|
Blog - Page 11 of 14
Far be it from me to be overly optimistic, and sometimes being a feminist means being cranky at cranky-making stuff out there, but it does seem that the F word is making a comeback of sorts – or perhaps it never really went away, it was just drowned out by bad press!
Obviously working at a feminist press and having a degree in women’s studies, I’m attuned to “women’s talk”, but everywhere I turn at the moment the words “feminism” and “gender” are being widely used. And not just at events like the one to celebrate the brilliant essay, Temple of The Female Eunuch: Germaine Greer Forty Years On, by Monica Dux in Kill Your Darlings (in response to the cranky-making essay by Louis Nowra in The Monthly) or in a phone call to the wonderful Women’s Bookshop in Auckland, whose owner Carol says she’s spoilt for choice at the moment.
In the letters pages and opinion columns of the paper; on TV shows as distantly removed as The Circle to Q&A. In writers festival and film festival programs. In books and essays. From an acquaintance who’s part of a “women’s group” and on the tram. Not to mention as the buzzword of Election 2010 here in Australia. But more of that in a minute.
And I’m not the only one feeling positive. Author Emily Maguire commented on Radio National’s Book Show yesterday that she doesn’t brook the question “What’s wrong with feminism?”, countering that she sees feminism in all aspects of life: “There isn’t just one monolithic movement, but it’s out there everywhere…”.
So have the feminists taken over? With a new female PM it kind of feels like it. Not that there’s a sudden flurry of feminist legislation or the like, but certainly a sense of “It’s (about) time”. The “gender agenda” is being questioned in the campaign, and despite attempts to sledge using the F word (Julie Bishop on Julia Gillard “coming from a background of a left-wing feminist”) the general consensus seems to be that it’s about the policies not the sex of the candidates that really matters.
Despite real, cranky-making stats about women’s participation in industry and pay inequity etc, there are plenty of strong, feminist women in our businesses, unis, schools and media, so it makes sense that “feminism is everywhere”. Let’s hope we can see this as a strength in our politicians and leaders. That strong, intelligent women are seen as critical to a strong, intelligent society.
But back to the fun stuff. It’s gatherings of women using the word feminism as a means of coming together that excites me. I don’t think this would have happened a decade ago, when the F word seemed stigmatised, deemed bad, at least in polite company. Two great new Melbourne initiatives are Cherchez la femme and Women of Letters. The first, a salon, with the emphasis on women and the issues of the day. In a pub, fun! The second, a monthly forum which “brings together Melbourne’s best and brightest writers, musicians, politicians and comedians in celebration of the beautiful lost art of letter-writing”. So popular is it that tickets sell out within days and a bigger venue is being sought.
And these gatherings are not just full of lefty 30-somethings weaned onto feminism at the breast of Greer, there are loads of younger women, happy to grab onto the label or not, but all up for a good yarn, interested in power, strength, intelligence and, even, humour. So it seems feminism is thriving in multitudinous and multifarious ways and that women (and men) of all ages are getting into the mix.
Kate Jennings concurred at a recent talk in Melbourne, saying she has hope for future generations and that “every generation comes to feminism in their own way”. She even joked about the “pepto-bismal pink” she sees little girls dressed in left, right and centre, predicting a backlash: “they’re the radical feminists of tomorrow!”.
So with all this positivity, I’m somewhat bemused by the upcoming IQ2/Wheeler Centre debate entitled, “Feminism Has Failed”. Ok I realise debates need to be oppositional, yet this premise seems overly negative. But it’s the line-up that mystifies me most. I won’t name names, but take a look and draw your own conclusions. There is however one place remaining, so my recommendation: email the organisers with your suggestions of who you’d like to see on stage!
View/Add Comments .....
|
Watching the ABC’s Four Corners programme, Heart of Darkness last night I was struck by the fact that this massive level of rape going on in the Democratic Republic of Congo is really a civil war against women. The DRC has been continuously exploited as a nation for its mineral wealth by Western countries and the minerals that make our mobile phones vibrate are just the latest theft of wealth (background reading on the Congo).
The DRC is not alone in its high levels of rape against women. In Nigeria women fear to use the communal toilets because they fear sexual assault. And what about our own countries where despite laws on the books against rape, it is a crime that occurs daily?
The UN is ineffective. They have reduced the word rape to a bureaucratic acronym that makes you feel nothing: GBSV. I’ve had many a friend scratch their head wondering what this might be short for. Amnesty has put out many press releases about violence against women all around the world. Still nothing happens.
In the meantime, pornography is sold on street corners and in milk bars and petrol stations. Girls and women are increasingly sexualised. So-called progressive males keep up their call for an end to censorship so they can get their rocks off. They call for legalisation of prostitution so women can be legally sold a hundred years after the end of slavery.
And that acronym: gender based sexual violence. Let’s call it for what it is. A perfectly good and understandable four-letter word: RAPE. It is violence against women. It is a war against women. On every level of civil society: between nations, within nations, within communities and families – it is a civil war against women.
View/Add Comments .....
|
Spinifex intern Kate Page wonders how much nuptial equality and inclusion we
can really take
As a socially progressive heterosexual single mum (with lots of relatives touting a step- prefix), I say: let’s shake the heterosexual foundations of marriage. And yes, I deliberately leave out any religious affiliation, because let's face it, 60% of us choose not to marry within religious institutions these days, so the religious argument must be dead and buried. Julia Gillard would surely agree, being of no specified religion, and yet, her stance is aligned with that of her predecessor Kevin Rudd.
Julia and the Party have opposed same-sex marriage and in doing so promote a culture of marginalisation around this issue. This is a human rights issue and one of legal and economic equality. This is an issue of personal autonomy and the right to choose. Sixty percent of Australians support same-sex marriage. A recent senate enquiry received 11,000 submissions in support of same-sex marriage (the largest number ever received in a senate enquiry) yet our two major parties are refusing to listen.
By staying where we are on this issue, we are effectively saying that the quality of committed relationships and the quality of love relationships between same-sex couples is lesser than that of the heterosexual community.
I stumbled upon an article that opposed same-sex marriage and reprimanded proponents for using “rhetoric”, like “inclusion”, “tolerance” and “equality” when forming their argument. If you laugh in a confused kind of way here, I am laughing with you. I wonder how many articles in support of same-sex marriage this writer would have needed to read before these three words stood out? Living in Australia, in a democracy, inclusion, tolerance and equality should be for everyone. Yes, I am stating the obvious. And it does seem out-of-date to be grappling with this issue today.
Personally I hold great optimism that we will legalise same-sex marriage before too much longer. The argument against carries little weight and quite simply, is not aligned with the views of the majority of Australians.
Mexico City recently legalised same-sex marriage and in the four months since the bill was passed, 271 same-sex couples got hitched. (That is two or more weddings per day.) A gay friend of mine is looking forward to Australia legalising same-sex marriage. She says, “it’ll be a busy year of weddings for me”. Let's hope when it does happen we don’t overwhelm ourselves with too much tolerance, inclusion and equality!
View/Add Comments .....
|
A blog by Spinifex author Betty McLellan
In Australia, as in all other democratic countries, we’re expected to believe that the principle of Freedom of Speech covers everyone. When I took a closer look at the topic of “speech”, however, I saw that, far from being a universal privilege, speech is free for some but not for others. There’s a kind of power elite made up of mainstream men in influential positions in politics, business and the media who enjoy the power of speech while the rest of us get to listen. We’re bombarded with their words and are supposed to be fascinated as they speak to, argue with, praise and support each other.
The current debate in Australia over the mining tax is a classic example. The debate is between the federal government and the big mining companies, with the media largely siding with the mining companies. We, the people, are the audience. Players on each side of the debate are using “ordinary people” to make their case but neither is actually asking us what we think.
On one side, the government is arguing that the tax is necessary because the Australian people own the mining resources and should get more benefit in terms of money for the government to use to improve infrastructure. On the other side, mining magnates are arguing that the tax will have a negative effect on the Australian people in terms of fewer jobs and lower quality of life when mining companies are forced (by the mining tax) to close down their operations and withdraw their financial support from communities.
Both sides are quite happy to use us, “ordinary Australians”, as pawns in the debate but neither party will listen to, or be influenced by, anything we say. This is indicative of how so-called freedom of speech works in modern democracy – powerful governments, business leaders and the media exercising their right to speech, while the rest of us are silenced.
So, what about the principle of Freedom of Speech? Arundhati Roy was right when she said in her 2004 City of Sydney Peace Prize Lecture: “… the doctrine of Free Speech has been substituted by the doctrine of Free If You Agree Speech”. Most people in society have access to speech when their speech agrees with that of the power elite, but the voices of those who disagree are silenced by being ignored or trivialised or misrepresented. The dissenting voices of radical, political feminists are among those who are silenced.
In Unspeakable: a feminist ethic of speech, I contend that, for speech to be free, it must first be fair. All citizens in democratic societies must have equal access to speech - they must be free to disagree, criticise, express their opinions AND BE HEARD - if the principle of Freedom of Speech is to become a meaningful concept.
Unspeakable is available in print format from OtherWise Publications and will be available next week as an eBook from Spinifex
View/Add Comments .....
|
So Julia Gillard is Australia’s first woman to be PM. I hope she receives better treatment in that position than some of the other women who in the past have been sent in to clean up the mess!
I hope she is treated with the respect she is due. Over the last three years Julia Gillard has shown her toughness and her ability to deal with the rough and tumble of Australian politics. In fact, she has really shone through.
When she first became Deputy Leader of the Labor Party, I was dubious. Although pleased to see her in the position, I was not sure that she would be more than a sop to voters who thought there should be a little more equity in politics. But she has proven me wrong. That’s not to say that she is perfect, but until women are also permitted flaws in public life, we have come nowhere.
I hope she can be a good leader; the kind of leader Australia needs; someone thoughtful and frank; someone who listens. I hope that she is not saddled with too many expectations, because one person, one woman cannot fix all of society’s ills. I hope she can be a real person in a difficult job.
View/Add Comments .....
|
|
 Valence
in chemistry, the number of bonds in an
element’s atom
in linguistics, the number of arguments
...  How much can the heart accommodate? Death and love, an enemy and a sweetheart, war and an impassioned serenade, and more....  A SPINIFEX FEMINIST CLASSIC
“A rigorous, savvy contemporary intellectual history … Read this book.” – Andrea...  Available Now
Mrs Angel Rendle-Short said that a book given to her daughter, Francesca, as an English textbook at school... |
