radiofree.asia 
radiofree.asia 
radiofree.asia 

Category: equality

  • LGBTIQ+ people ignored in the census again

    “Do you know how many LGBTIQ+ folks live in Australia? It turns out no one does, and we’re not about to find out in the upcoming census.”

    Courtney Act, an Australian drag queen and television personality, made this point on Facebook last week as part of Equality Australia’s push to have LGBTIQ+ people counted in the census.

    Once again, the census is failing to accurately collect data on sex, sexual orientation and gender diversity.

    The census ticks around every five years to provide a snapshot of who we are and how we are changing. It is not just about collecting statistics about where we live, who we live with, our work, lives, income and health, but it also provides crucial insights to inform the vital services that Australians need.

    We cannot effectively support all of Australia if we do not count all of Australia (and it’s not the first time we’ve argued this too).

    Currently, we do not understand how many people identify as LGBTIQ+, where they are, or anything about their socioeconomic status, health, relationships and more.

    It is a matter of serious concern, particularly given LGBTIQ+ folk often face higher suicide and mental health concerns and worrying rates of domestic violence. LGBTIQ+ people also have unique needs when it comes to the provision of services, from health to housing and beyond.

    As Amnesty International notes, the census’s lack of appropriate questions capturing LGBTIQ+ communities and experiences “will result in a service gap that constitutes discrimination of the LGBTQIA+ community”.

    So, what was supposed to be asked?

    In a submission to the Senate in 2019, questions around sexuality and gender identity were proposed for inclusion in the 2021 census. These were developed in consultation with LGBTIQ+ communities, and can generally be seen as best practice.

    Then the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) walked away from them. Why?

    The ABS voted against these new questions due to perceived public backlash – particularly after some of the technical difficulties of the 2016 #censusfail.

    The decision came after assistant treasurer Michael Sukkar expressed “a preference” about not including the questions in testing, David Kalisch, the former Australian statistician, said in 2019.

    This is despite the fact that in qualitative testing of census questions, those on gender and sexuality “performed well” with both target and non-target populations. These draft questions were also recommended by multiple federal departments.

    And, in 2019 Senate submission documents, the ABS itself noted there are “no other suitable alternative data sources” to collect such crucial information. It also identified data on LGBTIQ+ communities as “of current national importance”.

    It’s also despite the fact that the majority of Australians voted for marriage equality, and Australia has generally taken more progressive steps towards gender and sexuality inclusion in the last few years.



    Read more:
    Census 2021 is almost here — what’s changed since #censusfail? What’s at stake in this pandemic survey?

    What’s being asked instead?

    Nothing in this year’s census asks specifically about sexuality. The question on gender identity and sex has also conflates the concepts — despite international efforts to address the issue.

    Although some of the questions on cohabitation and families make it possible to garner some data on people in same-sex relationships, only those who are couples and who live together are counted.

    The question about sex/gender limits choices to male/female/non-binary sex. It obscures data on transgender and intersex folk and does not recognise differences in gender identity (how a person sees themselves or the social/cultural aspects of identity) and sex (a person’s anatomy or biological sex characteristics).

    Further, question 37 erases the experience of some trans people entirely. It asks, “for each female, how many babies has she ever given birth to?”. This blatantly ignores the fact that many transmen (often those who have transitioned from female to male) can and have given birth.

    While the census has included questions around other identity categories, including race, ethnic ancestry, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and people living with a disability, LGBTIQ+ remains overlooked — and without good reason.

    How does Australia compare globally?

    There’s a major gap globally in the inclusion of these data on national census questionnaires.

    Much was made of the hasty withdrawal of questions relating to gender and sexuality in the 2020 US census, a move that was highly scrutinised in the political pressure cooker of the Trump administration.

    In a country where federal marriage equality was achieved in 2015, millions of LGBTIQ+ Americans will now have to wait until 2025 (at least) to contribute their experiences to the US census.

    In the UK, voluntary questions on sexual orientation and gender identity will be asked this year in England and Wales, and in Scotland in 2022.

    Yet, in general, a 2019 report noted only a few nationally representative surveys contained questions on LGBTIQ+ identity in the OECD, and none (at that stage) included them in the census.

    Why the census has failed us

    Determining whom and what is counted has always been part of census history — a history that has not always been neutral or fair. In fact, the census has often ignored or marginalised various communities for socio-political reasons.

    For instance, while population counts began with colonisation around 1788 and the first census (as we know it, of people in dwellings) occurred in 1828, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were only fully included in the census in 1971, almost two centuries later.

    Longstanding structural racism and discrimination help explain the census’s historic incomplete data collection on First Nations people. Does the same hold true for the modern census’s approach to LGBTIQ+ communities?

    Perhaps. Given there was strong evidence, arguments and testing around new questions on gender and sexuality in the census, it seems the ABS’s willful ignorance towards LGBTIQ+ people can only be justified by political conservatism and discrimination.



    Read more:
    It’s time to talk about gay reparations and how they can rectify past persecutions of LGBTQ people

    Although LGBTIQ+ people have more reason than most to be wary of the quantitative collection of sensitive data, it still desperately needs to be collected.

    Inclusion of targeted questions on gender and sexuality also requires greater assurances around data integrity — a particular concern of older members of the LGBTIQ+ community who lived through the criminalisation of homosexuality, lesbian witch hunts, surveillance and other related trauma.

    Ultimately, not only is the lack of recognition distressing for many LGBTIQ+ people, it is also bad public policy. Australia needs reliable, informed data on sex, sexual orientation and gender identity. Without it, the census is too risk-averse to even be accurate.The Conversation

    Elise Stephenson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow of the Policy Innovation Hub, Griffith University and Jack Hayes, Researcher, Griffith University

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    The post LGBTIQ+ people ignored in the census again appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Why we deserve more from our politicians

    Like so many other women, I am enraged that Christian Porter MP is acting leader of the House of Representatives. A position that is one of the most powerful in the country. It means that Porter is now in charge of management and arrangement of government business in the House, such as procedural motions, changes in sitting times and days, and even has the power to shutdown parliamentary debate.

    By choosing to give Porter any role of leadership – let alone one with such power – sends a clear message to women everywhere about where the government stands on issues of sexual assault and harassment.

    2021 has been a year of reckoning with story after story of sexual misconduct emerging from Parliament House. Former staffer Brittany Higgins bravely spoke out about her sexual assault in a Minister’s office, and the subsequent actions of a government that endeavoured to sweep this under the rug. Soon after, the ABC published details of a letter sent to Prime Minister Scott Morrison and other members of Parliament, alleging that a current Cabinet Minister had raped a 16-year-old girl in 1988.

    Days later, then-Attorney General Christian Porter identified himself as that minister, but categorically denied the allegations. The victim reported her complaint to the NSW Police in 2020, before suspending the investigation a day before taking her own life in June of that year. The police dropped their investigation this year, citing “insufficient admissible evidence to proceed.” Porter remains in limbo between “innocence” and “guilty”, a permanently alleged rapist.

    Yet despite this, earlier this month Morrison promoted him to the role of acting leader of the House of Representatives. After what we’ve witnessed this year – with the number of sexual misconduct accusations in Parliament prompting over 100,000 people around Australia to protest sexual violence and harassment in politics, as well as gendered violence and inequality more broadly – this decision exemplifies a complete disdain towards victim/survivors of sexual violence. It’s yet another indication of the way this government elevates men who sexually assault and harass women, evidencing a complete lack of accountability or real consequences.

    The temporary promotion of Porter comes only a month after the return of Barnaby Joyce to the role of Nationals leader and Deputy Prime Minister. Joyce previously resigned from this position in 2018 following allegations that he sexually harassed a woman in 2016 and revelations of a relationship with his former staffer, which partially spurred then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s “bonk ban” against sexual relationships between ministers and staffers.

    The Hon Christian Porter MP, Minister for Social Services is currently acting leader of the House. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia License.

    Earlier this year, we also saw Liberal MP Andrew Laming accused of bullying, stalking, and harassing two women, while a third alleged that he took a photo up her skirt. The Queensland Liberal Nationals blocked Laming from recontesting his seat in the next federal election, despite the federal government dismissing calls to have him removed from office. Laming has nevertheless been replaced by the sole male candidate in the LNP preselection, Henry Pike, who allegedly made fat-shaming and sexist comments during his time as a Young Liberal.

    Morrison and others can talk about the Forster Review recommendations until they’re blue in the face, but actions speak louder than words. And their actions are communicating loud and clear, that men’s careers are more important than women’s safety. I spoke to Dr Elise Stephenson, a feminist International Relations scholar, who told me that this “sends a worrying message about whom is rewarded, for what, in government. The fact that this has occurred just after calls for a new code of conduct in parliament is disturbing.”

    Women everywhere are rightly angered that not only is Porter still in government, but he has been promoted. Prior to this, women were already turning against the Coalition, with approval ratings dropping from 41 to 37 per cent since the last election.

    Grace Tame, Australian of the Year and a survivor of sexual abuse, responded to news of Porter’s promotion with a scathing article, arguing that this decision “marks a proverbial slap in the face of our entire nation.” Tame writes that it was:

    a transparently deliberate, definitive statement that reeks of abuse of power and a blatant disregard of the people … an insult to all survivors [which] reinforces the idea that accused predators are too often protected, feeding into the already crippling fear of victims and bystanders … an act of emboldening perpetrators.

    Women, survivors of sexual violence and allies took to the streets in March because they felt like their voices were not being heard or respected. The Porter incidence simply rubs salt into the wound.

    Young women have been especially affected. Jasiri Australia, a youth-led movement for increased political representation of women, encourages girls and young women to enter politics through the “Girls Takeover Parliament” program. In previous years, 95 per cent of program alumni aspired to a political career. That figure is now 35 per cent, with many concerned for their safety.

    Yasmin Poole, Martin Luther King Jr Center’s Youth Influencer of the Year, spoke with me about Porter’s appointment. She notes how this incident demonstrates that the government are ignoring us despite it being a crucial time for the Government to show young women that they are listening …  There is already deep perception that Parliament is not a safe space for women, and actions like this only deepen harm.

    Verbalising the sentiments shared by many around Australia, Poole argues that “we deserve more from our elected representatives.”

    We have witnessed the collective roar of people fighting for a better government. One that is inclusive, diverse, and respectful. A government that truly listens to survivors and walks the walk instead of (just barely) talking the talk. Because Poole is right. We deserve so much more.

     

     

    The post Why we deserve more from our politicians appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Let’s hear from women in aged care residences

    In her recent best seller, The Invisible Woman, Caroline Craido Perez claims that ‘most of recorded history is one big gender gap’.  When it comes to the lives of the ‘other half’ of humanity she says, ‘there is often nothing but silence.’  This is perhaps never more evident than in the final years of our lives when some of us are residents in aged care homes.

    Let me introduce Melva (pictured), a stylish, eighty-five-year-old, who lives in an aged care home in Melbourne.  Never married and no children, painting, dancing, and singing are her passions.  Yet few people around her would know this.  For Melva, as for other residents, many things just don’t add up.  In her residential life, there are no opportunities for her to paint.  ‘I’m not allowed to paint,’ she says, ‘everyone is too busy.’  She never dances and the only singing she does is when the music therapist comes once a month.  Even then, songs sung, as they all gather in the sitting area, are usually chosen only from the therapist’s list and are not the tunes Melva loves from her Saturday night dancing days, whirling to Doris Day and Billie Holiday. ‘We danced every Saturday night,’ she says, bursting into song.

    Like many women in residential aged care, Melva has a life of leisure, yet all material means for her to enjoy this leisure have been removed.  Melva’s plea to do a little painting is a case in point.  At a time when her life can accommodate some boundlessness, Melva’s days are more tightly bound than at any other time. And Melva’s experience is not an exception, it is the rule.

    Approximately two out of three aged care residents are women, yet their voices are rarely heard, apart from in minimal day-to-day conversations with care workers and in family visits.  And of course, if we happen to be living with dementia –and considerably more women than men are diagnosed each year- there are even fewer opportunities to express and share our personhood.

    The care workers, who inadvertently hold the ropes around Melva and her fellow residents, are the nicest of folk. Their work shapes and maintains the routines of Melva’s life, smiling as they go about clearly defined, tasks: making beds, issuing medicine, supervising toileting and dressing, arranging meals, and ensuring residents move safely from one space to another. There is no time or capacity for cultivating the conditions Melva needs for her painting, dancing and singing.  No time to ask, ‘Melva would you like to paint now? ‘And then say, ‘I will set out your equipment for you and clear it up when you are finished.’  In fact, by and large, there is no time for Melva’s care workers to provide the individual and social interactions she needs and desires.

    This is what Simone de Beauvoir has called the ‘poverty of old age’; it means that life is reduced, lived close to illness and infirmary, with voices that are soft at best, non-existent at worst, and in rooms where televisions are always on – every hour, every day.

    Yet, research in the fields of cultural gerontology, heath humanities and creative care all report that there are other ways of living our final years.  Projects and programs across the world show that the impoverishment of old age can be replaced with riotous rollicking laughter in residential sitting rooms, and with scenes of residents making a mess, listening to, and reading poetry out loud, singing, painting, and showing off old-time dance steps. And, in rooms where televisions are turned off!

    Indeed, a quiet(ish) revolution is creeping into aged care systems, gathering sufficient momentum for us to hope, as Professor Anne Basting, has stated, ‘that creative care might be poured like water into care systems … and change the way we understand and deliver care.

    Pauline Griffiths

    Pauline Griffiths, educator, writer, and musician, is completing her second PhD in the Centre for Creative and Cultural Research at the University of Canberra.

    Creative Practitioners are leading this revolution.  A form of Allied Health, they cultivate the conditions needed in order for aged care residents to be heard, and recognised as owners of their own social spaces.  Creative practitioners work like teachers, except they are teachers without the burden of assessment and reporting.  Indeed, qualified teachers make excellent creative practitioners.

    Around a table in a sitting room, a creative practitioner lays out materials: pictures, craft supplies, poetry, recipes, and a musical instrument or two, to cultivate conversations, and spontaneous singing among residents.  The aim is to have fun, come together, make a mess, tell personal stories, read some poetry.  An hour later, at the end of a noisy workshop, there is a veritable gallery of story snippets, poetry fragments, painted pictures, spontaneous singing, and most importantly satisfied happy residents.

    My research at the University of Canberra, has led to a three-part toolkit for use by creative practitioners, care workers and family members of people living in aged care homes: the kit shows how to cultivate the conditions for personal creative writing; lead creative workshops; and deliver intergenerational imaginative storytelling sessions.

    Creative care programs not only give elderly people a voice, they also break the stranglehold of residential aged care life.  It’s a fact that as we grow old, our imagination is the last thing we lose; when memory goes, we still have imagination.  In this way, our imaginations can become the main purpose for living and give meaning to our lives.

    So, if we put our ears to the door of a good aged good care residences, we’ll hear voices of elderly women and men – chatting, laughing, telling stories, even weeping a little here and there, engaging in impromptu storytelling and reminiscing; inspired by picture prompts and objects that invoke touch sound sight and smell.  And while Creative Care programs are not yet fully trumpeted fanfares in aged care residential homes, they nevertheless are coming to be appreciated as essential social forums in which Elders can reclaim their voices.  As Melva says, in the middle of a workshop, paintbrush in hand, ‘We should do this every day!’

    • Pauline Griffiths is an educator, writer, and musician, completing her second PhD in the Centre for Creative and Cultural Research at the University of Canberra.  Her work in cultural gerontology and health humanities has led to the development of a toolkit for creative care programs in aged care residences.

     

     

    The post Let’s hear from women in aged care residences appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • The Trap: love, abuse and power

    Today the Victorian Women’s Trust launches its new podcast series, The Trap, written and hosted by leading Australian investigative journalist and award-winning author, Jess Hill, pictured, and produced by lauded documentary-maker Georgina Savage. BroadAgenda editor, Ginger Gorman, chatted with Jess about how the pod tackles love, abuse and power. 

    Congratulations on your new podcast! Jess, you’ve done so much work around domestic abuse now. Why the need for “The Trap”? What will people hear that they haven’t heard before?

    This series is taking listeners even deeper into the experience of coercive control, how and why it is perpetrated, and the way it’s too often perpetuated by our systems. We go directly to the motels women and kids go to hide, we record inside family violence call centres, we speak to a group of men who’ve been trying to change their behaviour, we hear from teenagers, and we interview a number of police whistleblowers. We’re grappling with so many controversial topics – what do you do with abusive men who refuse to change? What role do police and the courts have in responding to coercive control? Will an increase in gender equality see a reduction in domestic violence? I learnt so much putting this series together, and that’s after working on this issue for the best part of a decade!

    Why did you choose audio to tell this story? 

    There’s so much more you can do with audio – people feel more comfortable speaking off camera, and you can more easily protect their identity. But it’s also brings to life so much more than you can in print: you can hear the child’s voice, and the words they emphasise; you can hear as people’s voice begins to crack, and details that might look inconsequential on the page are suddenly loaded with the emotion of the moment. These voices are coming directly into your ears, without the visuals to distract from what they’re saying. It’s an act of communion.

    You say this is a series about love. But it’s also about power. What do you mean?

    We commonly hear that abuse is not love, but in our efforts to distinguish the two we forget the part that love plays in domestic abuse. How our ideas of romantic love blind us to the early signs of coercive control. How love can lead a victim survivor to rationalise the abuse, to hold tight to the potential their love once promised. How some abusive people can actually be so terrified of losing their partners that they keep them trapped through control, so they won’t leave. Love misused can be a particularly malignant type of power. But power, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. It’s the particular type of power we’re talking about – the patriarchal value of ‘power-over’ – that we really need to understand and confront – in our relationships, our families, and within our systems.

    You’re addressing questions we don’t ask about domestic abuse. What kind of questions?

    Gosh, so many… First and foremost, we do answer the questions that still plague this issue, like ‘Why don’t they leave?’ But more urgently, we address the most important question: ‘Why doesn’t he let her leave?’ But there are also bigger questions to address, in terms of how we solve this problem. Perhaps the most controversial: ‘Will an increase in gender equality really lead to a decrease in domestic abuse?’

    Often as an investigative journalist, delving into hard issues like this is scarring and confronting. How can you personally manage to go back to issues like this again and again? How does it affect you?

    Honestly, sometimes I don’t manage that well. This work has definitely come at a significant personal cost. Even when I’m collaborating with other people, as I have on The Trap, I’m almost always working alone, and usually in my living room, so there’s kind of no break from it. But there are so many reasons to keep coming back to it. Firstly, it is fascinating, and teaches me something new every day. The people who survive this, and those who work in this area, are just incredible – and the camaraderie and support you get working on this topic is like nothing I’ve ever experienced. Every time I get an email from someone saying that understanding coercive control gave them the language they needed to change their life – to help them leave, or ditch the self-blame… That’s like fuel. I’ve never worked on something that was simultaneously so challenging and so rewarding.

    Was there a key moment in making this series for you? Or a key thing you learned? Please describe it.

    There are so many, but probably the most intense moment was going out with the night crew with Brisbane Domestic Violence Service. Every night, they visit and take supplies to women and kids they’ve hidden in motels across the city. The night we went out together, we went to pick up a woman from a police station. Police had been called by her bank after she asked them to put a lock on the account because she thought her partner might be stealing from her. The bank suspected domestic violence, and called police. When the police showed up, they discovered that she had been trapped inside her partner’s apartment for two months: she had been treated like a slave, the hot water had been turned off and even the towels removed so she couldn’t shower. When we picked her up, she looked like she hadn’t slept in weeks, and she spoke so softly we could barely hear her. Over the next couple of hours, she started to joke with us, and her voice became gradually louder – she was claiming back her space in the world. It was phenomenal to be there for that – it was like watching someone come back to life. But it was also horrifying to see that this literal type of entrapment was happening in a regular apartment in an Australian city, especially knowing that stories like this are playing out across the country every single night.

    There are so many systems in place that are meant to protect targets of domestic abuse (largely women and children). But too often they don’t. How do you address this in the pod?

    It’s important to highlight how these systems both fail and succeed. If you highlight only where these systems fail you risk dissuading victim survivors from seeking help, and that’s the last thing we want to do. But we are asking fundamental questions about the structure of our systems, from police to family law: are they fit for purpose? What would it take to make these systems safe – can they be reformed? Feminists have a vexed history working with patriarchal state institutions like police and the courts. But for now, these are the systems we have, and I believe it’s our duty to victim survivors and their families to make them safer, while we dedicate ourselves to reimagining and reinventing them.

    Is there anything else you want to say? 

    I’ve dedicated the past few years to revealing the true nature of domestic abuse because it affects every single one of us. It is a corrosive element at the heart of our society, affecting millions of Australians, and hundreds of millions of adults and kids worldwide. For me, ending oppression and violence in the home, and making our systems safe for everyone, is one of the most vital feminist projects.

    Pictured above: Australian investigative journalist and award-winning author, Jess Hill. Picture: Saskia Wilson

    The first two episodes of The Trap available today (5 August, 2021) with new episodes becoming available weekly on all major podcast platforms. Listen and subscribe here or on your preferred podcast app. 

    The post The Trap: love, abuse and power appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Paying attention to voices of trailblazing women

    ‘Listening’ to the women of the 1890s, the first women with an electoral voice in Australia, hails as a guide as we consider the quality of representative democracy in our Federation, further strained by the COVID emergency. For Canberra residents, the historic suffragette  calls have a revived urgency  as the debate focusses on the extent of Australian Capital Territory’s (ACT) democracy given that the Federal Parliament lies across its path with an ever-present power of override — an issue highlighted with the launch of the Canberra Times’ ‘right to decide’ campaign.

    Just as the Canberra Times and the Australia Institute held a public meeting last Wednesday 28 July 2021 about the ACT’s trammelled rights, so too a public meeting supporting women’s suffrage was held in the Albert Hall in South Australia in 1893. The Adelaide Register of 15 March 1893 reported Miss Catherine Helen Spence as moving: “That as no country can be called free where one half of its people are disenfranchised, in the opinion of this meeting the time has arrived when the suffrage should be granted to the women of South Australia.”  The meeting triggered a parliamentary Bill passed on 18 December 1894 and proclaimed as law on 20 March 1895. From that day, women in South Australia became the first in the world to have the right to vote and sit in Parliament. In 1899, Western Australia followed suit, giving women the right to vote although without taking the further step of allowing them to become members of Parliament.

    As it turned out, no woman ran in the first South Australian election but Catherine Helen Spence did run for the first Federal election, held to determine attendance at the Constitutional Conventions of the 1890s. Spence became the first woman in Australia to run for political office seeking to represent South Australia at the Convention debates. An active campaigner for social and electoral reforms before she had the vote, she experienced prejudice as a woman for most of her life. Indeed, she provides an account in her autobiography of writing to the press for 30 years anonymously to avoid the sting of male chauvinism.

    It was Spence’s determination to see the fairest voting system possible as part of the new Commonwealth that led her to run as a candidate. When her nomination became public, she was listed as one of the “ten best men” selected by a Liberal organization to appear, and one newspaper reported her nomination as evoking “an expression of approval”. Yet people raised doubt over her capacity to participate at the Federal level, given the law in the United Kingdom did not recognize women as persons for the purpose of political representation. While polling a credible 7383 votes, it was nowhere near the number needed. She wrote: “Had Mr. Kingston not asserted both publicly and privately that, if elected, I could not constitutionally take my seat, I might have done better”.  If Spence had been elected, what is now referred to as the Hare Clark system of proportional representation (because Andrew Inglis Clark adopted Spence’s idea as a delegate at the Conventions) would be called the Hare Spence system.

    While not present at the Conventions, Catherine Helen Spence and the many women involved in the suffrage movement were able to impress upon their representatives that they would not vote in favour of Federation if their vote was not protected. Their commitment to uniform suffrage resulted in section 41 of the Constitution.

    Portrait of Catherine Helen Spence in the 1890s.

    Portrait of Catherine Helen Spence in the 1890s. Picture: Public domain/Wikimedia Commons

    South Australia woman led the way on a fundamental aspect of our democracy. Here in the national capital the ACT is trailing neighbouring NSW and the states when it comes to the quality of our representation. Section 122 of the Constitution provides the Commonwealth plenary power to make laws for the ACT. It is a brooding power with a long shadow as evidenced by the so-called Andrews Bill that overrode the ACT Legislative Assembly’s laws on euthanasia almost 25 years ago.  The central democratic question exercising Canberrans presently is how to limit the Commonwealth’s power to exercise that override and give Canberrans the same quality of democracy as their neighbours in Queanbeyan.

    The road to self-representation of the ACT in the Federal system took a joint sitting of Parliament to blast through.  The Senate (Representation of Territories) Act 1973 passed in August 1974 led to the first Territorian senators elected at the 1975 election with the Northern Territory (NT) and the ACT each represented by two Senators.  At that time, each State was represented by 10 Senators (formerly six) and since that time, the number of senators per state increased to 12 in 1983. Tasmania with a population only slightly more than the ACT basks in representation with its Senate complement growing too from 10 to 12.  Yet still stuck on two, there has been no increase of Territory representation in that time.  In December 1975, the population of the ACT was 200,400 whereas in December 2020 ACT’s population more than doubled to 431,500 people.  The equation defies electoral justice and is undemocratic.

    Currently, section 40 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act allows the number of senators in the ACT or NT to increase beyond two only when there are 6 or more House of Representatives seats in the jurisdiction.  With Canberra’s House representation now on three, there is little prospect of this.  It is time then to amend the Electoral Act to increase the number of ACT Senators and thus to enable Canberrans to have more representation in the Federal Parliament.  This would open the Commonwealth’s ear to the ring of Canberra residents’ voices when it comes to decisions that impact differentially over the ACT.  Importantly, this would also enable smaller parties and Independents the same opportunities to reflect the diversity of the ACT’s citizenry as they would if they lived anywhere else in the country.

    And indeed, that is the other part of the story.  The ACT has grown and shown its maturity as a self-governing entity, better reflecting its citizenry than any other jurisdiction and standing as a guiding light to the Federal Parliament.  If it’s a numbers game, the current makeup of the ACT Parliament is exemplary.  Following the 2020 ACT elections, a majority of members of the legislative assembly (MLAs) elected are women, and at least half of every party’s MLAs in the ACT are women (pictured above). Women also make up 56% of the ACT Cabinet. Against this quality of representation in the local parliament, the Commonwealth languishes with an underwhelming representation of women (7 out of 23 in the Cabinet, for example) and of the diversity of Australia’s population more broadly. It is indeed ironic that the Commonwealth Parliament should be in a position to dictate democratic terms to a more representative territory. Rather, the national parliament should be seeking advice from the ACT government about how it has achieved such an important milestone regarding the quality of representation in Canberra – and it should also give Canberrans the respect they deserve in making decisions that can be made in any other state around the country.

    It is time for Canberrans to be emboldened by the claims of the women of the 1890s and the democratic calls of the current ACT Legislative Assembly. On behalf of all the people living in Canberra, the ACT and anyone representing the ACT should now demand equal representation in Australia’s Federal system and an increase to the number of Senators representing Canberra to better ensure that result.

    • Professor Kim Rubenstein, is the Co-Director of the 50/50 by 2030 Foundation in the Faculty of Business Government and Law at the University of Canberra

     

    The post Paying attention to voices of trailblazing women appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Review: Boil your blood, focus your mind

    If you enjoy bursting into rage induced flame, but in pocket sized installments and with a glimmer of hope at the end, you can’t go past Kate Fitz-Gibbon’s Our National Shame: Violence Against Women; Jill Hennessy’s Respect; Fiona McLeod’s Easy Lies and Influence and Enough is Enough by Kate Thwaites and Jenny Macklin. Part of Monash University’s In The National Interest series, these four volumes by seriously credible women hit the spot in providing an accessible unpacking of major challenges facing Australia.

    I reviewed these books with the help of my daughter, third year university student Bridie. She read each one in a single sitting, while I read them in snatched moments between meetings or at night – and unusually for me, I managed to read these in bed without falling asleep.

    Each volume explores distinct issues of men’s violence against women, slow (but better than appreciated) progress on gender equality, the erosion of respect and empathy in public discourse, and the dangerous normalization of lies and corruption. While not intended as a set per se, they loosely converge on the intersecting issues of misogyny, violence, disrespect and corruption that undermine democracy and trust, and erode the human right to reach our full potential in a life free from violence, governed by those with our best interests at heart. It’s worth reading them together, as I found they spoke to each other in unexpected ways.

    Fitz-Gibbon, pictured above. critiques ‘compassion fatigue’ in the face of seemingly endless violence against women while McLeod observes we are ‘paralyzed by the inability of institutions and government to self-regulate’ as we sleepwalk into normalized corruption. Thwaites and Macklin critique the myth of merit from the point of view of women’s representation, while McLeod suggests that corruption frequently overtakes merit in political and other appointments.

    Hennessy, Fitz-Gibbon, and Thwaites and Macklin all speak to way gender inequality undermines respect, potential and safety – recalling Rosie and Luke Batty, Brittany Higgins, Grace Tame, the March for Justice and Gillard’s Misogyny speech – familiar signposts in our recent history. At their core, all four books have a narrative thread related to decency and respect – for women, for each other, for democracy.

    And while all four are steeped in head-shaking despair, they also point to solutions or ways out.

    At 85 pages or less, Bride and I both felt that the books jumped around a bit – but in fairness, if you are going to cover the horrors of humanity in under 100 pages, you need to be nimble. But these books definitely deliver.  While Bridie felt these books fit into a library of information she already has, and so wouldn’t recommend them to those who are already well informed, she would certainly give them to anyone who was unclear or hesitant about the significance of these issues, including men.

    Conversely, as someone who thinks about these issues for a job, I liked the way these books easily consolidated the swirling thoughts and anger I have about these topics.

    And these books show the receipts, presenting excellent references as protection against any attempt to minimize or mansplain away the issues.

    As smaller books, they are less intimidating. As Bridie observed, “Books this serious should be this size because it makes them less threatening. Imagine if that was an A5 or bigger book – it would just stress you out.” And with a foldable front and back jacket to use as a bookmark, you can mark your place and put the books down any time it’s just too much.

    Worthy of discussion, read these with a friend or book club, or buy copies for the doubters in your life. They are an excellent contribution and well worth the read.

    In The National Interest book series

    In the National Interest is a new book series Monash University Publishing list that focuses on the challenges confronting Australia.

    With thanks to Bridie Milthorpe.

    • Amy Haddad gender equality and inclusion expert. She is the Director of Gender Equality, Disability and Social Protection at Tetra Tech International Development Asia Pacific.

    The post Review: Boil your blood, focus your mind appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Training for a 2032 inclusion Olympics starts now

    It’s not new to anyone that the Olympics has a bit of an issue when it comes to gender equality. John Coates’ treatment of Annastacia Palaszczuk at the moment of triumph was a textbook example of what women have been putting up with for eons. But even prior to this masterclass in mansplaining, there were painful examples of sexism and discrimination.

    With 11 years until Brisbane hosts the 2032 Olympics, we can hope that there’s been wholesale reform of Olympic practices by then – though in reality many of the rules about participation, uniforms and compliance which have been the source of recent grief are outside the control of the host city.

    Where the host city and country do have control is EVERYWHERE ELSE. And if we start right now we could make the Brisbane 2032 Olympics the most inclusive and diverse yet.

    Each Olympics Games is a decade long infrastructure, tourism and communications project, with some sport at the end. The Brisbane Olympics is no different. Slated to cost at least $4 billion, the Brisbane Games will drive infrastructure and transport investment, develop new technologies and be supported by huge logistics and promotions campaigns. What’s that got to do with gender equality, diversity or inclusion?

    Well, all expenditure creates a decision point about who gets the business and what gets purchased. The same as you or I might buy from one company because it aligns with our values, every dollar spent by government is an opportunity to direct funding to particular businesses or markets, to set minimum requirements in procurement, to decide who to engage with when identifying outcomes, to set targets for inclusion and safety, and to establish reporting and accountability frameworks. This called Gender Lens Investing, Innovative Finance or putting your money where your mouth is.

    Brisbane’s bid already committed to sustainability – it can also commit to diversity and inclusion through some pretty straight forward action in four core areas which are all within the direct control of the relevant governments.

    First up, commitment to diverse leadership and staffing in all parts of the government machinery preparing for and implementing the 2032 Games. There should be gender equality and representation of First Nations Australians, people of colour and people with disability (including beyond the Paralympics) across internal and outward facing leadership roles and in staffing across Olympic structures. And make leaders accountable – put inclusion in their KPIs and make it a senior someone’s job to drive and report on the whole commitment.

    Second, spend that huge budget well. Set minimums for procuring services and products through women, First Nations and disabled people owned and run businesses. Insist on minimum diversity standards through the whole procurement chain, ensuring that only those who comply with key diversity and inclusion standards get a slice of the action. Put Gender on the Tender for construction and other male dominated industries, creating a market for those industries to demonstrate the meaningful action they are taking to attract, support and retain women workers.

    Next, engage those with lived experience to identify challenges, and commit time and funding to co-designing and implementing solutions. Work with disabled people to move beyond wheelchair accessible stadiums – let’s talk buses and toilets, ticketing websites, accessible experiences for those with hearing and vision impairments. Talk to expert women’s groups about how to make the Games safe – for those attending and working at the Games and for those at home. Work with community organizations to harness opportunities in Olympic advertising and messaging to promote positive and inclusive messages to combat sexism, racism and ablism.

    Finally, represent diversity in EVERY. SINGLE. ASPECT.  In the art and designs used, in who gets to speak, in who is represented in promotional materials, in signage, ticket sales, volunteers – everything.

    We’ve got 11 years to get this right, but we need to commit now. And we need to get started now.

     

    • Amy Haddad is the Director of Gender Inclusion, Disability and Social Inclusion at Tetra Tech International Development Asia Pacific, and the Chair of the Criterion Institute’s Power of Policy Advisory Committee.

    The post Training for a 2032 inclusion Olympics starts now appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Gender deafness is widespread, but can be cured

    Last week, Annabel Crabb’s outstanding ABC series Ms Represented included accounts from women across the political spectrum on what Julie Bishop called ‘gender deafness’.

    Gender deafness is a phenomenon well known to women. It is the experience of a woman saying something in a meeting, being ignored or treated as if she hasn’t spoken, and then a man makes exactly the same point a few minutes later and is heard. Worse still, the man is often congratulated, even celebrated (and perhaps, on occasion, someone has offered to host a party for him) – such is the recognition of his brilliance as exhibited in the point he just made. You know, after a woman had already made that point, just before he did.

    As a woman, it is likely that your ideas will be appropriated this way, or ‘bro-propriated’ as I now like to call it – the ‘bro’ being slang talk for ‘brother’.

    When one of the ‘bros’ repeats a good idea you have shared a few minutes later and the room erupts into a chorus of ‘For he’s a jolly good fellow’, it can be confusing. As many of the women on Ms Represented this week showed, a common reaction is to feel perplexed and ask yourself, ‘Did I not just say that?’. It appears you didn’t, because everyone in the room is congratulating someone else.

    Another common reaction, particularly after one realises this is an ongoing and pervasive phenomenon that works to silence women, is fury. Every single woman I have mentored over the past couple of decades has experienced bro-propriation. Every. Single. One. It’s remarkable. And infuriating.

    A few years ago, I’d had enough of gender deafness and I started calling bro-propriation out. I now do the following every time I see bro-propriation in a meeting: When a woman’s ideas are repeated by a man in a meeting, I say something like, ‘Great idea [insert man’s name]. I’m not sure if you heard it, but that’s exactly what [insert woman’s name] said just a few minutes ago.’

    Sometimes when I do this, I get a response like, ‘Yeah but I think [insert woman’s idea]’ from the man. I politely wait for him to finish before repeating the point that [insert woman’s name] also thinks the same thing and said it a few minutes before he did.

    Men don’t like this. I’ve been taken aside more than once after a meeting and had it mansplained to me that I embarrassed the man by doing this. I have then calmly and politely explained back that the man had appropriated the views of the woman and expressed them as his own, and I didn’t feel that was right.

    Sometimes it is a man who calls bro-propriation out. I love these moments so much. They’re rare but they do happen. They let me know that things are changing in positive ways. I always follow up with these men after a meeting to note and acknowledge what they did, thank them and let them know their actions are making a positive difference.

    If you’re a man and you want to help women at work, you could consider stepping in when bro-propriation happens. All you need to do is say something like, ‘Great idea, Dave, that’s exactly what Sophie said a few minutes ago.’ Dave will look confused. Too bad. After the meeting, you could help Dave understand that he heard Sophie say the same thing, processed it, and then somehow believed he just thought of it on his own. Either that, or he wasn’t listening when Sophie spoke, which is a bit rude. And a bit sexist.

    This is an edited abstract of Marcia Devlin’s book Beating the Odds: A practical guide to navigating sexism in Australian universities. 

    The excerpt is published with permission.

    The post Gender deafness is widespread, but can be cured appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Women athletes take control of their uniforms

    Photo: Georgios Kefalas/EPA/AAP

    Women’s dress codes in sport are determined by “traditions” that are both outdated and gendered. Their outfits have long tried to reconcile notions of “femininity” with those of “athleticism”, but this process has turned women into objects to be admired rather than being valued for their sporting skills.However, there is recent rebellion in the ranks. Slowly, female athletes are pushing back on outdated uniform regulations and demanding that athleticism be prioritised over aesthetics.



    Read more:
    Most expensive, greatest gender parity, most sports: Tokyo Olympics by the numbers

    A long history of discomfort

    Where now the emphasis seems to be on revealing women’s bodies, the opposite was once the case. In the 19th century, when upper-middle-class women were eventually permitted to engage in games such as lawn tennis, their attire was suitably “feminine”, modest and designed to attract a potential husband rather than enhance their athleticism. Without doubt, their corsets and full-length dresses would have severely restricted their capacity to lunge and leap across the court in the way that today’s female tennis players do.

    In 1908, the Danish gymnastics team sported some new ‘leotards’ – athletic attire has come a long way since.
    www.olympicleotards.com

    By the turn of the 20th century, physical education began to contribute to the reform of female clothing for physical activities. The gymslip and tunic released the body from restraining garments such as corsets and bodices.

    While this might seem progressive, the barrel shape of the new uniform carefully concealed young women’s bodies. Any signs of developing sexuality were effectively camouflaged, preserving their modesty for future maternal roles in society.

    Women still battling conventions

    Sportswomen of today are still navigating dress code conventions, but they are beginning to openly oppose them. Just this month, the Norwegian women’s beach handball team was fined for “improper clothing” during the European Championships in Bulgaria. This was because they were playing in shorts, as opposed to the required skimpy bikini bottoms, which should be “a close fit and cut on an upward angle toward the top of the leg” and have a maximum side width of 10cm, according to the 2014 International Handball Federation regulations.

    The men’s beach handball teams have always been permitted to wear shorts. After unsuccessfully petitioning to replace the bikini bottoms with shorts, the Norwegian women’s team took matters into their own hands when they reached the bronze medal game against Spain. Despite being threatened with a fine or disqualification by the European Handball Federation, they opted to make a statement and wear thigh-length elastic shorts.

    This resulted in a team fine of 1,500 euros (A$2,393). The Norwegian federation has agreed to pay the fine on behalf of the players in a show of support.

    There were similar dress code protests by female athletes at the European Artistic Gymnastics Championships in Switzerland this year. German gymnasts decided to take a stand against their sexualisation, donning full-body suits. It all began with Sarah Voss’s performance, which was promptly followed by two of her teammates.

    The decision to cover their entire body was a premeditated one. It received full support from the German federation (DTB), which advised that female athletes should always feel comfortable in their apparel.

    The full-body suit, although rarely seen in women’s competitive gymnastics (unless there are religious reasons for wearing it), actually complies with the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG) rules. Competitors are allowed to wear a “unitard (one-piece leotard with full-length legs – hip to ankle)”, as long as it is “of elegant design”.

    Flexibility is therefore apparent in some female sporting dress codes, but certainly not in all. Voss and her team embraced the opportunity to compete as elite athletes in a uniform that best complemented their physical prowess.

    Their right to choose what they wore no doubt helped them feel more at ease when performing. It should be noted that gymnastics has been a sport riddled with abuse scandals.



    Read more:
    The Tokyo Olympics are supposed to be a ‘landmark in gender equality’ — are the Games really a win for women?

    Changing the focus to sporting prowess

    Both the handball and gymnastics examples highlight how women, as insiders within the institution of sport, are beginning to challenge how their bodies are presented and policed by sport federations.

    This paves the way for more sportswomen to oppose dress codes that are based on archaic ideas of what women should look like, often through the eyes of men.

    Although women’s sporting performances have been historically hampered and sexualised, sportswomen are finally calling the shots in terms of how their bodies are regulated through what they wear.

    Perhaps now we can focus on their athleticism and contribution to sport.The Conversation

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    The post Women athletes take control of their uniforms appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Why women can’t stop talking about Sex/Life

    The TV program Sex/Life dropped on Netflix late June it’s a show that has got the world talking.

    All of a sudden, thousands of folks were responding to the TikTok challenge that went like this:  “View episode 3 Sex/Life 19:50 and film your blind response”

    Exhibit A:

    Netflix Sex/Life has been out for two weeks, and become a global viral sensation with over 26.1 Million views of this TikTok challenge. Mainly this challenge shows how little society is used to seeing male nudity in popular culture and the emphasis and value we place on male genital size.

    But after the TikTok challenge has faded why has Sex/Life remain on Netflix’s top ten streaming lists globally?

    The premise of Sex/Life is straight forward. Billie is a housewife who had a wild past in New York City as psychology PhD student at Columbia; sex, drugs and music formed a major part of her life, and she was entwined with Brad, a troubled record label owner.

    She eventually marries Cooper – a safe, kind man who loves her unashamedly. The pair movee out to Connecticut to have babies, while Cooper commutes to the city daily for work. Billie can’t reconcile her present with her past so writes about it in her journal. Cooper reads this journal and life begins to unravel.

    I binge-watched the whole series. My best friend was in lockdown, and I insisted he too watch it so we could discuss. More than once in the 700 messages exchanged during watching, we asked ourselves: “This is trash tv, why are we watching it? Why do we love it?”

    A scripted masterpiece it is not. But one key reason women are so obsessed with the show is that it explores themes from a female perspective which we don’t see enough in mainstream media.

    I related to Billie, having a wild-ish past around the globe; I found myself with child living in my hometown, a normal suburban family life. It was like an expensive designer jumper I really wanted; I saved, bought it and adored it; but was not sure how to wear it. It took me a long time to reconcile the change in my life and embrace the new world that had opened for me. Of course, this is an age-old scenario, popularised by the American feminist, Betty Friedan in the 60s.

    The fantasy sex scenes are all shown from a female perspective with female pleasure being the central theme. It accurately portrays the passionless reality of sex with babies and small children. Often it isn’t a spontaneous wild shedding of clothing in every room in the house; there’s rogue breast milk, kids interrupting and work exhaustion. It also addresses how women struggle to reconcile a sense of sexual self with a body that doesn’t quite feel like their own anymore.

    Most of the reviews have been dismissive citing the lead character’s perfect life. They don’t feel empathy for her situation, without digging further into the themes that appear obvious to most women who watch the show.

    I decided to canvass others in my social circle and found there was a similar theme. These are some of the things my female friends said to me:

     “It’s not perfect there are parts that I think are worth thinking about. As a mum I can relate to feeling bored at home with young kids, wanting more intimacy and longing for our pre children lives and wanting it all”

    “When you’re at home sitting on couch alone with mastitis and a baby that won’t latch screaming; that hook up with a DJ behind the booth at Fabric Nightclub is looking mighty appealing.”

    “When I think about my sexual past, I wish my pleasure had mattered, as much as the woman does in this show. Its refreshing to see sexual content that doesn’t degrade women”

     “It was the leaking breast milk for me- that took a long time for me and my husband to recover from- no one warns you about it, when I saw this scene I just wanted to say – YES”

    Most of these comments were received via sending out questions on social media. Most responses were sent through privately, and occurred during discussions that happened in private groups.

    These informal forums provide a safe place for women to discuss sexuality, and desire without fear of a moral judgement from participants. I’d argue there’s an urgent need to discuss female sexuality and how it is represented in pop culture. It’s such a relief to see something not designed solely for male or abusive gaze! We need to break this taboo and discuss female sexuality from all angles, including the messy bits (not just versions of women’s bodies which are santised, commodified and homgensied through advertising and pornography). As a society we still tie morality to all aspects of women’s behaviour ranging from sexuality, politics to safety.

    Friedan famously claimed that the problem had no name. We know better than that. The problem has a name: patriarchy. The patriarchal structures governing our society continue to regulate women’s bodies, making them the ‘other’, while the male bodies are the norm.

    Billie attempts to be the perfect housewife after her husband discovers her raunchy past. Photo courtesy of Netflix © 2021

    Women in popular culture are no strangers to being shamed in the media; winner of I’m a celebrity, Abbie Chatfield, has led a movement in pushing back and challenging norms on how young women own their sexuality and the torrent of hate that unleashed on her is unfathomable.

    Women in leadership are used to being attacked and having their moral compass questioned by men who are anything but.

    Most recently we’ve seen women’s sports teams fined for not wearing bikini bottoms to compete, and other women being fined for wanting to wear their bikini uniforms. Women’s sports has complicated history of uniforms, and unless there is a specific safety issue they should just be allowed the wear what they want.

    It is a shame that the show catapulted to mainstream notoriety due to a brief glimpse of a male appendage. The naked female body has been so thoroughly sexualised, that we don’t even bat an eyelid when it enters our screens. Heck, even statues celebrating the work of women are still erected naked.

    But in reality, this is a show about women, for women. It is clunky in places, but the global conversation it has generated shows there is a gap.
    People – including myself – are relishing women taking centre stage with in-depth discussions of female sexuality.

    • Kat is the Associate Director of the 50/50 by 2030 Foundation. In her spare time she consumes pop culture, new music and trash TV while  raising her 4 year old daughter in Canberra.

     

     

    The post Why women can’t stop talking about Sex/Life appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Gender lens: BroadAgenda Research Wrap

    BroadAgenda Research Wrap is your monthly window into academia. We scour the journals so you don’t have to. 
    No topic too impenetrable, no research too eclectic; BroadAgenda Research Wrap brings you a glimpse of the latest gender research around the world – in plain English.

    Another year, same devastating global pandemic.

    We had such high hopes for 2021, only to find the world still firmly in the grips of the ever-mutating virus. More border closures, more lockdowns, more uncertainty.

    While vaccinations are slowly starting to offer a tiny glimmer of hope, we all know that the return to normal will not happen overnight.

    But push on we must, and we are grateful for all the people who helping us make sense of this new world order. In that vein, we will kick off our new monthly research wrap with a glance of the latest research on Covid and gender.

    One extremely interesting body of work comes from Professor Lyn Craig’s online survey ‘Work and care during COVID-19’, conducted during the first wave of lockdowns in May 2020 in Australia.

    Co-authored with Dr Brendan Churchill, their article ‘Unpaid Work and Care During COVID-19: Subjective Experiences of Same-Sex Couples and Single Mothers in Australia’ (Gender & Society 2021) provides a welcome break from the heteronormative, single-binary approaches that still dominate the mainstream news.

    Interestingly, non-heterosexual fathers were more positive than their heterosexual counterparts, whereas the experiences of bi-sexual and lesbian women were more mixed.

    And perhaps unsurprisingly, single mothers were more likely to be happy than those with partners. As the authors write, it could be because, “…they avoided partnership conflicts and particularly benefited from relaxed commuting and child care deadlines”.

    Anyone who had to share spaces with other adults and the kids while trying to keep up with work and online schooling and all the housework can probably relate.

    But because as academics we like to say ‘on the other hand’ a lot, here’s an interesting autoetnography from Denmark. ‘All the single ladies’ may sound like an academic’s utopia where production reigns supreme, but it’s hardly problem-free.

    And then there’s the question of mental health. First, let’s take a look at how it plays out in the context of parenting. Professor Gema Zamarro and Dr Maria Prados examined the ‘Gender differences in couples’ division of childcare, work and mental health during COVID-19’ (Review of Economics and the Household, 2021).

    Using a nationally representative sample in the US, their study shows that women carried a heavier load of the child care, were more likely to reduce working hours or stop working altogether due to the caring arrangements, and mothers of primary school-aged children or younger reported a higher level of psychological distress.

    While these results will surprise no one, we welcome all and any data that shed some light on the situation, and in turn help change things in the future. A pandemic version of ‘you can’t fix what you can’t see’, if you will.

    But of course, we shouldn’t just focus on parents and families, as the impacts are felt across the whole population – and especially among vulnerable population. As Dr Lisa D Hawke et al. observed, transgender and gender-diverse youth are experiencing substantial mental health impacts. As such, the research team calls for both service providers and researchers to engage with these populations directly in order to be able to provide support that actually meets their needs.

    So has there been any positives at all? Scotland seems to be doing something right – at least if you’re female, from younger age groups, married or living with a partner, employed, and in better health. In other words, proceed with caution. Intersectional nirvana it ain’t.

    However, the fortunate ones did report positive changes in diverse domains, including getting more quality time with family, developing new hobbies, more physical activity, and more sleep.

    Where can we sign up?

    Pia Rowe

    Dr Pia Rowe, author of BroadAgenda’s regular Research Wrap, is a Research Fellow at the 50/50 by 2030 Foundation, University of Canberra.

     

    The post Gender lens: BroadAgenda Research Wrap appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Must listen podcasts for the late onset feminist

    My image of feminism growing up was naïve and clichéd.  It was when I turned 50 and the #MeToo movement went viral that I felt a rumble of rage, yet somehow unworthy. Married for 25 years and the primary carer of our children, how could I be a feminist with no personal axe to grind?  And therein lies the naïve bit!

    It has taken some brave women, a groundswell of voices, and a few podcasts to coax out the late onset feminist within.  Here are a few that might get you started.

    Women with Clout

    Hosted by social commentator Jane Caro and journalist Catherine Fox interviewing high profile women, it is no spoiler to say it packs a punch.

    In Episode 26, award-winning leadership expert Dr Kirstin Ferguson described herself as a ‘late-onset feminist’ to which I completely related. In the early 90s Kirsten was Dux of the Royal Australian Airforce Cadets but was offered the position of 2nd in-charge the following year, told they weren’t ready for a woman in the top role. And how did she feel at the time? Grateful!

    Listen in and you’ll discover she doesn’t feel like that anymore, proving better late than never.

    A Podcast of One’s Own with Julia Gillard

    Hands-up who didn’t know what misogyny meant before Julia Gillard’s famous 2012 speech?  Me! Our only female Prime Minister, now the Chair of the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership, interviews some amazing women in this inspiring podcast.

    In Julia’s interview with Helen Lewis, author of ‘Difficult Women A History of Feminism in 11 Fights’, I discovered things I never knew about the Suffragettes.  These women I’d seen in old photos wearing long dresses and bonnets, were an incredibly disciplined and violent army. Thanks to these women, we no longer must resort to bombing letterboxes or burn down buildings to speak out.

    Julia also interviews writer, broadcaster and public speaker, Clementine Ford, introducing her as “the flame-thrower of feminism who has led feminism back into the boxing ring”. This interview gave me a better understanding of Clementine’s no holds barred brand of feminism, something she describes as uncompromising.

    BroadTalk

    Virginia Haussegger’s podcast with a gender lens, BroadTalk, is an extension of the media platform BroadAgenda.

    I listened to her interview with Helen Dalley-Fisher, the head of the Equality and Rights Alliance, just days after women all around Australia participated in the March4Justice, responding to the allegations of sexual abuse and sexual harassment by parliamentarians and staffers in Parliament House. Their conversation delves further into the complexity of gender violence as it relates to women of colour and women with a disability.

    The Good Girl Confessional

    Australian podcaster Sandy Lowres was chosen for the cover of the first issue of the USA-based Women Who Podcast magazine, and I can understand why.  I love her interview style as she embodies her own ethos of when women raise other women up, anything is possible.

    She interviews well known women such as diversity advocate Carly Findlay OAM, journalist Tracey Spicer AM, author and feminist Tara Moss, and BroadAgenda’s own Ginger Gorman. Other inspiring women include Australia’s first legally blind fashion-designer Nikki Hind, and Tana Douglas who was a female roadie for ACDC no less!

    Dolly Parton’s America

    I’m guessing you didn’t expect this would be a feminist podcast recommendation. Dolly Parton is more neutral than Geneva, hardly the hallmark of a feminist. Here are some examples:

    Homosexuality: Everybody should just love everybody else*.

    Religion: Describes herself as spiritual but not religious, (*see above).

    Feminism: Wrote the song 9-to-5 and starred in the movie of the same name, but makes it clear she loves men (*see above).

    This podcast looks into why Dolly’s Q-Score is so high in a country that elevates those that sit at the polarised extremes. A Q-Score does not just measure how adored a celebrity is but also factors how much they are loathed. There are just no Dolly haters out there.

    To me Dolly is a uniter of humans who has chosen a subliminal plain from which to navigate by stealth her inner feminist, with her opinions buried deep in her lyrics.  At a Dolly concert, you are likely to see a fundamentalist Christian singing alongside a Drag Queen. This 9-episode, single season podcast entertained but also opened my mind to feminism being personal and far from clichéd.

    The post Must listen podcasts for the late onset feminist appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Diverse women fronting veterans’ peace movement

    When she joined Veterans For Peace in 2015 it didn’t take Army veteran Monisha Ríos long to learn that there is a status hierarchy among vets—even those working for peace and justice. On meeting Ríos, VFP members would ask if she was a combat vet, and Ríos knew immediately that when she said no, “They’re not gonna take me seriously, I’m not gonna matter. I won’t be considered important. To the work of peace. As a veteran.”  But it didn’t take her long to settle on her answer to that question: “I say, ‘I was in unconventional combat. As in, every fucking day, I had to fight to not get raped. As a woman in the military. So, yeah. I was in combat.’” (Army veteran Monisha Ríos is pictured above. Photo by Randy Bacon.)

    In my book Unconventional Combat:  Intersectional Action in the Veteran’s Peace Movement, I chronicle the experiences and political strategies of Monisha Ríos and other “post 9/11 veterans”—most of them women and BIPOC people, some who identify as queer or gender non-binary. I analyze the promise and pitfalls facing this young and diverse generation of veterans as they claim positions of centrality in a veterans’ peace movement that, until recently, has been dominated by older veterans, mostly white men from the Vietnam War era.

    It shouldn’t surprise us that more women, BIPOC, queer and transgender veterans are joining organizations like Veterans For Peace or About Face:  Veterans Against the War.  Though the military is still dominated by men, women have increased in number, and expanded the scope of their participation in recent decades. In 1973, when military conscription ended, women made up a scant 2% of active duty members of the military.  Today, women constitute 16% of U.S. military active duty and 18% of reserve personnel.  And women’s growing numbers have further diversified the military in other ways:  proportionately, women service members are even more diverse than their male counterparts:  Roughly one-third of women service members are Black, and more than half (56%) identify as a racial minority and/or as ethnically Hispanic.

    Since President Barack Obama in 2013 lifted the ban on women serving in combat roles, growing numbers of women have served in central battle zones of Iraq and Afghanistan, absorbing an escalating share of physical and psychological injuries. An appalling proportion of the injury and trauma suffered by military women is delivered not by foreign combatants, but by men from their own ranks.  Recent research by sociologist Stephanie Bonnes concludes that “More than half of the women serving in the U.S. military have experienced workplace sexual harassment, with some estimates as high as 79%.” A comprehensive study commissioned by the U.S. Marine Corps to answer the question, “What it is like to be both a woman and a Marine,” painted a picture of endemic sexual assault, hostile work environments, online sexual harassment, and officers who perceive women as weak and undeserving of being in the Corps.  Stalking experiences during military service, Carrie L. Lewis and her colleagues found, commonly causes PTSD and depression. As a result, over half a million U.S. women veterans have enrolled in the Veterans Administration (VA) health care system, many of them seeking support for what Suzanne Gordon has called the “vexing problem” of military sexual trauma (MST).

    As a racially diverse cohort of women soldiers has grown in recent decades, so too has the visibility of LGBTQ+ people in the service. Most of the U.S. Military’s history is a story of compulsory heterosexuality coupled with institutional denials or violent suppression of same-sex desire and actions. But the “coming out” ethos of the gay and lesbian liberation movement of the 1970s was echoed in calls to eliminate the military’s anti-gay policies. Prominent members of the military brass stiffly opposed including gay and lesbian people in the service.  In what Randy Shilts called a “…last great frenzy of antigay hostility,” the U.S. military by the start of the 1990s had accelerated its rate of soldiers being drummed out of the service for homosexuality.

    Air Force and Army Veteran Zamil Salhab

    Air Force and Army Veteran Zamil Salhab.

    In 1994, the Clinton Administration instituted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), which became the official policy governing gay, lesbian and bisexual people in the military until its repeal in 2011. Billed as a compromise at the time, DADT barred the military from punishing or discharging someone who was closeted, but it allowed the discharge of individuals who openly stated they were gay or lesbian, or who were seen or known to have engaged in same-sex relationships. DADT ultimately reinforced the boundaries of an oppressive “camouflage closet” for LGBTQ+ service members like Zamil Salhab, whose story I tell in the book.  Salhab, who identifies as a queer non-binary person of color, suffered from the marginalization and violence of gendered racism and homophobia while serving ten years in the military, including two combat deployments in Iraq.

    The 2011 elimination of DATD created legal inclusion for LGBTQ+ people in the U.S. military.  However, scholars Brandon Alford and Shawna Lee argue that this greater statutory inclusion “…does not address a number of cultural or institutional inequities that continue to hinder full inclusion of sexual minority service members.”

    Army Veteran Wendy Barranco

    Army Veteran Wendy Barranco.

    As I show in Unconventional Combat, hostility to non-heterosexual people in the military, especially when combined with gendered racism, continues to create toxic and punishing experiences for women, BIPOC and LGBTQ+ service members.  Following their military careers, as veterans like Monisha Ríos and Zamil Salhab join the veterans’ peace movement, their experiences of MST, gendered racism, homophobia and transphobia shape a shared situated knowledge of interlocking oppressions. This collective knowledge, I argue, is the foundation for an intersectional praxis that presses for change on two wide fronts:  First, challenging the race, gender and sexual business-as-usual inside progressive organizations like Veterans For Peace; second, forging new strategies for linking veterans’ anti-militarism with movements for racial justice, climate action, and ending gender and sexual violence.  “We can’t use the same linear thinking,” Army combat veteran Wendy Barranco told me. “You’ve got to do something radical. And something radical is like, let women lead, period.”

    This post originally appeared on the website “Feminist Reflections” and is reproduced here with permission.

    • Michael A. Messner is professor of sociology and gender studies at the University of Southern California

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The post Diverse women fronting veterans’ peace movement appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Review: ABC TV’s Ms Represented

    “100 years of ‘firsts’: The story of women in Australian parliaments started with a blunder from an inept man with a not-quite-so-ingenious plan.”  

    Ebenezer Ward, an anti-women’s rights politician thought he would ‘kill the bill’ by adding the right to stand for Parliament. How wrong he was – the Bill passed 31 to 14.

    With the ABC’s Ms Represented, host Annabel Crabb presents us with a very powerful and important series about women in Australian politics, one hundred years after Australia elected its very first female parliamentarian. She takes us from Votes for Women, through the years in-between, to today’s Parliament and women politicians’ experiences now.

    Ms Represented begins powerfully and refreshingly with our women politicians literally rejoicing in how the women in South Australia became the most enfranchised women anywhere in the world, being granted the rights to both vote and stand for Parliament on 18 December 1894.  Although Aboriginal Women were also able to vote, it was not always made easy for them to do so. We hear later how Aboriginal women (and men), amongst others, were appallingly denied voting rights in Federal elections in the Franchise Act of 1902.

    Annabel cleverly interviews these leading, prominent politicians through each episode, using an extraordinary collection of vignettes to depict significant issues that arose within our Parliament over the years and how our Parliamentary women had to deal with them.  All the women express very similar experiences of their time in Parliament, despite their varied political alliances.  One states that Parliament has ‘the most unsafe workplace culture in the country’ without any code of conduct.  It has been hard for women politicians to take a stand on the abuse of power and misogyny in Parliament, as they are expected to publicly support and defend their party’s stance. However, when leading women stay silent, the message communicated to others who are similarly suffering is to do nothing.

    From the beginning, there have been four hurdles for women entering Parliament:

    • excuses (no women’s toilets and none installed in WA as women in Parliament were seen as a temporary aberration – Edith Cowan! The Senate didn’t install a women’s toilet until 1974!)
    • questioning women’s resilience, whether tough enough
    • needing to fit the formula
    • women’s experience being viewed differently to men’s (for example Joan Pilone – an experienced local politician versus John Howard – an inexperienced accountant)

    Undoubtedly we need “the best person for the job”, and they insist it is decided on merit, but were all the male politicians really selected on merit?   Amanda Vanstone expressed her strong opinion on this!

    The question of gender quotas has been endlessly debated:

    • this was managed well by Labor, though it was hard fought
    • however, the Liberal party is against gender quotas, despite Menzies pioneering affirmative action when bringing anti-Labor groups together in forming the Liberal Party.

    Different standards are applied when reporting on women in politics, especially when the woman in question is Julia Gillard.  She was judged on appearance rather than policy or the economy and ‘one image brought the suggestion that she wasn’t fit to serve.’

    Women as change agents is not seen as the norm however, as Annabel shows, Australia has had many such women.

    Annabel, WOW and thank you, you’ve done it again, and this time with a real BOOM. The timing of this series is highly relevant and appropriate for all Australian women, in this year and even this month.

    I say this because our Federal Parliament’s unregulated workplace culture has been exposed and shown to be dangerous; both older and current women politicians have spoken out; Brittany Higgins’ spoke of her experience; the Women of Australia (plus many men) Marched saying #Enough! But what has happened? – It appears to be very little or NOTHING. So, regretfully, Annabel’s message is indeed timely.

    Watch the whole Ms Represented series on iview.

    • Gillian Lewis, SA State Representative on BPW Australia Board and former senior government policy writer, is a passionate campaigner for gender equity and anti-men’s violence against women

     

     

     

     

    The post Review: ABC TV’s Ms Represented appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Turia Pitt: How to rewrite your own story

    Ten years ago Turia Pitt had her career mapped out. She was a mining engineer, working in the Kimberleys. One day, she planned to be CEO of a global firm.

    “That never happened,” Turia told an engrossed audience at the National Press Club in Canberra, “I entered an ultramarathon, I was trapped by a grassfire during the race. I received burns to 65 percent of my body [and] spent six months in hospital and I was told that I’d never run again.”

    “So what did I do? I rewrote my story. I reinvented myself,” Turia continues.

    The evidence of this fact stands before us, larger than life telling one amusing and powerful anecdote after another. (Later, Turia privately tells me in the NPC boardroom that she’s learned to use humour as a way to get people to pay attention to the things she cares about.) 

    There’s the story about Frank, the gangsta-like physiotherapist who taught her to walk again, while Turia sobbed into his thick gold chain from the pain. There’s the yarn about how her husband, Michael, brought in the pest exterminators right before a film crew arrived. The driveway was littered with a carpet of dead cockroaches.

    “The hair and makeup artist and the stylist were just looking around and looking at me. And I was just like: ‘So great to meet you! Welcome to my home! Come on in. It’s so great to have you here!’ So I just literally pretended I couldn’t see them,” Turia recalls to a chuckling crowd.

    But it’s not all laughs. The athlete and best-selling author has some serious messages for those attending the Women in Media address.

    Reflecting back on the agony of her rehabilitation, she says: “I remember thinking: ‘I can’t even stand up by myself. How the hell am I going to be able to walk again? Run again? Compete again? And I realised that day that I couldn’t think too much about what my future would look like…And so I choose to literally just focus on one step at a time.”

    Day after day, Turia worked at getting well: “You guys are all presumably really high achievers, so you would know this already: being consistent is what drives results.”

    Turia Pitt at the National Press Club

    Turia Pitt speaks to an engrossed crowd at the National Press Club.

    Despite all her personal and professional successes, Turia explains that there are still days when seemingly small things related to her injuries get her down.

    The example Turia gives is a harrowing story about finding herself in a New York subway station, unable to pick up the change from the ticket seller after purchasing her ticket. She was apparently holding up the queue, and the man screamed at her. 

    “I was travelling to the NBC [TV Network] premiere of the Ironman event that I had competed in, and in that moment it felt as if all of the work I had done up to that point was futile because I couldn’t do this simple, ordinary task of taking my change for my subway ticket,” she says. 

    Although Turia is grateful for the opportunities the media has afforded her – and that generally she has a strong relationship with the press – she notes that journalists aren’t always respectful. Recounting the story of a recent interview, a reporter who (she refuses to name) hounded her with tasteless and inappropriate questions.

    “He asked me what it was like to have people stare at me, how I could possibly come to terms with my changed appearance and how my partner could find me attractive. And then, he questioned me as to why I’d been on so many of my book covers, and justified this line of interrogation by saying: ‘I’ve written 3 books, and I’ve never been on the cover of any of them,’” Turia recalls. 

    With characteristic humour, she retorted: “Well mate, no one knows who you are so obviously putting you on the cover would not be a selling point.”

    (But as an aside, might I say that this is both sexist and ableist questioning and does not adhere to the Journalist Code of Ethics.)

    In response to questions from the audience, Turia notes that while she’s been privileged with plenty of public visibility and opportunities, this isn’t necessarily the case for other minority women.

    She says that when she was on the cover of Australian Women’s Weekly, the magazine sold 70 percent more copies: “There’s a business case for having someone who looks like me on the cover. So I don’t know why the media…aren’t listening to that.”

    Turia urges those working in the media – many of whom are in the room – to “set themselves a target” and think about who is on the front of their magazines.

    “Say, ‘For this year we’re going to have four women who are diverse, whether they’re black, indigenous, disabled, older, whatever it is’.”

    Although Turia repeatedly made it clear that she’s a storyteller and not a politician, she did have words to say on the topic of gender equality: “I love this country. Genuinely I do. I migrated here when I was a baby, and I’m proud to call this sunburnt country my home. But it’s hard for me to reconcile my love for this country with the fact that women are not equal here.”

    She believes in gender quotes for workplaces: “When you have these goals and ambitions…they don’t get achieved.”

    “I really think it needs to be a legal requirement,” she says, and “there needs to be harsher [financial] penalties to help businesses achieve that.”

    Turia Pitt at the beach

    Turia Pitt is an athlete, an adventurer and author. Photo: Juli Balla

     

    The post Turia Pitt: How to rewrite your own story appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • It’s time now to right the wrongs of the past’

    Just a few minutes into the panel discussion at the Equals Now Symposium at the University of Canberra, Allira Davis is brought to tears; she’s just learned that a young man r from her community has died by suicide.

    “A few years ago statistics showed that in the last decade, Australia had a 60 percent increase in the suicide rate among First Nations people.. And this happens in our community, this is our trauma. And we need to step up and change it, we need to change the structural systems that affect our people,” she says with a strong voice that’s wavering with emotion.

    “I don’t want to see my little brothers and sisters go through the same thing,” she continues, “We want to be the change.”

    Allira, 24, is a Cobble Cobble woman from the Barrungum and Birrigubba nations South-East Queensland, and also South Sea Islander from Ambae and Tanna islands. She shares the stage with Bridget Cama, 26, is a Wiradjuri Pasifika Fijian woman. The pair are in conversation with UC’s Dr Holly Northam.

    Allira and Bridget - Equals Now symposium

    (Left to right) BroadAgenda editor Ginger Gorman, Co-chairs of the Uluru Youth Dialogue Allira David and Bridget Cama, UC’s Dr Holly Northam at the Equals Now symposium.

    Together, Bridget and Allira are co-chairs of the Uluru Youth Dialogue, which works closely with the grassroots Uluru Statement from the Heart movement and has focused largely on ensuring Indigenous youth voices are given a platform to be heard. 

    In case you haven’t heard of it, the Uluru Statement from the Heart is a profound document which calls for an enshrined “First Nations Voice” in the Australian Constitution. It also seeks a  “Makarrata Commission” to supervise a process of conflict resolution, truth-telling and justice between Australian Government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. (You can listen to Professor Megan Davis reading the Statement and Discussing it here. It’s moving – bring tissues.) 

    Allira says young Indigenous people can’t suffer the way their elders have – and this is just one more reason why the Youth Dialogue is so important: “Our young people definitely need a say in, an opinion on what matters to their lives [and] in their future.”

    Bridget agrees with her friend and co-chair: “The Uluru Statement talks about our futures. It talks about the incarceration rates of [Indigenous] youth, it talks about the high rates at which First Nations children are taken away. And it talks about our futures and the future generations to come. And how Indigenous and non Indigenous Australians need a change for a better future.

    “It’s about our people’s lives, it’s about our rights, it’s about our self determination, but it’s also about creating a better Australia…It’s time now to right the wrongs of the past,” she says.

    The day before the symposium both Allira and Bridget went lobbying to Parliament House for the first time – alongside Indigenous elders – and met Liberal MP Dave Sharma and Senator Jacqui Lambie. The pair told the pollies what was in the Uluru Statement and explained the work they are doing. 

    “Is it sad to say, I really enjoyed it?” Allira says with a laugh, “It was great!” 

    Reflecting on this “amazing” experience, Bridget says: “Our people have been pushed out of…having a political voice for so long  – since colonization – that we don’t necessarily feel like we have a space there. 

    “We want to make sure that young people know that you can go to Parliament and lobby, you can write to your local member,” she adds, “You have the right to do these things in your own country.”

    By way of explaining the intergenerational trauma, Allira briefly tells the audience many of her family members were forcibly taken to the so-called Cherbourg Mission, which operated from 1904 until 1986. Once you start reading about the horrors of that Mission, it’s hard to stave off despair: 

    The government administration controlled almost every aspect of the Aboriginal people’s lives; the language they spoke, what they ate, what they wore, where they went, for whom they worked and, in some cases, whom they would marry. Aboriginal people, removed to Cherbourg were either placed in dormitories or lived in camps. Large numbers of boys and girls, men and women were brought up away from families in the dormitories. Anyone breaking the strict laws were severely punished – locked up in jail or sent away to other reserves like Palm Island and Woorabinda.

    Back at the Equals Now symposium, the two young women tell the audience they job-share the role, and all decision making is done with deep trust and respect for one another. 

    Explaining how it works in practice, Allira says: “Bridget and I have a very good relationship and friendship, I think because it relies on communication, respect and trust, which is our big three things. If we didn’t have that, it probably wouldn’t work.

    “I’m very humbled and privileged always to be in Bridget’s space and energy,” she continues, “ I can’t wait to see Bridget a few years down the track on where she is in life. Because she’s really inspiring.”

    “Likewise,” Bridget agrees, “We just trust in each other’s abilities.” 

    “Aww cute moment!” Allira jokes.

    Picking up this thread and directly addressing them theme of the symposium #sharetheload #sharethebenefits #sharethepower, Bridget says the Uluru Statement movement is a great example of how a broad spectrum of Indigenous viewpoints are continually considered and incorporated: “The power is shared around.” 

    Bridget explains the pair’s work ethic is inspired by female elders, including their mothers, grandmothers and aunties:  “We’ve seen women in our communities and our families just do it. They just get the job done. And I think that’s what we try and uphold and that’s what we take forward in everything we do.”

    Allira, who is the oldest of 15 grandchildren, says the women in her life taught her to be genuine and respectful and to give back to community: “It soothes my soul when I know that my family is okay, and that I’m doing them proud.

    “My mother has told me to always look after the land and the land will look after you so that’s the connection to country and culture that she’s taught me instilled in my brain.”

    Want more? Listen to the interview with Allira and Bridget by ABC presenter Dan Bourchier, inspired by the Equals Now symposium.

    Allira, Sally and Bridget

    (Left to right) Allira, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Executive Board Council’s Sally Scales and Bridget educating people about the Uluru Statement at the Darwin Arts Fair in 2019.

     

     

     

    The post It’s time now to right the wrongs of the past’ appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Ex-MP Julia Banks describes horrifying culture of misogyny

    An audible murmur of discomfort ripples through the audience at the Australian National University’s Kambri Cultural Centre as former Liberal MP Julia Banks describes being verbally abused and told she was a “pighead,” by a male Liberal staffer inside her own home.

    Her son Sam, who was upstairs studying at the time, was so worried about the tone of the abuse and his mother’s wellbeing, he came running downstairs to check she was alright.

    Speaking at first public event to promote her new book Power Play – a work that delves into the toxic workplace culture in Parliament House and misogyny inside politics – Julia tells host Virgina Haussegger similar verbal abuse occurred on numerous occasions after she won Liberal preselection in the Federal seat of Chisolm. She went on to win the long-held ALP seat in 2016.

    According to Julia, one branch offical told her she’d be a “fucking hopeless MP” because she refused to lie to constituents. Along the similar lines, Virgina pulls out another anecdote from Julia’s book and notes: “One of the young fellows told you to stop acting like a fucking CEO.”

    “Yes,” Julia agrees, reflecting that as someone who came from both the corporate and legal worlds, she made the mistaken assumption that “…the Liberal Party would be a slick corporate machine, and would have some semblance of governance.”

    According to Julia, nothing could be further from the truth. One of the most horrifying incidents in her book describes the moment Julia found herself in the Prime Minister’s suite with all the other MPs eating and drinking, waiting for a late-night vote. Before she knew it, a male minister put his hand on her knee and ran it up her thigh.

    “It was astoundingly brazen,” she recalls, “I just froze.”

    After taking a moment to gather herself on that horrific evening, Julia did manage to remove herself from the situation. But she couldn’t sleep that night: “I just thought: ‘Imagine what happens to other staffers or press gallery journalists who don’t have the position of status I have’.”

    Since the publication of her book, some journalists have been pressuring Julia to reveal the identity of this man. “I was never going to name the person,” she says and goes on to explain that if she did go public, the perpetrator would likely deny it and she may well come under legal attack for defamation.

    “I don’t have the stomach to put myself [and] my family through legal proceedings,” she says.

    Then a moment later she reflects: “I’m sure this sort of behavior happens…in Parliament every single sitting day and night. I have no doubt about that.”

    Attracted to the “progressive, centrist views” of Liberal politicians Kelly O’Dwyer, Malcom Turnbull, Julie Bishop, Julia left her successful career in the legal and corporate worlds and initially joined the Liberal Party back in 2015. After all, the party was calling for more women.

    But after her pre-selection in Chisolm, Julia tells the Canberra audience that very quickly, young male apparatchiks swept in and started ordering her around, demanding she stop talking to her constituents about the economy and instead focus on toilet blocks, shopping centres and being the ‘barrel girl’ for local raffles.

    Virginia summarises this to the audience as: “Shut up and smile more [and] be a good girl.”

    In the face of this pressure, Julia claims she “never stopped advocating” for her principles of multiculturalism and gender equality in the face of the constant pressure from within the party to take more hardline political views.

    Despite her passion for quotas, she was asked by those inside the Liberal Party not to publicly mention the “Q-word” because they were “a :abor thing”. In response to her support for marriage equality, she says State Liberal MPs wrote Facebook posts suggesting “these Canberra politicians don’t know what they’re doing.”

    In her book, Julia describes Prime Minister Scoot Morrison as “menacing, controlling wallpaper” – commentary that has attracted a tonne of attention from the public, the press and the ABC’s “Mad as Hell” comedy program hosted by Shaun Micallef.

    By way of explaining what she means, Julia adds that she found the Prime Minister “intense and almost suffocating.”

    She tells the audience Scott Morrison’s office tried to control her resignation from the Liberal Party in 2018. He wanted to control the timing of her departure and see her exit speech – both requests that she refused. He told her: “Julia, you can’t do this. You’ve got to wait two months.”

    When she again refused, he allegedly said to her on the phone: “Julia,  I AM THE PRIME MINISTER.”

    Julia did agree to give Scott Morrison 24 hours to gather himself and write his public statement – something she now realises was a tactical mistake.

    She details how the PM’s office used this time to background against her to the media and spin a public narrative that she couldn’t cope and was emotionally unstable. He repeatedly told the press he was “supporting” Julia and “giving her every comfort and support for what has been a pretty torrid ordeal for her.”

    In reference to this backgrounding, Virginia jokes: “We all know, thanks to the Prime Minister and others, what a sensitive little petal you are. And how fragile you are”

    “And that I can be manipulated by not just [former Prime Minister] Malcolm Turnbull, [but by] the entire Labor Party apparently,” Julia adds.

    Julia Banks’ book Power Play

    Julia Banks’ book Power Play: Breaking Through Bias, Barriers and Boys’ Clubs describes a toxic workplace culture in politics.

    • Julia Banks’ book Power Play: Breaking Through Bias, Barriers and Boys’ Clubs is out now.

    The post Ex-MP Julia Banks describes horrifying culture of misogyny appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • How the ABC is smashing the glass ceiling

    It’s a man’s world, alright. Or that’s what you’d have to assume if you turn on TV or radio. Women might make up just over half of the Australian population, but they are quoted in the media just under 23 percent of the time. That means blokes are quoted a whopping 77 percent of the time. 

    But what if there was a simple way to make sure women were represented better in the media? We’re not just talking about stories that are about women. We’re also talking about yarns that feature women as experts or interviewees. Well maybe, just maybe, the ABC has the answer. 

    In a recent presentation at the inaugural BroadAgenda “Equals Now” global symposium held at the University of Canberra, ABC 50:50 Project’s co-lead Emma Pearce and her team-mate, Flip Prior, told the audience about their groundbreaking 50:50 Project to better represent women in the broadcaster’s news content.

    When the team formed in December 2018, men’s voices dominated ABC News’ coverage across programming – the male/female split was around 70/30. In March this year, the split was 49/51 in favour of women. 

    In a conversation moderated by former ABC broadcaster (and beloved Canberran) Alex Sloan, Flip told the symposium that initially there was some pushback from both within and without the organisation. But that quickly changed.

    “The message has always been this is going to make for better journalism. It’s not a quota system. It’s that we’re telling more diverse stories, and women comprise half the population. If we’re not telling their stories, and we’re seriously missing the mark,” she says.

    ABC 50:50 Equality team

    ABC 50:50 Equality team with their Play School mates (left to right): Rhiannon Hobbins 50:50 Equality Co-Lead; Gemma Breen 50:50 Equality Digital Producer; Emma Pearce 50:50 Equality Co-Lead; Flip Prior Audience and Content Development; Bronwyn Purvis Partnerships Lead

    But where on earth do you start with huge organisational change like this? 

    Early on, Emma, Flip and their team invited in representatives of women’s networks across different industries to ask them what they saw as the problems and the change they wanted to see. 

    Flip says the response was: “What took you so long? Where have you been? We want you to be a thought leader in this space, because the ABC can create change.”

    Although many of those groups had never heard from the ABC before, they were excited about the project and agreed to help build the broadcaster’s contact books and fill them with female experts. 

    The ABC also did a community call out asking women to self-nominate if they were experts in a certain field. Emma told the audience they were gratified to see women coming forward as commentators in traditionally male-dominated fields, such as economics, finance and science. 

    Emma says about 4000 women responded to that call and those inside the ABC were shocked in a good way.

    Flip picks up on her colleague’s point: “It’s not that the women [experts] aren’t there. They are there, but we just don’t know where to find them…and so it just took off and went viral from that point,” Flip says.

    According to Emma, this incredible outcome served to highlight “…that systematic failure in our systems where everybody [at the ABC] was working so fast all the time. And so of course, they did just pick up the phone and call the established [male] contact, and we knew that our contact books, skewed male and white.”

    In addition to this, Flip points to the “confidence gap” among accomplished women. Rather than take up speaking opportunities themselves, women will often doubt themselves and refer journalists to a male colleague instead. 

    There has also been an ongoing push from ABC journalists over several years to organisations: “Have you got a woman we can speak to instead about that?” 

    Emma notes that suddenly, ABC reporters were getting a different, positive response when they called organisations asking for female experts: “And so it’s starting to get a little bit easier.”

    Using Google analytics, Flip and Emma and their teams could see how many men and women were reading certain stories. They started deeply considering the tone and pitch of articles and how women were presented. 

    “Teams are tracking the amount of men and women they have in their stories,” Flip says, “And they’re using that as a hook to have a conversation every single day about where have we fallen short, where can we do better? How do we change this for next time? Why do we not have any women in this story? And it’s really that culture change…that we’re most excited about.”

    Tim Ayliffe, Managing Editor of TV and Video says achieving 50 percent female representation hasn’t been easy, but it was worth it: “The 50/50 strategy was a no brainer for the news channel. Because if we could better represent the audiences we’re broadcasting to, then they’d notice.          

    “In 2020, we achieved our biggest broadcasting audience ever. And for every single month of the year, we have [had] 50 percent or more females on the channel.”

    “One call to action from us (to women) is, when you get a call from the media, have confidence in your own abilities, and give it a crack,” says Flip 

    Emma says the next step is to focus on more diversity among the women who are represented in their stories: “So we’re thinking about cultural and linguistic diversity, indigenous representation, and people living with disabilities as well.”

    The ABC is happy to share the 50:50 methodology with any organisation who would like to follow their lead. Get in touch: 5050eproject@abc.net.au. 

     

    The post How the ABC is smashing the glass ceiling appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • How do we father in the era of #metoo?

    I have two young kids, and love discussing the joys and challenges of fatherhood with different audiences. I’ve been grappling with a dilemma ever since we first heard news of alleged sexual assault and harassment stalking Canberra’s corridors of power. If it’s a father’s role to help raise kind, confident and respectful individuals who treat people with equality, why doesn’t our community encourage men do this to their best ability? Do we really entrust men with the emotional and social development of their own children?

    I’m still struggling with these questions, but here’s what I do know. We assume men are not willing, interested or capable carers of their own children. I find this so incredibly frustrating because recent studies demonstrate men want time to be dads first and foremost. A survey of almost 900,000 millennial dads found 83 per cent believed family was more important than career. Even before COVID-19, the Diversity Council of Australia found that young fathers wanted more flexible work conditions, with 79 per cent of those surveyed wanting to choose their hours and work a compressed week. Apparently most Australians also believe parenting should be shared equally between partners.

    If men really want more time raising their kids, what exactly is stopping them? I explored this challenge with an expert panel at the University of Canberra’s Equals Now Symposium. During the conversation, it became clear we have in fact three sizeable systemic barriers stopping men from being active fathers: cultural tropes, workplace rigidity and outdated public policies.

    Our culture encourages men to be breadwinners and not carers. We assume kids learn about life while dad works. This includes even the trickier lessons around love, intimacy, heartache and relationships, where positive role modelling and honest, ongoing conversations with young people are so crucial. Fathers tend to do twice as much paid work as childcaring. COVID-19 didn’t uproot this presumption, with significantly less men continuing flexible work practices after the 2020 lockdowns compared to women.

    During the panel, Charles Jenkinson, a specialist training in Cardiothoracic Surgery and fatherhood advocate, explained that the reality of the breadwinner label is a relentless pressure to work, “I think the biggest example of this when was when [my wife] had to take an overseas trip, and I was really struggling, in the workplace, being a solo parent for the week. When I asked people at work if I could just come in fifteen minutes later, after I’d been chastised because I couldn’t get my daughter to daycare in time, I was told, you’re the Training Specialist, you have to suck it up and get on with it.”

    If our attitudes are to change, so too must our workplaces. Most organisations do not have targets for men’s engagement in flexible work, and about 48 per cent of workplaces still offer no paid parental leave. Yet Coleen MacKinnon, founder of Inclusivity Quotient, a consultancy engaging men in workplace gender equality, argues that many industries are now far better at supporting fathers, “the most significant trend, which is a game changer, is shared care or equal, non-gendered parental leave. It’s a policy that incentivises men to care for their children and women to return to work. A father can access extended paid parental leave in the first year of his child’s life, typically about 12 weeks, if his wife is returning to full time work.”

    Positive workplace changes are crucial but incomplete without national policy reform, where Australia remains a laggard by OECD standards. Government provides a meagre two weeks of ‘Dad and Partner Pay’ at minimum wage. Our commercialised early childhood education system stands in bleak contrast to the free, universal access of primary school. Andrew Hunter, Adviser to the Minderoo Foundation’s Thrive by Five Initiative, argues that to progress further, more men must advocate for better policies that invest in caring, “you can’t remove fatherhood from the way we think about the modern Australian family, it would be like taking wetness out of out of water. For me, the modern Australian family of 2030 is one where both parents participate equally at home, and they participate equally in the workforce”.

    Men can be amazing carers. When they actively care for their children, they become more emotionally open and nurturing. They better role model gender equality at home by sharing the parenting load, managing the household, and supporting their partner. In turn, they help display a healthier, more inclusive version of masculinity to their children. That is change Australia sorely needs. Normalising men as carers is one of the most enduring and positive changes we could make to the country right now.

    Rob Sturrock is a father of two children, advocate on fatherhood, gender equality and healthy masculinity, and is the author of Man Raises Boy: A revolutionary approach for fathers who want to raise kind, confident and happy sons

     

    The post How do we father in the era of #metoo? appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • ‘Equals Now’ symposium: Exploring gender inequality in public leadership

    On Wednesday and Thursday of last week, 16 – 17 June 2021, the 50/50 by 2030 Foundation hosted its inaugural symposium, ‘Equals Now’ at the University of Canberra. In today’s post, Laura Davy (@LauraKDavy) and Briony Lipton (@briony_lipton) reflect on the key themes and highlights from this excellent 2-day conference.

    Around the country women have been protesting against current power dynamics.

    Around the country women have been protesting against current power dynamics.

    The 50/50 by 2030 Foundation is based out of the University of Canberra. Its Founding Director was Virginia Haussegger AM and it is now Co-Directed by Professor Kim Rubenstein and Trish Bergin.

    The Foundation’s inaugural symposium, Equals Now, brought together academics, public servants, journalists, and other public commentators to discuss practical strategies for achieving women’s equal representation in leadership positions – and to discuss the challenges that need to be overcome to achieve such a goal, such as the presence of deep structural inequality, the vagaries of political will, and the insidious influence of undermining social norms and biases.

    The symposium was structured around three broad themes – share the load, share the power, and share the benefits. Within these themes, the topics explored over the two days ranged from sexism, harassment and unequal pay in the workplace to the disadvantages that flow from the inequitable distribution of domestic and caregiving responsibilities to the potential of feminist critique to transform our basic public institutions such as parliament and the law.

    Each panel and session of the symposium also grappled with broader, reoccurring themes of the continued prevalence of deeply sexist societal systems, striking a balance between individual and institutional responsibility, acknowledging the compromises and choices that allow us to survive and flourish within those systems, and the strong need to challenge those systems in more radical ways as part of a broader movement for change. Another key message to emerge in the proceedings was how 50/50 representation is not enough – for many presenters and attendees the ultimate goal was transforming institutions – but greater parity of representation is often the first step on the road to this broader mission. It is perhaps only through a critical mass of diversity in positions of power and influence that this deeper transformative work can be done effectively.

    Some of the things about this conference that were particularly great included:

    • An interdisciplinary and diverse array of speakers from inside and outside of academia

    • A short (under 10 minute) timeframe for individual presentations, which made for a fast-paced and engaging sequence of speeches

    • Professional conference organisation that almost seamlessly facilitated both online and in-person modes of participation and interaction (a real feat in these pandemic times)

    • An effective ‘table-based discussion’ Q&A format that enabled particularly rich in person discussion and acted as a reminder of how precious impromptu face-to-face interactions are

    • Indefatigable MC-ing by journalist Ginger Gorman, recently appointed Editor of BroadAgenda (@BroadAgenda5050), and

    • A lovely reception for those lucky enough to attend in person (complete with delightful doggos) at the Residence of University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Professor Paddy Nixon.

    Kim Rubenstein, Co-Director of the 5050 Foundation, concluded the symposium with the following words – “research is essential in order to create social change” – words which are also deeply relevant to the mission of Power to Persuade. The rich engagements embodied in this symposium between researchers and practitioners are key to mobilising research insights in ways that produce real impact.

    Interested readers can follow more reflections on the conference by looking up the Twitter hashtags: #EqualsNOW #sharetheload #sharethepower #sharethebenefits

    This article was originally posted on the terrific Power to Persuade website. The site is a platform for discussion about social policy in Australia in a global context. Check it out!

    Re-posted with full permission.

    The post ‘Equals Now’ symposium: Exploring gender inequality in public leadership appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Young Australian women are dissatisfied with how the media represents them

    Ongoing public discussion about violence against women in Australia has increased attention on the way women are portrayed in the news media.

    The Digital News Report: Australia 2021 finds that women, especially young women, are less likely to think the news media represents them fairly than men. The online survey of 2,034 Australian news consumers also found Australian women believe they receive less news coverage than their male counterparts.

    They are not imagining things. A recent study examining gender inequality in news coverage in India, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, the UK, and the US found women’s voices are often missing.

    It is an issue the ABC has been trying to tackle. In March this year, the ABC announced it had achieved gender parity in its news coverage for the first time since 2018. However, audience perception takes longer to change and not all news outlets are attempting to correct the imbalance.

    The Digital News Report: Australia 2021 finds more than half of Australians are satisfied with how the news media represent ‘people like them’. However, certain groups feel they are more under-represented than others, revealing a perceived lack of diversity in news coverage.

    Australian women are more likely to feel there is not enough news coverage of their gender (16%) than men (10%). The imbalance is acknowledged by 11% of men who say there is too much reporting about them. Only 6% of female participants believed women received too much news coverage.

    Gen Z women – those aged 23 or under – feel the least seen by the news media. These young Australian women (26%) are more than twice as likely as their male counterparts (11%) to feel there is not enough coverage of their gender.  In contrast, three-quarters of men aged 75+ believe men receive about the right amount of news coverage.

    FIGURE 3.3: VIEWS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF COVERAGE OF PEOPLE YOUR GENDER BY GENERATION (%)

    Views about the amount of coverage of people your gender by generation (%)

    [Base: N=2,034]

    In addition to Australian women believing they do not get enough news coverage they are also more likely than men to think news coverage of their gender is unfair. Again, this is particularly true for Gen Z women. Almost one-third of the young women (32%) believe news coverage of their cohort is unfair, compared to 19% of Gen Z men.

    Except for Baby Boomer women, men are much more likely than women to think news coverage of their gender is fair.

    FIGURE 3.13: VIEWS ABOUT THE FAIRNESS OF COVERAGE OF PEOPLE YOUR GENDER BY GENERATION (%)

    Views about the fairness of coverage of people your gender by generation (%)

    [Base: N=2,034]

    These findings are not just important to help improve diversity in news coverage. The data also reveal that perceptions of fairness and sufficiency of news coverage about ‘people like me’ impacts on consumer perceptions of trust in news.

    Those who feel there is not enough news coverage of the groups they belong to, are less likely to trust news in general.  In contrast, those who are satisfied with the way the news media covers them are more likely to trust news. More than half of people who are satisfied with the amount of news coverage their gender receives (52%) say they trust news compared to less than one-third (31%) of those who say there is not enough and 44% who said there was too much.

    The report also finds that women continue to be less interested in news than men and consume less of it. Only 48% of women access news more than once a day compared to 60% of men. A similarly low proportion of women say they have high interest in news (47%) compared to 57% of men, and less than one-quarter of women are interested in politics compared to 40% of men. Australian women also get their news via fewer mediums and news brands than men.

    Perhaps these poor statistics could improve if women perceived the news coverage of them was fairer and more plentiful. In the context of larger community conversations about gender equality these findings are important. They point to the need for diversity in news coverage, not only in the topics covered, but also in the voices being heard. These findings support a push for greater inclusion and diversity in news content and in the newsroom.

    Digital News Report: Australia is produced by the News & Media Research Centre (N&MRC) at the University of Canberra and is part of a global annual survey of digital news consumption in 46 countries, commissioned by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford. The survey was conducted by YouGov at the end of January/beginning of February 2021. In Australia, this is the seventh annual survey of its kind produced by the N&MRC.

    The post Young Australian women are dissatisfied with how the media represents them appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Juneteenth becomes US national holiday to celebrate the end of slavery. But not everyone thinks it is enough.

    Known in the US as Juneteenth, 19 June will now be a nationwide holiday to celebrate the end of slavery. President Joe Biden signed a bill on 18 June which formalised the annual event. But some say the move is being used as a stand-in for measures that would actually help African American communities today.

    It marks the moment in 1865 when the last slaves were freed. The actual date of the Abraham Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation was several years earlier. But Texas held out – and maintained slavery – until Union troops advanced into the state and read the declaration in the town of Galveston.

    Painful moments

    At a ceremony at the White House, Biden said:

    Great nations don’t ignore their most painful moments. Great nations don’t walk away. We come to terms with the mistakes we made. And remembering those moments, we begin to heal and grow stronger.

    I’ve only been president for several months, but I think this will go down for me as one of the greatest honors I will have had as president.

    Kamala Harris, the first Black US vice-president, said:

    We are gathered here in a house built by enslaved people. We are footsteps away from where President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

    And we are here to witness President Joe Biden establish Juneteenth as a national holiday. We have come far, and we have far to go, but today is a day of celebration.

    Emancipation?

    Despite the generally positive reception, some were critical of the Biden administration for the measures they haven’t taken

    One Twitter user pointed to the Biden government’s record on other important matters. He seemed to think the move was purely symbolic.

    Another called the move an act of “perfomative liberation”.

    Writer Clint Smith told Democracy Now that the announcement was moment of “cognitive dissonance” which was “reflective of black experience as a whole”.

    It seems that while Juneteenth is understandably important to a great many people, it’s being seen by some as a largely symbolic measure. And it doesn’t come close to addressing the still existing inequalities faced by many black Americans.

    Featured image via Wikipedia/Nafsahd

     

    By Joe Glenton

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • It’s Pride month, which can only mean one thing: pinkwashing klaxon

    June is Pride month: where the LGBTQI+ community celebrate their diversity. It’s also supposed to be about political and social change. Yet in the 21st century, Pride has turned into little more than an exercise in corporate ‘pinkwashing’.

    Enter the pinkwashers

    As Fem Magazine noted, pinkwashing:

    most commonly refers to the deliberate appropriation of sexual liberation movements towards regressive political ends.

    Pride month is probably the best example of this. Because (for want of a better phrase), June sees the corporate capitalists come out of the closet to douse themselves in rainbow flags. All in the name of PR, of course.

    Examples litter Twitter. As user alvin gunnion shared, four pinkwashing offenders include arms manufacturer Raytheon; vulture capitalist investment company Blackrock; capitalist consultancy service McKinsey, and financial monolith the Bank of America:

    As gunnion sarcastically summed up:

    “american LGBTQ people should have the right to oppress LGBTQ people in other countries just like everyone else!!” – people in my mentions [right now]

    Whataboutery

    But not everyone agreed. One user commented:

    There are LGBT people who work at these places and it’s good that they feel supported.

    Gunnion explained the point further:

    and how does that square with the LGBTQ communities bombed with [Raytheon’s missiles]? or the ones brutalized by repressive regimes that mckinsey consults for? or those displaced by resource driven conflict funded by blackrock? [sic]

    ‘Nuff said’. The media company Comcast is another example. It tweeted its support for Pride month on 1 June:

    Lovely – if you ignore the fact that in the US in 2017-18, Comcast donated over $2m to politicians who were anti-LGBTQI+ rights. Or if you gloss over the fact that a former top executive tried to sue Comcast because of alleged discrimination due to his sexuality. It obviously denied this. Ironically, the worker in question was also Comcast’s “public LGBTQ liaison”.

    But it’s not just corporations that put their images on a 40 degree pinkwash cycle to make sure their dirty laundry comes out rainbow-clean. Governments do it as well.

    Government offenders

    As Fem Magazine noted, Israel is an offender:

    Perhaps the most noted example of pinkwashing is Israel’s public relations campaign to promote itself as the “gay mecca” of the Middle East. This campaign emerged in direct response to “bad press” it received for human rights violations, particularly following global media coverage of the Sabra and Shatila Massacre.

    But of course, the UK Conservative government jumped on the pink bandwagon too. This is despite involving itself in an anti-trans campaign against Stonewall, :

    Time to reclaim Pride

    A protest banner perhaps summed up the situation best. Someone shared an image on Twitter which read:

    We proudly support the LGBT+ community whenever profitable and convenient

    Pride’s history is distinctly anti-capitalist. For example, as Bustle wrote:

    For a lot of folks, having big corporations sponsor commercialized Pride marches is disrespectful to the history of Pride. The Stonewall riot that most people cite as the origin of Pride was a direct response to police raids and brutality, but Pride marches today tend to be accompanied by police escorts.

    The month needs reclaiming as a modern, anti-capitalist, global egalitarian movement – before the pinkwashing consumes it for good.

    Featured image via gildas_f – Flickr 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Too Much Icing and So Little Cake….

     

     

    Like the budget before it, the 2021-22 Budget held out the promise of structural reform to address gender equality. Disappointedly, it delivered yet another missed opportunity for doing so. Those examining the fiscal entrails of this latest effort look for a way forward.

    Engaged citizens committed to lasting and embedded frameworks for gender equality hoped for three structural reforms — a commitment to reintroduce gender analysis in policy formulation and implementation; reforms to promote more even sharing, caring and working roles within families and households (more supportive and incentivised paid parental leave, especially for fathers and partners, more affordable access to early childhood education); and a material investment in preventing domestic violence while assisting victims to rebuild their and their children’s lives in safety.

    Some gains were delivered. The announcements leading up to budget night included changes to the childcare rebate, lifting the maximum rebate to 95 percent for those with two children in care. The further $1 billion towards the National Plan on Reducing Violence Towards Women and their Children is a welcome addition to an historically underfunded area. Boosts to very low-income earners’ superannuation earnings, subsidies for single parents to gain a deposit for a home and, of course, the additional $17.7 billion towards improving aged care are all important. And the Government did include a Women’s Budget Statement as part of the suite of official Budget Statements, for the first time since the Abbott Government ceased the Statement in 2014.

    Yet, the most significant missed opportunity, is highlighted by the National Foundation for Australian Women’s (NFAW) yearly “Gender-Lens” analysis of budget measures. This yearly round-up illustrates the value of applying gender analysis to policy. The NFAW Report breaks up the budget analysis into categories including machinery of government expenditure, revenue raising, social infrastructure, physical infrastructure, climate change and energy and housing, social services, early childhood education and care, schools, VET, Higher Education. The report highlights the impacts of employment policy through paid parental leave, work and family, working from home and STEM on women. It examines health, aged care, reducing violence against women and children, and applies gender analysis to international aid.

     

    There is no doubt that budgets are reflections of the priorities and philosophy of the government and as the NFAW report identified: “Women hoped that after the year of COVID, which showed up the flaws in so many of our systems and structures, we would see some real reform that would recognise the role that women have in the Australian economy, and in society; we hoped government would take steps to address the systemic issues”.

    Those systematic issues, the hurdles preventing true gender equality and unlocking the mechanisms for overcoming them, are central to the objectives of our work at the 50/50 by 2030 Foundation. Indeed, they are the focus of our forthcoming inaugural symposium Equals Now. From 16-17 June 2021 we are gathering academics, public policy makers, civil society and interested and engaged citizens to examine the existing research and practice that may help us work towards gender equality. We have chosen three specific areas that identify the frameworks within which we need to connect gender equity issues – the private sphere, the economic sphere and the public sphere. Evaluating the gender norms and expectations and their impacts within and across these fields is fundamental to achieving embedded structural change.

    For instance, we will examine the gender norms that need budging in the home and in the traditionally identified ‘private’ spheres that impact on women’s public leadership. What can be done in the home to shift and challenge those norms? We will hear from fathers working in this area in a panel called “From Homer to Bandit – Fatherhood towards 2030.” How can we improve government’s role in assisting in the sharing of the load of unpaid care work that COVID has so clearly amplified is disproportionately carried by women? The budget should have directly addressed how child-care and paid parental leave fits in this paradigm to enable gender equality.

    The links between the economic structures in society and equality are stark. When it comes to gender this has been evident in the context of the gender pay gap, the gender segregated workforce and the tax system. Public policy generally is simply not alert enough to the differential impact of policy, including fiscal policy, on different groups in society. Equals Now engages with work being undertaken in these areas and will consider what reforms are needed to embed equality in our economic structures to enable people’s lives to be lived to the full and to enable women to equally share the power?

    The work of the 50/50 Foundation and our inaugural symposium is critically focussed on the need to share political power. What legal, and political and governance structures need changing to assist in the project of embedding equality in all public leadership in Australia? Some of the discussions highlighted in the program include — “The malapportionment of men in Cabinet in Australia”; “A new model for job sharing to increase gender equality in the workforce, particularly in the senior levels of management”; “Job sharing in Parliament” and “Expanding women’s representation in senior internal political leadership roles.”  Changes to ensure equality in leadership are a step towards equality in all spheres – and the same can be said in reverse – ensuring equality in the home and in all economic decision making will enable shared power. This is a win for everyone. A society that fosters and enables equality will benefit everyone. It’s a fundamental plank of fairness but also makes good sense economically. Failure to embrace this measure in the 20-21 Budget highlights the extent of the missed opportunity it represents.

     

    Professor Kim Rubenstein and Trish Bergin are Co-Directors of the 50/50 by 2030 Foundation at the University of Canberra.  For more information and to register to participate in person or online at the conference see Equals Now Symposium 16-17 June 2021, University of Canberra

    The post Too Much Icing and So Little Cake…. appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Disability hate crime on public transport has surged

    Government figures have shown a “shocking rise” in disability hate crime on trains. That’s the verdict of one union. It says this is a “wake-up call” over the erosion of the UK’s rail network. The stats also highlight the ongoing lack of true accessibility on public transport for disabled people.

    Disabled people: transport discrimination

    The Department for Transport (DfT) has released a set of statistics about disabled people’s access to transport in England in 2019/20. Overall, the figures show that non-disabled people still have better options than disabled people.

    For example, disabled people used buses and taxis more than non-disabled people:

    • Disabled people made 55% more trips by taxi.
    • They made 40% more trips by bus.

    When disabled people travelled by car, around a third of them were a passenger. This compares to a fifth for non-disabled people. It ties in with driving licence figures. The DfT found that of those aged 17-64:

    • 60% of disabled people held a driving licence. The figure was 78% for non-disabled people.

    Given the modifications that are available for cars, the number of disabled people with driving licences should be higher. The stats also revealed disabled people’s feelings about public transport.

    Less satisfied overall

    The DfT found that outside of London:

    • 47% of disabled people were “satisfied” with “overall transport and highways services”. The figure was 50% for non-disabled people.
    • 60% of disabled people/59% of non-disabled people were satisfied with local bus services
    • 67% of disabled people/65% of non-disabled people were satisfied with taxi services.
    • 52% of disabled people/51% of non-disabled people were satisfied with cycle facilities.
    • 46% of disabled people/56% of non-disabled people were satisfied with pavements and footpaths.

    Overall disabled people were less satisfied across the board on transport information:

    Disabled People Public Transport Information

    But looking at the DfT stats in more detail, certain problem areas emerge.

    Varying issues

    Taxis were one issue. In London, all black cabs were accessible. But outside the capital, the figure drops to 82%. Then, for licenced vehicles overall (for example, private hire firms) in London, only 17% were accessible. This dropped to just 10% outside the capital. Also, as the DfT noted, police in England and Wales prosecuted 32 cases of discrimination against disabled people by taxi drivers or firms. This was for the year ending 31 March 2019. These were for:

    • Assistance dog refusals.
    • Wheelchair user discrimination.

    The DfT said:

    The number of prosecutions have in general been increasing.

    Other modes of transport fared varyingly in terms of satisfaction:

    • 46% of disabled ferry passengers were satisfied.
    • 71% of passengers with “restricted mobility” rated airports “good or excellent”.
    Invisible illnesses

    Another figure stood out. It was about so-called “maritime” transport (cruise ships and ferries). The DfT said that:

    • Maritime transport satisfied 60% of disabled people living with visible impairments.
    • But only 42% of disabled people with invisible conditions were happy with it.

    It’s important to note this analysis of visible/invisible illnesses and impairments was not available for other transport. The government must give more insight into this area. Because 25% of disabled people live with a mental health condition. Also, a further 18% live with invisible conditions, illnesses, or impairments.

    Rail travel

    Crucially, disabled people’s satisfaction with rail was lower than non-disabled people’s. The biggest difference was in the steps between trains and platforms:

    Rail Satisfaction

    And it was on rail travel where hate crime saw a surge.

    Hate crime surging

    The DfT noted that:

    Between 2014 and 2016, the numbers of disability related hate crime incidents in England reported to the British Transport Police decreased by 37%…

    However, since 2016 the number of incidents has seen a slow but steady increase, increasing by 24%

    This fits with the bigger picture on disability hate crime in England and Wales. In 2019/20:

    • There were over 7,300 disability hate crimes.
    • But the police only charged 1.6% of these.
    • Cases of violence rose by 16% to 3,628.
    • Online hate crimes rose by 46%. They made up one in 10 of all reported ones.
    “Cost-cutting”

    On the rail network, the RMT union was clear why it thinks hate crime has risen. It blamed the:

    cost-cutting that has emptied staff from trains and stations

    The Canary previously reported on this. As we wrote in 2020:

    • Train companies only fully staffed 10% of UK stations.
    • They staffed 45% “some of the time”.
    • Train companies never staffed the other 45%.

    A similar thing has happened on board trains. So, it may be of little wonder that hate crime is up. Moreover, this could be why disabled people’s satisfaction with rail is lower than non-disabled people’s.

    As Labour MP Debbie Abrahams tweeted:

    So, it seems that while UK laws reflect the need for disabled people to have equal access to transport the reality is different. It’s clear that transport operators are still leaving disabled people disadvantaged. And the government also needs to do more to ensure equality is ensured across the country.

    Featured image via The Canary

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • The Immovable AMLO

    The Mexican president continues to decry neoliberalism, but his government is failing to build an effective alternative to it.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  • Sandra Aceng, profile of a woman human rights defender from Uganda

    In February 2021 Defenddefenders announced Sandra Aceng as Human Rights Defender of the Month Sandra Aceng is an outspoken and energetic woman human rights defender (WHRD). She is a gender and ICT researcher and policy analyst for Women of Uganda Network (WOUGNET) where she coordinates the Women ICT Advocacy Group, advocating for internet access for all. In addition, she writes on various platforms such as Global Voices, Freedom House, and Impakter Magazine. Her regular contributions to Wikimedia Uganda often focus on profiling WHRDs, female politicians, and journalists. “After Uganda’s January [2021] elections, many female politicians joined parliament. We want to increase their online visibility. For example, most of the profiles on Wikipedia  are on men, so we need to close the gender digital divide,” Sandra says.

    After Uganda’s January [2021] elections, many female politicians joined parliament. We want to increase their online visibility. For example, most of the profiles on Wikipedia are on men, so we need to close the gender digital divide.

    Having grown up in the digital age, the 27-year-old is a digital native and mainly focuses on defending women’s rights online. Her employer WOUGNET empowers women through the use of ICT for sustainable development. Their three main pillars are information sharing and networking, gender and ICT policy advocacy, and providing technical support to WOUGNET staff, beneficiaries, and members. As a Programme Manager, Sandra analyses internet and ICT policies to ensure that they are gender inclusive. She has noticed that oppressive patriarchal structures are shifting and perpetuating online. Part of her work is to document women’s rights violations and gather evidence, but she has also learned that it’s not enough to just talk about statistics. To truly understand the problems, it is important to talk to the victims and listen to find out what they face, she says.

    Having experienced some forms of online gender-based violence (GBV) herself, she knows how stressful and draining it can be. On top of receiving non-consensual content, she also felt pressure to keep quiet, women are not supposed to complain, she says. As a WHRD, she is used to the subtle pressure that women not abiding by patriarchal gender norms experience. A continuous trickling of seemingly small questions can be rather stressful: “Why are you so loud and outspoken as a woman? When will you get married? How will you take care of your family if the authorities come for you? These kinds of questions make me feel uncomfortable, they make me wonder if I am doing the right thing,” Sandra shares, “but if we want online GBV to end we also need to end these harmful gender stereotypes. Establishing women’s rights is a slow process and keeping quiet won’t speed it up.”

    Why are you so loud and outspoken as a woman? When will you get married? How will you take care of your family if the authorities come for you? These kinds of questions make me feel uncomfortable, they make me wonder if I am doing the right thing.

    There is still a lot of work ahead of Sandra and her fellow Ugandan women’s rights activists. She recently researched digital rights violations during the COVID-19 pandemic and struggled to find female interviewees. Female journalists reporting on politically sensitive topics experienced reprisals like rape, but due to stigma and worries how this will affect their future, they were not willing to speak out. While male journalists on the other hand expressed themselves freely: men are often perceived as bold and brave, making it easier to speak out on reprisals and rights violations they endured.

    But the more women speak out, the easier it gets, Sandra is convinced. “It really motivates me when I see that other women have faced the same kind of challenges with online violence, and they have dealt with it. Whatever I go through, it’s not the end of life. Hearing other stories helps me to keep working hard, to be a better version of myself and to go beyond the difficulties.” Fighting the digital gender divide is Sandra’s way to make sure that it gets easier for women to speak out and be loud.

    https://defenddefenders.org/human-rights-defender-of-the-month-sandra-aceng/

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Commission on the Status of Women – who is left out of the digital frame?

    Every month is busy for feminist advocates and activists. The work never stops. But the month of March is when the rest of the world, along with mainstream media, turn fleeting attention to gender equality.

    That brief period between International Women’s Day on March 8, and the United Nations’ annual Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), 15-26 March, provide a short window of opportunity for women to be heard.

    But the question we must ask is – who are we not hearing? Whose stories are left out?

    The CSW takes place in New York, where all member states of the United Nations gather to report on their gender equality progress. It’s a time of public sharing, in which civil society get to hold nations to account.

    This year the theme of CSW65 is women’s participation and decision making in public life, as well as the elimination of violence, for achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls.

    In the CSW official document released on 21 December 2020, the UN Secretary General notes the importance of women’s participation in decision making and leadership. It highlights a focus on parliaments, public sector and the need to strengthen quotas.  The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action on Gender Equality, written at the 4th World Conference on Women in 1995, made clear that women gaining equal access to decision making and power sharing was a critical strategy for achieving equality for women and girls. It is also critical for reaching the Sustainable Development Goals. However, the UN Secretary General also notes that women’s civil society, which is crucial in supporting change, is challenged by shrinking spaces.

    Whilst Civil Society always plays an important role advising government delegations at CSW, as well as participating in numerous influential ‘side events’ and parallel sessions, this year will be different, as some of those critical voices are muted.

    Due to COVID19, CSW will be a hybrid event with mostly virtual meetings. Whilst this means that some who could not otherwise afford to attend can now participate, it nevertheless relies on access to internet and widens the digital divide.

    After a year of zoom meetings most of us know how hard it can be at times to get a word in, particularly when there are multiple people online. Coupled with time differences in New York, which mean ungodly hours in the middle of the night for many of us, there is a real risk that CSW 2021 will become just a passing parade of faces and voices, rather than a participatory and networking experience.

    Importantly, just as those of us in the Australia/Oceania region will skip out of the 4am AEST meetings, the flip side means much of the world will not have the benefit of joining in the Pacific-led sessions

    A paper titled ‘Women’s informal participation in political and public life and space: global trends and challenges’, prepared for CSW65 by an Experts Group, argues that women’s participation in the informal sphere gets ‘short shrift’, and that barriers and opportunities remain invisible, if there is only a focus on the formal sphere of parliaments and legislatures. After examining feminist and women’s movements, the paper’s authors suggest that women’s participation in feminist civil society has either stalled, or is in decline.

    The paper details the regional mobilisation is Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Middle East and North Africa, Sub Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean,  South and East Asia. However, neither the regional wrap up, nor the detailed map, include any Pacific Island Countries. This is a significant oversight. The reality is that far from a decrease in feminist civil society activity, it is in fact increasing – mobilising, forging new coalitions and combining resources.

    The We Rise Coalition is just one example of organised feminist activism and leadership in the Pacific. The We Rise coalition continues to grow in number.  It is one of the key actors in the region advocating for gender justice for Pacific women in all their diversities. It facilitates a regional dialogue between individuals and organisations with different constituencies across the region, through a focus on knowledge-building; it builds capacity of Pacific feminists to conduct their own research, movement building and advocacy; and coordinates a representative feminist voice for regional and global meetings. The commitment to a focus on intersectionality and intersectional recognition of diverse Pacific women’s struggles, increases their effectiveness and helps ensure no-one’s voice is left out.

    The Expert Group recommends to the UN that transnational feminist organisations and networks are strengthened by convening global and regional meetings on gender equality, and argues that a ‘far more powerful and accessible CSW is needed’.  Barriers to civil society participation at CSW are not new, and not COVID specific. Visa restrictions have also kept civil society away in years past.

    Right now, preparations are taking place for the CSW65 by Pacific feminists, who want to amplify their voices and let the world know of their issues and concerns. This March many will be watching to see if the virtual meeting model makes CSW more accessible – particularly for those in far flung localities beyond New York. Or, will the realities around technological access and poor internet coverage make the digital divide a bridge too far, with exiting inequalities and marginalisation simply further entrenched.

    Pacific feminist activists are in for the long haul. They are seeking substantial, sustainable changes. Their efforts deserve much more than a fleeting spotlight, during a brief and jam-packed period, when the world might watch for a moment – if awake.

     

     

    The post Commission on the Status of Women – who is left out of the digital frame? appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Black Labour members are set to boycott campaigning for the party

    A Labour Party grassroots group is warning that it will call on its supporters to boycott campaigning in the upcoming local elections. This is because of Keir Starmer and the party’s inaction over Black representation. But the rot surrounding this goes much further than just systems and structures.

    Grassroots Black Left

    Grassroots Black Left (GBL) is a Labour-supporting campaign group. It formed in 2017. GBL says it consists of “African, Caribbean and Asian socialist Labour Party supporters from all around Britain”.

    At GBL’s parliamentary launch in 2018, Clive Lewis MP said:

    We want set places on the Labour’s ruling NEC [National Executive Committee] for black members and dedicated staff at Southside (Labour headquarters) working for the same black section, for black members of the party. It’s absolutely shambolic that BAME Labour (the current party group for black members) only has just over 600 members.

    At the time, GBL’s co-founder Deborah Hobson wrote for the Morning Star that there were an estimated 100,000 Black members in Labour. But despite demands by a senior figure such as Lewis, and GBL’s formation, fast forward to 2021 and the group says little has changed.

    “Urgent” concerns

    GBL said in a press release seen by The Canary that it has written to Starmer and NEC members:

    about the urgent need for them to tackle Black under-representation – that remains despite the huge impact globally of the Black Lives Matter movement… Africans, Caribbeans, and Asians are Labour’s most loyal voters and the key to the party getting MPs elected in more than 60 seats around the country. So, Labour can’t get back into power without them.

    The letter, which is looking for support from NEC members, doesn’t hold back. It says that GBL is:

    extremely concerned that three years after the important Labour Party Democracy Review recommendations on increasing Black representation and equality within all structures of the party were made, no action has been taken to implement them.

    An unactioned review

    This review recommended a lot of things. It included an annual BAME conference. But the review also led to the group BAME Labour no longer having an automatic seat on the NEC. GBL said in the press release that:

    nothing has been set up to replace it, which means African, Caribbean and Asian party members are now without a voice.

    The NEC has a so-called BAME representative. But they are not part of any one organisation. This means they are effectively working on their own. Black members elect this person. But GBL think that Labour has not gone far enough. In fact, you could argue that by removing the BAME Labour NEC rep, the party has actually gone backwards.

    Nine areas of action needed

    GBL says it has nine points which the Labour leadership need to address:

    • “Doing another mass mailing of the national survey to identify the African Caribbean and Asian members in the Labour Party”.
    • “The organising of the promised and so far, not delivered, annual BAME conference”.
    • “Getting each region to organise a Regional BAME Conference”.
    • Also, “getting elected national and regional BAME committee members”.
    • “Getting elected BAME representatives on every Regional Executive Committee”.
    • “Doing a mapping exercise of BAME communities all over the country”.
    • “Making sure there are BAME seats on bodies such as CLP [Constituency Labour Party] management committees, CLP executives, CLP management committees and local government committees, at the very least, in areas where there is a high percentage of BAME people in the population to redress their under-representation”.
    • “Using all-African Caribbean and Asian shortlists the same as all-women shortlists to redress Black under-representation”.
    • “Tackling the failure of the party to properly investigate discrimination against its members of colour, including them being disproportionately affected by disciplinary action”.

    But GBL seem unconvinced that the leadership will address this. So, it is calling for action.

    ‘Downing tools’?

    It said in its letter that:

    Black party members have been left shamefully ignored and frankly, treated with contempt by the Labour leadership. It is therefore unsurprising that some Black activists, fed-up with being treated as mere canvassers and voting fodder, have said enough is enough and have threatened to “down tools” and no longer campaign for Labour.

    GBL said in its press release that this ‘downing of tools’ would be targeted. Specifically, it’s calling for Black activists and members not to campaign for the party in the upcoming local elections. And as it outlined in the letter, Black members have good reason for doing this:

    African Caribbean and Asian communities are experiencing unbearable suffering as the disproportionately high victims of the Covid-19 pandemic, systemic and other racism, Islamophobia, economic poverty, attacks on the rights of migrants, including the Windrush generation, and state and police brutality. We know that a socialist Labour Party and government can help remedy these issues. That is why GBL will do whatever is necessary to ensure that the Labour Party is held to account when it fails what traditionally has been its most loyal supporters and voters.

    The Canary contacted the Labour Party for comment but had not received a response at the time of publication.

    The “Labour Leaks” and “anti-Black racism”

    These failings were also highlighted by the so-called “Labour Leaks” report.

    As Nadine White wrote in June 2020 for HuffPost, the report:

    raised grave concerns of anti-Black racism, otherwise referred to as Afriphobia, which campaigners argue have not been adequately addressed by the party’s leadership.

    Labour officials used a string of insults in private WhatsApp groups to describe senior Black MPs and officials including Diane Abbott, Dawn Butler and Clive Lewis, the lengthy document revealed.

    Abbott is referred to as “repulsive”, with another official saying she “literally makes me sick”.

    Labour told HuffPost that it was aiming to:

    put measures in place to protect the welfare of party members and party staff who are concerned or affected by the report.

    In addition, both Angela [Rayner] and Keir have met with the BAME staff network and have committed to improving representation, progression and culture in the workplace.

    But White said at the time that this, and the party’s seeming inaction over it, had led Black members to leave.

    Unfathomable inaction

    It is unfathomable that Labour has still not addressed many issues surrounding this.

    GBL should not have to be appealing to NEC members for support. What it’s calling for are very basic systems and structures. These are ones that should already be in place. But moreover, it shouldn’t have to be raising concerns about Labour treating its Black members with “contempt”. Starmer and the party machinery need to address and remedy GBL’s concerns. And they need to do it quickly – before a mass exodus of members begins.

    For reference, GBL highlighted the use of the term “BAME” is only used when in the context of the Labour Party’s use of it.

    Read GBL’s full letter below:

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Chris McAndrew and GBL

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • For young women Amanda Gorman climbs a hill

    National youth poet laureate Amanda Gorman’s recitation of “The Hill We Climb,” at Joe Biden’s presidential inauguration in the United States captured the attention of a nation and people globally.

    Gorman highlighted the power of poets in our current sociopolitical context to speak unique and timely truths, while tapping into larger literary traditions. Some commentators were reminded of the legacy of Black women poets like Maya Angelou and Elizabeth Alexander who delivered inaugural poems respectively at Bill Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s inaugurations. The ring Gorman wore was a tribute to Maya Angelou and a gift from Oprah Winfrey.

    Gorman inspired people of all ages with the notion of seeing and being light. The day after the inauguration two of her books topped Amazon’s bestseller list.

    Gorman moved many in a time of geopolitical uncertainty and a pandemic with the power of critical hope, something that combats hollow positivity.

    Gorman moved many in a time of geopolitical uncertainty and a pandemic with the power of critical hope, something that combats hollow positivity. In the words of educator and literary theorist Ira Shor, critical hope asks us to “challenge the actual in the name of the possible.”

    We are researchers who have studied how youth carve out legacies and how storytelling can teach and inspire critical hope. What struck us in hearing Gorman speak was how, at the age of 22, the poet taps into the power of generativity, a concept that refers to creating a legacy that lasts beyond our lifetimes to shape future generations.

    As she recited: “But one thing is certain: If we merge mercy with might, and might with right, then love becomes our legacy and change our children’s birthright.…”

    Shaping who we are by the stories we tell

    Research repeatedly indicates that adults in their 30s and 40s who are involved in creating something that will last beyond their lifetime enjoy a better quality of life until death in many ways. (Parenting, teaching, social justice activism or engaging in creative projects are ways of leaving one’s mark in the world after death.)

    Can people in their early 20s already see themselves carving out a legacy? Gorman’s poem suggests the answer is yes. She reminds people that what they do (or don’t do) will shape the legacy future generations inherit: “We will not be turned around or interrupted by intimidation because we know our inaction and inertia will be the inheritance of the next generation.”

    Gorman’s poem speaks to the creative and leadership potential of youth. Her display of being part of a lasting legacy resonates with our experiences and some of our research.

    Psychologist Erik Erikson popularised the idea that in middle age many adults become interested in leaving a legacy, but studies have found that many youth are also interested in creating something that lasts beyond their lifetime.

    Research in literature and the meaning of narrative reveals how narrative shapes our relationship to the world around us.

    Greta Thunberg is also creating a youthful narrative of hope.

    Highly generative adults also tend to tell stories about their lives using what some psychologists call redemptive themes: a story with a negative beginning gains meaning through a positive outcome.

    We are currently studying the life stories of 18- to 24-year-olds who have been nominated by community leaders as young people who have made lasting impacts. The young people in our study have received awards, represented Canada on international stages and founded organizations for social justice. Our research seeks to understand the relationship of their achievements to storytelling their and identity formation, and how these both inform legacy building.

    In both the fields of psychology and literary studies, we are fascinated with how narratives shape our relationship to our present and inform social change.

    Redemptive themes

    The theme of redemption, like the presence of generativity, infuses passages in “The Hill We Climb” in both communal and personal references. As Gorman read:

    “[with] Every breath from my bronze-pounded chest, we will raise this wounded world into a wondrous one.”

    Gorman’s recitation also carved out a redemptive moment by reclaiming the Capitol steps where a violent insurrection occurred only two weeks before. Those involved opposed the democratic electoral process and the crowd was populated with signs, symbols and flags of white supremacist and extremist groups.

    By inviting her audience to envision future acts of “hope and light” on those steps, she joined this event, its larger histories and its cultural and political contexts to a meaningful and optimistic shared experience. When she spoke, no divisions were erased, but she acknowledged the possibility that together we can create a world that is better, more equitable and just.

    Such a redemptive capacity is found in adults who show a strong commitment to legacy building. It is also what we as researchers are looking for in our study of young leaders.

    Journey through generations

    Gorman is aware that she represents the living legacy shaped by those who came before her and that her legacy belongs to future generations. She told CNN she has a mantra she recites when she performs:

    “I’m the daughter of Black writers. We’re descended from freedom fighters who broke their chains and changed the world. They call me.”

    Examining youth voice teaches us that generativity is about understanding the redemptive journey through generations, and one’s role within the larger picture.

    Psychologists have long connected the importance of sharing family stories at the dinner table, and even outlined how through story, parents and grandparents uniquely contribute to a child’s values and moral development.

    These connections also occur through outside forces like mentors, advocates and youth programs that nurture talent and the capacity to thrive.

    Youth can inspire us to hope more and think bigger.

    Gorman’s journey illustrates the transformative power of intergenerational collaborations documented in research. Gorman acknowledged: “I say I am proud of us, because this really takes a village, I have so many supporters [and] so many organisations … have supported me.”

    Oprah Winfrey tweeted about her pride at seeing a “young woman rise.” Gorman told the Associated Press it was Jill Biden who recommended her for the inaugural occasion.

    As researchers who work with young people every day, youth inspire us to hope more and think bigger. Gorman is part of a generation of young leaders, such as Malala Yousafzai, Greta Thunberg and gun reform activist David Hogg who deserve support and commitment from those around them to create space for youth generativity in education, government, community, sports and in the arts.

    Gorman ends her poem with encouragement to begin our own journeys of critical hope:

    “For there is always light, if only we’re brave enough to see it. If only we’re brave enough to be it.”

    Heather Lawford is Professor, Department of Psychology and Canada Research Chair in Youth Development, Bishop’s University in Canada; Heather L. Ramey is Assistant Professor, Child & Youth Studies, Brock University; and Jessica Riddell is Full Professor and Jarislowsky Chair of Undergraduate Teaching Excellence, Bishop’s University. 

    This article was originally published in the Canadian edition of The Conversation. It is reprinted under Creative Commons.

    The post For young women Amanda Gorman climbs a hill appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.