A classic speech from Gillard

Gillard's speech to the parliament this week about Abbott's misogyny is a watershed in her leadership. It was an 'about time' moment, especially for many women listeners. It was 'about time' in that many media commentators have lamented the lack of 'real Julia' presented to the public, and 'about time' in relation to an increasing tirade of sexist and offensive comments that have been directed at the Prime Minister by fellow politicians, the media and the public.

I should begin by saying I am not a fan of Gillard's leadership. More than a decade ago I attended one of her early Emily's list fund raisers, excited at the prospect of a progressive female candidate making a bid for the Senate. She did not succeed on that occasion, but later went on to do so. I am not convinced that deposing Rudd was a necessary move, although I accept he was unpopular amongst party colleagues and that most leaderships are taken by force. I don't agree that the policy platforms on which Rudd campaigned and won by a landslide were likely to bring annihilation for Labor at the next election. More importantly, I consider the price of leadership for Gillard was too great; she made compromises with and through the faceless men leading to the abandonment of principled positions she had previously staunchly taken. Politics in high office always requires compromise; however I guess it is a question of degree. I don't accept Gillard's positions on same sex marriage, asylum, and a range of other matters. And I support the view of Stephanie Convery that feminist credentials require advocacy and support for women from all walks of life. On the same day Gillard delivered her feisty anti sexism speech, the government approved a bill to cut payments for single parents, 'a measure that will disproportionately affect [the most vulnerable] women'.

Despite my perspective on Gillard's politics, I think it is important to make clear that I abhor the misogynist commentary that has shrouded her Prime Ministership. I also understand the symbolic and practical significance of a female Prime Minister. I often marvel at Gillard's resilience, strength, and grace under the incessant pummeling of the Federal opposition, media, and segments of the public; she has a determination and personal strength of which I am in awe. I am also encouraged that as my eight year old daughter's awareness of the world unfolds, she sees on television a woman Prime Minister. Playing Gillard's speech on my computer this week, I could see my daughter edge over behind me with eyes wide open to listen; we were both captivated. It was thrilling to see such passion from Gillard about the issue of sexism, whether or not the purpose of her comments was ultimately politically expedient. Any woman who has experienced sexist comments or behavior in work or public life is likely to have felt enormously validated by Gillard's delivery. Abbott has suggested in the parliament that Gillard should 'make an honest woman of herself', invoking a sexist stereotype about the relationship between a woman's marital status and her character. Can we imagine the outrage in the US, for example, if a commentator invoked Obama's race to criticise his performance? It would be outrageous.

Until this week, Gillard has usually avoided direct engagement with the issue of sexist commentary relating to her Prime Ministership. Her responses to comments and incidents of sexism by Tony Abbott and Alan Jones have been innocuous and deflective; one might say 'statesman like'. Women in leadership tread a precarious line; we must be seen to succeed 'on the merits' without reference to the impact of sexism on our endeavours, or risk being construed as whinging incompetents and excuse makers. It is worth noting that despite the innumerable occasions open to Gillard for commenting about Abbott's sexism, especially in relation to her personal and unfair treatment as Prime Minister, she used the matter of the Peter Slipper affair through which to introduce the topic. In short, although she invoked personal examples of offence taken and poor behavior from Abbott, she raised the issues under a broader framework of the Federal opposition's motion against Slipper. She did not invoke the spectre of sexism to protest her own unfair treatment as Prime Minister (which, as far as I'm concerned, she would be perfectly entitled to do). Instead, she drew upon it to suggest that Abbott's 'road to Damascus' discovery of sexism was a tool to depose Slipper. From a gendered perspective, it was a politically clever move. Gillard was able to keep the faith with her political strategy of generally not invoking the gender card in her own defense, but was concomitantly able to introduce the issue of Abbott's misogyny in the Parliament.

Gillard's speech was reported internationally, including the US, UK, and Canada, as a bold and strategic act. Conversely, much of the local media, mostly it appears male commentators, labelled it a mistake.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/we-expected-more-of-gillard-20121009-27bd6.html#ixzz28rm4pm00http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/we-expected-more-of-gillard-20121009-27bd6.html#poll
Yes - her actions were part of a political strategy in the unfortunate Peter Slipper mess and yes, as I have acknowledged, a broad range of criticisms can be made of Gillard. However such local media analysis beggars belief; it was a politically powerful speech, in content, delivery, and timing, and will certainly be one of the most remembered moments of her Prime Ministership. During a week in which Margie Abbot was attempting to stem the hemorrhaging of women's votes from the Liberal party, Gillard pointed out just how far Tony Abbott was from having an interest or commitment to women's rights. She was careful to draw distinctions between her individual views as a woman (for example on the issue of abortion, a political hot potato with conservative electors, but also a non negotiable right in the eyes of most women's lobbies) and issues that could be seen as offensive to all Australian women. Her choice of Abbott criticisms was carefully sequenced, leading to a climactic admonishment of Federal opposition front benchers for remaining silent in the face of Alan Jones' grotesque comments about her father. It should not escape our attention that during the week Turnball spoke out strongly against Jones' abhorrent behaviour; and that it was he who graced a conspicuous place in newspapers some weeks ago offering his condolences to Gillard in parliament.

On a personal note, I was interested to note Gillard's choice of Abbott quotes. We have been told by the media that little of the 'true Gillard' is presented for public consumption; the implication being that she hides herself. Given the wealth of sexist Abbott material that might be drawn upon, it was all the more interesting to see what had riled Gillard. Further, it was possible to identify through the inflections in her voice, the issues and instances about which she was more angry than others.

The sense I've gained from women colleagues and friends this week is that Gillard's speech felt cathartic; it was a symbolic response to a growing disgust amongst Australian women (and many men) regarding expressions of patent sexism in the public arena. Recent examples range from the purile and degrading comments of Kyle Sandilands, to those of Alan Jones who said current women leaders were 'destroying the joint'. And while some might not consider Jones' comments about Gillard's father sexist (I do), they were nonetheless innately vile. In another sexist display, Lindsay Tanner, and especially Christopher Pyne, behaved appallingly toward Kate Ellis on last Monday's Q & A. The brazen attitude underpinning this behaviour is provocative; it is one thing to hear sexist comments in private, but to hear their unfettered expression by prominent public figures is another.

The Federal opposition is clearly aware it has a 'woman problem'. Whatever its views of Margie Abbott, the press was in furious agreement that her appearance reflected poor polling numbers for Abbott. And is it any wonder. As Ellis explained on Monday, neither she nor women voters need to be convinced of Margie's love for Tony. It is Abbott's position on women's issues and rights that worries women. This problem would not be fixed even if Wonder Woman was to stand alongside Abbott and proclaim his comfort at living among her sisters on Amazon island. History's greatest misogynists have lived with women - even 'strong women' - so this is no badge of feminism. Judgments of Abbott by women, and progressive men, is based on his past and present comments; his own words and deeds rather than constructions of them. And Gillard's passionate oration this week offered some salve to those of us who have screamed silently at the radio and television while the likes of Abbott and Jones set the equality cause back 100 years.

Reclaim the Night - Reconciling past and future practices

The death of Jillian Meagher has shaken and touched Melbournians. People want to do something with the grief, anger, and sadness they feel over the events of this week. It is a a testament to the beauty and strength of Melbourne's residents that most of that action reflects a desire to make meaning of things in a positive way; to stand in solidarity with Jillian's family and friends through flower tributes, moving prose and memorials, and by speaking out about the broader issue of violence against women. Numbers of marches and rallies promoting peace and the right of women to walk safely in the streets have been, or are being, planned. Among these is a Reclaim the Night march, drawing on a long tradition of marches that arose during the 'second wave' of feminism in the 1960s. Reclaim the Night marches are historically organised, run, and attended by women only. Their purpose is to assert women's equal human rights by laying our equal claim to the public space - without depending on men's permission. In 2012 - and in particular this week - large numbers of men have expressed a desire to participate in the foreshadowed march. It has been no surprise to me that almost all women in the generation below me think men's participation is welcome and imperative; however the historical exclusion of men from these events did not occur in some rabid feminist, male hating vacuum. Before considering how practices of the past might be reconciled with practices in the future, it is imperative to understand where women's only events and spaces originated from. 

When the second wave of feminism came about, women argued that they had been so dominated and suppressed in society that they wanted spaces where they could think through issues, find their own voices, and decide for themselves - without men driving the agenda. Patriarchy is a system that encourages a normative view which enables men to have power over women. This doesn't mean every man will exert that power in a negative way, just like it doesn't mean that every white person is evil in a racist world; however it does mean that all those who are privileged in the dominant social circumstances (e.g. men in a patriarchy) benefit from that system, while often denying its existence. There is a plethora of research from last century to show that in dual sex spaces (e.g. even in classrooms) boys dominat(ed) talk, ideas, and decision making. In a patriarchy, both men and women learn their roles. To a large extent, the second wave of feminism was about challenging these 'taken for granted' roles; including women's historical role of turning to men or the male space for 'permission'. In late 20th Century, women leaders wanted the chance to think out loud without the criticism of patriarchal institutions (such as the media) curbing their ability to define women's roles in new ways. But most importantly, they didn't want to have to seek men's permission to act in relation to issues which were about their human rights. It was absolutely critical that 'helpful' men didn't step in and drive and decide the agenda. Thus there were consciousness raising groups (where women discussed issues from the banality of housework to the labor of beauty regimes), many women's only spaces, and of course rallies like Reclaim the Night. 

Men were often offended and affronted by women's only events/spaces - after all it was women, not men, whose participation in public spaces had been highly regulated. Women's efforts to assert power over themselves and their own lives were undermined in myriad ways. Feminists were caricatured as man hating, hairy legged, abominations. The patriarchy told us there were 'good women' (who were heterosexual, adhered to proper beauty standards, were married or looking for a suitable husband,  and who 'waited' for their rights) and 'bad women' (who had taken things 'too far'). Our feminist fore-mothers fought the effects of patriarchy among both men and women; part of patriarchy's tactics was to divide and conquer, with 'good women' critiquing the behaviours of 'bad women'. It is in this context that women's only spaces took on such significance.

When movements of liberation are gearing up or occurring, the importance of separate spaces cannot be underestimated. Diasporic slave communities (like the African Americans), indigenous communities (e.g. Aboriginal Australia), LGTB communities - have all struggled to articulate, own, and represent themselves in ways that aren't invidiously influenced or straight out censored by dominant, white, straight, patriarchal agendas. That these groups might seek to direct and control spaces and events about their own issues is hardly offensive. These safe spaces have been used to think through and challenge ideas that have been sold as 'common sense'. For example, patriarchal ideology tells us that women invite attack, through their behaviour and dress, from men who cannot be expected to help themselves. Therefore it makes 'common sense' to counsel women that they can be 'helped' to live free from violence if they simply behave according to appropriate feminine standards. That women might wear short skirts and red lipstick, and march in the night time without male chaperons and male permission flies in the face of this historical 'common sense'. A further popular means through which patriarchal society tries to minimise the appearance that violence is one of its pervasive strategies is by suggesting that there are only a few 'errant' men who offend publicly (stranger danger) while the vast majority of men 'behave' - again, vesting blame with the women who invite attack from the errant few. Of course, we know that violence is a more institutional problem. Most women are violated by men they know in the private space. Reclaim the Night is about saying that women have every entitlement to public space, and that it is theirs to claim, without the need to seek permission or conform to a particular standard of 'appropriate' female behaviour.

So where might men's participation fit in a 2012 march? Much has changed in the past sixty years, including the attitudes of society generally and of many men. I would never argue, and think it is disingenuous to argue, that little has changed for women; my life, and the life of many of my friends, is a testament to that change. However change is slow and erratic; and it favours some over others. One thing that hasn't changed are the ideas that patriarchy promotes to undo feminist change. And among those ideas is a persistent claim that the battle has already 'been won'; that feminism is no longer necessary. Many of the young people with whom I've worked in higher education consider themselves liberated from gender politics and believe that violence against either men or women is the same kind of infraction. Yes - all violence is bad. However it is pivotal to recognise discourses of discrimination that systematically dis-empower particular groups through violence. Violence against women is disproportionately perpetrated by men. Violence against minority groups is a strategy to encourage individuals in those groups to self regulate - to be 'good women' or 'good migrants' or good whatever. Violence has been a tool for the subjugation of minority groups for eons; segregation was maintained in the US through lynchings of black men who didn't 'mind their place'. Aboriginal deaths in custody might also be seen as a case in point. In short, yes - all violence is bad - but to recoil from naming institutionalised, political violence (in big or small forms) that privileges some groups over others is, I think, to ignore social injustice. Gender disparity is effected through thousands of big and small acts every day. I have been lucky enough to grow up in an era where legislative inequality has been largely challenged (at least on its face). I've had the benefit of a quality education and I've made hundreds of choices that were not available to my mother; I have the women's movement and all the men who supported it to thank for that.  However continuing forms of oppression - unequal wages, a continuing gendered segregation of labour, the legislating of women's body rights, and violence and objectifying practices designed to keep women 'in their place', are keen reminders that gender inequity is social and institutional. It is not, as patriarchal ideology would have us believe, just in the minds of a few women who take things 'too far'.

Despite the importance of marginal groups claiming their own voices and spaces, it has always been the case (and still is) that individuals from more privileged groups have supported, assisted, and even sometimes given their lives in support of social justice causes. Personally, I feel humbled to see the number of men who have spoken up this week about the issue of violence against women and its unacceptability - it is definitely a different world to the one my mother grew up in. I think anybody who is prepared to challenge discriminatory social discourses, even if they are privileged by them, should be included in the movement for change. However participation, and entitlement, are two different things. Men should not be allowed to speak for women. For example, I do not think it is alright for the men interested in supporting a Reclaim the Night march to decide the parameters of the march, including  whether or not they should be allowed to march. Male marchers need to be respectful of the terms upon which women are marching. When I work and activate with my friends, loved ones and colleagues in Aboriginal, LGBT, or migrant politics, I recognise that I am being invited 'in'. I do not walk in their shoes and I do not speak for them. My obligation is to listen to the impact of their lived experiences and to privilege their understandings of those experiences. It is also to share whatever knowledge and skills I can in order to help bring about change. I consider it a privilege and a responsibility to create change in terms that respect their voices.

Reclaim the Night is a march with a particular purpose. That purpose has been debated, refined, and developed over decades by women who struggled to assert their rights in circumstances where they were characterised as 'bad' for doing so. Reclaim the Night is not about trying to 'protect' women, or demanding that a few rogue men should be put in jail; it is about highlighting violence as a social and institutional issue - as an exercise of patriarchal power.  It is about women marching to claim the public space, with men's permission or not. Very importantly, it should not carry messages that re-inscribe old fashioned stereotypes about women and how they should behave.  There is a real danger that, in their efforts to ensure male relatives and friends feel comfortable and welcome at the march, women will seek to promote a more 'general' message about non violence, and dilute down the fact that violence against women is a gendered issue and that most violence against women is perpetrated by men. Such a step would simply be 'permission seeking' in another form. However, if the core values of RTN can be maintained, I will be thankful, excited, and joyful to participate in a march with both men and women in October 2012.