| |
| Gillian
Polack |
| Posted: 01
Mar - 08:22 am |
|
|
Discussion Leader
Group: Discussion Leaders
Posts: 44
Member No.: 4
Joined: 21-February 03
|
I
am going to start the ball rolling with a
couple of simple questions (simple to type,
anyhow - I am not at all sure that there
are simple answers).
Firstly, do political processes shape the women's history we
receive?
Secondly, what women's history do we receive from public places?
The reason for the second question is that I did a little survey
of men vs women in public monuments as part of the research for
a novel I wrote last year, and the male statues well outnumbered
the female statues (unless you included goddesess and muses -
in which case the numbers were closer to even).
Gillian |
 |
| Sabrina |
| Posted: 01
Mar - 07:41 pm |
|
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1
Member No.: 74
Joined: 1-March 04
|
Hi
Gillian
Just to comment on a small portion of your
post, I think it is worth noting that the
predominance of politicians are male (few
women senior MPs, and no women as PM yet!),
and as politicians, especially senior politicians,
they themselves become history in the making
when they take office. As a result, when
women are not equally represented in this
arena, we are automatically under-represented
in this part of history.
Sabrina |
|
| MarySexton |
| Posted: 02
Mar - 02:23 am |
|
|
Discussion Leader
Group: Discussion Leaders
Posts: 19
Member No.: 6
Joined: 21-February 03
|
Hi
Gillian I would like to comment on your first
question. One of the WHM events in 2004 is
the Nancy Keesing Memorial Lecture which
is being given by Caroline Jones at the State
Libray of NSW. Caroline's topic is entitled
'Editing women out of Australian History'.
I understand that she has found some original
material that will be revealed in that lecture.
|
|
| ChristinaR |
| Posted: 02
Mar - 02:27 am |
|
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 4
Member No.: 66
Joined: 27-February 04
|
Politics
is very relevant in shaping our historical
record, Gillian. For example, in recent years
in this country there has been a major defunding
of organisations that provide advocacy for
women. This has happened at the national
level and also at the ACT level. We still
have no women’s funding program in
the ACT.
The impact of this defunding is to remove the capacity of women
to speak in an organised way, and has removed the resources to
coordinate our work and to record it with surety. There have
been attempts to continue in a voluntary capacity but this has
gradually lessened as women’s lives are stretched.
Most importantly, without the support of our organisations (the
real result of defunding) we are unable to be heard publicly
with any real strength. This is of course the intention of the
defunding and over a period of several years it has succeeded.
Without being heard publicly the voice of women becomes silent
in this media focussed world.
I’m actually reading Anne Summers recent book about the
end of equality and it tells the story of the defunding very
well (and tallies with my recollections from being in there at
the time) and explains the reasons behind it with equal relevance.
Depressing but true, alas.
Christina
|
|
| TrishA |
| Posted: 05
Mar - 02:45 pm |
|
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3
Member No.: 81
Joined: 5-March 04
|
The
'editing out of women' has an historical
and ongoing fact that naturally filters down
from politics into all walks of life.
With little or no political voice a woman's
story, whether it be routine, empowering
or monumentally important simply does not
get heard.
Media and the politics of media shape our society and all too
often the unheard are forgotten, if they were ever known in the
first place.
Trish |
|
| thena |
| Posted: 09
Mar - 12:47 am |
|
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1
Member No.: 71
Joined: 29-February 04
|
The
media certainly shapes how we see our recent
history. Quite often stories about women's
achievements have to be presented in a way
that appeals to the readership rather than
allowing non stereotypical images to emerge.
Perhaps they do that with men's stories as
well, but it is not in the interests of women
to be typecast. I have recently had a personal
experience of a journalist wishing to write
an article about a succesful woman member
of my profession. I was asked to suggest
names of suitable women. The criteria he
was looking for were very interesting. She
had to be single, in her early thirties,
no children and succesful in business. She
was to be contrasted with the mum who gave
up her career to stay home for her kids.
The message was clearly you have to choose.
You can't have it all. If I was writing the
story I would choose a profile who was trying
to balance it all, as a lot of us have to
do. That's my reality and the way I would
like to record it.
Thena |
|
| ChristinaR |
| Posted: 10
Mar - 02:15 am |
|
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 4
Member No.: 66
Joined: 27-February 04
|
We
often have this dilemma in the disability
sector too, Thena, strong leading women are
not wanted. To get covered you need to be
pathetic, preferably housebound, and definitely "suffering" from
something ghastly. The notion that women
with disabilities can be community leaders
who lead independent lives and have a stake
in other parts of the community than disability
issues is anathema.
We are typecast something fierce and fight constantly to get
away from this. So, in reality sometime down the track in history
the only women with disabilities who are seen will be those ones.
Oh dear.
There is actually a project happening now through a national
disability organisation (not gender focussed) to have the members
tell our stories which will be posted onto their website, so
that there are positive stories of disability out there. This
is one way to reclaim history I guess and one that WHM also uses
to some extent.
I'm also aware that many of us will have personal papers that
we must ensure get archived properly when we die. This way our
activities are also remembered (embarassing though that might
be) and we can continue the work into the future even when we
aren't here to personally do it.
Christina |
|
| Amy |
| Posted: 16
Mar - 06:06 pm |
|
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2
Member No.: 65
Joined: 27-February 04
|
Women's
history is also shaped by media interpretations
of 'success' or 'achievement'. According
to the media, a woman is a success if she
has a high paying job, if people know her
name, if she's relatively good looking, if
she's doing something that usually only the
boys get to do.
She's generally not a success or a high achiever is she excells
in a feminised industry (teaching, childcare, nursing etc), if
her kids are healthy and happy, if she actively contributes to
her community, or if she sucessfully manages to balance any or
all of the above with any kind of paid employment. She is certainly
not a success if she actively articulates the struggles, discrimination
and oppression that women continue to face, or the in equalities
present in our own society or globally.
So automaticially, the media generated image of a successful
women is of a woman excelling in traditional male roles, doing
so without complaining, and with not one hair out of place. Mind
you, if she should stumble the media will be all over her (female
politicians spring to mind).
Not only do these images reinforce capitalist notions of success
based on earning power - notions that have marginalised women
since they arose - these images have two dangerous side effects.
The first is that this image perpetuates the myth that feminism
has done its dash, and that if a women can't 'make it' in today's
world, then it's clearly her fault.
And secondly, it denies the existance of working class and empoverished
women whose behind the scenes toil makes this vision of Western
Male success (superimposed on a few fortunate women) possible.
So I'd say that media plays a huge role in marginalising the
actual realities of women and their history.
I mean look at the Canberra Times IWD supplement. For over a
month this feature was advertised as a place for business to
advertise to a capitive female audience. They clearly had no
intention of actually engaging with any of the issues at the
core of IWD, or giving us more than a superficially upbeat picture
of a pretty limited class of women. Great, feminist liberation
is just a purchase away sisters!! |
|
| Gillian
Polack |
| Posted: 27
Mar - 06:39 am |
|
|
Discussion Leader
Group: Discussion Leaders
Posts: 44
Member No.: 4
Joined: 21-February 03
|
I
was checking out something on the net and
came across this: http://www.bet-debora.de/jewish-women/history.htm
Basically, it is case study of how the
first known woman rabbi came to be forgotten.
It is a sad conjunction of antisemitism
(she died in Auschwitz) and the sort of
political and social decisions that this
topic is all about.
Depressing reading, but worth a look!
Gillian |
|
| caroline |
| Posted: 27
Mar - 08:14 pm |
|
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1
Member No.: 96
Joined: 27-March 04
|
I'd
like to reply to the discussion on the shaping
of history by the media. I gave a talk for
WHM ('Editing Women out of Australian History')
in Sydney about George Robertson of Angus & Robertson
and his editing of the manuscripts of Henry
Lawson and C.E.W. Bean. An article was written
about my research and published in the media
on the 8th. What happened afterwards gave
me a fascinating window into media selection.
To be honest, because it was WHM I had already selected from
my research material which focussed on women and their exclusion
from history, whereas I could also have included intances where
women were put back into history by the very same publisher.
In other words, to provide a sound bite for the media and an
angle for my talk I chose to focus on an aspect of my research
which would be taken up by the media and that is exactly what
happened. An article and six radio interviews followed on 8-9
March.
Before I went to air each time, I had to listen on the phone
to the previous caller and my intro by the presenter. Now a funny
thing happened as this took place. I was subtly introduced to
the radio audience by these presenters and given an introduction
into the kind of people I would be talking to. For example, my
interviewer in Perth made sure that I was aware of my general
audience by preceding me with a male caller interested in sport
who waxed lyrically about a golfer who had won a championship
and who told him something along the lines of 'good onyer mate'.
I knew immediately not to make my interview too academic or literary
or gendered. The Adelaide presenter had a similar caller about
the bushfires but chose to cancel my talk and reintroduced me
next day and embarked upon a literary discussion about Henry
Lawson. My Canberra presenter was interested in the Anzac legend,
my bush presenter spent ages introducing me to his audience making
it crystal clear that I wasn't to go down the track of denigrating
the soldiers of the Great War or be too feminist etc whilst the
Sydney presenter typically focussed on the sexual nuances of
the editing of Henry Lawson!!
What fascinated me was that each presenter had before them the
very same article but by introducing me in a certain way and
then backing up that introduction with a different set of questions,
each interview turned out completely differently.
Cheers
Caroline. |
|
