This year marks the centenary of women’s suffrage in Victoria. The launch of “Victorian Women Vote: 1908-2008″ will take place at Federation Square on Tuesday 19 February at 12.00pm. Â
Incidentally, my home country (Queensland) gave women the vote in 1905, three years before the Victorians. Here’s what some male politicians from Queensland thought about the issue at the time:
Another argument is that women will vote in a body and a number of my friends have a great horror of that.
If they get the franchise, they will be saying to their husbands, “Look here, I am going to a meeting. You can stop home and mind the children”…That is how the women’s franchise will work. By and by there will be no children at all.
One thing about the “spoilers” of any major political advance - about the only things that change in their doomsday negativity are the names of the groups and individuals to whom they refuse to extend due recognition. Rhetoric of anti-suffrage activists is no different in tone (and, in many cases, word choice) from that mouthed by the anti-”Sorry” brigade … or the anti-abolitionist, anti-male suffrage, anti-Federation etc etc.
That’s a very good point, DeeCee. We might be fortunate that the comments by those Queensland blokes seems funny now, but similar attitudes continue.
Really, that quote should be saved by everyone so that is handy, ready to be deployed at a moment’s notice whenever some enemy of humankind sprouts some mindfuck of a prophecy. Next time I read an opponent of gay marriage claim it would mean the end of marriage, I’ll have this quote out of the holster lickity-split.
Ah yes, end of the world. Expecting men to stay home and keep an eye on their own children occasionally…
Darlene
Yes Happy Anniversary, indeed. Have you read Naomi Wolf’s Fire With Fire? I have only read excerpts from it as I think she is a dill and a bad writer. However, her point about women making up well over 50% of the voting population in the US (and presumably Australia) and the politically-strategic “gender” opportinities that presents was a real “bing” moment for me. Would you agree however, that this simply has not happened? If so, what do you think about my idea that contra to the gender feminists, males and females simply do not place that particular part of their identity high on their list of political affiliations?
Do you have any data on how many people vote a particular way because their spouse does? I don’t know if this was even possible at the time, but my grandmother used to tell me that my grandfather used to tick her voting forms! Also until the day she died he nebver allowed her to learn how to drive!
Dee Cee
Including the “anti-sorry brigade” in this group is a category error and an unwelccome abuse of an issue that rests on its own merits.
“Some foolish people imagine our ladies will neglect their family duties. Quite a mistake. 3 am. That dear good old creature, Mr Speaker, is kind enough to take the blessed infant while the Hon. Member addresses the house.”
Melbourne Punch 14/4/1887
Apropos men looking after their own children occassionally, I’m constantly amazed (and slightly horrified) when I see some poor, harried woman at the supermarket trying to deal with small children as well as the week’s shopping. I doubt that they’re all single mothers, and I don’t see how it would hurt the prick they’re married to to either do the shopping or mind the kids.
Damn the picture showed in the sandbox but not here
*sigh*
Here’s the link again
OK I give up
Cartoon
I didn’t know that, Darlene, thanks very much for this. what kind of damn feminist blogger am I? My only excuse is that I’m originally from SA, where they beat y’all by bringing it in in 1985. Of course the Kiwis beat us to it as well.
1895!!!
How embarrassment
Thanks, Helen. Tee hee, 1985. SA really is the armpit of the nation if that’s the case.
John, will answer your question later. No time now.
Actually, the Queensland politician was spot on in his prediction.
I go to a political meeting on the second Tuesday of every month, and my husband always stops home and minds the children.
John, I can’t speak for Darlene of course, and I haven’t read that particular book, but I did hear Naomi Wolfe speak on the issue in Sydney a couple of years ago, and I felt that her opinions were based on some shaky ground. Firstly, it is completely naive to think that women will vote as a unified voting bloc. The idea behind feminism is that women have equal rights, not that all women think, act, and vote the same way. Women’s political opinions will always be as diverse as men’s political opinions. Secondly, Wolfe seemed to be operating under the assumption that Australia did not have a compulsory voting system. In the US, women tend to turn out to vote in greater numbers than men, and as a result, particular lobby groups capable of mobilising voters are more powerful. That just doesn’t work here.
In those (voluntary voting) countries which keep reliable figures, the Euroids, UK, Canada & USA, women are up to 18% more likely to vote than males. In the old East Bloc, for what it was worth (SFA..) it was up to 00% but.. reliable figures, don’t think so.
Happy anniversary!
Darlene, did you get to see the exhibition marking the 100th anniversary in Qld? I think it was at the State Library, but am not absolutely sure.
Today Julia Gillard was the Acting Prime Minister of Australia for the second time and thus a women was Acting PM for the second time in our history.
It passed virtually without comment [I only noticed cos she was introduced as such on a Radio National segment] which is probably good cos its now seen as accepted, normal, unremarkable.
Just one step to go.
My mother (now deceased)was born in 1920. Her mother was in the generatiuon that dod not originally have the right to vote. As a child, I can remember both women considering the democratic right to vote very important.
Did a bit of digging around and came up with the following info and stats. In 1911 compulsory enrolment to vote, (not voting) was introduced in Australia. By 1922 voting numbers had declined from 70% in the previous election (1919) to 59.4% in 1922. Consequently the Parliament passed a private member’s bill (one of the rare occasions) to introduce compulsory voting for the 1925 election, at which voter participation was 91.4%. Its almost impossible because of the secret ballot to get a gender5 breakdown on the non-compulsory voting figures, but we do know (apparently)that in South Australia in the first Federal election (when voting was not compulsory) that only 23.82% of women voted.This last figure raises all sorts of interesting questions. Why was the figure so low? because women thought it was pointless? Because their husbands wouldn’t let them vote? Because they weren’t interested in politics/government? etc, etc. We have no way of knowing (that I’ve been able to discover in such brief research), whether the South Aust. experience was t5ypical and applied to other states when they had the vote before voting was compulsory, or whether SA was in some way unique. Just founs the q1uestion historically interesting, that’s all.
Paul a contributing factor to women having low rates of voting in SA may have been property ownership laws.
In SA the Upper House [Leg. Council] retained property qualifications for decades after suffrage was available in the Lower House.
My parents bought their house in the days when banks normally excluded ‘housewives’ from having their names on mortgages etc and thus many women were not legally property owners and not entitled to vote at local government elections or SAs Upper House.
The latter only changed when Donny Dunstan pulled a swifty of some sort [I forget the detail] and women were able to vote in the Upper House. Round about the mid 60s if I remember right.
That was the first time my mum was able to have a full vote and he was rapt in Don.
Hannah’s Dad,
Thanks heaps. That certainly looks like a partial explanation. My question then being why did it carry over into Federal elections where there were no property qualifications? Because women thought they might face the same hassle they faced at State elections, not knowing the system was different? It says something about Federal politicians’ lack of enthusiasm about getting the populace to vote, perhaps? Or would the newspaper proprietors not give it publicity because they did not approve of women’s suffrage? Just questions off the top of my head.
I don’t know the answer to your questions but the low women’s vote may have been due to being surrounded by all powerful males, remember women were largely invisible in politics then. “It was a man’s world”. Which amplifies Julia’s value as a role model today, not to mention her predecessors.
In my mum’s case the situation was exacerbated by the fact that we lived in a ‘company town’ where we didn’t even have democratically elected local government.The males of the town voted for 4 male reps on the Town Commission, the company nominated 4 others and the [conservative] state government named the 9th rep who was the Town Commissioner.
This situation was considered ‘normal’ but you can see how it would not excite debate among the plebs when they realized the practical limitations to their democracy.
Perhaps women felt the same way as in ” Why vote when we are not a real part of the system?”
Nothing empowers like power and that takes time [short of a political revolution] to develop.
Just speculating.
Nice post, Darlene.
As for the quoted words of the late Donald MacKintosh, I can think of a few modern pollies whose attitudes haven’t changed much. The kitchen, creche and bedroom brigade, alas, is still with us.
John, I think there have been attempts to galvinise women as a “voting bloc” or a political bloc (e.g. short-lived women’s parties), however, I don’t think this is feasible or even attractive. Women aren’t a cohesive group (few groups are, in my opinion). Having said that, there are times when women have been discriminated against as if they’re a cohesive group.
I read Fire with Fire years ago. That was Naomi’s little power feminism treatise, which is something I thought you’d support. She was arguing against what has been described as “victim feminism”.
It’s been argued in the past that women vote the same way as their husbands (or at least historically did), but can’t find stats to back this up.
Ahh, yes, the harried mum at the shops. Mind you, one does see a lot of dads pushing prams and carrying bub in those pouch things. However, these dads aren’t as prevalent as they should be.
Oh dear, your poor old husband, Pangar
Tee hee, enjoy those meetings.
No, didn’t see that, Mark. I think I had moved to Melbourne by the time that exhibtion was on. It’d would’ve been interesting.
That’s true, Hannah’s Dad. When it’s not mentioned is when we can feel confident that things have truly changed. We’re getting there.
It’s very interesting, Paul. Perhaps the women just couldn’t consider voting as something they should do at that time. Probably many explanations.
That’s true, Evan. One can see certain bloke pollies muttering under their breath in the bar (Strangers Bar?) about the bloody creches etc. Well, nuts to them.
Darlene
I based my assessment of Wolf on The Beauty Myth (which you and I briefly discussed over Xmas), and extracts in newspapers. But my post above I did say I was impressed with her Fire With Fire idea
“However, her point about women making up well over 50% of the voting population in the US (and presumably Australia) and the politically-strategic “genderâ€? opportinities that presents was a real “bingâ€? moment for me.”
So in a way I do support that particular IDEA/INSIGHT of hers in so far as it does raise some very interesting issues about identity, gender, and political strategies. I might not be so in agreement with what she might argue should be done with those ideas and insights.
Darlene;
Sorry for not posting here earlier.
Female Suffrage didn’t lead to “Kitchen Government” after all but it did remove a stupid injustice and it inspired quite a few to seek other improvements like a full education for all and equal pay for equal work.
In a way, I feel a bit sorry for the so-called “Taliban”. In suppressing half the talent in their midst, they have halved their strength. Just imagine how weak Australia would have been if we had continued to ignore half our talent.