widely. What have I been missing?
Anne Summers: I know it's most "unfeminist" to say so but I really like the show. It's feminism in action in some ways.
Anne Summers: Re the Lecture, I heard today from Janet Wilson at the Parliamentary Library that they've put it on their website!!! That is amazing!
Mary Sexton: That is wonderful and I assume you saw the coverage in The Age.
Mary Sexton: I also understand there has been some interaction on The Age site.
Anne Summers: Yes - and Little Johnny's letter! He never does that so we must be really getting to him!
Mary Sexton: I haven't seen that must get onto the site later. But we need thousands of us to get to him.
Mary Sexton: OSW is convening a conference at the end of the month, Womenspeak (original eh).
Anne Summers: Yes, but there was a most interesting column in The Oz last Friday by his oracle stating that his vote amongst women is disintegrating, finally!
Mary Sexton: And some of us were wondering if a pr�cised version of your lecture could be distributed informally among the 500-700 women expected.
Anne Summers: His oracle being Denis Shanahan - forgot to mention that.
Anne Summers: How would you do that? Also, it is difficult to pr�cis because the detail is what makes the saga so devastating. Not that I object to getting the word out!
Mary Sexton: Well I am not sure - maybe it is just a chronology of the actions - with advice as to where the full text can be read.
Anne Summers: OK, but I don't want to do it. I am more interested in getting it all down as book and getting the word out that way.
Mary Sexton: Sheryle Moon has said she would be happy to do that. But it would be good to run it past you.
Mary Sexton: Well a book is a powerful way - what time frame are you working to.
Anne Summers: I would be happy to look at it. What is our timeframe?
Mary Sexton: The Womenspeak Conference is on 30 March to 1 April.
Anne Summers: The book is about a year late (at least!) but I am so motivated by the response last Thursday that I am going to lock myself away until it is finished - hopefully within weeks. I have already written most of it - which is how I was able to do the Pamela Denoon Lecture,
Val T [0/] Login:
Val T: Sorry to be late.
Anne Summers: Hi Val.
Val T: Greatly enjoyed the lecture, Anne.
Mary Sexton: As you can see the usual crowd.
Anne Summers: Thanks Val - do you have any questions? Or comments?
Mary Sexton: Anne, Val is the person who is responsible for the WEL site
Val T: I'm amazed, Mary. Where are they??
Mary Sexton: I don't know and I am very disappointed.
Anne Summers: Well them's the breaks. At what point do we call it a night?
Mary Sexton: Well when you have given me an idea if you can fir within that timeframe.
Trudy Moore [0/] Login:
Mary Sexton: The I will check with Sheryle.
Val T: Gday Trudy.
Trudy Moore: Hi everyone.
Val T: Anne & Mary: you've already talked about the facts & figures summary?
Mary Sexton: Yes.
Val T: jolly good :-)
Anne Summers: I can respond to Sheryle if she gives me some notice as I am away all the week of .
17/3 but am back the next Monday (24/7) so there should be time for me to check her edit.
Mary Sexton: Anne better have one question at least - do you have any idea as to why Pru
Goward took up the Maternity leave issue.
Mary Sexton: Fine I will follow up with Sheryle.
Anne Summers: I wish I knew. It will take someone other than me to find out!
Val T: Maybe she has daughters of the right age!
Trudy Moore: It's also something that her predecessor had a strong interest in, and had already started work on.
Anne Summers: No, that's not the reason. I think she wanted to regain some credibility with the women's movement but why she chose this particular issue beats me.
Val T: Anne: I'd been wanting to see a list of the losses since 1996 - it was clear they were happening, but no one seemed to be keeping track.
Anne Summers: Her predecessor, Susan Halliday was very interested in pregnancy discrimination which is covered by the Act, not mat leave which is not!
Anne Summers: Val - I have been keeping a list of sorts since 1996. But it needs women on the inside to verify some of the stuff as I can only rely on newspapers which don't report that much these days.
Val T: And I appreciated your deconstruction of "mainstreaming" (speaking of the newspapers not
reporting much these days!).
Gillian Polack [0/] Login:
Anne Summers: Yeah! Thank goddess that odious term seems to have disappeared (like the things that were "mainstreamed"!
Anne Summers: Hi Gillian.
Gillian Polack: Hi. Sorry I am late.
Val T: WEL Had Judy Moylan at a dinner when she was minister (when the childcare cuts were happening) and she simply denied that there had been cuts. Claimed, in fact, that there had been increases.
Mary Sexton: Have you had a chance to look at the lecture?
Val T: Gday Gillian.
Mary Sexton: Must be hard for Liberal women.
Mary Sexton: Any work we can do to promote awareness of the extent and impact of the changes will also be a waring shot for labour.
Anne Summers: I don't think Labor cares any more - even the women. this is very disappointing.
Mary Sexton: Well I reluctantly agree with you.
Val T: Is it just a matter of what can be got away with? No need to think about 52% of the population as women because plenty of them seem to be populists?
Val T: Or do I mean "plenty of them seem to espouse populist views"
Anne Summers: I think in the case of Labor that they were turned off by some of their own people who made the case (successfully I am sad to say) that Labor was "branded" with the feminist label. They forgot that feminist policies had brought them women's votes all those
Anne Summers: I meant to say: all those years.
Gillian Polack: That fits into a wider picture of political expression now, though. It seems to be more acceptable to espouse populist views.
Anne Summers: Not sure what you mean by populist?
Val T: I mean Hanson-type views.
Gillian Polack: There is a change in public discourse.
Gillian Polack: Otherwise being "branded" as supporting women would not have been a major problem, I suspect.
Anne Summers: I actually think it is changing back (albeit very slowly) to pre 1996 days - at least when it comes to race and war.
Anne Summers: Not women, unfortunately.
Gillian Polack: I am finding more religious stereotypes abound - so in fact for me it is easier to be a woman than to be Jewish.
Gillian Polack: So maybe it depend son one's perspective.
Anne Summers: What city do you live in?
Val T: All Canberrans here
Anne Summers: I somehow assumed Canberra would be a very tolerant place for Jews.
Gillian Polack: But I have strong links with the Jewish communities elsewhere - and we are all under a sort of emotional siege. Not counting the high level of physical insecurity!
Anne Summers: Is this due to the war on terrorism etc?
Gillian Polack: Anne, there have been bunches of Molotov cocktails thrown at the National Jewish Centre. We all work at it, but Canberra is a mixed blessing for minority religions.
Gillian Polack: No, the negatives started happening when Howard came in.
Gillian Polack: Molotov cocktails started before Sept 11 even.
Anne Summers: Yes and he will reap what he has sown - sooner rather than later I hope.
Gillian Polack: At the moment *we* are reaping what he has sown.
Mary Sexton: Can we really take it all back to him allowing Pauline Hansen to go unchecked.
Anne Summers: Yes I think we can - remember when he said "the pall of censorship has been lifted" thereby giving everyone permission to be totally racist?
Gillian Polack: It is a leadership issue.
Gillian Polack: If clear statements are made at the level of PM, then a lot of the rat bags will keep quiet.
Anne Summers: And he's no leader (except when it comes to defending his little wife against the evil Anne Summers!!)
Val T: I've always been infuriated by people mouthing off against "political correctness" when what they mean is, they don't want to feel embarrassed about being rude & intolerant...
Gillian Polack: As it is, a lot of people who genuinely care about women's issues and a multicultural Australia are keeping quiet.
Mary Sexton: You didn't say anything about her awful dress sense did you?
Gillian Polack:
Val T: ...and of course, "political correctness" now means being rude & intolerant.
Anne Summers: Funny though how nobody wants to be called "racist" - even when they are.
Val T: I mean, what is now "politically correct" is being rude & intolerant.
Anne Summers: Gillian - how do you do that smiley face?
Val T: or sexist, or ...
Gillian Polack: Go to the cursor bar - right click the mouse over it and you should have some options.
Val T: I think if you just do colon right-bracket -

Gillian Polack: For instance, this could be easily given a name: :alien

Gillian Polack: But you get more choices if you go to the options

Anne Summers: Slow down you girls - where's the cursor bar?

Val T: *welcome*

Gillian Polack: Actually, the new PC is to be racist by being too publicly non C of E.

Gillian Polack: Where you type, Anne

Gillian Polack: Where the cursor is blinking

Gillian Polack: blinking

Anne Summers: OK

Anne Summers: Thanks! Who knew?

Mary Sexton: I missed the instructions but they can wait.

Anne Summers: *meow* I can't believe all the add ons

Gillian Polack: It makes a much more lively chat

Mary Sexton: I can't believe that, be careful where you use it Anne

Gillian Polack: You can add sound effects to match the mood *evil*

Val T: I wish I had sound turned on 8)

Gillian Polack: Sorry, that was a distraction. But a useful one.

Anne Summers: Who said we had to be serious all the time? It's depressing enough as it is.

Gillian Polack: One thing that has grown in recent years is feminist humour.

Gillian Polack: The sanity factor.

Anne Summers: It's always been there - despite what people might tell you!

Mary Sexton: You mean the humourless feminists are out of fashion.

Anne Summers: At last!

Mary Sexton: Just as well I lost the t-shirt.

Gillian Polack: It means that feminists are publicly admitting to having senses of humour. Which is wonderful.

Anne Summers: It's probably in the National Library - along with the rest of the collection. I gave them all mine - not that they'd fit me any more!

Gillian Polack: Actually, I need to qualify something I said before - The ACT is a mixed bag, but the Legislative Assembly is strongly anti-racist.

Mary Sexton: No Quentin Bryce has it.

Gillian Polack: When did the stereotype about humour get attached to feminists, anyway?

Anne Summers: She'd still fit into it too!

Mary Sexton: Yeah.

Mary Sexton: I think we need to make a decision - it seems pretty obvious that we are no loaded with tricky questions for Anne.

Anne Summers: Yes - I can let you all go and watch Sex and the City!

Val T [0/] Action: Val commends http://www.horacek.com.au/topic.htm

Mary Sexton: I for one am hopeless at questions - so the question is do we wait or finish.

Gillian Polack: Anne, the trouble is you gave a speech which I think we would have all agreed with.

Anne Summers: Sorry about that!

Mary Sexton: Oh good, it is all Anne's fault - that is a relief!

Val T: Maybe we should wait till 9 and see if there are more latecomers.

Mary Sexton: It's 9.10 now

Gillian Polack: It was *nice* to see these things made public - and I hope the website gets lots of traffic.

Val T: Mary: !!! my clock is wrong

Anne Summers: We are coming back - just watch us!

MC [0/] Login:

Gillian Polack: I have a question - but I wasn't sure if it had been asked while I wasn't here.

Mary Sexton: Hi MC

Mary Sexton: Well go for it

Anne Summers: What's the question?

MC: Hi Mary, Hi Gillian

Gillian Polack: This is more a discussion question than a simple answer one - how do we move from here?

Gillian Polack: Hi

Anne Summers: Refuse to be beaten.

Gillian Polack: Because this is not a wonderful place to be for Australia.

Jo Durand [0/] Login:

Gillian Polack: Hi

Jo Durand: Hi

Mary Sexton: Well, refusing to be beaten is a good position.

Gillian Polack: But there are so many ways to refuse to be beaten

Gillian Polack: Do we keep arguing the same issues, find others, bring new groups of women in?

Mary Sexton: But we also need to inspire people to take a more public stance.

Anne Summers: And start fighting back - including against the Labor Party, perhaps especially against the Labor Party.

Gillian Polack: What is happening right now with the Beijing Follow-ups suggests that a lot of previously quite political women have been marginalised.

Anne Summers: We all have to pursue our own issues - fight from where we are and what gets us going, that will differ for different women.

Jo Durand: How have those political women become marginalised, and by whom?

Anne Summers: I guess we should have answered her question!

Gillian Polack: I run the Beijing + 5 email lists - and there is a lack of information coming to them. OSW has excluded them (and me) from the CSW process. And that is just this week!

Kath Obrien [0/] Login:

Gillian Polack: Hi

Anne Summers: How does OSW justify this?

Gillian Polack: OSW doesn't. They consider that they have contacted all key players.

Kath Obrien: Hi all

Mary Sexton: Hi Kath

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Anne Summers - Part Two

Posted by: Trudy Moore 15 Mar - 06:06 pm

'The End of Equality? Australian Women and the Howard Government' - Live Chat with Anne Summers . Monday 10 March 2003. Part Two

Anne Summers: Well I'd hold their feet to the fire. They have no right to exclude any women who are interested.

Trudy Moore: And key players usually means the four National Secretariats!!

Gillian Polack: Last time round they tried the same thing and the National Women's Justice Coalition kicked up a fuss till they added all those women to the info out.

Gillian Polack: Anne, they didn't seek interested women. They are issuing very very limited info.

Anne Summers: Tell them you are interested. And make sure you copy Mandy.

Mary Sexton: Based on the information in Anne's Pamela Denoon Lecture some of us are feeling pretty charged up about the erosion of women's rights

Gillian Polack: I have to admit, I haven't been able to ring round this time - I am in a very frantic period of my life. I wonder who else that applies to?

Anne Summers: That's good to hear, Mary.

Anne Summers: Gillian can you get someone else to send a few emails for you.

Mary Sexton: And we are talking about how we must stand up - and if there is a slow change coming.

Jo Durand: Isn't the influence/power of OSW limited now since the Liberals are in?

Gillian Polack: It may be limited, but it is still the route that we have to go to participate in CSW.

Jo Durand: CSW?

Anne Summers: Yes I think it is - but that is no excuse for them excluding any women from the information circuit. Also, they weren't that influential towards the end of Labor.

Gillian Polack: Anne, I will (when I get a short breather) send some emails out, reminding people that we need information.

Anne Summers: Onya Gillian!!

Gillian Polack: The United Nations thing that works on women's issues.

Mary Sexton: Sure is Jo. After the chat visit the WEL site www.wel.org.au/ and see the Pamela Denoon Lecture which covers the disempowerment of OSW.

Anne Summers: Actual name: Commission on the Status of Women - established by our very own Jessie Street back in 1945.

Jo Durand: I'm having a look now (with the other eye). Onya Jessie Street!!

Mary Sexton: What an amazing woman she was - she certainly wasn't prepared to be beaten.

Anne Summers: And she wasn't. Look what she and Faith Bandler achieved in 1967 with the Aboriginal referendum.

Gillian Polack: Thinking about it, one of the major reasons we are backfooted now is precisely the CSW situation - too little information too late in far too many cases.

Mary Sexton: Lets all burst into that Judy Small song about Jessie.

Anne Summers: We can do so much with email - especially if we keep things short and focussed.

Gillian Polack: Maybe we are not sharing info as much as we did 10 years ago, or as selectively?

Anne Summers: And it was much harder then - no email.

Gillian Polack: Can I take the opportunity to remind people about the fabulous email lists run by the Australian Virtual Centre for Women and the Law?

Anne Summers: We had telephone trees - you younger women won't believe that!

Jo Durand: Yes, I've heard about telephone trees - not that young!

Trudy Moore: Gillian, do we know which NGOs - if any- were on the Govt delegation? Is there any way we can lobby them on issues before CSW?

Gillian Polack: Maybe I am not as young as I thought _ I was brought up using telephone trees. And Nat Council of Jewish Women still uses them!

Anne Summers: This info should be on the DFAT website?

Gillian Polack: Trudy , there has been some talk about it recently. That there may only be 2 NGO delegates and that one of them might be Judith van Unen.

Gillian Polack: If it has been officially announced, it was officially announced while I was not paying attention.

Anne Summers: I would formally write to OSW and ask for this information. Maybe get Carmen Lawrence to write the letter - they can't ignore her.

Trudy Moore: I'll check out the DFAT site Anne. But there you go Gillian, looks as if only National Women's Secretariats were consulted.

Val T: Gillian: Yes, and Gabrielle Casper (I don't know which NGOs they represent).

Gillian Polack: Judith is the Business and Professional Women - and yes, one of the Secretariats.

Anne Summers: This is ridiculous that just 4 organisations are supposed to represent all Oz women. Or is it 3?

Val T: BPW, NCWA, YWCA (?)

Trudy Moore: National Rural Women's Coalition.

Anne Summers: None of them represents me.

Gillian Polack: What is doubly ridiculous is that they have not been given the funds to do a representational job. So there are problems

Val T: Trudy: Ah! 4!

Val T: Anne: Me neither.

Anne Summers: I think we should refuse all government funds and that way maintain our independence.

Gillian Polack: The Y is trying to at least get voices heard more widely - a bit like CAPOW used to where you sign up for things you agree with and don't where you don't.

Mary Sexton: I have heard that because of the influence of fundamentalist christians it is questionable as to whether the current round is worth supporting.

Val T: Anne: And spend all our time worrying about making enough money to keep the phone on, etc - that's the trouble

Mary Sexton: The concern is that they will undo some of the gains.

Anne Summers: Probably all the more reason to have our voices heard.. I can't believe the Vatican has so much power on women's issues.

Anne Summers: We have to find ways of getting money from women - and not always be worrying about the government taking away our source of income.

Jo Durand: How is that people are still blind to the fact that all issues are women's issues?

Gillian Polack: It is a relic of how government used to work - one day I shall teach a course on the Vatican and Medieval women. Sad stuff.

MC: I admired the forensic way in which you took apart the Howard government the other day, Anne. You mentioning the Vatican reminds me of how our foreign aid is now determined - and it as anti women as Howard's domestic policy.

Anne Summers: I actually drove past the Vatican embassy in Canberra on Friday - I could not believe how large it was.

Ryl [0/] Login:

Gillian Polack: It has a good tax base

Gillian Polack: Hi Ryl

Ryl: Hi

Anne Summers: :alien is this what the Vatican looks like?

Gillian Polack: lol

Anne Summers: Ryl - do you have a question or comment?

Gillian Polack: Actually, it is an important policy issue - how do we get a balance in voices? The fundamentalist and religious groups have their own needs, and only become a problem when they take the whole agenda.

Ryl: Whoops, I'm just learning how to use this chat, and just had a quick read of the 'help' section. I've only just logged on so am not up to speed with what you are talking about yet. But I wanted to check it all out, cos I read your 'ducks' book, and love

Ryl: loved it. Looks like you can't do long messages.

Anne Summers: I love feedback Ryl so that is wonderful to hear.

Mary Sexton: It's called chat for a good reason.

Mary Sexton: Ryl I loved the book also and found it easy to identify with parts of Anne's life.

Anne Summers: Which bits Mary!

Ryl: Yep, it feels strange to be emailing to the person who actually wrote it, never thought that would happen, and now I'm lost for words!

Mary Sexton: Your images of yourself as an adolescent.

Anne Summers: Ohmigod!

Val T: Anne: I enjoyed it too. Filled in some gaps for me (I was out of Australia from end 1971 - start 1976 )

Mary Sexton: There was more and it was very comforting I particularly admire the way you did not take credit for everything.

Anne Summers: They were amazing times.

Mary Sexton: And weren't we lucky to have been part of them.

Anne Summers: Mary, why would I do that - there were so many women involved.

Mary Sexton: Yes but some of the other big sisters did things single handedly - in their books.

Anne Summers: Oh well!

Gillian Polack: It is interesting though, that some women leaders need to feel they owned everything and some (eg you, Anne) who obviously feel that you shared experiences.

Gillian Polack: I am curious about the nature of women's leadership - and how we see ourselves in leadership roles.

Anne Summers: Things were much more "sharing" in the early 70s than they have been since.

Ryl: After reading that book, I thought I had been born too late 1970, but then I did a women's studies class at uni, and found out it ain't all fixed yet. Your book was really the start of 'that' learning.

Anne Summers: Ryl - we need women like you to keep the good fight going. it certainly ain't over - more's the pity.

Mary Sexton: It would have been be lovely to have it all fixed for you -

Mary Sexton: but lucky you still have some battles to fight.

mcin [0/] Login:

Mary Sexton: We were talking earlier on about how to disseminate Anne's Pamela Denoon Lecture.

Anne Summers: :< We'll win - don't worry.

Gillian Polack: Hi mcin - we are talking about how much work there is to be done on women's issues.

Mary Sexton: It is a powerful piece of writing which documents the changes the Howard government has wrought on women.

Ryl: Why do the messages come out on my screen in different colours, is it just me?

Mary Sexton: Not that we expect much more from an change of govt - unless ...

Anne Summers: If we can sound and pix why can't we do colour?

Jo Durand: Click the colour button Mary.

Anne Summers: Ok just testing

Mary Sexton: Thanks Jo

Gillian Polack: Sorry, I was explaining to Ryl off screen. If you want to chat with someone privately, just double click on their name.

Anne Summers: The pink did not work!

Gillian Polack: The pink comes when you type someone's name - they get it.

Gillian Polack: For instance Anne Summers

Val T: the purple?

Gillian Polack: And you need to select "apply" - it is not enough to just click OK.

Mary Sexton: Learning these skills is part of WHM objectives.

Anne Summers: OK - I might have learned enough new tricks for one night!

Gillian Polack: It as one reason why Helen and I took WHM online originally.

Jo Durand: Chatting in colour is a valuable skill!!

Val T: Jo:

Gillian Polack: Being comfortable in a chat room is important!!

Anne Summers: I did press Apply but it did not do it.

Gillian Polack: Press apply then OK.

Val T: Welcome back, Mary

Mary Sexton: Sorry popped off somewhere looking for colours.

Jo Durand: Very true, and quite fun too, Gillian.

Anne Summers: One last try

Gillian Polack: And we are all going to end up in feminist colours

Val T: GP: Oh! yours is nicer than mine!

Anne Summers: You might but I can't.

Jo Durand: Have just finished reading Anne's speech. It doesn't look good for working mothers at all.

Anne Summers: No - it is terrible and getting worse I hate to say.

Jo Durand: I especially identify with the problem of having a second child.

Anne Summers: Do you have two - or just thinking about it?

Jo Durand: I am just starting out (again) in my career but have just got married too, and we want a child.

Gillian Polack: It is so hard to stop at 1.6....

Jo Durand: lol, 1.6

Mary Sexton: And the end result of lack of economic dependence is so depressing.

Anne Summers: That's only if you live in Melbourne. I think in Canberra you can have 1.8.

Mary Sexton: What a relief

Jo Durand: Depression is familiar friend in my house, I'm afraid.

Gillian Polack: A little bit more and mothers can have whole children....

Jo Durand: Anyway, my husband doesn't do paid work due to a disability - so I have a huge dilemma.

Gillian Polack: That is a tough one.

Anne Summers: Write to Jeanette Howard and tell her all about it.

Jo Durand: work or children? working money or welfare?

Jo Durand: Yeah, Janette would really love to hear from me!!

Anne Summers: It would do her good. Don't forget she lives at Kirribilli House, not the Lodge!

Mary Sexton: I like Anne's idea, ask her how to manage and if she doesn't reply try the newspapers.

Gillian Polack: The worst of it is, it makes abuse problems that much more acute.

Jo Durand: Mmm, might work on that one.

Anne Summers: Yes more of this stuff will make them uncomfortable.

Jo Durand: Absolutely Gillian. Hard enough for abused women to leave relationships as it is.

Jo Durand: Especially when there isn't much affordable housing or refuges in the area.

Mary Sexton: The important thing about the newspapers is to write to a range of them including The Telegraph.

Jo Durand: What were you saying Anne, about money for refuges?

Gillian Polack: I was thinking longer term - with fewer job skills for women who have chosen the non-paid work route, there might just be a lifetime of poverty. I have seen it in my own family.

Anne Summers: I did not say anything - but if there is a question I will try to answer it.

Jo Durand: Sorry, I was referring to your speech I was reading earlier. Why isn't there money for refuges anymore?

Anne Summers: I did not know that had been cut.

Val T [0/] Action: will have to go

Val T: Thanks, Anne, for the speech & for being here, and thank you all for the chat.

Ryl: Excuse me everyone, I will come back in a minute.

Ryl [0/] Logout:_

Val T: I'll miss the remaining chats as I'll be away, but will catch them on the website.

Anne Summers: Good night everyone - thanks for joining in. See you next year!

Jo Durand: Good night, thanks for the chat Anne.

Gillian Polack: Thanks Anne!! You realise that you officially hold the record for hosting the most WHM chats?

Jo Durand: And Gillian and Mary and Trudy and Val.

Mary Sexton: Good night Anne and thank you for tonight and the lecture.

Val T [0/] Logout:_

Anne Summers: You're welcome!

Anne Summers [0/] Logout:_

Mary Sexton: I have to leave now it is M's turn. Night all

Mary Sexton [0/] Logout:_

END OF CHAT

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Sheryle Moon - 8 March - Part One

Posted by: Trudy Moore 16 Mar - 06:54 pm

Women's History Month > WHM 2003 Discussion Archives > Sheryle Moon - 8 March - Part Two

Posted by: Trudy Moore 16 Mar - 06:56 pm