The Age and the Herald Scum are calling today the official start to the Victorian Election Campaign. On the other side of the world however news is reaching us in London of Natasha Stott Despoja’s resignation from politics. Concerned that the female numbers are dwindling, I look to the candidates in the Victorian election hoping to find a considerable rank of women ready to take the challenge and am sorely disappointed.
I continue to be dismayed by the roles that women play in Australian politics. Do we really have to be like Louise Asher to succeed? Don’t be distracted by the Liberal Party’s hard edged, female deputy leader. Behind this token gesture only 4 of the 26 elected Liberals are women with portfolios. In fact only 25 of the 123 Liberal candidates are women.
The Labor party have a few more women in their ranks however if you are lucky enough to find yourself in the front benches, expect your portfolio to revolve around either health or education, as 5 of the 8 elected women currently do.
Why do the Labor and Liberal parties think that women are only concerned with education? If you read the almost laughable women’s policy on the Liberal Party Website, you will learn that ‘real progress for Victorian Women’ is becoming a teacher when returning to work after having your family. They also mention safety, an improved listening service and a program to mentor 20 female entrepreneurs. But that’s it. Sorry did I say this policy was laughable? On a second look it’s damn insulting! Was this policy written by a man? If I want to have children and a career I have to be a teacher? What about the shocking report yesterday on the Herald Scum’s website that victims of rape are now finding themselves in the jury for other rape trials? Thank goodness we have a woman like Barbara Biggs of People Power to remind us of the real issues concerning women – fingers crossed the constituents of Prahran agree with me. The women of Victoria need a legal system that protects them and equality in the workplace not the lame offerings of the Liberal Party. But I have to add, if you manage to find any women’s policies on the Labor Party’s website, please let me know.
So with the prediction that the Greens will hold the balance of power in the Upper House I will have to be content with the hope that some of their women and women’s policies find themselves in power. The ratio of women to men in the Greens and their women’s policies put them far ahead of the more historically dominant parties. 150 years to the day since the first sitting of parliament in the colony called Victoria, have we women really come that far? Judging by the current numbers and positions of power – I think we have a long way to go.
And while I’m at it, a big thumbs up to Clare Bowditch. Still revealing in the success of her surprise Aria award Clare used her media opportunity to draw attention to the cuts in funding for the Arts from the current Labor Party. I just hope the female candidates in this election are as outspoken.
Victoria, maybe I’ve been listening to righties on this issue for too long, but frankly I wonder whether the lack of government grants for popular music performers is a blessing in disguise.
How much government grant funding has Australian classical music received? How much cultural impact has Australian classical music had on Australia and the wider world? Can you even name an Australian piece of classical music?
The contrast with Australia’s popular musicians could not be more stark.
Yes, there is undoubtedly a big role for government in promoting a musical culture – for instance, in appropriate zoning laws that make it economically viable for musicians to play, supporting concerts and festivals, and supporting musical education. And, perhaps, even things like income tax exemptions for incomes below a threshold earned in the arts. But would every garage band in Melbourne filling out grant applications be helpful to the development of Australian music? I remain unconvinced.
my local member Christine Campbell is an ALP woman who violently opposes women’s right to choose – so really I dont think being a woman of itself is any recommendation for higher office – especially when one catholic weirdo works against the rights of her sisters.
Hmmm. I’m all for having policies on balancing work and family and on reproductive rights, for example, but women’s policies???
I’d far rather the government continues, for example, the excellent work they’ve been doing in making midwifery-led care a more available option for pregnant women, rather than having specific “women’s policies”.
And quite frankly, on anything other that reproductive rights and pregnancy care, policies labelled “women’s policies” are out-dated and a little bit insulting.
Ditto….Ditto…Ditto.
Right on! I had no idea who she was at the time, but met her once when our respective kids were playing together at the local playground. She’s ace! A really genuine, sweet person.
Machine politics in Australia are played mainly by rapacious shits.
Rapacious shits are successful because voters are either innured to their vulgarity, or they actively endorse it.
Insufficient women have exhibited the character flaws associated with political success in Australia’s major party systems.
I’m uncertain which of the following is the most susceptible to change:
1. Women organising themselves to play the political game by the current rules, thus achieving success along traditional lines — factionalism, caucusing, bargaining, character assassination, branch-stacking, extortion, actual bodily violence.
2. Political parties deciding their cultures are toxic and working to achieve outcomes that deny success to the most rapacious who practice politics by means outlined above.
3. The electorate revolting against parties with toxic cultures and giving their votes to non-toxic parties.
My goodness, Katz, are you honestly suggesting women have less character flaws than men?
I can’t even begin to tell you what’s wrong with that assertion.
Women should be in parliament as equals because we are equals. When we start getting into notions that women have special qualities etc etc we are on dangerous ground.
In the past, women’s supposed moral superiority was used as an excuse to prevent their entrance into politics.
“And quite frankly, on anything other that reproductive rights and pregnancy care, policies labelled âwomenâs policiesâ? are out-dated and a little bit insulting.”
What about everything that goes along with being the gender that gets pregnant, takes time off work, want to go back with some flexibility, tends to take on more caring responsibilities, needs access to affordable childcare options, tends to have time out of the workforce and may need access to retraining and income support?
Or the other issues that effect women like still being discriminated against on the basis of gender and still largely being excluded from many professions, etc…???
There are so many other issues that effect women specifically (other than pregnancy care and reproductive rights) and having a government that recognises these issues and has a policy on them is not something that I would find remotely insulting.
I bet I’ll take longer to work out how to explain to Rebekka how badly she misread my comments.
My comments have nothing to do with any innate qualities that may or may not inhere in women.
Insofar as my comments refer specifically to women, they refer to their persisting inability and/or unwillingness to play the political machine game by the rules that were long constituted before women began to play an active role in politics.
If you don’t know the rules of the game you won’t play the game well. If you take time to learn the rules but neglect to practice you won’t play the game well. If you don’t persist and follow through to a kill you won’t play the game well.
If you don’t achieve power you won’t be in a position to change the rules of the game.
If you fail to achieve or decide not to attempt to achieve any of the above, the only way to change politics is from the outside.
Cristy – “and still largely being excluded from many professions” – which ones, apart from some specific military jobs???? You need to out them so I can protest!!
Question – Is the gender balance of candidates reflecting a bias against women who stand for pre-selection? If it does, then there is an issue. If it doesn’t, then there is nothing to complain about. If women want to be politicians then get on with it and make yourselves suitable for selection and become a preselection candidate.
I understand the ALP has mandatory affirmative action preseleection policies. If women want to be politicians so much the ALP should have no problem hitting 50% females since they have positive discrimination on their side. So what’s the problem???
My point was that when you assume
are WOMEN’S issues rather than issues anyone with a family has, all you’re doing is perpetuating the myth that these issues only affect women, that women are the only ones who raise children and that men have bugger all to do with it.
I am not suggesting we shouldn’t have policies on these issues, just that they are issues anyone who cares for children has, and we shouldn’t assume that’s just the ladies!
The suggestion that we’re still being discriminated against – well, der. But we already have equal opportunity legislation, how much further do you want the government to intervene. Perhaps they could investigate every instance where a man gets hired rather than a woman?
As for Katz, well, you may have MEANT something different, but when you say
it sounds very much as though you are suggesting women are less flawed, generally, than men – which as Darlene points out, was used as an excuse for keeping us out of politics and other things which were No Job For A Lady. I venture to suggest that the problem was not with my comprehension, but rather with the way you expressed yourself.
I guess I’ll have to wait for the adoption of a sardonic emoticon to accompany any such comments in future.
In the meantime, I’ll endeavour to be blandly literal, if I feel like it.
But for the purposes of future discussion on this point, take my second statement of them as definitive of my point of view on the issue of success in Australian mainstream political parties.
It behooves us to be wary of essentialist “explanations” of prima facie gender-based differences in patterns of political participation.
As an example: the apparent high level of involvement of women in environmental movements and campaigns has at various times been “explained” in essentialist terms (e.g. women’s greater closeness to nature, women being more nurturing and hence more environmentally aware, etc.). There are in fact much more straightforward sociological, economic and political explanations. Two of the most obvious of these are:
1. As Tasmania University Jan Pakulski argued in his Social Movements: The Politics of Moral Protest (1991), the political closure or near-closure (until recently) to women of formal political organisations such as parties and trade unions meant that politically and socially aware women were more likely to find an hospitable environment for participation in mass social movements such as the environment movement.
2. More women than men are outside the paid workforce and available for activity in community environmental campaigns. This was a point noted by Claus Offe in his influential 1985 study of new social movements. This pattern of homemaker activism has historical antecedents such as Victorian era philanthropic activity by middle class women, involvement of homemakers in organisations such as the Union of Australian Women and the Peace and Disarmament Movement, the Hunters Hill housewives who collaborated with the BLF to save Kellys Bush in the 1970s, etc.
It would make for a very interesting research project to look at how the combination of the opening up (at least on paper) of formal political structures to women’s participation and the narrowing of the gender gap in levels of workforce participation have influenced gender-based differences in political participation.
Young feminists beware. Apart from anything else, it is very easy but counterproductive and self-defeating to dismiss an argument on the grounds of essentialism. You ignore oestrogen at your peril, for a start. And if you are Virginia Hausegger, you will then turn around and blame somebody else.
If you do not remain vigilant about these things you will find yourselves back at the bottom of the social/professional/economic/intellectual heap before you can say ‘biological clock’. The basic structures and infrastructures of patriarchy have not substantially changed; they are merely wearing makeup.
Which is a very easily wipe-offable disguise.
What are we supposed to be vigilant about, exactly?
Personally I would never go into politics, even if I was interested in it as a career, because I don’t want my family life and previous life put under the microscope for disection and derision. Until the media and other politicians stop using making personal attacks on women who try to get somewhere in politics it won’t be very attractive for too many of us.
Rebekka
A scan of articles to be found on the NCSMC website, might provide you with the answers to what needs more vigilance.
Actually, jl, the question related to Pavlov’s cat’s comments regarding essentialism as an argument, dismissing oestrogen and blaming someone else – I did not need a primer of feminist issues (and by the way if you were suggesting that issues relating to sole parenting are “women’s issues” then again, that is counter-productive and perpetuates the myth that women should be solely responsible for children – obviously currently most single parents are mothers, but continuing the frame the debate in these terms is essentially admitting defeat before you’ve even started to argue).
Rebekka,
Your response seems to indicate that you have not scanned for articles that may have been relevant to your argument about essentialism. In particular, issues related to government reforms that are entrenching gender divides as described in the article:
When Unpaid Work Doesn’t Count: The Commodification of Family Life in the new Welfare to Work Order
You may also notice from the language on the NCSMC website, that recognition is made of the concepts in most of your last comment.