Aux armes, citoyennes


The other day a storm erupted on Twitter and in blogs about an article in a magazine. The argument was about little*, really, a storm in a teacup, but it raged for several days. The even odder thing was that it didn’t pit right against left, but consisted of feminists, female and male, arguing with each other as if enemies.

The popular mythology is that feminism has triumphed, men and women equal in society. A great symbolic photo in November showed President Obama being greeted on arrival by female Governor-General, Prime Minister, ACT Chief Minister. Women head major corporations, institutions, public service departments; succeed in all professions (including the military).

But underneath the neat symbolic photos and the few excellent women at the top, things are not quite so rosy. A woman prime minister? She is the subject of misogyny, often really nasty (with threats to kill her), every day. Women’s pay is still much lower; while one or two make it to the top, most of the next management levels are still men; the battle for paid maternity leave revealed many politicians who want women back in the 1950s; equal opportunity legislation is attacked; sexist jokes flourish in “anti-pc” times; adverts openly portray women as either dumb or harridans; many women proudly say “oh no, I’m not a feminist”.

In Australia and elsewhere, gender equality, taking off like a rocket in the 60s and 70s, is falling back to Earth as the last booster fails.

The bad guys are winning, and the rocket falls with gathering speed, back to where it started. Many of us I think sense this, but don’t quite know what to do about it. Which is why, I think, the storm erupted the other day. Nerves are edgy, opinions are varied, approaches are debated, solutions hotly contested. The heat is on and temperatures are fraying.

Much the same in other areas, most notably conservation, gay rights, education, social services. Everywhere you look it seems, conservative, religious, business, political operators, with the active help of large sections of the media, are pushing back successfully against the social and environmental advances of the 60s and 70s. The political scene is like the aftermath of a battle, a battlefield where small groups are trying to fight a conservation battle here, a childcare battle there, a battle for gay marriage on the other side, support for unemployed being challenged on one hand, glass ceilings are replaced with concrete ones over the road. If we fight these battles singly we’ll lose them all.

Time I think, not just for all women to work together to change views from “I’m not a feminist” to “I’m not a feminist, but …”, to “of course I’m a feminist, want to make something of it?”, but for all progressive groups to work together. It was hard coming out of the fifties, when the conservatives were taken by surprise by the progressive movement. This time they are ready for us and have the weapons.

Progressives united can never be defeated.

* this is not to say the issue, the use of the word “hysterical” to describe a woman writer’s tv appearance, was not of interest/importance, just that by any measure it was a small issue in relation to the reaction. Although that reaction was compounded, rather like a nuclear chain reaction, by the vehemence of the opinions expressed and the increased personalising of the debate.

The original article by Justin Shaw is here
Three of the major subsequent debaters have also posted on the topic (as have many others apparently):
Tammi Jonas
Ben Pobjie
Jennifer Wilson

If there are any blog readers who like what I have been doing on the blog it would be good if you could put in a vote for me in the “Shorty Awards” blogger category. Really good! You have to say, in a few words, why you are voting for me (@watermelon_man) in the blogger category. And that’s it really.

7 comments on “Aux armes, citoyennes

  1. Ken Cameron. says:

    Oh please. Once again. This is misguided to a point that beggars belief. The mindsphere does not usefully divide into “progressive” and “the others”. Marx wasn’t a Marxist. Heresy, classically defined as a view that is close to “right view” but essentially different from it, is a concept not to be ignored by we who are proudly heathen. When feminism stops being an argument, it stops being interesting or useful and turns into just another comforting delusion.


  2. Eric Snyder says:

    Men tend to dominate (generally they’re physically stronger than women). Women tend to control (generally they have what men want). “Progressive” thought or legislation will never do anything to change that.

    In fact, it is the progressive agenda that has kindled the “porn storm” that denigrates both men and women, abortion as birth control that kills children, education “reforms” that have dumbed down our schools and their students, and re-defining “marriage” to accomodate the desires of those who choose “alternate lifestyles.”

    Hearts need to be changed in order to change behavior. A call to arms will only allow the strong to punish and oppress the weak. I think we’ve had enough of that over the eons!

    Real progress dignifies humanity, respects life, protects the weak and defends the rights of all. Let’s try that!


  3. Colin Samundsett says:

    Lysistrata – where art thou, when we need you, now, after all these thousands of years?


  4. paul walter says:

    Vexed issue, isnt it?
    Off to read the link closely. Thanks David.


  5. Geoff Andrews says:

    …and well may you say “What?!” to Ken’s contribution, David. However, Neddy Seagoon’s rhetorical “what?, what?, what?” may have been more appropriate for you.
    You are a scientist and as such would have achieved high marks for subjects like maths, physics, chemistry and logic – all “comforting delusions” (because argument within them has ceased). As a result, I fear your marks in English, particularly comprehension, may have suffered; leaving your head-scratching “What?!” as your only response to Ken’s clearly post modern reading of your blog. FYI, I sense his comment is either a parody of part of T. S. Eliot’s “The Wasteland” or a James Joysean stream of consciousness with added punctuation. Each sentence simultaneously reveals a sudden insight of the author while being self contradictory yet challenging the reader to resolve the contradiction. “Marx wasn’t a Marxist” is a good example – a simple assertive semantic contradiction plucked from the stream, scrambles the mindspace of both author and reader, whose opinions now assume a Brownian movement until, like a poker machine coming to rest, the answer to the question “well, who WAS Marx?” tumbles into the payout tray: he is a dyslectic Tory taxi driver from Fulham who started to write “The Capital” as a text book on “the knowledge” for student taxi drivers but got sidetracked into economics and social theory. I could go on ……


  6. Eric Snyder says:

    Well put Geoff; especially like your term “post modern reading.” Great!!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s