radiofree.asia

Category: Feature

  • A sad goodbye from me!

    Dear beloved BroadAgenda readers,

    Since I was headhunted for the role of BroadAgenda editor back in 2021, we’ve achieved so much! This blog has gone from having a handful of dedicated readers to hitting 249k impressions a month. Wow!

    We couldn’t have done it without YOU—our incredible readers and contributors. For me personally, it’s been such a privilege to edit and publish such a diverse range of feminist voices and research over the last 3.5 years. Thank you for trusting me with your thoughts and your writing. Thanks for taking the time to read and believe in what we’ve published; we’ve really contributed to the sharing of vigorous ideas and discourse around gender-related topics.

    I’m definitely raising a glass to a more equitable future! (And I hope you do too.)

    All the best for the new year—especially to my colleagues at UC and around the country who have been made redundant and/or whose contracts have not been renewed. This will be a tough holiday season for many.

    On that note, I’m also one of the many folks in Australian universities who have accepted a redundancy in response to financial pressures at the tertiary institutions we’re working for. So I will be leaving this role as of today (Friday, December 20, 2024). This selfie is of me feeling quite blue yesterday as I handed in my UC office keys, and other effects!

    I met so many wonderful colleagues (you know who you are!) at UC, and it’s with great sadness that I will no longer be having lunches or corridor chats with them. A special shout out to BA’s founding editor, Dr Pia Rowe, who was my life raft when I first started at UC, and continues to be a dear friend.

    With the warmest of wishes for the holiday season and solidarity in the feminist fight,

    Ginger Gorman

    PS: BroadAgenda is currently not taking submissions, and at this stage, I don’t have further information about its future while this enormous change process is underway.

    PPS: If you’re wanting to get in touch with me personally, please do that via my website. 

    The post A sad goodbye from me! appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Addressing gender bias: Why newsroom equality matters

    In this exclusive Q&A, BroadAgenda editor, Ginger Gorman, speaks with Andrea Carson, Professor of Political Communication at La Trobe University. She’s the lead researcher behind the 2024 Women for Media Report: ‘An Unfinished Story,’ the largest study to date on gender bias in Australian newsrooms. Using innovative machine-learning techniques, Carson and her team analysed over 200,000 articles to reveal critical insights into the underrepresentation and misrepresentation of women in both the creation and sourcing of news.”

    Your report emphasises the importance of supporting public interest journalism, particularly during tough economic times. What specific policy incentives do you believe governments should implement to help sustain gender-equitable workplaces in newsrooms?

    The federal government has policy programs to support public interest journalism in rural and regional Australia and these could also include incentives that promote gender equitable workplaces.

    The News Media Bargaining Code is also designed to support public interest journalism but at present Meta have withdrawn from participating in the Code, leaving a policy gap for government to address to ensure that Australian public interest journalism is adequately supported. If a replacement scheme is devised, it should also take into consideration policies that promote gender equality in news coverage.

    Andrea Carson, Professor of Political Communication, La Trobe University. Picture: Supplied

    Andrea Carson, Professor of Political Communication, La Trobe University says: “On a positive note, many newsroom leaders are now women.” Picture: Supplied

    Despite nearly equal numbers of male and female journalists, gender bias persists in coverage. What do you see as the most significant barriers that need to be addressed to achieve true gender parity in journalism?

    Unconscious (or even conscious) gender bias in news needs to be addressed. Editors need to consciously think about who gets assigned to what story and why. This extends to front page coverage and the authors who are commissioned to write opinion pieces. At present we see horizontal segregation of topics, or pink ghettos – as they were once called – meaning that men more commonly report on “hard news” and women on “soft news”.

    Politics is the hard news exception – with almost equal numbers of men and women journalists reporting in this domain now thanks to outlets like the Guardian that have really lifted the profile of women political reporters over time. Hard news stories include business and the economy, science, foreign affairs and sport. Soft news is health, arts, celebrity and gossip.

    Given that women predominantly cover “soft news,” what strategies can newsrooms employ to encourage female journalists to take on roles in reporting areas like sports and politics? 

    Teaching journalism at La Trobe shows me that there are many women who want to report on sport. I don’t think the problem is supply, but more newsroom demand. Editors need to ensure there are equal opportunities for men and women to report on different topics but also to ensure they have visibility on these topics – meaning that women have the same opportunity as men to report on big events in sport, politics and so forth and not just stories on the periphery that make it to a few paragraphs on the inside pages or few words in the broadcast bulletin.

    On a positive note, many newsroom leaders are now women. This may lead to a rethink of how we define news and broadening of the news agenda and its framing to topics that in the past have been ignored outside the health and well-being pages such as menopause and childcare.

    Men in the media remain the default quoted experts. Image: Women for Media Report

    Men in the media remain the default quoted experts. Image: Women for Media Report

    How can news organisations better ensure the representation of women from diverse backgrounds in both reporting and as expert sources, and why is this important for gender equity in journalism?

    Diversity in reporters and sources is a positive for journalism but also for democracy and for the media outlet’s economic survival. If we want news about our society to be accurate and holistic, we need to properly represent all groups in society.

    Newspapers have names such as The Mirror, because they were thought to mirror society. This is not the case if only a small section of society such as middle-class white men are over-represented.

    Moreover, women are turning off news and are among the largest news avoiders according to the annual Digital News Report. One reason for this is because they do not see stories of interest to them or that reflects their experiences. Given news outlets are losing audiences to other forms of storytelling such as TikTok and social media, it is in their economic interests to engage a wider audience that includes 50 per cent of the population: women.

    With the rise of online abuse targeting women journalists, what collaborative efforts do you recommend between media organisations and digital rights groups to establish and enforce effective digital safety standards? What can bystanders do?

    Media organisations need to work closely with authorities such as the E-Safety Commissioner to develop best practice guidelines. This might include mechanisms such as turning off comments on sensitive stories so that journalists, particularly women and minorities, do not bear the brunt of incivility and gender abuse in reaction to such stories.

    How do you think the current economic challenges facing media organisations affect gender representation in newsrooms, and what can be done to mitigate these impacts?

    Not directly. I think most newsrooms already have similar numbers of men and women, so new hires to even up numbers is less of a problem. The issue is enabling women and men journalists in those newsrooms equal opportunities to report on stories across the topic mix to end horizontal segregation.

    What practical steps should newsroom leaders take to create a culture of accountability around gender equity and support female journalists in high-visibility roles?

    The first step of accountability is measurement. Newsrooms can easily keep track of who dominates the front pages and opinion pages and the reasons for this. Regular reporting to the editorial floor will generate awareness of existing inequalities. Leaders can also encourage their journalists to rethink their dependencies on established sources that are easy to access but sometimes overpromoted.

    Instead, they could be encouraged to look for women experts on the topics that they are reporting on to ensure women are also heard in the media and not just the same (male) sources.

    There are lists to help with this such as the Women for Media database. Other resources are universities that have comprehensive lists of their experts and can supply names of women experts.

    Is there anything else you want to say? 

    Studying news is particularly difficult and expensive in the digital age in a fragmented media environment with predominantly proprietary data. Governments can play an important role in directing social media companies and newsrooms to share non-sensitive story data with researchers to ensure up-to-date research on these important topics and to measure improvements over time.

    • Please note: picture at top is a stock image 

    The post Addressing gender bias: Why newsroom equality matters appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Addressing gender bias: Why newsroom equality matters

    In this exclusive Q&A, BroadAgenda editor, Ginger Gorman, speaks with Andrea Carson, Professor of Political Communication at La Trobe University. She’s the lead researcher behind the 2024 Women for Media Report: ‘An Unfinished Story,’ the largest study to date on gender bias in Australian newsrooms. Using innovative machine-learning techniques, Carson and her team analysed over 200,000 articles to reveal critical insights into the underrepresentation and misrepresentation of women in both the creation and sourcing of news.”

    Your report emphasises the importance of supporting public interest journalism, particularly during tough economic times. What specific policy incentives do you believe governments should implement to help sustain gender-equitable workplaces in newsrooms?

    The federal government has policy programs to support public interest journalism in rural and regional Australia and these could also include incentives that promote gender equitable workplaces.

    The News Media Bargaining Code is also designed to support public interest journalism but at present Meta have withdrawn from participating in the Code, leaving a policy gap for government to address to ensure that Australian public interest journalism is adequately supported. If a replacement scheme is devised, it should also take into consideration policies that promote gender equality in news coverage.

    Andrea Carson, Professor of Political Communication, La Trobe University. Picture: Supplied

    Andrea Carson, Professor of Political Communication, La Trobe University says: “On a positive note, many newsroom leaders are now women.” Picture: Supplied

    Despite nearly equal numbers of male and female journalists, gender bias persists in coverage. What do you see as the most significant barriers that need to be addressed to achieve true gender parity in journalism?

    Unconscious (or even conscious) gender bias in news needs to be addressed. Editors need to consciously think about who gets assigned to what story and why. This extends to front page coverage and the authors who are commissioned to write opinion pieces. At present we see horizontal segregation of topics, or pink ghettos – as they were once called – meaning that men more commonly report on “hard news” and women on “soft news”.

    Politics is the hard news exception – with almost equal numbers of men and women journalists reporting in this domain now thanks to outlets like the Guardian that have really lifted the profile of women political reporters over time. Hard news stories include business and the economy, science, foreign affairs and sport. Soft news is health, arts, celebrity and gossip.

    Given that women predominantly cover “soft news,” what strategies can newsrooms employ to encourage female journalists to take on roles in reporting areas like sports and politics? 

    Teaching journalism at La Trobe shows me that there are many women who want to report on sport. I don’t think the problem is supply, but more newsroom demand. Editors need to ensure there are equal opportunities for men and women to report on different topics but also to ensure they have visibility on these topics – meaning that women have the same opportunity as men to report on big events in sport, politics and so forth and not just stories on the periphery that make it to a few paragraphs on the inside pages or few words in the broadcast bulletin.

    On a positive note, many newsroom leaders are now women. This may lead to a rethink of how we define news and broadening of the news agenda and its framing to topics that in the past have been ignored outside the health and well-being pages such as menopause and childcare.

    Men in the media remain the default quoted experts. Image: Women for Media Report

    Men in the media remain the default quoted experts. Image: Women for Media Report

    How can news organisations better ensure the representation of women from diverse backgrounds in both reporting and as expert sources, and why is this important for gender equity in journalism?

    Diversity in reporters and sources is a positive for journalism but also for democracy and for the media outlet’s economic survival. If we want news about our society to be accurate and holistic, we need to properly represent all groups in society.

    Newspapers have names such as The Mirror, because they were thought to mirror society. This is not the case if only a small section of society such as middle-class white men are over-represented.

    Moreover, women are turning off news and are among the largest news avoiders according to the annual Digital News Report. One reason for this is because they do not see stories of interest to them or that reflects their experiences. Given news outlets are losing audiences to other forms of storytelling such as TikTok and social media, it is in their economic interests to engage a wider audience that includes 50 per cent of the population: women.

    With the rise of online abuse targeting women journalists, what collaborative efforts do you recommend between media organisations and digital rights groups to establish and enforce effective digital safety standards? What can bystanders do?

    Media organisations need to work closely with authorities such as the E-Safety Commissioner to develop best practice guidelines. This might include mechanisms such as turning off comments on sensitive stories so that journalists, particularly women and minorities, do not bear the brunt of incivility and gender abuse in reaction to such stories.

    How do you think the current economic challenges facing media organisations affect gender representation in newsrooms, and what can be done to mitigate these impacts?

    Not directly. I think most newsrooms already have similar numbers of men and women, so new hires to even up numbers is less of a problem. The issue is enabling women and men journalists in those newsrooms equal opportunities to report on stories across the topic mix to end horizontal segregation.

    What practical steps should newsroom leaders take to create a culture of accountability around gender equity and support female journalists in high-visibility roles?

    The first step of accountability is measurement. Newsrooms can easily keep track of who dominates the front pages and opinion pages and the reasons for this. Regular reporting to the editorial floor will generate awareness of existing inequalities. Leaders can also encourage their journalists to rethink their dependencies on established sources that are easy to access but sometimes overpromoted.

    Instead, they could be encouraged to look for women experts on the topics that they are reporting on to ensure women are also heard in the media and not just the same (male) sources.

    There are lists to help with this such as the Women for Media database. Other resources are universities that have comprehensive lists of their experts and can supply names of women experts.

    Is there anything else you want to say? 

    Studying news is particularly difficult and expensive in the digital age in a fragmented media environment with predominantly proprietary data. Governments can play an important role in directing social media companies and newsrooms to share non-sensitive story data with researchers to ensure up-to-date research on these important topics and to measure improvements over time.

    • Please note: picture at top is a stock image 

    The post Addressing gender bias: Why newsroom equality matters appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • The Yirrkala Bark Petitions: A story of sovereignty and resistance

    In this conversation, Professor Clare Wright, Professor of History and Public Engagement at La Trobe University, talks to me (BroadAgenda editor, Ginger Gorman), about her new book, Ṉäku Dhäruk: The Bark Petitions. We explore the profound historical and cultural significance of these petitions, as well as Professor Wright’s personal connection to the Yolŋu people and their enduring struggle for land rights and recognition.

    What are the Yirrkala Bark Petitions and inspired you to write about them?

    Ṉäku Dhäruk/the Bark Petitions are a set of four documents or artefacts or artworks (they’ve been called all these things) that were sent by the Yolŋu people of northeast Arnhem Land to four Australian parliamentarians (Prime Minister Robert Menzies, Opposition leader Arthur Calwell and Labor MPs Kim Beazley Snr and Gordon Bryant) in July 1963 to protest against the incursion of mining interests on their lands.  

    The petitions, which made eight requests, were typed in two languages – Yolŋu matha and English – then pasted on to bark frames on which the traditional designs, animals, plants and ancestral beings were painted in ochre to represent the clan lands and creation stories of the Miwatj region. The petitions were signed by 9 men and 3 women who had been carefully selected by the Yolŋu elders to represent the various Yolŋu clans.

    Two of the petitions were presented to the House of Representatives, the first on 14 August 1963, the second – after the initial one was rejected by Minister for Territories Paul Hasluck – was presented and accepted on 28 August. It’s important to recognise that the petitions did not protest against mining in the region per se.  What they called for was consultation on any decisions that were made about who could come on to their lands and how their lands were to be used as well as compensation for any resources taken from those lands.  These requests accorded to Yolŋu law. Spoiler alert, but suffice to say those requests went unheeded.

    The story of Ṉäku Dhäruk/the Bark Petitions has been important to the Yolŋu descendants of those elders who struggled for their human and land rights.  It’s a story that many of today’s leaders and elders, including the strong women, wanted to have told.

    They wanted their old people remembered by the rest of Australia. My family had the unique privilege of living with the Gumatj clan in northeast Arnhem Land in 2010. Gumatj leader Dr G Yunupiŋu was particularly keen to have the story told.  

    (He had been 15 years old in 1963 and his father Mungurruway was one of the leaders of the protest action.)  I was adopted into the Yolŋu kinship by Dr Yunupiŋu’s fourth wife, Valerie Ganambarr.  I was given the Yolŋu yaku (name) Guymululu, meaning ‘special tree’. I became close to many powerful, commanding Yolŋu women. It was from within this inner circle of family and community that I was effectively tasked with writing the history of Ṉäku Dhäruk/the Bark Petitions, from the perspective of both its white and Yolŋu protagonists, male and female.

    Why are they important in terms of Australian history? 

    Ṉäku Dhäruk/the Bark Petitions were the first petitions put to the federal Parliament in an Australian language.  They were also the first petitions presented to the federal Parliament to lead directly to a parliamentary enquiry.  They are also the first petitions by Indigenous Australians to assert land rights, and as such are the direct precursor to subsequent land rights legislation as well as the paradigm-shifting native title rulings in Mabo. These factors alone make the petitions important documents in the history of the nation. 

    But more than just setting those procedural precedents, Ṉäku Dhäruk/the Bark Petitions can be seen as an attempt by the Yolŋu people to come to a form of diplomatic agreement-making between one sovereign nation and another.  In 1963, the Yolŋu people believed themselves to be nothing but the owners of their lands, acting under their own governance structures, economic autonomy and legal regimes.

    In other words, their sovereignty had never been ceded.

    Widening the frame, we can also see Ṉäku Dhäruk/the Bark Petitions as a pivotal event in the history of Australian democracy, sitting alongside the Eureka rebellion (1854, workers’ rights, Eureka Flag) and the women’s suffrage movement (1902, womens’ rights, Women’s Suffrage Banner).

    That’s why this book is the third instalment of my Democracy Trilogy. The trilogy turns on the material heritage of Australian democracy – flag, banner, bark – but also demonstrates that each moment was about disenfranchised people demanding the right to be heard, to be counted.  Each of these moments/movements was about Voice.

    Cover of Naku Dharuk: The Bark Petitions. Picture: Supplied

    Cover of Naku Dharuk: The Bark Petitions. Picture: Supplied

    You discuss the Yolngu Bark Petitions as emblems of Indigenous Australians’ confidence in their land rights. Has this been impacted by The Voice referendum?

    The Yolŋu people had no reason to expect their requests for recognition of their political sovereignty and land rights would not be respected. They had been trading and agreement-making with ‘outsiders’ for centuries, strangers who abided by Yolŋu laws.  Their confidence was only truly scorched by losing the Gove Land Rights case which followed on from Ṉäku Dhäruk/the Bark Petitions.  

    I started researching and writing this book over a decade ago. The Uluru Statement from the Heart and the Voice referendum were not, therefore, political agendas that were anywhere near my consciousness. I had no barrow to push, just an incredible, unforgettable (yet largely forgotten) story to tell. As the political and social dimensions of those movements played out from 2020, it became clear to me how many similarities there were between the 1963 Ṉäku Dhäruk/the Bark Petitions campaign and the present-day struggles for the right to be heard, the right to meaningful consultation and consent.

    Indeed the referendum for a constitutionally enshrined First Nations Voice to Parliament was held in the 60th anniversary year of Ṉäku Dhäruk/the Bark Petitions.  It is heart-breaking that the majority of Australians – including the Coalition parties – are still not prepared to listen to what our First Australians want to say about their everyday needs as well as their historical and contemporary experiences, inspirations and ambitions.

    You mention Dr G Yunupingu’s encouragement for you to hold “crook people” accountable. How do you navigate the balance between accountability and honoring the resistance of the Yolngu people?

    This was easy: I wrote from the archives up.  The bad actors in this story made themselves pretty well known to me from the primary sources long before Dr G Yunupiŋu identified them by name to me!

    You employ a unique narrative style that blends various voices and perspectives. What inspired you to adopt this ‘spiral’ approach?

    I think my narrative style is perhaps only unique to scholarly history writing.  My literary influences are drawn far more from fiction of screen writing than academic discourse.  First, I write narrative non-fiction: the beats are story-driven, not argument-driven.  I also focus on character and write on the heels of the very many characters who contributed to the story of Ṉäku Dhäruk/the Bark Petitions; if they don’t know what’s going to happen next as protagonists, neither do we as readers.

    I think this approach is more reflective of the way that people live their lives, people then and people now.  I hope it shows that people (ie: us) make history every day in the choices they make, the alliances they form, the values they honour, the rights and liberties they struggle for, the way they act as either ‘enlargers’ or ‘punishers’, to borrow from Manning Clark.

    I think that it’s also important to amplify the symphonic nature of the past.  There were/are a lot of voices, trying to communicate their hopes, aspirations, grievances and principles.  Drawing only from the colonial/national archive tends to lower the volume on this polyglot, polyvocal past.  Finally, in Ṉäku Dhäruk/the Bark Petitions I have also tried to insert the imperatives of Yolŋu history-making and storytelling, which tend to embrace temporalities that loop and spiral and return rather than only western enlightenment ideas of time and space, which tend to follow chronological, teleological ideas of progress: beginning, middle, end.

    Professor Wright spent thousands of hours working with Yolngu Elders while she wrote and researched her book. Picture: Supplied

    Professor Wright spent thousands of hours working with Yolngu Elders while she wrote and researched her book. Picture: Supplied

    You mention that the bark petitions are sometimes seen as “colonial trophies.” How can we shift the narrative to ensure that their significance is fully understood and respected in today’s context?

    It was a huge turning point in my thinking, years into the research for this book, when I thought to ask Dr G’s what the Bark Petitions were called in Yolŋu Matha.  It had never occurred to me before that the Yolŋu would have their own language.  His answer took some time to fully digest: Ṉäku Dhäruk.  Ṉäku, meaning ‘bark’, for the material that is used for bark painting.  And Dhäruk, meaning ‘the word’ or a ‘message’ or a meeting out of which a collective message or outcome will be decided.

    There was no sense of a ‘petition’ at all.  We understand petitioning as a means by which a subservient people requests something  a higher power.  ‘Your servants humble pray’ is part of the desiterata of the Westminster petition.  But the Yolŋu had no such hierarchies in mind.  They saw themselves as equals, on the same level, negotiating across, not begging up.  Understanding Ṉäku Dhäruk/the Bark Petitions as gifts of diplomacy changes the whole power dynamic of the situation. And gives us hope, I think, that such anti-colonial relationships of political equality might exist between First Australians and settler Australians again.

     

    The post The Yirrkala Bark Petitions: A story of sovereignty and resistance appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Pioneering job-share candidates: A feminist leap in politics

    Two women from Melbourne – Lucy Bradlow and Bronwen Bock – want to job-share in Federal parliament. 

    The University of Canberra’s Professor Kim Rubenstein is a constitutional law and citizenship expert. For years, Kim has argued federal parliament should allow for this. I asked her a few questions about this exciting development.

    Why is this a news story? And why does it matter? 

    This is news because it is a new initiative in Australia – no two people have ever announced they are planning to nominate to run for Parliament as a job-sharing candidate in Australia before!

    According to my research, this matters for two main reasons. These are:

    1. Representative democracy
    2. The way power is and should be exercised in parliament.

    Job sharing broadens the pool of people who would consider running for Parliament, who may not have before because their lives do not enable them to work full time, or because they have other commitments that mean they don’t want to be a full time politician, but could do an excellent job in joining with another person in doing that role and bringing their own lived experiences into Parliament and being a representative.

    This includes people with a disability, whose disability precludes them working full time and people with caring commitments that preclude them working full time.

    The statistics are clear that the greatest percentage of people who work part time because of caring commitments are women, so this would open up the possibility of more women putting their hands up to represent their communities.

    Also, more men who we want to encourage in a gender equal world to be sharing those caring commitments, and we want those men to also be able to bring that experience into Parliament).

    It also includes people who want to live healthier balanced lives, and in that balance want to be contributors to representative democracy.

    Indeed, the possibility of nominating to job-share the role of a representative in Parliament would enhance Australia’s constitutionally guaranteed system of representative democracy. Ultimately,  the electorate still has to choose or vote for that job-sharing candidate – so like all other candidates this job-sharing candidate must be voted in.

    Second, I think job-sharing would assist Parliament and society more broadly re-think how power should be exercised in society.  We know that Parliament has not been a healthy institution and while there are excellent steps being taken to improve that culture, another important step would be modelling better forms of leadership and responsibility for exercising power on behalf of a community – whether it be an electorate in the House of Representatives or an entire State or Territory in the Senate.

    Lucy Bradlow (left), Professor Kim Rubenstein (centre) and Bronwen Bock (right). Picture: Supplied

    Lucy Bradlow (left), Professor Kim Rubenstein (centre) and Bronwen Bock (right). Picture: Supplied

    You’ve been a supporter of this concept for a long time (long before this story broke!). Can you elaborate on your view that job-sharing candidates are “entirely consistent” with the Australian Constitution? What specific provisions support this perspective?

    Yes!  I encourage your readers to spend a few minutes after reading this article, to look at my online published piece and the earlier BA piece! 

    The High Court of Australia has looked at the meaning of Representative Democracy in The Australian Constitution – and sections 7 and 24 have been relied on by the Court to say that the Constitution protects representative democracy, through the words of those sections that confirm that the people must ‘directly choose’ their representatives.

    Job-sharing the role of a representative in the House of Representatives or Senator in the Senate fits entirely within and affirms those sections. Indeed, to prevent ‘the people’ from voting for a candidate running as a job-sharing candidate, would be inconsistent with those sections.

    Moreover, the Constitution does not prescribe that people vote for a person – they vote for a representative, the office of Senator.  You have to be a person to nominate – and each of the parts of the job-sharing candidate would need to fulfil the requirements in the Constitution – including not falling foul of section 44 (they can’t be dual citizens), like any other person deciding whether to nominate to be a representative in Parliament.

    What specific changes to the electoral act would you advocate for to facilitate the nomination of joint candidates?

    In principle, in my view and from my research, a job-sharing candidate could and can apply now as the Act stands.  But practically, the nomination form to run for Parliament doesn’t provide a lot of space for the candidate to fill in their details – indeed, any person with a very long name, or multiple surnames would have difficulty filling in that nomination form.

    That practical challenge doesn’t mean they can’t nominate – but it would be more straight forward and indeed a statement of affirmation of the value add of allowing people to consider nominating to run, to provide more space on the nomination form, which is part of the Electoral Act.

    Are there any legal precedents or international examples that might inform the feasibility of job-sharing in political roles?

    Yes! The idea itself is not new in the world – there has been a lot of attention to job-sharing in Parliament in the UK – in England in Wales, Northern Ireland and in Scotland – but this is a first in Australia.

    For a few examples, you can check out what’s being done overseas here and here and here.

    How do you think the introduction of job-sharing candidates could impact public trust and engagement in politics, especially in the context of voter disillusionment with major parties?

    I think this would be significant in that regard.  We have seen such a rise in distrust of politicians, and of those exercising power.  There is a growing sense that the main motivation of those in power is to stay in power – and that it is all about those individuals and the parties maintaining their hold – having power over, rather than enabling power.

    This initiative conceptually is reminding people more broadly that it is good to share power – and that much good comes from sharing power.

    How would you address concerns that allowing job-sharing MPs could lead to “double representation” or confusion within the electorate?

    I think this is all about communication – and indeed the current job-sharing candidate is paying attention to those issues in their Frequently Asked Questions about job sharing.

    How important is it for job-sharing candidates to have a pre-written conflict resolution strategy? Can you elaborate on how this might work in practice?

    Yes, this is something many people ask the job-sharing candidate!  What if you don’t agree on everything.  Again, this is a good example of broadening people’s thinking about decision making and coming to the best decision – the current job-sharing candidate has been very clear about how they will do this – and their elaboration is one way – but ultimately the electorate will need to be told this to convince them to vote for the job-sharing candidate!

    In your opinion, how might the success or failure of job-sharing candidates influence future innovations in Australian political structures and practices?

    I think as a society, we must think about the structures that are foundational and influence how we act towards one another, and how our rules are made that govern us in our everyday lives – ie they really do impact on us every day in so many ways.

    Our constitutional system was set up in the 1800s for an Australia that is very different to the society we are living in now. Those structures may have provided us with some key democratic principles, but they need to be expressed in the here and now, with expectations from the lives of the people who they govern that are different to those in the 1800s.

    I have written about this more broadly in constitutional terms about our multicultural society, about Australia’s relationship with First Nations, and indeed with the Monarchy.

    I think enabling voters to think about and decide whether to choose to vote for a job-sharing candidate is the first step in helping all Australians to be active citizens – thinking about the best way to live together in a more harmonious society, and in thinking through the best ways to make the best decisions for our society as a whole.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The post Pioneering job-share candidates: A feminist leap in politics appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Heart health: Why women need more attention and action

    Professor Nicole Freene is a clinical physiotherapist based at the University of Canberra. For more than two decades she has worked as a physiotherapist and over the last decade her research has focused on the primary and secondary prevention of chronic disease and increasing the populations’ physical activity levels. 

     Her latest research looks at women over 40 and the under-recognition of cardiovascular issues, and the importance of tailored physical activity guidelines to improve health outcomes.

    How long have you been looking at the issue of heart disease in women over 40?

    I have been working as a clinical physiotherapist for over 25 years. Most of that time in rehabilitation and particularly cardiac rehabilitation. Ten years ago, I completed my PhD looking at increasing physical activity in middle-aged adults for primary prevention of heart disease and other chronic diseases.

    So, I have been interested in heart disease for a long time and trying to prevent initial or recurrent cardiac events by increasing physical activity levels

    Why does this issue matter so much to you? 

    Heart disease in women is currently under-recognised, under-diagnosed and under-researched. When we think of someone with heart disease, we typically think of an overweight/obese middle-aged to older male.

    On average, this is who we see in cardiac rehabilitation programs, but women also suffer from heart disease. In Australia, approximately 20 women per day die every day from coronary heart disease. This is more than twice as many who die from breast cancer.

    What specific barriers do women face in accessing treatment for coronary heart disease compared to men? How can these be addressed?

    To start with, most health care professionals and patients tend to underestimate cardiovascular risk in women.

    There are psychological, social, economic and cultural risk factors that disproportionately affect women such as depression, intimate partner violence and sociocultural roles. (Editor’s note: sociocultural means “relating to or involving a combination of social and cultural factors”.)

    There are also conditions specific to women that can increase cardiovascular disease risk such as premature menopause, gestational hypertension and diabetes. And there are also sex-specific differences in how women present clinically with heart disease, being less likely to present with chest pain and more likely to have pain in the jaw, neck, shoulder or fatigue and nausea.

    What factors contribute to the longer delays women experience in seeking hospital treatment during heart attacks?

    A number of factors contribute to timely presentation and appropriate treatment for women during and after a heart attack. It could be that women have low awareness of personal risk, they misinterpret their symptoms, fear, embarrassment and accessing care.

    Diagnosis can take longer with cardiovascular risk often underestimated in women and even once diagnosed, they are less likely to receive appropriate treatment compared to men. All of these factors may contribute to women with heart disease more likely to die in hospital than men.  

    Can you explain how your findings on physical activity thresholds differ between men and women, and what implications this has for public health recommendations?

    We used data from the 45 and Up study conducted in NSW that includes approximately 270,000 people 45 years and older who were surveyed from 2006-2020.

    We identified approximately 40,000 individuals with coronary heart disease from this cohort, approximately 15,000 women and 25,000 men, and looked at the relationship between physical activity levels and all-causes of death.

    We found women with heart disease needed to complete less physical activity than men with heart disease to get the same health benefits.

    That is, women only needed to complete 89 minutes per week of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, while men needed to complete 139 minutes per week to reduce their risk of all-causes of death by approximately 35%. This research will be published soon.

    Other research from this project also found that women had greater associated reductions in cardiac death for the same level of moderate physical activity and walking.

    These results can be used to inform heart disease-specific physical activity guidelines and may be particularly useful to engage females in physical activity as they commonly report less physical activity than males, with and without heart disease. These are important findings illustrating a sex-specific difference in physical activity thresholds and this needs to be investigated further.

    Professor Nicole Freene. Picture: Supplied

    Professor Nicole Freene. Picture: Supplied

    How does the under-recognition and under-diagnosis of heart disease in women impact their health outcomes, and what steps can be taken to raise awareness?

    As mentioned above, the under-recognition and under-diagnosis of heart disease in women can result in poorer health outcomes. Education is needed for both women and health care professionals to raise awareness of heart disease in women.

    This could include government initiated public education campaigns and encouraging a range of health professionals to routinely screen women with diseases that increase cardiovascular risk

    What role does socioeconomic status play in the physical activity levels of women with coronary heart disease, and how might this differ from men’s experiences?

    We did not investigate this but differences in physical activity are reported in men and women with low socio-economic status without heart disease.

    Considering that women are less likely to complete cardiac rehabilitation programs, what strategies could be implemented to improve attendance and completion rates?

    Women are less likely to be referred to, attend and complete cardiac rehabilitation.

    Women report issues with transport, family responsibilities, multiple medical issues and finding exercise tiring. Female-only cardiac rehabilitation programs could be a solution.

    Hybrid or home-based cardiac rehabilitation could also overcome many of the barriers.

    • Please note: Image at stock is a photo

    The post Heart health: Why women need more attention and action appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Women’s health at risk: The cost of delayed care

    This article was written by me (Ginger Gorman) for the publication Women’s Agenda in my capacity as a freelance journalist. It’s republished here with full permission. You can read the original here. 

    So far, I’ve had three reminders from my GP clinic to make an appointment with my doctor. This is as a result of getting an ECG and having my bloods done in order to check one of the medications that I’m on isn’t affecting my heart.

    Even though I love my GP, I haven’t made the appointment yet. Before you write to me with alarm and concern. I know. I will make the appointment soon. As soon as my bank balance allows, that is.

    Last time I went to the GP to sort out some lady issues, it cost me $220 for a “long” GP appointment. Of course, some of the cost was Medicare rebated. But I still didn’t have enough cash left in the bank account to put a full tank of petrol in the car on the way home.

    Compared to many Australians, I earn a decent income. I’m lucky. And yet I’m still a sole parent paying a huge mortgage alone. A mortgage that’s gone up 13 times and is a grind to pay each month. There’s no longer any financial buffer.

    I’m not alone in delaying medical treatment. According to a new paper, based on ABS data from 2022-23 and published by the Medical Journal of Australia, “…many Australians struggle to afford the medicines they need and…cost barriers to access have increased” compared to the year before.

    But it’s women who are most impacted. The report’s author, healthcare policy and bioethics expert Dr Narcyz Ghinea writes: “The data show that 9.4 per cent of women compared with 5.5 per cent of men reported cost-related non-adherence to medications…prescribed by their general practitioner in the previous 12 months.”

    In plain English, many more women than men are not filling or delaying filling medication scripts due to cost.

    He then goes on to say that the situation is even worse for younger women. Nearly 15 percent of 15–24-year-olds and to 13 percent of 25–34-year-olds are affected by financial pressures which result in them not taking medications.

    Dr Narcyz Ghinea notes that in reality, the numbers of women not taking medications due to cost is likely much higher because of the huge percentages of women who didn’t actually go to their GP or specialist in the first place.

    The paper states 8.4 per cent of women “at least once delayed seeing or did not see a general practitioner and 12.2 per cent…at least once delayed or did not see a specialist due to cost.”

    Again, this was much higher for younger women. A little more than 11 per cent of women aged 25–34 years delayed or didn’t see a GP at least once, and more than 20 per cent of that same cohort delayed or did not see a specialist due to cost.

    Polly is a 49-year-old single mum from regional NSW who works for herself more-than-full-time to stay afloat financially.

    She says: “I have absolutely delayed visiting the doctor and the dentist due to cost. I have put my kids in for appointments, but my own health care has become a last priority.

    “Once, my daughter had a procedure done at the GP for an infected toenail and I had had to save up to get the appointment scheduled, and when I went to pay it was $100 more than I quoted. I didn’t have the money and just burst into tears then cried all over the service manager!”

    When I threw out a question on my social media channels to ask women if they had delayed or avoided medical care due to cost, dozens of women responded. There were some recurring themes:

    • Women making impossible choices to pay for their kids’ healthcare needs first, but as result being unable to pay to address their own
    • For many, specialist care was totally out of reach
    • Women living with extreme pain but being unable to afford a whole spectrum of healthcare needs – appointments with healthcare professionals (including dentists and physios), medications and even specialist surgeries
    • Women not addressing their mental health needs due to cost, which backfires and ends up making them more unwell
    • Cancelling medical appointments at the last minute due to being unable to pay for them (and feeling ashamed of this)
    • Proactive healthcare was completely unaffordable for most women who responded
    • Disabled and chronically ill women regularly missing out on crucial medications and care due to cost

    Susan, 39, falls into this last category. She tells me: “I often have to choose which pills I will buy and which I’ll go without.

    “Specialist care is largely out of reach for me because of costs involved, despite the fact that my chronic illnesses would benefit from specialist advice. My teeth are also cracking as a result of these conditions, and I cannot afford to remedy the situation.”

    Dr Danielle McMullen is president of the Australian Medical Association. She acknowledges more Australians are “skipping filling their medication or delaying a visit to the GP” and worries about the long-term impacts.

    “We know that delaying care can lead to poorer health outcomes which is why it’s so important to seek care when you need it.

    “Addressing poor Medicare Benefits Schedule [MBS] rebates for long consultations will improve some of the gender inequity inherent in the MBS,” she says.

    On the upside, Dr McMullen notes that there have been some relatively recent policy changes – which the AMA pushed for  – and these is likely to have a positive flow-on effect: “[I]t’s important to note that the data in this report are from before the tripling of the bulk-billing incentives and 60-day dispensing policies commenced.”

    (Heads up! Not everyone is a fan of 60-day dispensing.)

    Dr McMullen also points to structural healthcare issues that compound the issues for some cohorts of women: “Efforts to eliminate systemic discrimination and improve access to healthcare for marginalised groups of women are imperative.”

    As examples, she points to racial disparities in maternal mortality rates for First Nations women and underscores the need for “…culturally competent care for Indigenous women.”

    “Healthcare systems should provide comprehensive care that addresses the specific needs of women at different stages of life, including preventive screenings, reproductive healthcare, and support for healthy aging,” she says.

     

    • Picture at top: Blood Pressure Monitoring. This image is by NIH Clinical Center and is used under CC BY 2.0

    The post Women’s health at risk: The cost of delayed care appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • The gutsy women fighting global disinformation online

    When I wrote about cyberhate in my book Troll Hunting (2019), I wanted people to understand two important points. First, that trolls are rarely those stereotypical lonely guys, spitting out vitriol alone in their mothers’ basements. They’re more likely to be white-collar, professional types, working strategically in groups to silence or harm their victims, or drive them to self-harm. Second, that cyberhate doesn’t exist in some online bubble. Often it spills over into the “real world”, resulting in stalking, physical harm, and even terrorism. These insights were vital to convince governments and authorities that trolling has ‘real world’ consequences, has to be taken seriously and properly regulated.

    Last month, when I attended a discussion between Australia’s Van Badham and Nina Jankowicz, an American disinformation expert, I was intrigued to learn that those who spread disinformation on the internet work similarly to trolls. The conversation was expertly hosted by politician, lawyer and author, Andrew Leigh as part of the Australian National University’s Meet the Author series.

    Listen to the whole conversation here via the link above. 

    Both Nina and Van agreed it is imperative governments, authorities and the general public understand what is happening because this online “info war” is nothing less than an ideological war against democracy, undertaken by groups and with real world consequences.

    Nina and Van’s discussion focused on the rise and impact of conspiracy theories and disinformation. Nina Jankowicz, author of How to Lose the Information War and How to Be a Woman Online, has worked as an adviser on disinformation for both the Ukrainian and American governments. Van Badham is a well-known Australian activist and writer whose book, QAnon and On exposed the conspiracy theories spread by a group which convinced thousands, possibly millions of people, that our governments have been compromised by a global cabal of paedophiles.

    Van explained that conspiracy theories are the tools used to build communities and mobilize people, both online and in real life.

    Van took a moment to explain the difference between “misinformation” and “disinformation”. Misinformation involves untruths spread by those who genuinely believe the veracity of what they’re posting – repeated without malign intent. Conversely, the aim of disinformation campaigns is to mobilize people towards believing things that are not true, and to act on claims that are not true.

    Nina made it clear that disinformation campaigns are being waged with the clear intent to exploit fissures in society as a means of destabilizing democratically elected governments. Van added that what may appear to be “grassroots” movements are actually communities being assembled, “stoked, encouraged and provoked by organized pro-disinformation operations” aligned with the interests of authoritarian governments.

    In Australia last year, both speakers were horrified to see the disinformation campaign built around The Voice referendum. Watching the public debate, Van saw precise targeting by sponsored groups like Advance Australia around a “No” case “absolutely saturated with disinformation.”

    Van explained that the aim of the Voice disinformation campaign was to create uncertainty and confusion – noise – so that Australians would feel less confident about voting “Yes”. Those with a vested interest in derailing the Indigenous Voice to Parliament used a strategy famously described by Trumpist, Steve Bannon, as “flooding the zone with shit.”

    Watching this all play out, Van thought to herself, “Oh my God! It’s here. It’s come to Australia!”

    Now, she is seeing the same strategy being used in the debate about nuclear power stations in Australia.

    Both Nina and Van agreed that artificial intelligence technology is increasingly being used to build sophisticated disinformation campaigns designed to mislead, confuse and agitate the public. The rise of AI has “turbo-charged” disinformation campaigns. For example, Nina said that tools like Chat-GPT have made it easier for Russian disinformation to appear as if it’s written by native English speakers.

    Andrew Leigh, left, Nina Jankowicz, centre, and Van Badham, right, speaking in Canberra about disinformation. Picture: Ginger Gorman

    Andrew Leigh, left, Nina Jankowicz, centre, and Van Badham, right, speaking in Canberra about disinformation. Picture: Ginger Gorman

    In this country, Van has been tracking the debate over nuclear power stations and discovered “quite discernible patterns of AI generated content that is targeting susceptible groups within the electorate to soften them on the issue of nuclear messaging.”

    Importantly, a more permissive social media environment, particularly on X (formerly Twitter) under the leadership of Elon Musk has made it easier for fake personas and disinformation to proliferate.

    Democracies rely on public debate – it’s the way we decide what policies will most benefit our families, and society as a whole. This influences the way we vote. It’s perfectly reasonable for people to hold different views. But, when the well of information from which those views are formed is purposefully poisoned by foreign interests, the result is the kind of culture wars we now see driving a massive wedge in American society. Into this wedge step charismatic, authoritarian leaders who serve particular vested interests with voting blocs they have built through online disinformation campaigns.

    Van explained that one of the reasons she and Nina were touring the country was to raise consciousness about the “clear and present” dangers of disinformation to Australian democracy.

    Van warned we are all vulnerable to disinformation.  She said, “I’ve been lured into disinformation. It’s not something to be ashamed of.”  It’s easy to be manipulated especially when Australia’s online environment is largely unregulated.

    She said, “I had the horror of my life seeing someone who I would have formerly considered a friend, sharing material that I knew was being produced by a Russian disinformation account.”

    Both Nina and Van acknowledged that speaking out against these bad actors is likely to result in a torrent of online abuse that may well spill into the real world. The aim is to frighten and silence opponents.

    Despite death threats, both have persisted, but they warn women, in particular, to learn and practice cyber-security measures and to step away from the computer or phone for a while if what’s happening online is affecting your mental health.

    Regulation of fake accounts and disinformation by platforms such as X and Facebook is desirable, but there is considerable pushback because dissent and chaos drives “clicks”, and “clicks” drive profits. Raising consciousness about disinformation campaigns amongst friends and family is something we can all do to combat this assault on our democracy.

    Working to heal the fissures – the open wounds which leave our societies vulnerable to attack – is another priority. Fact-check before you share information online. And all of us can exercise our democratic rights by contacting our local MP, demand they take the spread of disinformation seriously and pass legislation to control it. Recommend, perhaps, that they read Van Badham’s and Nina Jankowicz’s books – or send them a copy.

    • Picture at top: Australia’s Van Badham and Nina Jankowicz speaking together at the ‘Something Digital’ conference in Brisbane. Picture: Supplied

    The post The gutsy women fighting global disinformation online appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Sharing human milk: challenging Australian regulatory regimes

    Women who share their milk may meet with social disapproval, but this ancient practice for feeding vulnerable babies and meeting breastfeeding challenges signals an adaptable decentralised nutrition system through which women collectively deliver basic food security and lifelong health to human populations. Although political power over access to food is increasingly centralised and globalised through market-based supply systems, greater prevalence of breastfeeding and milk sharing among women resists the effects of corporate power and climate change on the health and wellbeing of the most vulnerable.

    How is human milk sharing regulated in Australia, and what are its implications for harming, or helping, breastfeeding? What organisational structures would put women in charge of breastfeeding, mothers’ milk, and its distribution?

    Nothing new in human milk sharing

    The ways that infants are fed, and mothers are treated, are crucial issues for the health of individuals, societies and the planet.  Breastfeeding is important for women’s and children’s health. It also contributes to maintaining planetary health.

    Sharing human milk has a long history in wet-nursing. In the past, infants who were not breastfed rarely survived. Wet nursing  was and continues to be employed in many cultures, sometimes as a respectable and valued occupation.

    Breastfeeding may also be shared among relatives or friends, including to overcome breastfeeding challenges. More recently, expressed milk is shared through human milk banks and informal arrangements in the community, facilitated by new technologies.

    Recent research at ANU used Australia as a case study of these various forms of milk sharing, and their governance through legal and social norms. The study covered  the period 2010 to 2022, which was a critical time for milk sharing in Australia, with the emergence of human milk banks, milk sharing via social media and international trade in human milk.

    These issues ignited media reports of milk banks saving premature babies, while ‘black markets’ in milk supplied body builders.  These representations left donor milk caught in a 3-way competition —between breastfeeding and infant formula, raising deep legal and social questions about safety, ethics and women’s reproductive rights.

    What is ‘regulation’

    How should we think about the ‘regulation’ of milk sharing? Broad theories of regulation can help, for example, thinking of regulation as the ‘steering of events,’ through the state and ‘beyond the state,’ by government and civil society actors.First, was the question of how laws and policies frame milk sharing.  The second challenge was to identify how these legal factors influence milk sharing in practice, in hospitals and communities, by interviewing mothers, milk banks, health professionals and policy makers.

    Petr Kratochvil, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

    Newborn breastfeeding with good latch. Picture: Petr Kratochvil, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

    What ‘regulates milk sharing’?

    The research showed incoherence in regulation, with discontinuities between legal frameworks and actor knowledge, objectives, courses of action and feedback. This incoherence arose from several sources: contested legitimacy, multiple lines of resistance and conflicting objects of regulation.

    Targeting these themes will help refocus regulation from milk as a product, to milk sharing that supports breastfeeding systems.

    Milk sharing is empowering when its regulation includes mothers’ voices in ways that respect individual autonomy, but uphold collective interests.  Without these twin objectives, milk sharing risks reproducing social inequities in infant feeding. These complexities are exacerbated by the emergence of global trade in human milk, which has attracted controversy, and has limited value for women.  While corporations increasingly trade in human milk products, and profit from it, women’s costs for donating milk are  poorly recognized and payment of donors is discouraged for fear of exploiting their vulnerability or incentivising unsafe practices. Meanwhile, the increased medicalisation of human milk for use in neonatal intensive care risks dispossessing women and their systems of knowledge that sustain breastfeeding . Regulations to harmonise the governance of global trade in human milk  sounds like a good thing but won’t be if it displaces breastfeeding or makes safe systems of informal milk exchange more difficult, or promotes an extractive industry.

    ‘Saying this is a valuable commodity, so let’s assign some money to it… that kind of economic argument, …that’s just capitalism. I don’t think good outcomes follow…. You know, someone’s going to get exploited in there because that’s the way that capitalism works. And it will be the woman who supplied the milk’ (health professional).

     For milk donation to support breastfeeding, it is important that consumers are not deceived about the potential benefits or harms of human milk products compared to breastfeeding. Like formula, using donor milk can displace a mother’s own milk production, and evidence that pasteurised, homogenised human milk products are better than the mother breastfeeding is lacking.  To prevent misleading marketing to the public and health professionals, Australian regulators should clarifying that donor human milk products are within the scope of  the WHO International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes.   Similar concerns arise with the emergence of ‘synthetic breastmilk’, with Australian food regulators noting that such ‘cell-based human milk products are unlikely to truly replicate the composition and health benefits of human milk, and are comparable from a function and regulatory perspective to infant formula products’.

    Where to for mothers’ milk sharing

    Markets in human milk and other milk formula products increase the need for strong maternity protection and consumer regulation to protect women and children worldwide. Governments need to urgently implement the International Labour Organisation’s conventions on paid maternity leave and lactation breaks. Breastfeeding takes time and “time is money” for women as well as men, but women who share breastmilk have nuanced views about payment, which is allowed in some countries, though donors do not generally receive payment in Australia:

    ‘It would be an unfair system if it didn’t benefit the donors in some way, because …it takes time. I don’t know whether it should be an incentive or compensation. If it’s a commercial arrangement, I absolutely think the donating mothers should get a significant proportion of the profits, otherwise it’s exploitation in my view’ (donor and recipient mother).

    ‘If I was donating for payment, especially if I was donating to a milk bank, I’d have ethical issues about the way that hospitals interfere with breastfeeding relationships in the first place. …I wouldn’t feel comfortable …financially benefiting from that’ (donor mother)

    Structures are needed for human milk exchange that make mothers central in the governance of milk and build localized and national collaborative capacity.

    ‘So having that involvement with my community, extended through milk sharing, gives me that sense of pride, …looking after other mums and each other. We should be empowering each other, we shouldn’t be tearing each other down’ (donor mother).

    Research in Australia shows that milk sharing is not just an example of a complex regulatory problem but an example of a complex solution: of women’s lactating bodies as sites of production, power and resistance to the biopolitics of infant feeding at the global level.

    Public health support is needed to make breastfeeding less costly and more equitable for women, and breastmilk more available. In Australia, this could mean updated National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines to assist women and families in the safe sharing of human milk and a system to cover the costs of donation.

    ‘I’d like to see [government] support it as a valid alternative to, or addition to formula.  Even as part of one of the possibilities on the spectrum of feeding and I guess normalising it… help break down stigma around it being dangerous or unhygienic. … I’ve seen guidelines on the web from other countries … there’s ways to do it responsibly’ (recipient mother).

    A network of organisations controlled by women, for example women’s breastfeeding cooperatives, could help mothers with breastfeeding and lactation, and also provide technical support, logistics and insurance for milk exchange, liaising with hospital milk banks and health services to screen suppliers and recipients.

    A population where breastfeeding is prevalent and wet-nursing is acceptable and practiced safely  also has greater resilience to climate risks such as natural disaster events, or during disruptions to food supplies.  International health agencies increasingly acknowledge the advantages of using donor human milk or a wetnurse when an infant cannot be breastfed by its mother, or as a bridge to breastfeeding amidst breastfeeding challenges. In emergencies, bottle feeding is unsafe and wet-nursing, as well as re-lactation, may provide a lifeline, but are poorly recognised in practical guidancefor relief agencies in many countries, including Australia.

    For example, in Brazil, the government implemented a comprehensive national strategy that integrated hospital milk banks into local centres of expertise on breastfeeding. The strategy dramatically improved breastfeeding rates, children’s health and health professional education in breastfeeding.

    In Australia, some health services may have policies which support breastfeeding but few facilitate milk sharing by relatives or friends to support hospitalised mothers who cannot provide sufficient milk for their newborn and provide a ‘bridge to breastfeeding.’ ‘Directed donation’ protocols exist but are not widely known, and mainly focus on helping manage risks to the health service. Concerns about risks to the infant of not being breastfed vary with the age of the infant, but rarely extend to ensuring all dyads access to donor human milk where the mother finds herself unable to breastfeed.

    Without the legitimization and collective structures that empower the women who produce and exchange milk, the emerging markets in breastmilk will continue to prioritise corporations over women’s economic and health rights, and result in everyone but mothers benefiting from its exchange.

    • Picture at top: Newborn’s feet in focus. Mother nursing a baby. Published under CC BY 2.0. Picture: flickr/Ivan Radic

    The post Sharing human milk: challenging Australian regulatory regimes appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • TransTrans exhibition unveils global histories of gender diversity

    Currently there’s an ambitious exhibition on at the Pride Centre in Melbourne called TransTrans. The show delves into the history of gender-diverse communities and scientists in Berlin, America and Australia and explores the transnational networks between trans communities between the 1900s–1970s. BroadAgenda editor Ginger Gorman had a chat with curators Professor Birgit Lang and Associate Professor Katie Sutton. 

    Let’s go back to the start. Where did the idea for this exhibition come from? 

    So this exhibition first showed in earlier versions in Canada and Germany, and the original idea was to tell a history of trans networks in the 20th century, especially across the Atlantic between Germany and the US, but for the Victorian Pride Centre we redeveloped it to a much more transnational story that brought in a lot more Australian voices, in a way that went against the grain of medicalized histories. 

    Doctors involved in early trans medicine like Magnus Hirschfeld in 1920s Berlin, Harry Benjamin in 1950s/60s San Franciso and Herbert Bower in 1950s and 1960s Melbourne are part of this story.

    But what the exhibition really foregrounds are the trans networks and activists who drove new forms of gender-diverse community-making across these decades, and how they worked with and sometimes pushed back against medicalized ways of understanding nonconforming gender identities.

    If you were explaining the idea behind the show to a stranger – and what story it’s telling – what would you say? 

    The exhibition tells a history of expanding trans networks, communities, medical developments and activism across the early to mid-20th century, finishing before the era of Stonewall and the new wave of global LGBTQ liberation politics that the 1970s brought. It starts with the early days of trans medicine and politics in the 1900s-1910s, when new labels that were the precursor to contemporary trans and gender-diverse identity were being coined and debated and hormone research was just starting to take off, with a particular focus on the boom in queer and trans community, politics and sexual science in 1920s Berlin and Germany, centred on places like sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science in interwar Berlin (there’s a great picture of a costume party at the Institute at the start of the exhibition).

    It then takes visitors to the post-World War II United States, when trans politics and medicine saw a new era of flourishing and increasing media attention around famous figures like Christine Jorgensen – even though this also a very difficult period for many people to be gender-nonconforming – and to Australia and other parts of the world, with a “network wall” tracing some of the connections between activists, doctors, and organizations across these different times and spaces.

    Why does the show have such an international scope? How and where did you research TransTrans?  

    For this show we worked closely with materials brought together by the original curators: Annette Timm, Michael Thomas Taylor, Rainer Herrn and Alex Bakker, who had organized the German and Canadian shows and focused on transatlantic connections. In building on these materials, we drew on our own research on early 20th-century Germany, and we also worked closely with the Australian Queer Archives, particularly archivist Nick Henderson, and with an Advisory Board that included Michelle McNamara and Son Vivienne from Transgender Victoria, Greer McGearey, a longstanding member of one of the oldest local trans organizations, Seahorse Victoria, and Noah Riseman, author of Transgender Australia.

    Of course, while we changed the exhibition title to become “transnational” histories, it still focuses on a relatively small number of countries and networks, which was necessary to tell a coherent story, which focuses on overturning medical histories and telling these from a trans perspectives. There are so many stories of trans and gender-diverse lives that TransTrans does not touch on, particularly intersectional histories of People of Colour, First Nations, disabled and working-class class trans people. We were very conscious of this, and thematize these omissions in the section “What we see and what we don’t,” which encourages visitors to join us in critical reflection on the limits of our archives and sources.

    Curators Birgit Lang Left) and Katie Sutton (right) at the TransTrans exhibition. Picture: Supplied

    Curators Birgit Lang (left) and Katie Sutton (right) at the TransTrans exhibition. Picture: Supplied

    The show tracks the evolution of trans affirming health care today. Tell us more about that. 

    The exhibition foregrounds different stories. Maybe most importantly, how crucial early community support was for trans people to obtain a sense of self and belonging.

    This community formation sometimes included doctors such as Hirschfeld and Benjamin who reached out to communities to better understand gender diversity, often through quite immersive, anthropological ways of creating knowledge. 

    We know of a Weimar-era Berlin song by singer and comedian Otto Reutter, titled “Here comes Hirschfeld” (“Der Hirschfeld kommt!” in German) which teased Hirschfeld about being overtly happy to interpret any quirkiness in terms of gender diversity. It is a good example of how this early community was well aware of the role the gay activist doctor played in advocating for LGBTQ people while they could also take the mickey out of these medical approaches at the same time.

    The exhibition also shows how the road for gender affirming surgery was particularly hard. Trans people often had to travel abroad to obtain rather experimental and new surgeries (which was obviously not possible for everyone for financial and other reasons).

    Some, in desperation, took to drastic measures of self-harm to push for surgery. This is quite confronting to read about.

    Medical doctors also faced push back from the ranks of their own profession, as for example in the case of Dutch sexologist and psychiatrist, Coen van Emde Boas, who was prevented by an outraged hospital director from undertaking further gender affirming surgeries.

    The exhibition recognises some key figures. Who is your favourite or the person who you find most interesting?  

    A person whose story we keep finding ourselves being drawn back to is Gerd Katter, whose “transvestite pass” from 1928 appears in the show. Katter was an 18-year-old apprentice carpenter working in Berlin, Germany at the time, and had to go to the city police to get this document, after first going to sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science to get medical certification of his trans status – that he was “known to be wearing men’s clothing.” This document was one that Katter was to carry around on his person and allowed him to go about his daily life in Berlin without worrying about getting arrested for causing a “public mischief.”

    We’re really interested in how Katter’s photograph, as he gazes boldly past the camera in his short back and sides haircut and smart suit, can give us some insight into the assertive way he bore his gender nonconformity at a time of rapid social change, and how he entered into these exchanges with doctors and police In order to go about his daily life – a tale of forced negotiations and constraint but also of tolerance and a degree of freedom for gender-diverse people in 1920s society that was a strong contrast to what would happen once the Nazis took power in 1933.

    Sometimes you see ill-informed folks questioning whether being trans is a “new” thing. However we know that trans and gender queer folks have been documented in history for hundreds of years. How does your show complement, or add to the historical evidence we already have on this issue? 

    Our show brings out of the archives sources that have rarely been shown and are difficult to access, like some of the early LGBTQ publications that were starting to appear in 1920s Berlin and Germany featuring scene figures like transmasculine scene leader Lotte/Lothar Hahm, known for organizing both lesbian and trans club nights and fighting against censorship of the queer media. For example, the first documented trans magazine from Germany, Das 3. Geschlecht (The 3rd Sex), which ran from 1930-1932, isn’t available in any public library worldwide. It also shines a light on materials from the 1950s and 1960s where so much of trans life needed to play out in private, domestic spaces.

    The living room installation in the exhibition is inspired by Louise Lawrence’s living room in San Francisco, which was a hub of transfeminine community in the 1950s, helping connect transpeople across the Bay Area and the US. Lawrence also worked as a research associate of Harry Benjamin’s, she is a great example of how medical and activist and social networks around gender diversity were intersecting during these decades, often in quite productive ways.

    We also worked closely with the Australian Queer Archives to bring in materials about Australian gender-diverse trailblazers, like First Nations activist Phyllis McGuinness who was involved in a key court case in 1982, sociologist and sex worker advocate Roberta Perkins, or the early newsletters of Seahorse Victoria, one of the first local trans organization founded in 1975.

    What’s the most surprising or exciting thing you discovered while putting the show together?

    Katie: One of the joys of putting this show together for me was learning more about Australian and Aotearoan trans histories. I love the film clip we show in the living room installation of an interview with cheeky New Zealand-born trans man Peter Alexander from 1937. The journalist talks to Alexander after he has returned from London for gender-affirming surgery about his dreams for the future, and his flirtatious humour really shines through – he talks about how he no longer wears lipstick and powder as that would be “ridiculous” what with needing to shave every day but adds that “I don’t blame the modern girl for using it.”

    He ends by reflecting that, while he has suffered from the media harassment of having his story so widely known, he has the advantage of knowing “both sides to every ordinary little story” – a line that connects to a theme of many much more contemporary transmasculine memoirs.

    Birgit: The exhibition opening was a blast. We had such wonderful speakers, from Victorian Minister for Equality Harriet Shing, and Human Rights Commissioner Ro Allen, to Gaby Cohen, the great-niece of Magnus Hirschfeld, as well as the trans community organisations we worked closely: Son Vivienne, President of TGV (Transgender Victoria) and Greer McGearey, President of Seahorse Victoria, the oldest trans organisation in Australia. For me, the opening brought together the many worlds I am moving in in a poignant and moving way.

    • Picture at top: © Magnus-Hirschfeld-Gesellschaft eV, Berlin

     

    The post TransTrans exhibition unveils global histories of gender diversity appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Women’s rights under siege amid Middle East conflict

    Women continue to lose out as the crisis in the Middle East heats up. That’s without even counting the ravages the war between Israel and Hamas is having on women and children in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and beyond. The flow on effects in the region are dire and countries like Australia are failing in their obligations to protect vulnerable women and children.

    As the threat of geostrategic conflict with Iran rise, so too does the situation for women’s rights defenders there. While women in Iran and Afghanistan both experience gender apartheid, there is little solidarity between the two countries.

    (Editor’s note: Gender apartheid is the economic and social sexual discrimination against individuals because of their gender or sex. Some lobbyists are calling for it to be recognised as a crime against humanity. )

    Many women’s rights defenders who faced specific threats to their lives when the Taliban returned to power in Afghanistan fled to Iran. Many of these refugees are Hazara or other religious minority groups that are targeted by the Taliban. They often chose Iran because of religious and linguistic connections to the country.

    But they are not welcome by the Iranian authorities. It is estimated that more than 1.3 million Afghans currently reside in Iran as refugees or with valid visas to the country. It has been common for Afghans to face street harassment and police brutality. But that has increased exponentially in recent weeks and months.

    Azadi-e Zan and our network of volunteers has helped over 350 Afghan women’s rights defenders escape to final destinations of safety. But we have hundreds more still in need of assistance, many of whom are in Iran. In recent months, women on our list have been kidnapped, subject to arbitrary detention by Iranian police, and physically assaulted by business owners while simply trying to buy bread.

    Countries like Australia have refused to grant humanitarian visas to people who remained inside Afghanistan. People who flee the specific threats they face from the Taliban, are then exposed to more, general threats while they wait in third countries.

    The slow rate of processing the visas promised to the victims of the Taliban has been incredibly frustrating to Afghanistan’s neighbours. Last year, the government of Pakistan implemented a nationwide deportation policyto remove millions of Afghans from their borders. At the most recent international conference on the future of Afghanistan, Pakistan said it would end this policy, but Iran has essentially stepped up where they left off.

    Meanwhile, there has been a worrying trend in the last few months where Australia’s Department of Home Affairs has been removing vulnerable women from visa applications for Australia. This is entirely unsatisfactory.

    There are multiple cases of families in Australia who have been asked to remove vulnerable women from humanitarian visa applications. These include the cases of a 68-year-old mother of a man who worked at the Australian Embassy in Kabul, and a 23-year-old unmarried Hazara woman. In the current regime of gender apartheid in Afghanistan, if these women were to be removed from the applications of the rest of their family, they would not have the required male guardian to cross the border with them and return to their hometowns. Similarly, they would have no one to rent a house for them, pay their livelihoods costs or take them for medical care if they needed it.

    Earlier this month, a women’s rights defender also had her visa application flatly rejected. She ran nationwide women’s rights programs with funding from international organisations and has received personal and organisational threats from the Taliban. But Home Affairs said they thought she faced insufficient persecution in her country of origin or had somewhere else to go.

    Australia has a whole of government policy designed to help implement the ten Security Council resolutions on Women, Peace and Security. The resolutions were passed exactly because of women’s unique vulnerabilities during conflict and instability and the long term effect they have on international peace and security.

    But the government is now two years overdue in its reporting against Australia’s National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security. It seems the Department of Home Affairs considered it had no further obligations under this policy when the Australian Federal Police were removed from their portfolio. But this is entirely untrue.

    Women and children are incredibly vulnerable when they are forced to flee violence. Because of this, they are entitled to special protections. Women’s human rights defenders need additional protections, all of which are outlined in the Women, Peace and Security resolutions. These protections include through migration pathways.

    Even if the government is busy dealing with new visa applications in response to the crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, there is no excuse for failing to protect vulnerable Afghan women, and human rights defenders who have been waiting for humanitarian protection visas for years.

    The Department of Home Affairs must ensure that they incorporate gender into the assessments they undertake for visa applications. It is not ok for Australia to speak the words of support for Women, Peace and Security at the Security Council each year, and at the United Nations General Assembly right now, while so blatantly failing in their protection obligations.

    • Picture at top: In the Afghan culture it is a common sight to see the women completely covered when in public, July 10, 2002. This Afghan female shows the stark contrast between those traditions required of adults but not enforced on children. Image taken in the Province of Parwan. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Sean A. Terry) (Released)

    The post Women’s rights under siege amid Middle East conflict appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • From Alaska to advocacy: A journey towards gender equality

    This article was originally published on HerCanberra and is kindly republished here with permission. It’s part of a terrific series called “How I got here.” You can read more of the series here. In this Q and A, Bea Smith is chatting with Ambassador for Gender Equality, Stephanie Copus Campbell AM.

    Who are you and what do you do?

    I currently have the privilege to serve as Australia’s Ambassador for Gender Equality. In this role, I am the lead international advocate for gender equality – which means promoting the key principle that every single person should have every single opportunity to meet their full potential, regardless of their gender.

    When this happens, everyone is better off. More generally, I have worked on equality and inclusion for my entire career, with over 24 years focused on Papua New Guinea and the Pacific.

    Let’s go back to when you were a kid, have you always dreamed of working in this industry?

    I spent my childhood in Fairbanks, Alaska. I grew up in a community where there were two to three times more men than women.  Alaska also had (and continues to have) the highest prevalence of violence against women and children in the United States, with over 50% of women experiencing violence in their lifetimes.

    On a more positive note, I was lucky to engage throughout my childhood with Alaska’s First Nation communities. My dad was a bush pilot and an academic and I traveled with him to small and isolated villages where I learned the importance of culture, deep and respectful listening, and the important role of women in these communities, including grandmothers.

    The principles of equality, equity, diversity, and cultural sensitivity were instilled from early on in my life.

    Tell us about when you were first starting out, what set a fire in your belly to get here and how did you do it?

    From the start of my career, I realised that women and girls often experience disproportional barriers to achieving their full potential. I saw how they make up the majority of those living in extreme poverty, how they experience food insecurity, have lack of access to safe sanitation, and face gender-based violence. But I also saw early on that when women are part of decision-making and have the opportunity to meaningfully contribute – when they can equally participate in all areas, including in the economy, community, academia, government, media, and peace processes – everyone’s life is better.

    We need women at the table – their lived experience, diversity of thinking and brain power. The fire in my belly came with the realisation that ensuring equality is both the right thing to do – everyone has the right to meet their full potential – and the smart thing to do – we are all better off when we can harness 100% of the population. I also understood from the start that I could not achieve the outcomes I wanted to in my profession – which was initially focused on international development – if half of the population was excluded.

    Recall a time when you wanted to chuck it all in; what did you tell yourself when it got too hard?

    Like many women, I have experienced challenges in balancing care duties for my children, household and community and the judgement from others if I was seen to be focused too much on my profession and not my home life.

    Trying to balance everything at times was very difficult. I have also experienced, at many different times in my career, sexual harassment, the effects of conscious and unconscious bias, and unsafe environments. Sometimes I felt it would be easier to not work at all. But I am glad I stuck with it – I feel I am a positive role model to my kids who both have fulfilling careers, as well as to other young people, especially young women.

    Stephanie has 24 years focused on Papua New Guinea and the Pacific. Picture: Supplied

    Stephanie has 24 years focused on Papua New Guinea and the Pacific. Picture: Supplied

    What was your biggest break?

    Early in my career, I was posted to Papua New Guinea with Australia’s development cooperation program (then AusAID). This was a wonderful experience that exposed me to every issue I could imagine including diplomacy, problem-solving, international development, foreign relations, cross cultural communication and leadership.

    I am so grateful I had this experience, which then led to other opportunities, including heading up our development cooperation program in Fiji and Tuvalu and later PNG, working in the private sector and serving on a range of boards, not to mention my wonderful current job as Australia’s Ambassador for Gender Equality. I would not be where I am today without PNG.

    What’s the best piece of advice you’ve ever received?

    To never feel bad or apologise for taking care of myself – that self care is essential to be able to support others and to perform well at work.

    Early on I would feel guilty taking time for myself, ensuring work-life balance or even taking all my holidays. Now I see it as a responsibility for me and others. I prioritise running, meditation, fresh air and time with my beloved animals as essential self-care activities that keep me happy and well.

    I also love the principles of working laid out in the Change Agenda for First Nations Gender Justice – Wiyi Yani U Thangani, which are focused on learning, lateral love, respect and relationality, embracing all identities, deep listening, being self-reflective and aware, taking intergenerational action, shaping and keeping balance and sense-making – engaging while connecting with the world around us.

    I try to apply these to all I do and they make a huge difference in my ability to build relationships and achieve positive outcomes. It’s great advice for everyone!

    What is it about your industry that you love and what makes you want to pull your hair out?

    As an international advocate for gender equality, I am inspired on a daily basis by efforts worldwide, from within UN systems to local community groups in rural areas, from policy and change makers to human rights defenders and activists, to fight for the cause of equality.

    I love the values of service, and the amazing opportunities to learn, develop and make a difference to my community and world. And I love meeting young people, who have the passion, vision and innovation to continue to work to achieve gender equality. I am hopeful that our movement will continue to grow and thrive as we pass the baton on to a new generation of young advocates.

    However, we are seeing a global pushback and regression against women’s and human rights, which troubles me deeply. We must never take the gains we have made for granted, and we need to acknowledge that progress towards equality and rights is not linear.

    I get upset when I see how difficult it can be to change stubborn social norms that lead to gender inequality, and how some of the gains that we saw when I was young have regressed, but this also motivates me to work even harder to work together to achieve gender equality.

    Tell us how you ‘stay in the know’, what media do you consume?

    I try to consume a wide range of media that offers me different perspectives. I find if I only read what I agree with, I don’t learn or develop. I mainly read the papers, journal articles and listen to radio. I don’t watch much TV.  I try to read The Economist which is a comprehensive snapshot of the world and an efficient way to stay on top of global events.

    Where do you see yourself in five years?

    My passion, when I am not focused on gender equality, is biodiversity and protecting Australia’s amazing wildlife. I am an active volunteer with ACT Wildlife and also volunteer at Clare Holland House in palliative care. I enjoy meditation, yoga, outdoor activities, and long-distance running.

    I volunteer for other community organizations and am a director on two not-for-profit boards and a commercial board.  In five years I hope to be still focused on all of these activities in a way that brings diversity to my life and enables me to pursue my many interests while sharing my experience in progressing diversity and inclusion.

    Stephanie is an active volunteer with ACT Wildlife. Picture: Supplied

    Stephanie is an active volunteer with ACT Wildlife. Picture: Supplied

    Why should people follow in your footsteps?

    I believe people should create their own paths with their own footsteps and each journey is unique. But the advice I would offer after a long career is to focus on where individuals can make a difference to their community and the planet. We need now more than ever to work together with love, mutual respect and care if we are to meet the challenges facing humanity, including those presented by climate change and the risks of new conflicts. 

    I also believe that both productivity and life satisfaction are enhanced when people have the ability to follow their passions – and not just a narrow focus on work. Ensuring a commitment to self-care, which I have tried to do, is also essential.  Always put your own oxygen mask on before helping others!

    What advice would you give your past self?

    Don’t sweat the small stuff or in most cases the larger stuff will pass. It is ok to make mistakes and it’s important to take risks. With every door that closes, another one opens and even the hard events in life are an important opportunity to reflect, learn and grow.

    And don’t leave learning to meditate until later in life – it’s a very important skill – taking care of mind and spirit is as important as taking care of body! I wish I had learned it at 20 instead of 50!

    • Stephanie Copus Campbell. Picture: Supplied/DFAT

    The post From Alaska to advocacy: A journey towards gender equality appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • India: how sexual violence is linked to economic slowdown

    This article is an updated version of one that first appeared in The Interpreter, published by the Lowy Institute. It’s republished with full permission. Read the original here.

    Over the past month India has been in the headlines for another shocking act of sexual violence: the rape and murder of a trainee doctor in the Kolkata hospital in which she worked.

    The incident – which set off ongoing industrial action and is this week in the courts – shone a light on the unsafe conditions that many women in the country labour under. If a doctor – with all the prestige and importance placed on the role – is vulnerable, what about the many million of others?

    The last time there was this degree of public outrage over the rape and murder of a woman was in 2012, the infamous Delhi bus incident. At the time, authorities responded swiftly to mass protests with changes to the criminal justice system, including tougher sentences.

    But according to data from the National Crime Records Bureau, the number of reported rapes has increased dramatically. In 2012 it was around 25,000 cases per year. Numbers peaked at nearly 39,000 in 2016. There were more than 31,000 reported cases in 2022, the most recent data available.

    For a while, newspaper headlines referred to it as a “sexual violence pandemic”.

    Concurrently, there has been another trend: the drop in female labour participation rates. In 2005, 32 percent of Indian women were in the workforce. In 2021, that rate had dropped to 19 percent.

    The figure has corrected, post-pandemic, with 33 percent in the workforce as of 2023, which is a positive move. Still, India remains in the bottom 20 of the list of countries according to share of working women.

    The figures refer to women over the age of 15 who are not in work, nor are looking for work. And of those who work, most are employed in menial textile-related jobs, domestic labour, or, in rural areas, agriculture. (But there is evidence that this profile is changing: women who are leaving the workforce come from the agricultural or unskilled sectors, while growth is in services.)

    By comparison, China’s female labour force participation rate is at 61 percent (down from 72 percent in 1991), South Africa is 52 percent and Pakistan at 24 percent (up from 12.5 percent in 1995).

    The precise reasons for India’s situation are varied. Despite economic progress in recent decades – and with it, social and cultural shifts – there are persistent retrograde attitudes about women’s roles being tied to domestic work. At the same time, women are likely to remain in higher education for longer, and there has traditionally been a lack of job growth in the sectors that women tend to work in.

    But there is also a very strong likelihood that the threat of sexual violence is keeping women inside the home – whether by choice or at the behest of family members. A closely linked factor is that mothers are now preferring to stay at home rather than leave children in the care of domestic staff.

    The doctor incident is not an isolated one. There are daily reports of violent rapes by teachers, by colleagues, fellow students, and even police. The only difference is that this one is making headlines.

    It is important here to point out that – like everywhere else in the world – in the vast majority (i.e., more than 90%) of cases, the perpetrator is already known to the victim, and rates of sexual violence within the home are high, while marital rape is not criminalised. In 2016 the then minister for women and children said:

    [T]he concept of marital rape, as understood internationally, cannot be suitably applied in the Indian context due to various factors like level of education or illiteracy, poverty, myriad social customs and values, religious beliefs, mindset of the society to treat the marriage as a sacrament, etc.

    The worsening sexual violence rates are, in part, being attributed to women’s growing financial independence and changing social roles, particularly in the more conservative and patriarchal regions.

    Why does it matter, in economic terms?

    The link between sexual violence and the economy has been made repeatedly in recent years. In 2018, the McKinseyGlobal Institute estimated that India could boost its GDP by $770 billion in seven years by getting more women into the workforce. Even earlier, in 2013, the respected Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (Assocham) conducted a survey that found 82% of the 2,500 women surveyed said that since the 2012 bus attack, they had started working reduced hours out of fears of being out of the home after dark. In particular, it found that productivity in the Delhi IT sector had dropped by up to 40% since the attack.

    More recently, research has found that India, in its quest to break through that 8 percent figure for GDP growth, needs to harness its female population to do this, and raise it to more than 43 percent by 2030. Right now, India’s economic growth is performing strongly after a few years of sluggish growth. The World Bank has recently raised its growth forecast for FY 24-25 to 7 percent – however fears of a recession stubbornly hover in the background. The Modi government wants to see a good news story in the form of magical economic figures, to burnish its global reputation as a major emerging power.

    Back in 2012, the government’s response to the bus rape was to execute the perpetrators. It was a Band-Aid solution that divided the country. But clearly, it did little to staunch the persistently high rates of sexual violence. If the government is serious about women’s safety, it needs to address the underlying issues in the deeply patriarchal society and system.

    I’m optimistic. After all, economic growth is a major motivator for a lot of activity. Why should women’s safety be any different?

    • Picture at top: Protestors in R.G. Kar Hospital Rape and Murder protest march, 4 September 2024. Picture: Porshi Photographer, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

    The post India: how sexual violence is linked to economic slowdown appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Trailblazer Tracey Holmes on overcoming hurdles in sports media

    Tracey Holmes was Australia’s first female host of a national sports program. She’s also host of ‘The Sports Ambassador’ podcast and a Professorial Fellow in Sport at the University of Canberra. A little over a month since the Paris Olympics drew to a close, BroadAgenda editor, Ginger Gorman, asked Tracey to reflect on progress we’ve made when it comes to gender equality in sport – and why women remain underrepresented in the media coverage of this event. 

    For people who might not know you (unlikely, but anyway!) tell us who you are and how you very first got interested in sport?

    I am a journalist and broadcaster, currently host of The Sports Ambassador podcast and Professorial Fellow in Sport at UC. I sit on a couple of boards – Indigenous Football Australia and the Oceania Australia Foundation, am Ambassador for the Australian Museum and the Chappell Foundation for Youth Homelessness. I am a jury member for the International Sports Press Association media awards and Rugby League’s Hall of Fame. Currently I mentor dozens of up-and-coming reporters around the world through the IOC’s Young Reporters program.

    I had no alternative except to be involved in sport. My mum and dad were young surfers (and young parents) who were also part of the rise of the early days of surfing fashion and the professionalisation of the sport. We travelled the world so they could surf (it was the cheap, hippy era, not the sponsor-paid, mega prize money era of today’s professional athletes). Most weekends while my younger sister and I were at school we spent at the beach either watching adult surf contests or competing in junior events ourselves. Any sport breeds an interest in other sports, so almost sixty years later, here I still am – observing the interaction of sport, politics and society.

    What barriers might you have faced as a female kid or young person with these interests?

    Other people’s hang-ups have never bothered me. If I thought I could do something, or wanted to do something, I would do it. I never worried about people telling me I couldn’t. I think it helped having a mother and father who both competed. I never saw them as different to each other because of gender.

    Professionally, I don’t like to describe ‘barriers’, I prefer the word ‘challenges’. Everybody faces hurdles in their lives, but it’s how you overcome them. When I started as an ABC Specialist Commentator trainee back in 1989 I was the only female. I remember listening to the ABC Sports program (all day Saturday and all day Sunday) giving wall to wall coverage of sport – all of it played by men.

    I took it upon myself to put together a mini-program called (creatively) ‘Women in Sport’. I’d record a few interviews with movers and shakers, do a little results wrap and put a couple of snippets of other information into it. I gave it to the producer the first week I did it and said, ‘here’s something else you can run, I’ll give you a new episode each week’. They ran it each week until it wasn’t necessary anymore because women started featuring more prominently in the overall coverage.

    The first time I was sent to cover an NRL State of Origin match the (losing) Queensland dressing room wouldn’t let me in to interview the players, even though all the other reporters (all male) had been.

    They told me I couldn’t go in because I was female, for a good half hour or more I repeatedly knocked on the door, finally convincing the team minder that I was not female, I was a reporter – the same as all the other reporters who had been let in to the job they were sent to do.

    They let me in. Another female reporter at the time (we all knew each other, there were so few of us) was Jaquelin Magnay. She covered a lot of rugby league and at one stage took the Balmain Club to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Tribunal arguing for equal access to dressing rooms. She won. Every female rugby league reporter who has ever done a dressing room interview can thank Jacquelin.

    You were Australia’s first female host of a national sports program (ABC’s Grandstand). Cast your mind back to that time (I can nearly smell the testosterone!). What was that experience like? How have things changed since then?

    When it was announced I would be hosting Grandstand it was pretty significant. Credit has to be given to the men I worked with who had taught me a lot about the job, and in the end were responsible for appointing me. As I had done with a lot of my work, I tried to take sport down a different road – looking at governance, the impact of internal and external politics, interviewing academics and sporting luminaries from around the world, in the hope of getting a much broader picture of the sports environment and Australia’s place in it.

    Quite a few blokes called in after the announcement complaining they wouldn’t be able to listen to a woman’s voice all weekend (lol), and the usual, ‘what would she know, anyway’ type comments. What the ABC found was that we didn’t lose listeners at all, we picked up a whole lot of new ones.

    A lot of women who felt comfortable hearing someone who was female, and a lot of other men who weren’t rusted on sports fans but were interested in some of the conversations I was having that viewed sport through a different prism.


    In 2023 Tracey won Lifetime Achievement Award at the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) Media Awards. This footage compilation includes ABC archival footage of Tracey on ABC Grandstand.

    This was an incredible Olympics because, as you wrote in Harper’s Bazaar, “the first time, the number of women athletes selected from around the world is exactly equal to the number of men.” But you found the media who is reporting on the event didn’t echo that gender equity. Why is that an issue?

    It’s bizarre, isn’t it, that the media does stories all the time about the rise of women’s sport and how fantastic it is – the birth of AFLW, NRLW, growth in cricket, football, any sport you like – but the media itself is still lagging. Isentia’s Women in Media Gender Scorecard shows sport, the largest sector in the media, ranks last for gender equity.

    While we are seeing more women on our screens or hearing them reporting on sport more often, when it comes to industry-wide gender equity, sports media remains amongst the worst. It is still rare to find a female head of a sports department in any major paper/radio/television network.

    There are several consequences to this. Women who work in the industry note they are often ‘sidelined’, only rostered on to cover lower profile women’s events and not ever given roles in the higher profile events which, sadly, are still mostly men’s events. Breaking old-fashioned habits, such as male sport always taking precedence over female sport in news bulletins, is a tradition that largely remains intact as decisions about coverage continue to be made by the men who occupy the top office. Men have established how sport is covered, a style which has largely remained unchanged over decades. There is an opportunity for innovation to occur, for coverage to be done differently through the inclusion of more women who bring different observations and life-experiences to the commentary/reporting/journalism table.

    While the numbers aren’t yet published for Paris, at the last summer Olympic Games in Tokyo 2021, of the thousands accredited journalists only 27 percent were female, it was worse for accredited photographers with only 13 percent being female. There is still a long way to go.

    It’s not all doom and gloom though, is it? What positive signs are there that the sports industry and related media coverage is changing when it comes to gender?

    The 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup showed that sport contested by women can be popular. Australian television ratings records were broken during the Cup with millions of Australians tuning in to watch Australia and several other nations competing in the global event. Crowds are growing internationally, and women players are now recognised as individual stars in their own right. This leads to greater commercial interest in women and the sports they play. As each cog in the wheel turns, media has no choice but to reflect that interest and support.

    Tracey Holmes at the 2023 ASC Media Awards. Picture: The Australian Sports Commission

    Tracey Holmes at the 2023 ASC Media Awards. Picture: The Australian Sports Commission

    The value of women’s sport globally is expected to pass $1.5 billion for the first time by the end of 2024, that’s a 300 percent increase on Deloitte’s 2021 prediction. The company also warns sport played by women needs to create its own path, and not simply copy what the men have done. This becomes difficult when sports themselves are overwhelmingly run by men whose experience to date has been almost entirely in men’s sport.

    So, bring in the women! This is something the Australian federal government has recognised, only recently mandating the need for sports boards to meet gender equity targets or risk losing government funding. By July 1, 2027, board directors must be 50-50 gender diverse, and 50 percent of any board sub-committees must be women and/or gender diverse.

    “We need more women making decisions for more women,” Federal Sports Minister Anika Wells said. “Our sporting systems are not equal, and this policy will help address the gender imbalances prevalent in sports leadership.”

    Sometimes following the money is a good indicator. How does the money talk here?

    When global giants such as the International Olympic Committee and FIFA, the governing body for the most popular sport in the world – football, have been vocal and active in striving for gender equity you know that there is big money involved. Money talks in sport as it does elsewhere. Fifty percent of the population is a huge chunk of the market, anyone in business would be mad to ignore them.

    In Paris this year, the Olympics reached athlete gender parity. FIFA says by the time of the next men’s and women’s World Cup’s (in 2026 and 2027 respectively) the ‘ultimate aim’ is for pay equality. Prizemoney for women in 2023 was $227 million shared amongst the 32 competing nations. That was three times more than the previous World Cup in 2019, and ten times more than the Cup before that in 2015. The trajectory is steep.

    Anything else you want to say?

    Australian women have been playing sport for decades. On the opposite end of the scale there is Afghanistan, where women are banned from playing any sport at all. Elsewhere in the world, there are significant shifts taking place. In Saudi Arabia an entirely new sports industry is being established for men and women – they are thinking innovatively and independently. If we want to maintain our healthy reputation as a nation that punches above its weight in sport, we need to get creative too with new thinking and modern techniques, to guarantee future generations of sporting champions.

     

    Read more about when Tracey Holmes received a Lifetime Achievement Award from Australian Sports Commission (sportaus.gov.au)

    • Picture at top: Tracey Holmes at the 2023 ASC Media Awards. Picture: The Australian Sports Commission

     

    The post Trailblazer Tracey Holmes on overcoming hurdles in sports media appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Gender gaps in parenting: Who bears the burden?

    The Uniting Families Report 2024 is the first in a 10-year series of reports that seeks to explore family life in Australia, especially the families in which children and young people are being raised. The report – which reveals fascinating insights into family diversity and gender roles – is a partnership project between Uniting NSW.ACT and the UNSW Social Policy Research Centre. 

    BroadAgenda editor, Ginger Gorman, had a chat with two of the report’s main authors, Dr Megan Blaxland and Dr Yuvisthi Naidoo

    First of all, what’s the idea behind this report? What is it designed to show or reveal?

    The Uniting Families Report celebrates the diversity of families in Australia. To do this, we started with the idea of family practices – that is the things that families do that makes them a family. For many, raising children is at the heart of their idea of family. So in this report, we focused on the family practice of raising children.

    Too often research, especially quantitative research, explores the experiences of couple and sole parent families.

    But when we looked at the data to see who raises children, we identified many children growing up in other family types, including step-blended families, multigenerational families, and foster families or other kin families. So in this report we also explore the social and economic circumstances and experiences of all these family types.

    We also wanted to acknowledge the longer time that many young adults live with their families. Although much research defines children and young people as those under 15 or older than 15 if they are studying, in our research, we included all young people less than 25 years living with family, whether or not they were studying or employed.

    We analysed data from the Census 2011 to 2021 and the Household Income and Labour Dynamics of Australia survey 2022. (Unless specified, the following findings come from analysis of HILDA 2022.)

    What can you tell us about Australian families and their make-up? What does the report reveal that most people might not know?

    We found couple parent families are still the most common – 69% live in couple parent families. 12% live in step-blended families, 11% in sole parent families, 6% in multigenerational families and 1% in foster or other kin families.

    However, many families are a mix of these – so a sole parent raising foster children while living with her mum, is both a sole parent, a multigenerational family and a foster family. Similarly, a couple raising one biological child of their own and a child from one of the parent’s previous relationship, and living with an elderly parent is both a couple parent family, a step family and a multi-generational family. It is these webs of relationships that highlight the diversity amongst Australian families raising children and young people.

    First Nations families are much less likely to live in couple parent families – only a third (34%). Almost a quarter were in sole parent families (23%), over a quarter in step and/or blended families (27%), and just under a tenth in multigenerational families (9%). Foster and other kin families are also a notable form of family for First Nations peoples at 6%.

    Interestingly, when we examined family types in the Census, we found little change in the mix of family types over 10 years. The most notable change was with families with parents in a same sex relationship. The nationwide vote to endorse marriage equality for same-sex couples in 2017 was a significant milestone.

    Perhaps as a result, more people identified themselves as being in a same sex relationship after this vote than ever before in the Census. In fact, the number doubled from 70,000 in 2011 to 164,000 in 2021. Most of these adults are in couple relationships without children, but increasingly they are raising children and young people. The proportion of same-sex couples who are couple parent families increased from 11% in 2011 to 16% in 2021. Although data from the Census is limited, same-sex couples belonging to step and/or blended families comprised 5%, while 1% were part of multigenerational families.

    Supplied/Fancy Boy Photography for the Uniting Families Report

    Women in multigenerational families were even more likely to feel tired or worn out, and more likely to say that taking care of their children is more hard work than pleasure. Supplied/Fancy Boy Photography for the Uniting Families Report

    How is family life marked by gender?

    Our findings confirm other evidence that sole parents are more likely to be women than men.  We found that 82% of sole parents are women and 18% are men. But we also found that women are more likely to be in all other family types, except couple parent families (in couple parent families there is a 50/50 split).

    In step-blended families, adults are 55% women and 45% men. In multigenerational families 60% of adults are women (40% are men) and in foster and other kin families 58% of adults are women (42% men). Unfortunately, both the Census and HILDA are limited in the capacity to explore the families of people with other gender identities.

    What can you tell us about domestic labor, caring responsibilities and mental loads in households?

    Adults’ experiences of housework and care responsibilities continues to be defined by their gender. In fact, gender shape parenting and domestic experiences more than the type of family they predominantly belong to.

    More than half of all women (55%) said that they do more than their fare share of work around the house. Only 35% said they did their fair share, no more, no less. By contrast, only 20% of men said they do more than their fair share. But 54% said they do exactly their fair share.

    Adults’ perception of fairness (or unfairness) was even stronger when they were thinking about raising children. Nearly two-thirds of women (65%) said they do more than their fair share. While the same proportion (66%) of men said they do just their fair share, no more and no less.

    These proportions are consistent across family types, for both domestic labour and child rearing. The one exception is among men in sole parent families, who are more likely to say they did more than their fair share than other men.

    Graphic from Uniting NSW.ACT.

    Graphic courtesy of Uniting NSW.ACT.

    Unfortunately, we did not have access to data on mental loads, but we can speculate that if women are doing more than their share of the child rearing and domestic labour tasks, they are also carrying more than their fair share of the mental load. In fact, recent research shows the share of the mental load tends to be even more unfair.

    Given women are more likely to say that they do more than their fair share of housework and child rearing tasks, it seems probable that women might be feeling resentful. The data suggests this is the case. The HILDA survey asked participants to say how satisfied they are with the division of household tasks on a scale from 0 (completely dissatisfied) to 10 (completely satisfied). The mean score for women is 6.65 out of 10. For men, 7.52 out of 10. Women are less satisfied with the division of domestic tasks than men in every family type.

    The same is true regarding share of child rearing. The mean value for women’s satisfaction is 7.00 out of 10, while men’s was 7.69 out of 10. Again, women are less satisfied with the way child rearing is shared across every family type.

    Your report makes compelling findings in regard to how women feel about family life. Please unpick this quote from your report for me: ‘Overwhelmingly, their [women’s] responses show that women find parenting more challenging This finding is consistent across all family types.’

    Survey participants who had parenting responsibilities were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about parenting. Women’s responses show that they find parenting more challenging than men do.

    On every measure, in most family types, women are more likely than men to indicate that being a parent is harder that they thought it would be, that they often feel tired, worn out, or exhausted from meeting the needs of their children, that they feel trapped by their parenting responsibilities and that taking care of their children is more work than pleasure.

    Although the mean scores are not high across both women and men, they are noticeably higher for women than men. Moreover, women in multigenerational families were even more likely to feel tired or worn out, and more likely to say that taking care of their children is more hard work than pleasure.

    By contrast, in foster and other kin families, it is men not women who found parenting more difficult. This was the case across every measure.

    How is gender related to the economic pressures families are facing?

    Women’s greater responsibility for child rearing and household tasks is associated with a lower rate of participation in full time work. Across all family types, most adults are engaged in paid employment. While men mostly work full time, women are split between full time employment, part-time, or not participating in paid work at all. Better sharing of responsibilities at home could mean women could increase their earnings and ease some of the economic pressures families are experiencing at the moment.

    You do also find some hope. Where and what?

    Most importantly, we found that relationships are strong across all family types. Survey participants rated the quality of their relationship with their children highly and reported that children get along with each other. Both these measures are consistently high across all family types. This suggests that no matter the struggles that some families face, all family types provide strong and nurturing relationships for children.

    • Picture at top: Supplied/Fancy Boy Photography for the Uniting Families Report

    The post Gender gaps in parenting: Who bears the burden? appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Measuring what matters, getting care metrics right

    Declan and Sara have three young kids, including a newborn. A lot of caring happens in their household, often when other things, such as housework, are also being done. The care work in this household is gendered, although less so than it was in many earlier households. For example, on many nights Declan sleeps on while Sara takes responsibility for attending to the children’s needs, if they are sick, wakeful, or crying, and she bears the added burden of tiredness the next day.

    Key policies and government initiatives, including those on gender equality, are now acknowledging the importance of the unwaged care that occurs in households such as this one, which is great. These developments show that positive change can be achieved through strenuous and patient feminist action.

    What we need now is to ‘bed down’ the focus on care and the care economy. But to do this we first need the government to adopt better measures of care, grounded in evidence from the activities of people’s everyday lives, such as those outlined in the above example.

    Currently, policy relies on poor measures of care. For example, the Women’s Budget Statement, a key part of the Federal government’s gender equality reporting framework, relies on data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. HILDA is a household-based panel study that collects valuable information about economic and personal well-being, labour market dynamics and family life. But HILDA provides, at best, only a broad indication of the extent and gendered distribution of unwaged care work.

    Once a year, HILDA asks people to recall how much time they spend in a typical week on child and other familial care. For the survey to generate reliable measures of care, Declan and Sara in the above vignette would need to accurately recall their uses of time in their busy and complex lives. But people’s recall ability is notoriously fraught, even when they’re not sleep deprived. Thus, HILDA only yields imprecise estimates of care.

    The set activities included in HILDA’s definition of care is also quite narrow. Childcare is described as “playing with your children, helping them with personal care, teaching, coaching or actively supervising them, or getting them to childcare, school and other activities”. Many of the activities associated with nursing a newborn, for example, are missing here.

    Activities associated with nursing a newborn are not included in HILDA. Picture: Nicholas Felix/Adobe Stock

    A planned new ABS Time Use Survey (TUS) will improve the measurement of care. It will be less affected by recall problems because it will get people, over a 2-day period, to keep a diary that records all their main activities (including providing care).

    However, a big problem with the planned TUS is that it will not collect accurate information on ‘secondary’ care, which is the care provided while people are ‘mainly’ doing other things, such as housework.

    People will be asked to record if any child or other person was in their care during each main activity. However, the times when a child or other person was present will not be noted. Thus, we won’t know if, for example, children were in Declan’s and Sara’s care for all of the time they were doing housework on a particular day, or for only the first few minutes.

    A further problem with the planned TUS is that it will fail to capture key details on the intra-household division of secondary care. In the above example, for instance, both Declan and Sara are likely to report that there was a child in their care during a family outing, when their main activity was leisure. The survey would thus record both partners providing the same amount of secondary care even if only one of them takes responsibility for monitoring the children’s interactions and safety, stepping in where necessary. This further limits the accuracy and usefulness of the data on care likely to be generated by the new TUS.

    Finally, the details on the co-presence of others won’t be captured by the new TUS. Thus, it won’t generate measures that distinguish, for example, between situations where Declan is solely responsible for the care of his kids and where he engages with childcare when Sara is present. This is a limitation because a key signifier of changing gender responsibilities is whether men are engaging in care on their own or  together with their partner.

    Australia can and should do better in measuring care. We used to have a world leading TUS and we can achieve this again. New technologies exist to collect time use data on both primary and secondary care, on the time when care occurs, and on the presence of other people when care is being provided. What we need now is a commitment to collecting the data needed for a truly evidence-based policy on care.

    • Please note: Picture at top is a stock photo

    The post Measuring what matters, getting care metrics right appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Finding my way back to women’s history

    A celebrity decorator with blue hair. A single mother who advised JFK in the Oval Office. A Christian nudist with a passion for almond milk. A century ago, ten Australian women did something remarkable. Throwing convention to the wind, they headed across the Pacific to make their fortune. Historian Dr Yves Rees tells their story in a new book called: Travelling to Tomorrow – The modern women who sparked Australia’s romance with America.

    In 2008, back when millennials were still young and skinny jeans were fashionable, I was procrastinating in the Melbourne Uni library when I stumbled upon an article that changed my life. On the pages of an old magazine, I discovered the story of modernist artist Mary Cecil Allen. An enfant terrible of the Melbourne art world, in 1927 Mary decamped for the brighter lights of New York, and later introduced abstract expressionism to Australia. Sounds like a good research project, I thought. I was twenty and had just stepped onto a trajectory that would shape the next sixteen years.

    Once immersed in Mary’s life and times, I started wondering if there was a bigger story here.

    New York was a daring choice for an Australian in 1927—let alone a young and unaccompanied Australian woman. Had any other women done such an audacious thing? Turns out, they had. Hundreds and hundreds of them.

    Writers and musicians and economists and actors and librarians and more. Over four years, I did a PhD on the Australian women who, in the early 1900s, set sail to seek their fortune in the United States.

    Back then, I still thought I was a woman too. Why wouldn’t I? I’d been born with a vagina, and so everyone concluded: girl. I was a people pleaser, a perfectionist, and I was determined to ace this gender assignment. In 2012, when I started my PhD, I had long hair and short skirts and twenty-four years of female socialisation that kept me making nice.

    As a novice women’s historian, I approached my subjects from a position of identification. Like them, I was a white Australian with the privilege and appetite to orient my life around travel and education and career. They felt, in many ways, like a version of me born a century earlier. They were my forebears, direct ancestors in a lineage of feminine resistance to being put in small boxes, women who could model how to navigate womanhood in a world that still positioned men as the default human subject. Through them, I might finally learn how to be.

    Over my long years of research, I ran towards these forebears like an orphaned puppy looking for a mother, a hot mess of confusion and gaping need. How do I do this strange thing called womanhood? If I study you hard enough, if I join all the dots of your big and rebellious lives, will I finally crack the code? Teach me, show me the way. Solve my gender trouble, oh ye fellow white ladies who went before.

    You can probably guess how this story ends. Spoiler alert: when womanhood feels like a puzzle with a missing rulebook, or a role you never signed up to play, or a scratchy jumper a few sizes too small, you might not actually be a woman at all.

    It took me until 2018 to figure this out. By that point, I was thirty and revising my PhD into a book. I had a publishing contract, an academic job. The whole shebang. I was a real women’s historian. Only I wasn’t, and never had been, a woman myself.

    Travelling to Tomorrow

    Cover image: Travelling to Tomorrow

    Once this realisation landed, I didn’t know how to think about women in the past. Were they still my forebears? Was their history still my history? Women’s history was my inheritance, or so I thought. Now, however, I’d been disinherited—or had disinherited myself. It was too painful to consider, so I didn’t.

    Instead of revising the manuscript, I invented other work for myself. For years, I wrote economic history, migration history—anything to avoid my ‘women’s history’ book, that rotting corpse of my old certainties. I didn’t know how to write women’s history anymore because I no longer understood my relationship to that concept. My book remained in the form of Word drafts and manila folders, collecting dust.

    Then one day, I remembered that Mary Cecil Allen played fast and loose with her own gender assignment. The painter preferred pants and came to be known by her masculine middle name. If a Cecil in pants was part of ‘women’s history’, was this field really so far removed from my own experience?

    Would someone like Mary have understood themselves as nonbinary if they’d had this concept at their disposal? The possibilities of self-definition are always shaped by historical context. With different ideas and words floating around, the same person might think about themselves in an entirely new light.

    I had already met countless older people who told me, somewhat wistfully, that they would call themselves nonbinary or trans if only they were 30 or 40 years younger. Had they’d encountered this idea in their youth, their lives might have looked very different. How many other people, dead and buried, might have thought the same way?

    When I started looking for it, gender non-conformity was everywhere in my ‘women’s’ history.  There was the nurse Cynthia Reed, who was known by the nickname Bob and had surgery to reduce her breasts. Then there was the author Dorothy Cottrell, who wrote an autobiographical novel with a male protagonist. In that same novel, another character is described as having a mix of male and female energies – a gender expression we’d now call nonbinary. ‘In some natures sex is definitely marked in every fibre of being’, Dorothy wrote. ‘But in rarer cases the blending of the elements masculine and feminine seem almost equal.’

    This is not to say that these ‘women’ were not women at all. It is not to say that every person in history who challenged gender norms was nonbinary or trans. It is simply to say that we know less than we think. We can know the gender people were assigned at birth, we can glimpse whether they accepted or challenged that assignment, but beyond that is a whole realm of unknowability and mystery. We can only wonder and imagine.

    How marvellous, how beautiful.

     

    Picture at top: Yves Rees. Picture: Catherine Black

    The post Finding my way back to women’s history appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • What Micaela Cronin got right about ending gendered violence

    Dr Hayley Boxall is a Research Fellow with the ANU and has undertaken research on domestic and family violence and sexual violence for over 10 years. She has published extensively on these topics, with a primary focus on pathways/trajectories into and out of DFV offending. After attending Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner Micaela Cronin’s National Press Club a few days ago, she was moved to respond. 

    Last week, Micaela Cronin, Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner, addressed the National Press Club of Australia on the ‘Inaugural Yearly Report to Parliament on the Progress of the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032.’

    The speech covered a lot of ground, ranging from the importance of using non-passive language when we’re talking about DFSV, through to the processes for developing programs for people using violence within Australia. If you’d like to watch the talk in its entirety, find it here.

    As someone who has researched in this space for more than a decade, I have thoughts!

    A few key things to note: I agree with everything that was discussed in the room and I also share Commissioner Cronin’s sense of hope that we could be the generation who makes a difference in stemming the tide of domestic and family and sexual violence in Australia. But in particular, I wanted to elaborate on three points that were raised by the Commissioner because they made my heart so happy to hear them raised in such a public forum by someone who has the ear of government.

    Who stops using abusive behaviours and why?

    Commissioner Cronin said that we need to understand pathways OUT of offending. It was only a brief mention, but it is such an important area of research which has so often been overlooked. As a society, we don’t have high hopes for the ability of people to stop using violence.

    One research participant I spoke to a few years ago – let’s call her Jane – said the violence had stopped for three-years within her previously very violent relationship. Jane was very surprised that her partner was capable of being non-violent and said her experiences were an ‘anomaly’, that she was ‘weird’. It was actually why she chose to speak to me as part of research! She saw herself as a fascinating case study worthy of closer examination.

    While Jane was very interesting and I learnt a lot from her, her experiences were not an anomaly. Many men who use violence are capable of change. We know this from interviews with victim-survivors and longitudinal studies conducted internationally.

    But our understanding of WHY is very under-developed. That means our responses are focused on mitigating risk, rather than promoting desistance.

    Intervening early with young people using violence

    This is a bit of a passion area, so bear with me. Again and again, I am so disappointed and confused by the lack of focus on young people who are at risk of using DFSV but either have not used them yet, or may be showing the first signs of these behaviours. I have spoken to so many carers of young people who are using violence in the home, and the consistent feedback I get is the lack of services for these families and young people, and how soul-crushing it is to want to support your loved one to get help when there is nothing available for them.

    Young people who use violence are typically in distress. Research has shown that they are likely to have been exposed to family violence in the home, death of family members and other traumatic events, as well as social exclusion, poor self-esteem and mental health.

    But intervening early is not only a social good, it could also have longer term implications for the volume of DFSV within the community. A recent study I conducted while I was theAustralian Institute of Criminology found that only 7% of all juvenile offenders had been proceeded against for DFV offending in NSW. However, this cohort accounted for 33% of all DFV-related offences perpetrated during young adulthood by the juvenile offending population. We need to get that piece of the puzzle right if we want to disrupt pathways into offending and support pathways out of offending.

    Having conversations that make us uncomfortable *whispers* (about sexual coercion)

    Commissioner Cronin was spot on when she said that we ‘don’t really talk about sexual violence’. Historically we have not really included sexual violence, abuse and coercion within our analysis of DFV, or collapsed it into other categories of behaviour. I myself have been guilty of collapsing sexual violence experiences into the general category of physical violence. Shame!

    However, really important evidence has demonstrated that the risk factors associated with sexual violence are actually more similar to emotional and verbal abuse than physical violence. For example, Anthony Morgan and I analysed a survey of 10,000 women finding that those who were the primary breadwinner in their relationship were more likely to be subjected to sexual violence, but not physical violence.

    Broader research has suggested that abusers weaponise sex as a way of degrading women, making them feel ashamed and small and to put them back in their box. I have spoken to several women who said that their partner were sexually coercive as a way of making them feel like ‘more of a man’ because they weren’t earning as much as them, or their career was floundering.

    I also remember speaking to one woman – let’s call her Sam – who said her partner purposefully pressured her to have unprotected sex and gave her an STI which he knew he had but failed to tell her about. When she called him in tears after being diagnosed with the STI, her partner said “Well now you’ll have to stay with me – no one else will have you”.

    Sexual violence is also a really important risk factor for homicide. Why important? Because unlike other risk factors which may only emerge in the weeks and months leading up to the murder, sexual abuse and coercion is likely to be present throughout the entire relationship. So it could be viewed as an early risk factor for homicide in the life of the relationship.

    People feel icky talking about sexual coercion and abuse. It feels intrusive and not our business. But it is a vital part of the puzzle, and it is also an important risk factor for homicide. We need to do better on this dimension of IPV.

    Dr Hayley Boxall

    Dr Hayley Boxall says the risk factors associated with sexual violence are actually more similar to emotional and verbal abuse than physical violence. Picture: Supplied 

    A little more action please?

    Nothing Commissioner Cronin said during her speech was revolutionary, but that’s not really her job is it? Her job is to listen, to listen and engage with the community and experts, to consolidate that information, share it within government, advocate and hold the government to account. However, as someone who has been waiting years for people to talk about pathways out of offending, for the need to focus on young people and sexual violence, her speech was very powerful.

    But what next? Ideally what will flow from this speech will be tangible actions, such as funding for programs that support young people who are at risk of or using violence in the home. For research that really tries to unpack the factors that are linked to men choosing to stop using violence, and support for organisations to have difficult conversations about sexual coercion within intimate relationships.

    I am hopeful that this generation can make a difference, so let’s crack on with some action.

    • Picture at top: Micaela Cronin/Supplied

    The post What Micaela Cronin got right about ending gendered violence appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Who’s listening to Pacific voices on climate change?

    At the Pacific Islands Forum this week the UN Secretary General stated that the Pacific needs to be provided with a bigger voice when it comes to climate change.

    But who has that voice and who is not listened to? New University of Canberra/ACIAR funded research is addressing diverse gender inclusivity in the design and implementation of climate  programs in the Pacific. It is adopting an intersectional and diverse approach to gender (consistent with the IPCC goal 3.4) to capture the voices of groups who report feeling marginalised in these programs and discussions.

    The importance of gender equality and inclusion to achieve better and more equitable outcomes in climate program is increasingly being reflected in global, regional and domestic institutional climate statements. For example, A 2023 reportby Recourse, BRICS Feminist Watch and CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network) emphasised that principles of climate justice and rights are crucial in giving effect to the Paris Agreement on climate change:

    Given the limited scale of public investment resources for sustainable development and climate finance, it is a matter of efficiency, effectiveness and equity that it needs to set the highest bar with respect to good governance; applying, safeguarding and advancing environmental and social standards; and actively promoting social inclusion and poverty reduction, gender-responsiveness and human rights.

    Regionally, the framework for Resilient Development in the Pacific also calls for an integrated approach to gender considerations. And, in Australia, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Penny Wong, has stated Australia’s international development strategy has a “commitment to gender equality and climate action will be at the heart of the development program” and that “new targets will ensure Australian development assistance tackles climate impacts and improves the lives of women and girls”.

    The growing policy and research activity in the gender and climate space acknowledges that women, men and children experience climate impacts differently depending on how they sustain their livelihoods and the roles they play in their community.

    To be effective, and to avoid entrenching or exacerbating existing inequalities, climate programs must accommodate these differences. There is however a need for more diverse inclusion, as gender is still being used in much of the literature and development programming without considering the intersection of other identities such as diverse sexuality, disability, age etc.

    Accordingly, the Commission on the Status of Women 2022 Outcome Statement on achieving gender equality in the context of climate change called on climate adaption programs to be more inclusive – especially of people living with a disability, LGBTQ+ groups and other marginalised voices who are impacted but whose diverse needs are not taken into account in the design and delivery of climate adaptation programs.

    Linda Tabua in 2014 at a tea party.

    Linda Tabua in 2014 at a tea party. Picture: Stemoc, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

    On top of the importance of a diverse and gender inclusive approach to climate adaptation programs, we need insight into what works ‘on the ground’ for better and more equitable and inclusive outcomes. A ‘one size-fits-all approach’ will not work. Climate adaption programs that seek to be diverse and gender inclusive need to be nuanced and context specific. Crucially, they will need to be informed and shaped by local communities developing local solutions that meet a diverse range of needs and circumstances.

    The 2024 Pacific Islands Forum Women Leaders meeting last month focused on a fuller diversity of gender responsive climate change. The Fiji  Minister for Women the Hon Lynda Tabuya noted that “achieving gender equality and gender-responsive climate resilience requires understanding of the well-being of women and girls ‘in all their diversity’.

    This emphasised that understanding requires more than an afterthought, a paragraph is a speech or a report. The 2 year University of Canberra/ACIAR elicitation of Pasifika perspectives on gender and climate change will take the time to support the design and implementation of more inclusive climate programs and broader development programs that are increasingly including a climate change element, with an emphasis on intersectional and locally-led approaches, indigenous research methodologies such as talanoa and tok story and deep listening.

    The post Who’s listening to Pacific voices on climate change? appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Here’s what teens actually think about porn

    Pornography has been in the news a lot this year. It was at the centre of discussions for addressing violence against women back in May. Deepfake pornography has also been in the headlines.

    Now the New South Wales government has announced the first state-led inquiry into the “impacts of harmful pornography”. The negative framing of the inquiry risks revisiting old arguments, rather than advancing the debate and policies.

    Much of this debate has centred around the potential harm to teenagers, but very few people have interviewed teens about it. As part of our research, we asked teens about their experiences of porn and found many have a nuanced understanding of the risks, but also the benefits.

    Filling an information vacuum

    In our project, we asked 108 parents and teenagers from Australia, Greece, Norway and Ireland what they thought of online sexual content. We spoke to 50 Australian teens (aged 11–17) through interviews and focus groups about their perceptions of pornography.

    We found teens hold very mixed views about both porn and sexting. Some of these views were positive.

    For example, many young people recognise some benefit to being able to access pornography as a source of knowledge, particularly when sex is not discussed in schools.

    A teenager sits on a couch and watches their smartphone
    Teenagers had both positive and negative things to say about online porn.
    Shutterstock

    Sixteen-year-old Miles said accessing porn can be useful:

    A lot of people don’t know a lot [about sex] – but at this point I’d say, it would be good for under 16s [accessing porn] just because of the lack of actual education that you get at school about it.

    Teens also sense both educators and parents’ discomfort with discussing sex and porn. Seventeen-year-old Warren said:

    Talking to other people about [sex], it’s pretty awkward, but if I’m just watching it, I learn better.

    Porn may offer more accessible and explicit representations of sex and bodies that schools cannot. Caris (aged 15) believed porn could be a good resource to learn about “pleasure [and] self-pleasure”. They said porn can assist with “learning what to do”.

    Fourteen-year-old Tiffany agreed it could be instructive:

    It can help you figure out what you may like, or not like, your […] preferences.

    Copying what they see

    Clearly, such perspectives are not without risk. Other teens recognised potentially harmful impacts of porn such as a lack of condom use displayed, objectification of women, no consent negotiated on screen, and concerns that others may copy acts they see in porn. Twelve-year-old Levi said:

    In those videos they never really go over consent, they just go straight into doing it. I feel like it would harm you in those ways, if you aren’t educated otherwise.

    Tiffany said:

    A lot of people know that this is unrealistic but there are some that think, ‘oh my gosh, that’s what everyone should be like’, which can be harmful to quite a few people.

    In our new study, we recommend that policy-makers and researchers should listen to teens, giving more importance to their firsthand experiences over secondhand statements. Secondhand statements tend to repeat warnings teens hear from others. Their actual experiences may be different from those represented in the media. Examples of experiences include Lauren’s perspective (aged 13):

    It can be shocking at first and it shows the bad side and everything, so learning it in class would be better. I know a lot of people would make it uncomfortably cringey but I think it’s way better than just finding it online and just getting a real shock first ‘cause at least you’re prepared […]

    Pornhub website on a computer screen
    Teens said porn taught them about sex, but that it could be risky.
    Shutterstock

    How harmful is porn?

    While pornography is often noted as harmful, the actual extent of harm caused by pornography is unclear.

    Some systematic reviews argue links between pornography and sexual violence are inconsistent and lack causal links.

    Even research on the relationship between pornography and acceptance of rape myths have been contradictory.

    In our study, teens believed for the most part that the adults in their lives overstated the harms. For instance Nicola, 16, said:

    It’s fine as long as it’s ethically made – obviously with the people paid and no sex trafficking.

    While funding and resources have been allocated towards age verification to regulate and protect young people, teens believed attention was better directed towards education. Miles, 16, said:

    I think the best protective measure for young people will be education. It’s not taught very well, it’s not taught enough. The quantity and quality of it is not there.

    This is especially the case when discussions of sex may be avoided in certain households. Levi said:

    Not everyone gets taught by their parents for some reason or another. So I feel like [a] certain amount, everyone should have the access to the knowledge […]

    Porn literacy over bans

    While movements towards teaching consent education are a welcome addition to the sexuality and relationships curriculum, teens clearly require more comprehensive information about sex than is currently offered to them.

    For instance, when asked to rate their sexuality education in school in a survey conducted by True Relationships in Queensland, the average rating by school students was 3.5 out of ten.

    Clear causal evidence of harm should be established before prohibitive policies are established, particularly given the evidence of possible benefits.

    We need porn literacy that compliments media literacy, and which does not simply refer to all porn as “unrealistic” sex. It should help young people reach informed decisions about what they may have sought out, or been shown by their peers.

    Ideally, developing porn literacy could be a part of discussions about sex framed in more balanced ways that respond to teens’ lived experiences. This is particularly important when young people appear to crave more explicit representations and knowledge of sex and cannot find such information elsewhere, particularly for minority groups.

    Young people should be provided with the tools to decide what is best for them personally. Teens believed education could prove more useful than age-verification measures and restrictions. Opportunities for teens to openly discuss sex and tease out these issues for themselves, in a two-way discussion with people they trust, are crucial. This means support and training for educators and parents are equally important in tackling these issues effectively.

    Discussions about porn, which start before adolescence, can help teens critically consider what they see represented in pornography. Teens will be more resilient and able to critique what they consume if they are prepared for what they may see online.The Conversation

     

    Please note – image at top is a stock photo/Shutterstock

    The post Here’s what teens actually think about porn appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Investing in breastfeeding: Sustainable solutions for global health

    In a recent paper published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization (WHO), we argued that women’s unpaid work needs better recognition through decent time use statistics as well as by counting investments in breastfeeding.

    A gender budgeting perspective on the Australian Breastfeeding Strategy highlights that while successive governments are happy to spend money on consultants and the formula industry, they are less willing to invest in the measures to help women with breastfeeding such as better maternity care, longer paid maternity leave, and full implementation of the Code of Marketing on Breastmilk Substitutes. This has implications for planetary health, as well as human health.

    It is well known that both women and children’s health benefits from breastfeeding. What is less understood is its importance for environmental health. In a recent special issue of the WHO Bulletin on the economics of health for all, we argued that the lack of visibility of unpaid work such as breastfeeding contributes to gender-blind policies on the environment, as well as a misguided view of what is valuable economically.

    A rethink on the global economy and health inequities

    Reflecting on the inequities and failures of global governance on the COVID19 pandemic, the Director-General of the World Health Organization commissioned an all-female team to examine the economics of health for all. The WHO Council on the Economics of Health for All included one of the pioneers of feminist economics, Dame Professor Marilyn Waring, as well as UCL professor Mariana Mazzucato an expert in ‘financialisation’ and investment flows. Dr Tedros called for a ‘rethink of what matters’.

    During the pandemic, gross inequities in health policy responses became apparent. Women who were pregnant or breastfeeding were not included in COVID-19 vaccine research.

    Putting ‘women and children last’ likely harmed their health. Maternity care practices and policies, including in Australia, were poorly aligned with WHO recommendations on breastfeeding during the pandemic emergency.

    The WHO efforts to ensure global equity in access to protections and treatments for COVID19 were also undermined by ‘vaccine protectionism’ as high income countries and pharmaceutical companies prioritised populations in countries while using international investor protection and intellectual property laws to block the equitable sharing of research on COVID19 vaccines and treatments.

    Meanwhile, the pandemic was overlaid on multiple crises including the glacial response to climate change and related issues including escalating problems of malnutrition and food insecurity and antibiotic resistance.

    Maternity care chaos

    Early in the pandemic, WHO issued guidance for health professionals indicating that breastfeeding should be protected in maternity care and mothers and newborns should not be separated. Instead, there were egregious violations of women’s and children’s human rights, as health care protocols ignored this advice to prioritise resources away from maternity care and breastfeeding support. In some locations, caesarean section was mandated, and breastfeeding was not permitted. This resulted in needless distress and disruption for new mothers and newborns.

    Since that time, research has reinforced the value of breastfeeding in strengthening children’s immune systems, and demonstrating its role in protecting against coronavirus disease. In 2022 WHO and UNICEF leaders emphasised that breastfeeding is the first immunisation, following a study demonstrating that more babies were likely to die from lack of breastfeeding than from COVID19.

    While poor data collections mean that the effects of pandemic responses on breastfeeding, infant and child health are not clear, lack of time use data also hinders assessment of the economic burdens of the COVID19 pandemic. Women’s unpaid workloads soared as childcare and schools closed, and healthcare systems came under strain.

    The increased productivity of women juggling these additional roles remains unmeasured and invisible to economic policymakers, who missed the opportunity to ‘rethink what matters’, and instead exhorted the importance of ‘back to work’ and ‘return to normal’.

    Measuring what matters

    At the foundation of measuring what matters is collecting adequate data, and the WHO Council recommendations were built on a call for better time use statistics as the basis for measuring economic burdens and economic productivity. Our proposal for considering breastfeeding investments as a carbon offset is founded in the need for full recognition and appropriate measurement of women’s unpaid work including breastfeeding.

    Although it is well established that excluding mothers’ milk production from measures of food production biases policy priorities, most countries (other than Norway) continue to do so. When breastfeeding declines, the economy, as currently measured, expands, because only commercial baby food sales are counted in GDP. The Mothers Milk Tool developed at ANU with Alive & Thrive Southeast Asia Pacific demonstrates the large magnitude of this omission: if women’s production of milk for babies were counted as economically valuable, its monetary value in Australia would exceed $5 billion a year, compared to less than a billion dollars of commercial milk formula.

    Our proposal also calls for better time use data, so that who does the work provides the foundation for valuing the economy and for more appropriate distribution of income and wealth.

    Investing in what matters – sustainable food systems

    Central to our proposal that investments in enabling breastfeeding should count as a carbon offset is the science on the huge environmental impacts of the global dairy industry, of which commercial milk formula products are part. Only quite recently has it been acknowledged that the global food system, and particularly meat and dairy, is a key contributor to environmental damage, through pressures for land clearing, as well as emissions associated with production, distribution and consumption. Recent discussion of sustainable food systems asks whether impacts on animal welfare should also be part of the equation.

    Research has shown that as much as 11-14 kilograms of greenhouse gases are emitted during the product life cycle of commercial milk formula. This includes during the production of raw milk with huge methane gas production of cows, through the processing, packaging and transportation of powdered milk, and the emissions and waste during the consumption and disposal phases of the product life cycle.

    Globally, production and use of CMF by infants under 6 months results in annual global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of between 5.9 and 7.5 billion kg CO2 eq. and consumes 2,562.5 billion liters of water. If populous countries like China and India were to adopt western feeding practices, the effects on the environment as well as population health would be dire. An infant that is not breastfed generates around a quarter of a tonne of greenhouse gas emissions during the first six months of life, as it requires around 20-21 kilograms of milk powder. Breastfeeding a baby by contrast involves minimal ‘food miles’, even after accounting for ensuring mothers diets are adequate.

    This harm to planetary health and early nutrition is avoidable through investments in better maternity care, such as programs which implement the WHO/UNICEF Ten Steps to Succecsful Bresatfeeding, as well as through longer paid maternity leave. These are well evidenced ways of enabling women to breastfeed. Countries like Brazil have shown that integrated packages of breastfeeding support – including community milk banking replacing use of commercial milk formula – can increase breastfeeding rates at country level.

    The dairy industry is adept at adapting to new challenges, and the growing phenomenon of ‘greenwashing’ is used to convince consumers that technology can fix the problem by feeding cows seaweed in their diets, or using renewable energy in baby formula factories.

    However, this doesn’t help the environment or human health if CMF sales continue to rise. A recent series on breastfeeding in the top medical journal The Lancet documented industry marketing practices which exploit the vulnerabilities and anxieties of new mothers and their families, as well as targeting health professionals  and health facilities – seen in the baby food industry as ‘category entry points’. Another study has demonstrated that more than half of CMF sales in the Asia Pacific region are of ‘toddler formula’, which the WHO has stated is unnecessary and possibly harmful to children’s nutrition and health.

    Researchers from Ireland, a major dairy exporting country, have shown that achieving global nutrition targets for breastfeeding – for 70% of infants to be exclusively breastfed for the first six months, and for 80% to continue breastfeeding to 2 years and beyond – would do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than improving the energy efficiency of CMF production.

    Young mother choosing baby formula for her newborn. Picking different options from the shelf and reading the labels.

    Young mother choosing baby formula for her newborn. (Please note: Stock photo)

    The Paris Agreement on Climate Change

    Global public policy addresses climate change through three policy pillars, mitigation, adaptation and resilience. That is, preventing climate change, getting used to it, and coping with the resulting adversities. Breastfeeding assists all three, through minimising environmental harms, delivering good nutrition and clean fluids and strengthening the immune system, and via its potential to ameliorate the care, nutritional and health vulnerability of infants and young children in emergencies and disasters when usual infrastructure is unavailable. Australia, like other high income countries, has been poorly prepared to protect mothers and babies during such crisis. Ukraine is another tragic example.

    Although progress is glacial and inadequate, global agreements for a ‘clean development mechanism’ including a recent ‘loss and damage fund’ have potential to redistribute global development financing to low and middle income countries to tackle climate change challenges.

    Our proposal is that countries’ investments in breastfeeding, such as through better paid maternity leave, should be eligible for such funding.

    Using the Green Feeding Tool, the impact of such measures on greenhouse gas emissions and water use can be estimated, based on data on infant feeding practices. Maternity care services investments could also contribute. Recognition of the economic and environmental importance of breastfeeding would also help generate improvements in support for women and gender equity.

    The transition to a sustainable food system and health for all must be equitable, including for women. Advancing the proposal for investments to better enable women to breastfeed is one important way that will be achieved.

     

    Picture at top: Nicholas Felix/Adobe Stock

    The post Investing in breastfeeding: Sustainable solutions for global health appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • ‘Slutdom’: A bold call to embrace women’s sexual empowerment

    Despite decades of activism, women are still burdened with the effects of slut shaming in everyday life. Dr Hilary Caldwell’s new book, Slutdom, argues or women’s enjoyment of sex as a force to advance gender equality. BroadAgenda editor Ginger Gorman had a chat with Hilary.

    For those in Canberra, you can see Hilary speaking live about her book on Friday, August 23. Details here. 

    In a nutshell, what is your book about? 

    Sex! Slutdom is a celebration of the importance of sex to individuals and to society, while showing that sexual scripts create unfair gender roles, which in turn cause gender-based violence and ultimately prevent gender equality.

    Before we go further, tell us about your background. 

    I started sex work twenty-one years ago when I was a single mother of four and working part-time as a nurse while paying for childcare on rotating shifts. I could make more money as a sex worker, and it allowed me to have more control over my time so I could parent my girls. As the children grew and my physical workload at home eased, I began to study sex.

    Like the sex work, I enjoyed it and just couldn’t stop! I completed a Master of Health Science (Sexual Health) and together with previous counselling qualifications, I set up a side hustle as a sexologist so I could transition out of nursing. Over time, I started researching clients of sex workers and did a Master of Applied Science with a focus on male clients, and then later a PhD about women clients.

    I am a kinky, queer doctor and a sex worker, mother and grandmother.

    Hilary Caldwell, PhD

    Dr Hilary Caldwell getting her PhD. Picture: Supplied

    Why do you like sex work? How hard was it to come out to the world – and to your kids – as a sex worker? (Did this influence you writing the book?) 

    I kept my sex work a secret for over twenty years to protect my family. I knew that stigma about sex would negatively affect them, their relationships and perhaps their careers. At the same time, helping people have better sex as a sexologist caused cognitive dissonance – my growing knowledge of the beneficence of sex work to individuals and society was also something I was proud of.

    Keeping the secret cost me more than emotional pain. I also experienced the discrimination all sex workers face because of the way society treats us. My interactions with the basic systems that most people take for granted in Australia – health, banking, insurance, justice and policing – were compromised because my profession wasn’t recognised as legitimate. For example, I was refused EFTPOS services for my sexology business, affecting my reputation and career, due to ‘possible ties to human trafficking’.

    As my children became young women themselves, I finally realised that the unique perspective I had from living the madonna/whore dichotomy could benefit them, and all women. Coming out in the book has been hard but empowering. I think my struggle reflects how challenging it is for any woman to reject a lifetime of social conditioning that tells us that sluts – women who dare to be sexual – are bad.

    Ultimately, what I want my readers to understand is that being sexual is not something we should be ashamed of or judged for – we should be liberated by it. Sex is good for us, and we should all have equal access to erotic, de-stressing, empathy-inducing sexercise. Sexual equality is a human rights issue.

    Hear Hilary speak about her book live via Libraries ACT on 23 Aug 2024 from 6:00pm to 7:00pm. Book tickets here.
    The title of your book is deliberately provocative. You are fighting to reclaim the word “slut.” Why?

    I use my story to ‘call out’ the way women who enjoy sex – labelled as ‘sluts’ or ‘whores’ – are treated, and to show how this kind of sexual shaming harms everyone. Slutdom includes the stories of fifty women I interviewed for my PhD and I have used their voices to ‘call in’ people who have not yet noticed the way that slut-shaming has affected them, or those who don’t yet have the capacity to stand up to slut-shaming.

    Because what I found, was that when women feel sexually empowered, they fight back against gendered stereotypes and change the way they live their lives. While the words ‘whore’ and ‘slut’ have any negative connotations, women will be shamed sexually, maintaining a gender imbalance.

    How do you see sex and its relationship with gender equality?

    Unexamined sexual inequality prevents gender equality. Social conditioning gives men permission to acknowledge, develop and enjoy their sexual desires but this is not the case for women. Current statistics suggest that Australian men report masturbating two to three times more often than women. According to a 2017 US study, men enjoyed forty-six per cent more orgasms than women.

    My background as a nurse and sexologist has taught me that there is nothing in our biology to explain these findings, and everything to do with our cultural constructions about gendered sexual roles. Interestingly, the statistics also suggest that twenty-five per cent of women are not interested in sex compared with eight per cent of men.

    What I have learned is that sexuality is experienced in our bodies on a primal level, but our behaviour is controlled culturally. Would more women experience all the benefits of feeling powerful in their bodies, if they truly interrogated the effect that shame-based sexual narratives have on their lives?

    The cover image of Hilary's book "Slutdom." Picture: Supplied

    The cover image of Hilary’s book “Slutdom.” Picture: Supplied

    Your book barracks for women’s sexual empowerment and posits this as a mechanism to change their entire lives. Can you unpick this for me?

    Feeling uninhibited joy in our bodies as a result of sexual thrills can serve as a rebellion against generations of conditioning that tries to tell us that a woman’s sexual experience is bad, dangerous, dirty and wrong. Pride in sexual experience brings empowerment – and not just in the bedroom. I’ve already had feedback from readers who have told me that after reading Slutdom, they stood up to their boss about workplace harassment issues or initiated a new relationship with someone.

    ‘You walk in a different way when you feel sexually powerful. You work in a different way. You approach your friendships in a different way,’ said Charlotte in Slutdom. I imagine a slutopia where no woman is controlled by slut-shaming narratives.

    Increasingly the pornography industry is being questioned for promoting and enabling violence against women and children. How do you see this powerful industry fitting into the picture when it comes to women and sex? 

    Porn is any depiction of visual sexualised material. Some is perceived as violent without any nuance or understanding of performers preferences, but the real problem starts with gender stereotyping when we are young. The way in which ‘romance’ and ‘love’ are portrayed in popular culture – think Disney-style fairytales and romantic comedies – reinforce destructive gender stereotypes where men chase women who submit with dubious consent.

    If women’s sexuality was taught to subsequent generations as powerful, with women taking the lead, calling the shots, scoring the scores, hitting the home runs; and if men’s sexuality was considered passive, overly complex and mysterious, and only available in strict ‘love’ scenarios, then porn would look very different indeed. Strict codes of sexual behaviour, divided into gender roles that privilege men, are the forces that control the sexual climate. Porn is just a barometer.

     Is there anything else you want to say? 

    If we are serious about protecting women and children from gender violence, we will need to change the way we socialise our genders. Angela Saini, in the Patriarchs: How men came to rule, shows us that we can change these social scripts, and they are changing all the time. We just need to be able to clearly see the damage done to women by every slut-shaming incident, and understand that we all have a role to play in removing stigma. If we understand a slut to be a sexually empowered woman (regardless of her behaviour) then we can encourage everyone to be sluts for the benefit of all. When women are not divided, we are all #Slut(s)Too.

    The post ‘Slutdom’: A bold call to embrace women’s sexual empowerment appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • We need community spaces in the women’s sector

    Working for an organisation about to shut down is a pretty good prompt to start thinking about what it means to work in your sector.

    For over two decades, Equality Rights Alliance (ERA) has been a site for feminist collaboration and policy engagement. As one of the National Women’s Alliances we represent over 70 organisations working on gender equality in Federal policy from all around the country, each bringing their own specialist expertise. By the time this article is published, I will be both Acting Convenor and the only remaining staff member at ERA. ERA itself will close its doors at the end of the year.

    When I joined ERA, I was looking for a way to turn my frustration at the slow pace of change into a meaningful career. I was tired of working in jobs that felt disconnected from the rest of the world, or that felt like distractions from the social issues I saw in my own life. Like many of us who work in advocacy, my professional passion was fuelled by my personal experiences.

    After growing up in an environment where acts of violence were minimised and dismissed, I felt deeply drawn to spaces which ask you to name the problems. Entering a field that tells you to speak up after a lifetime of being told to keep quiet seemed incredibly empowering.

    The end of ERA feels both significant and predictable, the cost of doing business in a sector categorised by instability and insecurity. Working in the gender equality space can be a source of real joy, but it can also be isolating. The most common response I get from other women in the sector when I ask how they’re doing at work is something along the lines of “oh you know, I’m hanging in there.”

    Is it really any surprise that it has been difficult to fill front line positions? One colleague recently recounted to me the important life events she missed after months of endless work with little support, and another shared the frustration she felt at being routinely pushed to burnout as though it were normal. The passion that helps us excel also encourages us to pretend exhaustion is simply to be expected. As ERA wraps up, I have found myself reflecting on what a different version of the sector could look like. Surely we can all do better than just hanging in there.

    ERA recently hosted a Gender Equality Symposium – three days of robust feminist discussion at the Wheeler Centre in Melbourne, featuring contributors working on gender equality from across government, the community sector, academia, the corporate world and more. In many ways this was our early going away party, attended either in person or online by over one hundred participants from around the country.

    What stood out as the Symposium wrapped up was not just the quality of discussions, but just how many people thanked us for creating a sense of community. It was the common theme in almost every conversation I had after the event. One activist privately remarked that it felt like a place “for us to exhale.”

    Multiple people said they had found new friends, others new collaborators, and one contributor said it had reminded her of what it felt like to be part of a feminist community again. Watching these connections form made me wonder – what happens to this sense of community when movements are professionalised?

    We have made incredible gains during ERA’s tenure – decades of achievement from dedicated feminists working through political landscapes steeped in structural and cultural misogyny. The efforts of our many member organisations, their individual representatives, and the ongoing support of YWCA Australia is evidence of advocates’ willingness to keep showing up and doing the work.

    But what happens to those sites of friendship, collaboration and strategizing as feminism slowly shifts from outsider political resistance to clusters of formal workplaces? Of course, in some ways we are still outsiders, and unpaid advocacy is very much alive – but how has this professionalisation of our work changed how we relate to each other? When does that interpersonal element of a movement get left behind?

    We have never had feminist spaces without tensions and inequities – and so much of our progress has been won by the most stigmatised and marginalised advocates. But a moment of transition is the time to reflect on what could be different. As I wrote this, a statement from one of our panellists, Elena Rosenman, kept returning to my mind. She said: “it is hard to think of an idea that is further from my day-to-day experience and those of my colleagues than the [idea] of sustainability.”

    So many of the connections we witnessed being made at the Symposium were between people who should have already met. How many examples are there of people working on the same problems who don’t even know the other was out there? After every panel I heard someone say that some aspect of a discussion had changed how they think about their work, their organisation, or their role in a broader feminist community.

    There is a hunger for common meeting places, for shared ground where we can gather in person and grow together. Where we can challenge each other and begin to bridge gaps we might not have known existed.

    Even with the knowledge that ERA was ending, as we closed out the event the first thing I thought was “how do we make this happen again?” So much of the most critical work ERA has performed has been relationship building – work that was never fully recognised by government contracts. How often do the informal meetings, coffees, and chats at events that lead to critical reflections end up in our annual reports? At ERA we have often talked about the need to “bring people in” to challenging conversations – to sit down and work through complex (or just new) issues with grace and time.

    Our staff time is often split between our formally recognised advocacy (government submissions, senate evidence, meetings with parliamentary staff and so on) and quiet but critical conversations that we cannot quantify. Even when we value this interpersonal work as part of feminist practice, our principles do not translate into bureaucratic recognition and funding. I wonder if finding more opportunities to foster community might be one pathway to rebuilding both individual and sectoral resilience. How much easier would it be to find solutions to problems if we had more spaces to talk through them as a community? It doesn’t fix everything, but it at least gives us somewhere to talk about that.

    When ERA closes its doors this November it will leave a gap, but it will also leave space for something new. I hope we can keep finding places to meet each other in our advocacy, to find time to experience the joys of community alongside all our hard work. I believe we will all be better off for it.

    • Please note: Picture at top is a stock image (Adobe) 

     

    The post We need community spaces in the women’s sector appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Susan Ryan: The solidarity of sisterhood

    The following text is a lightly edited version of the wonderful, heartfelt speech given by Dame Quentin Bryce at the launch of the Susan Ryan AO sculpture in the Old Parliament House Senate Rose Gardens on Thursday, August 1, 2024. The sculpture is titled: titled ‘Senator Ryan Addresses the Rally.’

    Susan was the first female Senator for the ACT and a women’s rights trailblazer. The unveiling of the sculpture – created by artist Lis Johnson – occurred on the 40th anniversary of The Sex Discrimination Act. Susan was a key figure in the Act’s passage in 1984. Quentin’s speech is posted with full permission. 

    Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I pay my respect to the traditional keepers, and I acknowledge the debt of gratitude that I owe to wise Indigenous women who’ve taught me across my life what it means to be an elder; sharing language, country, culture.

    Loved – and loving – family, distinguished guests all, Tara Cheyne, Member of the Legislative Assembly, Minister for the Arts, Culture and Creative Economy, Minister for City Services, Minister for Government Service and Regulatory Reform, Minister for Human Rights, dux and head girl of Rockhampton Girls Grammar School 20 years ago, when I presented her with a huge stack of trophies that she handled with the dexterity and skill that she does now, an incredible range of government portfolios. Susan would be so proud of her!

    My friends, how thrilled and delighted I am to celebrate the unveiling of this magnificent work of art. They always start off at an unveiling such a funny shape, don’t they? (Editor’s note: At this stage of proceedings the sculpture was wrapped in a large cloth and tied up with a ribbon.) 

    But it was commissioned by the ACT government to recognize the contribution to our community, to our country, of the honorable Susan Ryan AO. What a splendidly appropriate accolade for a truly great Australian!

    The art and beauty of sculpture! Susan would love this occasion. Oh, how much it would mean to her. This place, our parliament, the heart of our democracy, this much-loved rose garden where she played with her little ones, where she came to reflect, for moments of respite, for quietness, for calm, for going inside herself.

    Dame Quentin Bryce speaking at the launch of the Susan Ryan sculpture, created by artist Lis Johnson. Picture: Michael Jackson-Rand

    Dame Quentin Bryce speaking at the launch of the Susan Ryan sculpture, created by artist Lis Johnson. Picture: Michael Jackson-Rand

    This glorious day, the 1st of August 2024, the 40th anniversary of the Sex Discrimination Act – her proudest reforms. Dear, dear friends – many of us indulging in affectionate nostalgia, admiration, respect, happiness, and our young women, for whom she held the highest hopes and to whom she tended, wise, thoughtful advice – yes, she would be pleased with this recognition, something she never sought.

    Recognition was something Susan never sought, not an iota of self-interest; not for her celebrity or ego. Indeed, she described herself as restrained, prudish – a person for whom the inner life was a private one. Only in her later years did she speak of the tough gullies.

    Across her years of service, selflessness, and accomplishment, Susan translated altruism and ambition into action to make the world a better place through a reformist agenda, policy, legislation, persuasion, reform demands, courage, intellectual rigour, perseverance, endurance, and faith.

    What was it that set her aside? I’m always drawn to the early years by how deeply we are shaped by where we grow up. Susan called Sydney “the city of her heart’s desire.”  She was born there in the darkest year of the war. In her autobiography is a very dear photo of her dad, Captain Arthur Francis Aloysius Ryan, holding her in his arms on leave from service in New Guinea. How she loved him.

    Florence, her mother, the disciplinarian, ran the household, but with the Brigidine sisters in Maroubra, for 12 influential years, Susan was exposed to an ethos of social justice. Character mattered to the nuns. A girl of strong character stood up straight, spoke clearly, firmly, and looked you straight in the eye – and Susan did.

    In Grade Two, aged eight, Mother Liguori told her, “Susan Ryan, you are not merely bold as brass – you are brass personified!”

    Susan, like so many of our generation, was the first from her family and her school to go to university. Her teachers’ college scholarship paid fees and a good living allowance. She never forgot the power of university entry policy based on merit; the inspiration for her fiery defense in cabinet of the no fee policy in 1985.

    Sydney Uni was where real life started for her; those halcyon days of sages and would-be-novelists; English, history, philosophy, exploring ideas, stretching intellect, opening doors to the culture that defines us as a nation.

    Susan and Richard Butler married at 20 and Justine was born in April 1954 – Susan completely engrossed in the exquisite creature. Early motherhood gave her a defining self-assurance that helped her take on big issues later.

    Richard joined External Affairs – a posting to Vienna – Benedict was born there soon after.

    Susan said that her role as a young, conscientious wife and mother attracted more social approval than any other she held subsequently. Those years were lessons for her in politics and government and a firm commitment to democratic socialism. Ever since her most heartfelt advice to any leader, political party reform movement, to any man or woman diving into politics, was to test their actions against the touchstone of democracy.

    Next post – New York! Every woman she met was on fire with enthusiasm for the social revolution sweeping the world; the women’s movement – feminism.  She seized upon The Female Eunuch, the seminal work of her friend, Germaine Greer. Her engagement with feminist issues had begun.

    In 1971 she came home to Australia with her children:  pain, guilt, loneliness, all held close. Canberra? Right place, right time, a transition to a new world.

    The heady days of 1972!  The beginning of WEL, the Women’s Electoral Lobby – famous for their interrogation of every candidate for the coming election. Oh, the strength of it, the faith of it, the imagination of it!

    On a summer’s afternoon in 1973, several hundred women met in Canberra on the lake’s edge; Australia’s political feminists, exotic new creatures in the electoral landscape. Over the weekend, the meeting became fractious. Edna Ryan quietly instructed Susan to take the chair and “get some sense into them”, and she did. The session ended on a high note, a turning point for her.

    “I decided then,” she said, “I would get right inside the political action.”

    She threw herself into this – WEL, the ALP lectures at ANU, her job at ACSO [Australian Community Support Organisation], her masters degree …

    When Mr. Whitlam called a double dissolution, she ran for pre-selection for Fraser, the new House of Representatives seat in the ACT.  Feminist pals gathered to campaign. Susan came in third. Her reputation and influence flourished.

    The next year, she ran for the ACT Senate. She won, but Labor lost in a landslide. As ever, in dramatic downturn, she told herself, “I got into this, so I just have to deal with it.”

    Stoicism in spades!

    In 1977, Susan backed Hayden against Whitlam. She went into shadow cabinet and on to every speaking list, providing powerful advocacy on the poor representation of women in parliament and everywhere else where power resides and decisions are made.

    I well remember my first meeting with her when I was appointed to the National Women’s Advisory Council, set up by the Fraser Government in August 1978.  Already, she carried an air of authority, a commanding presence that became more so. Tall, slight, green eyes, chestnut hair, Irish face – little could I have known that across the years we would form a friendship formed in common purpose and founded in trust that would enrich my life in myriad ways.

    As Shadow Minister for Women, Susan established a Women’s Policy Committee and embarked on preparation for what would become her grand reform, the Commonwealth sex discrimination legislation. The historical significance of Susan’s entry in 1983 as the first woman ever in a Labor cabinet, escaped just about everybody.

    But her appointment as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women did not. The office had clout, a minister impatient to get on with a feminist agenda developed by women’s groups across decades, and Anne Summers, its chief. The Sex Discrimination Act was top of the list – “The Ryan juggernaut” it was called. I can never resist repeating that mad term. (I bet you remember who created it, too, and a lot of other things as well.)

    Dame Quentin Bryce (Left) sits with Dr Anne Summers (right) at the base of the Susan Ryan Sculpture, created by artist Lis Johnson. Picture: Michael Jackson-Rand

    Dame Quentin Bryce (left) sits with Dr Anne Summers (right) at the base of the Susan Ryan sculpture, created by artist Lis Johnson. Picture: Michael Jackson-Rand

    I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I look back on the claims made about what the Act would do to society. Some hilarious, actually loony, but others vicious and abusive. It seems unbelievable the hostile opposition to a law that simply required that women wouldn’t be sacked; refused education, loans, or leases, because they were female, pregnant, married or unmarried; and that they would be protected from sexual harassment. Australia was the first jurisdiction in the world to take the measure.

    Debate raged on and on, compromises were made. The Bill passed with more than 50 exemptions. Some feminists and lawyers criticized it, and the Minister, for conceding way too much to secure its passage.

    “An imperfect law is worse than no law,” they opined.

    Susan took the pragmatic view that it was preferable to get legislation in place and work overtime to remove exemptions.

    “Parliament must ‘seize the day’, use its powers and deliver what it can of value to the people,” she said.

    “Where reform is urgently needed, it is not an acceptable strategy to wait for complete consensus, or to defer a Bill until its drafting is beyond any criticism. Such pursuit of the perfect,” she said, “constitutes the failure of representative democracy.”

    She was right. As soon as the Act was passed, work began towards withdrawing Australia’s reservations to the Convention [on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women – CEDAW] and to limiting and removing exemptions.  Reviews, inquiries, strong leadership, built step-by-step on the firm foundations of Susan’s SDA [Sex Discrimination Act] and the sister Affirmative Action Act.

    Again and again across my life, I have learnt that reform must never be taken for granted. It must continue to be implemented, administered, reviewed, and celebrated – with rigour.

    My friend, Susan Ryan, changed Australia. Dr Summers has written from the heart about the battles Susan endured, her fighting capacity, how often the odds were against her, (including from her own Cabinet colleagues). There on her own, around the table – alone.

    Susan used to say, “If only they knew, criticism stirred me on.”

    I believe it was commitment and commitment and commitment.

    In March 1985 she spent long hours embattled before the ERC [Expenditure Review Committee] to keep university education free. Each session was more combative. The last, the most grueling.

    She said, “I’d worn out my welcome and become an obstacle to the grand plan of fee-funded universities, rather than the foot-soldier they used to admire.”

    Her belief in herself, her belief in what she was doing, kept her going.

    In 1988, she resigned from Parliament – her Sydney pals, glad to have her back for the lovely things in life: the bread and the roses, music, art, parties, theatre. She loved the arts. I recall with affection, precious time scattered around the piano in her family circle, singing those sentimental songs – I know every word –  about Galway Bay, Taking Kathleen Home Again, When Irish Eyes are Smiling …

    Wendy McCarthy decided we should take up yoga so, off we went to early Saturday classes, Kings Cross, Lindsay Connors [a member of the former Commonwealth Schools Commission and Deputy Chair of the Board of the ABC]. Then, café conversations that lingered until lunchtime – about books we were reading, the writing. we were doing, the wild ideas we had, the brainstorming we needed, our travel plans; reassurance, togetherness.

    And next, the inspired appointment of Susan as Age Discrimination Commissioner – her forté, promoting and protecting the human rights of vulnerable people.

    As you get older, you don’t have more time, as some assume, you have less. So, you keep it for the most important things. You distill those things that really matter. You think about things more deeply, love more deeply, feel more deeply – art, poetry (especially Edna O’Brien’s), scarlet roses, soft evening shadows, beauty that reaches into heart and mind and into every emotion.

    As I contemplate this tribute to Susan, this beautiful sculpture cast in bronze, I can feel the vitality, the energy, the spirit; those qualities, that temperament – impatient, passionate, pragmatic – that made her our heroine.

    I want to congratulate all involved in this brilliant, creative remembrance that will ensure that Susan’s legacy endures; a legacy that signifies the finest human values of courage and kindness and the solidarity of sisterhood.

    From left: Dame Quentin Bryce, artist Lis Johnson, Susan's daughter Justine Butler, Tara Cheyne MLA minister for the Arts. Picture: Michael Jackson-Rand

    From left: Dame Quentin Bryce, artist Lis Johnson, Susan’s daughter Justine Butler, Tara Cheyne MLA, ACT minister for the Arts. Picture: Michael Jackson-Rand

    • Picture at top: Lis Johnson’s sculpture is titled ‘Senator Ryan Addresses the Rally’. Picture: Michael Jackson-Rand

    The post Susan Ryan: The solidarity of sisterhood appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Navigating the employee lifecycle: Trans and gender-diverse edition

    Understanding and raising awareness about the obstacles and disparities faced by trans and gender-diverse employees in Australia can help managers access a larger talent pool by implementing inclusive initiatives.

    Manager’s knowledge should include the awareness of discriminatory challenges of a decent proportion of employees (approx. 11% LGBTQIA+) to demonstrate sensible actions concerning the International Day Against LGBTQIA+ Discrimination (IDAHOBIT) or throughout Pride Month. Unlike rainbow washing, inclusive initiatives can result in an increasingly positive work culture and equitable customer engagement.

    Towards the end of this year, the Australian Human Rights Commission will publish a project mapping current and emerging threats to trans and gender-diverse human rights. I provided a submission that encourages organisations to rethink their workplaces that must uphold human rights to unlock the immense value of diverse talent.

    As a non-binary academic researcher, I have had the privilege of consulting with trans and gender-diverse individuals about their experiences in Australian workplaces. The stories I have heard paint a sobering picture of systemic discrimination, exclusion, and denial of fundamental human rights throughout the employee lifecycle.

    Workplace cultures and processes – we can do better

    From the very start during recruitment and selection processes, trans and gender-diverse applicants face significant hurdles. Starting with job application forms often force them to misgender themselves by requiring a binary gender selection. Followed by selection panels harbouring unconscious biases that can discriminate against trans and gender-diverse candidates. Additionally, there is the dilemma for trans and gender-diverse applicants of whether to risk outing themselves by providing documentation like prior certificates listing former names and incorrect gender markers.

    Securing employment does not mean the challenges end. The onboarding experience alone can be traumatic, such as introducing new trans and gender-diverse hires to colleagues using incorrect names and pronouns. A lack of transparency around inclusive policies on matters like gender affirmation leave can leave trans and gender-diverse employees feeling unsupported and vulnerable.

    The workplace itself is often rife with ignorance and hostility. Co-workers and managers lacking LGBTQIA+ education perpetuate an unwelcoming environment, while gaps in anti-discrimination policies fail to protect trans and gender-diverse employees from harassment and abuse, even from customers. Abuse by customers towards trans and gender-diverse employees is often not addressed.

    Robin's latest paper includes practical recommendations concerning language use, leadership style, work practices and arrangements that should be considered for increasing transgender and gender-diverse workplace inclusion. Picture: Adobe Stock

    Robin’s research shows that “…from the very start during recruitment and selection processes, trans and gender-diverse applicants face significant hurdles.” Picture: Adobe Stock

    It takes a toll

    Such chronic discrimination and minority stress take a heavy mental toll, undermining trans and gender-diverse employees’ ability to perform and develop professionally. Even when adequately performing, they are frequently overlooked for career advancement opportunities or promotions due to stigma and bias against their gender identity. Many feel forced to work “twice as hard” and conform to outdated gender norms, just to avoid being targeted.

    Consequently, the impacts extend into areas like performance reviews, where trans and gender-diverse employees may be graded poorly not due to merit, but because of a manager’s prejudice. Or learning and development programs, which can be minefields without LGBTQIA+ knowledgeable trainers and safe travel policies for trans and gender-diverse staff overseas. Even participating in an “inclusive” event can become an exercise in tokenism rather than an authentic growth opportunity.

    Faced with these relentless headwinds, it is no wonder many trans and gender-diverse employees opt to leave hostile work environments, knowingly sacrificing future job prospects because they can no longer get supportive employment references. Those who do pursue exit interviews often avoid them, fearing re-traumatisation from recounting their negative experiences.

    The cumulative effects are staggering higher unemployment, job dissatisfaction, and economic disadvantages for Australia’s trans and gender-diverse community as they are systematically excluded from opportunities and robbed of dignity in the workplace.

    In my view, protecting the rights of trans and gender-diverse employees is both a moral imperative and an economic necessity. Beyond the ethical obligation, organisational cultures that marginalise trans and gender-diverse talent severely undermine their diversity, innovation, and competitiveness. No workplace today can afford to ignore such a glaring inclusion failure.

    How can we go forward?

    Initiatives or organisational changes are outlined to offer organisations practical recommendations translatable to their daily business, such as utilising employee resource groups, reviewing best practice recommendations by the Diversity Council Australia, or establishing clarity about organisational values. Concluding by highlighting the organisational duty and responsibility for the employee’s psychological safety in the workplace.

    The way forward requires a comprehensive reckoning by Australian employers. At every stage – recruitment, onboarding, development, retention – proactive measures must be implemented to combat discrimination, educate staff on allyship, enforce inclusive policies and practices, and ultimately create safe, empowering environments where trans and gender-diverse employees can thrive authentically. Only then can we realise workplaces that fully uphold human rights and unlock the immense value of diverse, liberated talent.

    Five key takeaways for employers 
    • Putting gender inclusive and/or gender-neutral language into practice in all organisational communication
    • Providing comprehensive LGBTQIA+ education and training for managers and team leaders
    • Establishing and enforcing a gender affirmation policy to support trans and gender-diverse employees
    • Championing the formation of an Employee Resource Group or staff-led Pride Network to foster inclusivity and support within the organisation
    • Creating diverse platforms and channels for employees to express their perspectives and have their voices heard within the company

     

    Picture at top: The Progress pride flag/Shutterstock

    The post Navigating the employee lifecycle: Trans and gender-diverse edition appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Breaking the boss bias: women leaders change the game

    In this Q&A, Catherine Fox discusses her new book, Breaking the Boss Bias, with BroadAgenda editor, Ginger Gorman. Fox highlights the urgent need for gender equity in leadership. She addresses the stagnation of women in power roles and the systemic barriers they face, while emphasising the importance of diverse leadership styles. She offers hope and insight into how we can work together to create a more equitable future.

    Why did you see the need to write your book “Breaking the Boss Bias”? What was the urgency, in your view? 

    I was alarmed to see  the fragile progress made towards better gender equity actually plateauing or going backwards particularly in critical decision making roles. There is still only a handful of women running governments worldwide, in powerful CEO jobs, and they are lucky to make up 30% of senior ranks.

    Even though there are more women in Australia’s federal parliament and in cabinet, men are over-represented in many influential roles across party lines and in the bureaucracy. The Global Economic Forum tracks leadership progress which has increased about 1% a year until last year when it went backwards. Yet instead of taking this seriously many signs suggest organisations are taking their eye off the ball or  lapsing into complacency.

    Let’s address the basics first. Why does it matter how many women are in charge? Some might argue it doesn’t actually help women at the other end of the scale – those in low-paid jobs like childcare or cleaning roles. How would you respond to that?  

    It does matter. Aside from being fundamentally unfair to marginalise half the population of a well-educated country from power jobs, the evidence shows it makes a difference to outcomes for all women.

    When women run governments there’s usually more chance of gender legislation getting passed (I interviewed UTS law academic Ramona Vijeyarasa about this which was the focus of her book, (The Woman President: Leadership, Law and Legacy for Women’), the gender pay gap narrows and more women progress.

    Not to mention that when there are more women on decision making bodies (not just one but two or more) the nature and scope of the discussion changes and so do the priorities. It’s not because women wave a magic wand or are ‘better’ than men. But they bring different experience and focus to the table, they are role models and their presence encourages more efforts to close the gap. Many also realise they have a vested interest in seeing things change.

    Join Catherine in conversation with Professor Michelle Ryan about her new book ‘Breaking the Boss Bias’ at the ANU in Canberra. Tue 27 Aug 2024, 6:30 pm-7:30 pm. Register for the event here.
    You argue there’s a lot of talk about female leadership, but the numbers of women in those roles remains stubbornly low. Arguably the data you set out actually points to a decline. Why is this? 

    Power systems are very good at recycling themselves and so the cohort in charge has minimised the problem, or pointed to examples of women in top jobs as proof there is plenty of momentum underway. This is often accompanied by gender washing – painting a much rosier picture than the reality particularly with tokenism like celebrations of International Women’s Day.

    This over-optimistic and compliance driven messaging has been disturbingly successful – not just in organisations but across society (nearly 60% of Australians think we are near or already have gender equity according to 2023 Gender Compass research). It’s supported by claiming workplaces are meritocracies, pointing to limited examples of change, misleading statistics (‘half our employees are women’) and corporate value statements as credentials.

    But this is becoming increasingly risky. Some of Australia’s largest employers had significant gender pay gaps which were published for the first time  earlier this year. The data showed that despite the rhetoric, men dominated higher paid senior jobs from banks to retailers and supermarkets. Far from solving the problem, there’s been lots of convenient denial and very little effective action.

    Why are women generally given “glass cliff” leadership positions where the likelihood of them succeeding is extremely low? 

    There’s a lot of glass cliffs about – I think Qantas may be an example with constant pressure on Vanessa Hudson to turn around the damage done to the brand in very difficult circumstances. QU academic Alex Haslam, who was one of the original glass cliff researchers (with Michelle Ryan, now the head of the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at ANU) described the dynamic as a line of potential male candidates looking at the mess they would be inheriting and all taking a step back leaving the only woman contender in the hot seat – a last resort choice.

    Happens in politics often – former PMs Julia Gillard and Theresa May are examples. Stereotypes about women being good at tidying up a mess and settling things down also tend to play into this dynamic. When women then struggle in these tricky situations they also get less time to prove themselves – women CEOs have a much shorter tenure on average than men.

    Author Catherine Fox says she "was alarmed to see the fragile progress made towards better gender equity actually plateauing or going backwards." Picture: Shurrterstock

    Author Catherine Fox says she “…was alarmed to see the fragile progress made towards better gender equity actually plateauing or going backwards.” Picture: Shurtterstock

    What structural issues still prevent or act as barriers for women aspiring to leadership? 

    Many workplaces reward employees who can work set hours over continuous years without breaks and accrue experience to then progress. This clearly penalises care givers who are mostly women and this burden hasn’t shifted much, while caring carries a stigma too. Men who take parenting leave are also now finding they are judged as less serious workers and less likely to progress.

    Most of the accepted leadership models have a masculine skills held up as models are overtly masculine, inaccessible and expensive childcare is a massive deterrent to women’s workforce participation and hours, while superannuation is still structured around a primary earner with unbroken tenure.

    On top of this set of issues, women from further marginalised groups – racially diverse, LGBTQ+, disabled – are facing a double whammy and are far less likely to get the same opportunities as other women or men. We don’t have

    Increasingly around the world we’re’ seeing a backlash against gender equity. How does that play into the situation with female bosses? How do we tackle this? 

    Backlash about the ‘unfairness’ of programs supporting women means there’s more reliance on stereotypes and workplace myths about meritocracies so women are even less likely to get the opportunity to succeed. The small number of women leaders stand out and are over-scrutinised, with their failings often attributed to their gender. The bar is set much higher for women – US research looking at women leaders in four female-dominated sectors which I quoted found that women are seen as ‘never quite right’ for leadership.

    The reasons include age, race, parental status and attractiveness – many of which are usually not applied to men. The excuses are used as a red herring to avoid confronting inherent gender bias and the researchers dubbed it ‘we want what you aren’t’ discrimination. Progression assessment and promotion decisions need to be carefully vetted to avoid these traps and ensure decision making is not biased consciously or unconsciously.

    Cover image: Breaking the Boss Bias. Picture: Supplied

    Cover image: Breaking the Boss Bias. Picture: Supplied

    Women lead in ways that are proven to be different from men. And also proven to be more collaborative, productive and effective. How do we make way for these leadership styles to be accepted in businesses and organisations (and celebrated)? 

    As a management writer and journalist I saw much lip service paid to a more collaborative style of leadership (which is also peddled by many management consultants). But the reality is a heroic, masculine, command and control style is still common in many workplaces, and reflected in business media profiles and even in case studies used in business schools where 90% feature male leaders (as I examined in the book).

    I don’t think women are naturally more and men less collaborative but women are encouraged to be collegiate and likeable and penalised if they are not. I think the only way to broaden the idea of successful leading has to be intentionally elevating evidence showing different leadership examples. For years I heard that a new generation of younger leaders would change the dynamics of what leadership looks like, particularly in sectors such as IT, but in fact it has barely shifted.

    That’s why we need more women in decision making to show a different approach and keep up pressure to shift the parameters – such as former NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who spoke about kindness as a strength.

    Is there anything else you want to say? 

    So much. But there’s plenty more in the book about what we can all do to break the bias and see fairer outcomes right now.


    Picture at top: Catherine Fox. Supplied. 

    The post Breaking the boss bias: women leaders change the game appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Nurses redefine patient care during the AIDS crisis

    HIV and AIDS devastated communities across Australia in the 1980s and 1990s. In the midst of this profound health crisis, nurses provided crucial care to those living with and dying from the virus. They negotiated homophobia and complex family dynamics as well as defending the rights of their patients.

    A new book, Critical Care, unearths the important and unexamined history of nurses and nursing unions as caregivers and political agents who helped shape Australia’s response to HIV and AIDS. Its author, Geraldine Fela, tells BroadAgenda why this moving slice of history matters. 

    Transforming the Nightingale Nurse: Gender, Nursing and HIV

    On the brink of a new pandemic – though none of us knew it then – I travelled around the country interviewing nurses who had been involved in HIV care during Australia’s ‘AIDS crisis’. Between 1983 – the first recorded AIDS-related death in Australia to the introduction of effective treatment in 1996, nurses played an extraordinary role in responding to this profound public health crisis.

    The distinct virological nature of HIV brought to light and elevated the crucial role of nurses in patient care. This, combined with a broader political context in which both nurses and patients were challenging the rigidity of the hospital hierarchy, saw a significant change in the relationships between doctors, nurses and patients in many clinical settings.

    The Nightingale nurse

    Nursing was and is a highly feminised profession. The long association of nursing with women has its history in the Nightingale school of nursing, an approach to nursing developed by Florence Nightingale in the second half of the nineteenth century. Under the Nightingale reforms, nursing became a distinct, highly disciplined profession emphasising hygiene, order and hierarchy.

    Nightingale nursing was imbued with Victorian ideas of womanhood. The “Nightingale nurse” was a woman, she was self-sacrificing, chaste and middle class in her sensibility. The subordinated position of nurses within the hospital, particularly in relation to doctors, was entrenched in this gendered ideal of nursing. Nurses were taught not to challenge the authority of doctors – who held a monopoly over medicine.

    This tradition lasted well beyond the nineteenth century, and is an element of the social dynamics of hospitals and medicine today. For example, it remains the case that the majority of nurses are women and doctors and surgeons men. However, in the 1980s and 1990s and in context of HIV and AIDS care, these rigid hierarchies and roles were shaken.

    Cover: Critical Care

    Cover: Critical Care

    Shaking up the hierarchy

    The difficult medical circumstances of HIV and AIDS highlighted and elevated the importance of the type of care that nurses provide. This challenged established roles in many of the clinical spaces dealing with HIV and AIDS. Brad Hancock, who nursed at Ward 17 South, the HIV and AIDS ward at St Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney, reflected on this transformation.

    Brad recalled the difference between HIV nursing and paediatrics, where he had also worked. In paediatrics, ‘the doctors have all the authority and knew all the answers and you were just carrying out their wishes’. By contrast, in HIV care, he remembered that, ‘[w]hen you came to HIV it was, the nurses are going to be the ones that are going to be caring, that are going to know what’s happening… It was collaborative’.

    The confidence of nurses to assert their expertise was also a product of growing union militancy within the workforce. In the late 1970s and early 1980s there was a surge of industrial activity among nurses. For example, in 1986, Victorian nurses took the national stage and struck for fifty days. Simultaneously, an insurgent rank and file had elected radical leaderships in the New South Wales Nurses Association. Nurses were fighting for their pay and conditions, and were also starting to challenge their subordinate role in the hospital.

    ‘Loud and angry’: A new kind of patient

    People with HIV and AIDS were not the generally compliant, elderly patients that many doctors and hospital administrators were used to. Many were young gay men used to asserting their rights. Activists, patients and patient/activists demanded that doctors collaborate with them under a ‘consult, don’t prescribe’ policy’.

    Trevor, one of the nurses I spoke to who worked at St Vincents Hospital in Sydney during the crisis, described this new dynamic: ‘the gay men that were dying were loud and angry as a rule’ and that ‘[t]hey would challenge about the therapies, they’d challenge about anything that they could challenge about’.

    The confidence and assertiveness of these patients had a profound impact on relationships between healthcare workers and patients. As community nurse Sian Edwards, who also worked in Sydney, recalled ‘The relationship between doctors and patients phenomenally changed. People were learning together… So the relationships equalled’.

    When people with HIV and AIDS demanded input into their care and a say over the public health approach to the virus, nurses and their unions stood with them. They opposed discriminatory measures like compulsory HIV testing, long campaigned for by doctors and surgeons, and they supported the aspirations of people living with HIV and AIDS who wanted control and agency over their treatment.

    One of the best examples of this occurred in 1991, when the Victorian AIDS Nurses Resource Group—a working group of the Australian Nursing Federation—held a large conference of rank-and-file nurses working in AIDS care. The conference floor passed a series of recommendations related to HIV and AIDS care. These included resolutions opposing mandatory testing. They ‘put the medical profession on notice’ resolving that nurses ‘will not assist you [doctors and surgeons] in carrying out non-consensual HIV testing on people seeking care. We will not assist you in making health care conditional on consent to HIV Testing.’

    In the depths of a devastating crisis, affected communities, in Australia predominantly gay men, issued a challenge to the medical establishment; they insisted on having input into their care, they questioned the status quo of drug trials and regulations, and upended the traditional medical hierarchy that elevated the expertise, power and decision-making of doctors and surgeons. In this bold endeavour, they found consistent allies among nurses, who were themselves pushing back on the rigid, gendered hierarchies of the medical system. Change rippled through the broader healthcare system, perhaps the last word on this is best left to Sian:

    The relationships between the healthcare professionals and the patient was changing dramatically in HIV. And I think it had an impact on many relationships and hierarchies amongst healthcare professionals now, but it took a while.

    Picture at top: Geraldine Fela. Supplied.

    The post Nurses redefine patient care during the AIDS crisis appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Perimenopause: I broke an unspoken rule at the chemist

    There’s an unwritten rule at the chemist that you try not to overhear what the person in front of you is discussing with the pharmacist at the “scripts in” counter. This is hard because you are often barely three feet away.

    Earlier this week a woman in front of me flashed her e-script at the pharmacist and asked quickly for estradiol patches. The tone of her question sounded as if she already knew the answer would be no. The pharmacist replied that no, they didn’t have any patches. She started walking quickly away. I stepped in. “Excuse me, did you know that you can also maybe use the gel with the current shortage of patches?”

    The woman was understandably alarmed at my unsolicited intervention.

    What on earth was I doing? Firstly, only a medical practitioner or pharmacist should be talking to a person about medication. Secondly, I had broken the aforementioned rule of the chemist “scripts in” counter.

    Transdermal estradiol patches are sometimes prescribed by doctors for perimenopausal, menopausal and post-menopausal symptoms as part of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT). Hormone replacement therapy is also used during gender-affirming hormone therapy. The patches are applied to the skin and deliver oestrogen directly into the bloodstream.

    As Associate Professor Ada Cheung wrote in an article in March this year, Oestradiol is important for bone health, heart health and maintaining mental health and wellbeing. Interestingly, post‐menopausal MHT is also approved for the prevention of bone mineral density loss. A fun fact is that oestradiol is derived from soya beans or sweet potatoes. For more than 12 months there have been serious shortages Australia wide (of the patches, that is, not the vegetables).

    The reason I spoke to the woman in the chemist this week, is because I have become quite desperate in my search for these patches. Every week I ring or visit 10 -15 chemists to see if any patches have come in. The answer? No. No. No. No.

    The pharmacists always tell me they have no idea when supply will come in. My GP equally has no information about when the patches will be available again. I have been to my GP several times for advice. Most recently she gave me literally 10 different scripts to help me get the required level of estradiol I need, including in the more expensive gel.

    Would it be cheaper to eat a tonne of sweet potatoes? Unfortunately that wouldn’t work and I much prefer a little sticker on my bum.

    For me, these little patches have been life changing. Before I started on Menopausal Hormone Therapy (MHT) I was a cross between Cruella De Vil and the Sadness character from Inside Out. I was not sleeping. I was depressed. I had horrible hot flashes. I had insane skin crawling that feels like ants and spiders and running all over my skin. A couple of times I literally slapped myself in the face thinking there was a spider there. It was embarrassing  and deeply unpleasant.

    When I started on MHT my symptoms literally vanished within two days. They do not work this effectively for everyone, but for me they are little angels of saneness.

    The Australian Medical Association (AMA) submission to the current senate inquiry into the issues related to menopause and perimenopause initiated by Senator Larissa Waters, has identified that while some Australians have few or no symptoms, many will have symptoms that can be prolonged and severe.

    Australia is not currently doing anywhere near enough to make sure we have a regular and secure supply of oestradiol patches.

    The AMA has said that MHT medication supply shortages need to be urgently addressed by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

    The TGA, Australia’s medicines and medical devices regulator, is not treating this with urgency and seems to be doing little to ensure regular supply.

    Meanwhile our New Zealand neighbours appear to be taking this seriously. The New Zealand medicines regulator, Pharmac, has a clear and long list of actions they are undertaking including:

    • Tendering for the supply of patches
    • Called for proposals (RFP) from suppliers for oestradiol gel.
    • Funding a range of alternative brands of the patches
    • Exploring if there are other presentations or products NZ can secure and fund
    • Asking suppliers and wholesalers to limit patches they send out trying to make distribution of the limited stock as fair as possible
    • Supporting suppliers to speed up delivery of stock into New Zealand and out to wholesalers and suppliers

    Why can’t I see a list this extensive on our TGA website? Can we please try as hard as New Zealand?

    Right now tens of thousands of Australians are unable to access these potentially life changing medications. Australia pushed hard to get a good supply of Covid Rapid Antigen Tests (RATs) when we needed them. Now the Australian government needs to work harder to get a good supply of these medications.

    Or is “women’s” health still not important enough?

    • Picture at top: Daisy Gardener. Credit: Pru Aja 

    The post Perimenopause: I broke an unspoken rule at the chemist appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Perimenopause: I broke an unspoken rule at the chemist

    There’s an unwritten rule at the chemist that you try not to overhear what the person in front of you is discussing with the pharmacist at the “scripts in” counter. This is hard because you are often barely three feet away.

    Earlier this week a woman in front of me flashed her e-script at the pharmacist and asked quickly for estradiol patches. The tone of her question sounded as if she already knew the answer would be no. The pharmacist replied that no, they didn’t have any patches. She started walking quickly away. I stepped in. “Excuse me, did you know that you can also maybe use the gel with the current shortage of patches?”

    The woman was understandably alarmed at my unsolicited intervention.

    What on earth was I doing? Firstly, only a medical practitioner or pharmacist should be talking to a person about medication. Secondly, I had broken the aforementioned rule of the chemist “scripts in” counter.

    Transdermal estradiol patches are sometimes prescribed by doctors for perimenopausal, menopausal and post-menopausal symptoms as part of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT). Hormone replacement therapy is also used during gender-affirming hormone therapy. The patches are applied to the skin and deliver oestrogen directly into the bloodstream.

    As Associate Professor Ada Cheung wrote in an article in March this year, Oestradiol is important for bone health, heart health and maintaining mental health and wellbeing. Interestingly, post‐menopausal MHT is also approved for the prevention of bone mineral density loss. A fun fact is that oestradiol is derived from soya beans or sweet potatoes. For more than 12 months there have been serious shortages Australia wide (of the patches, that is, not the vegetables).

    The reason I spoke to the woman in the chemist this week, is because I have become quite desperate in my search for these patches. Every week I ring or visit 10 -15 chemists to see if any patches have come in. The answer? No. No. No. No.

    The pharmacists always tell me they have no idea when supply will come in. My GP equally has no information about when the patches will be available again. I have been to my GP several times for advice. Most recently she gave me literally 10 different scripts to help me get the required level of estradiol I need, including in the more expensive gel.

    Would it be cheaper to eat a tonne of sweet potatoes? Unfortunately that wouldn’t work and I much prefer a little sticker on my bum.

    For me, these little patches have been life changing. Before I started on Menopausal Hormone Therapy (MHT) I was a cross between Cruella De Vil and the Sadness character from Inside Out. I was not sleeping. I was depressed. I had horrible hot flashes. I had insane skin crawling that feels like ants and spiders and running all over my skin. A couple of times I literally slapped myself in the face thinking there was a spider there. It was embarrassing  and deeply unpleasant.

    When I started on MHT my symptoms literally vanished within two days. They do not work this effectively for everyone, but for me they are little angels of saneness.

    The Australian Medical Association (AMA) submission to the current senate inquiry into the issues related to menopause and perimenopause initiated by Senator Larissa Waters, has identified that while some Australians have few or no symptoms, many will have symptoms that can be prolonged and severe.

    Australia is not currently doing anywhere near enough to make sure we have a regular and secure supply of oestradiol patches.

    The AMA has said that MHT medication supply shortages need to be urgently addressed by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

    The TGA, Australia’s medicines and medical devices regulator, is not treating this with urgency and seems to be doing little to ensure regular supply.

    Meanwhile our New Zealand neighbours appear to be taking this seriously. The New Zealand medicines regulator, Pharmac, has a clear and long list of actions they are undertaking including:

    • Tendering for the supply of patches
    • Called for proposals (RFP) from suppliers for oestradiol gel.
    • Funding a range of alternative brands of the patches
    • Exploring if there are other presentations or products NZ can secure and fund
    • Asking suppliers and wholesalers to limit patches they send out trying to make distribution of the limited stock as fair as possible
    • Supporting suppliers to speed up delivery of stock into New Zealand and out to wholesalers and suppliers

    Why can’t I see a list this extensive on our TGA website? Can we please try as hard as New Zealand?

    Right now tens of thousands of Australians are unable to access these potentially life changing medications. Australia pushed hard to get a good supply of Covid Rapid Antigen Tests (RATs) when we needed them. Now the Australian government needs to work harder to get a good supply of these medications.

    Or is “women’s” health still not important enough?

    • Picture at top: Daisy Gardener. Credit: Pru Aja 

    The post Perimenopause: I broke an unspoken rule at the chemist appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.

  • Detoxifying Australia’s Parliament: A survivor’s perspective

    Editor’s note: The author of this piece has requested to publish anonymously due to concerns about her safety and welfare. We know that victims who come forward – in Australia and around the world – often face relentless unwarranted public attack and criticism. BroadAgenda supports the writer and came to the considered judgement that it’s important to publish anyway. 

    I have a particular, personal interest in the topic of toxic parliaments and in the work that is underway to detoxify them. More on that in a second. But first to something that’s happening right now.

    On 17 July 2024 I attended the launch of the new book Toxic Parliaments And What Can Be Done About Them by Marian Sawer and Maria Maley, both from the Australian National University (ANU). The event was hosted by the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership, with the keynote speech delivered by former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins, followed by a panel discussion. You can listen to the discussion on YouTube.

    Toxic Parliaments grew out of the workshop Parliament as a gendered workplace: Towards a new code of conduct, held at ANU in July 2021. The workshop also developed a model code of conduct which fed into the code of conduct eventually adopted by the Australian Parliament. Toxic Parliaments examines how the #MeToo movement and revelations of sexual harassment and bullying resulted in reform of parliamentary workplaces in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. The book is open access and you can download it for free here.

    Over mocktails and canapes after the launch, I chatted with people I knew and people I had just met. Some of the latter group asked me where I worked. I explained I’d previously worked at Parliament House, but don’t anymore. When they asked why not, I referred them back to the book’s title.

    The entire story is long, complicated, and traumatic. I won’t go into it in any detail here because nobody wants a defamation lawsuit.

    Let’s just say that I have experienced the most toxic elements of toxic parliaments. By that I mean rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, bullying and discrimination. Yes, I’ve managed to collect the full set of toxic parliamentary workplace experiences.

    I realise that no one is giving out any medals for winning the Parliamentary Workplace Trauma Olympics, but if they were I would be among the frontrunners for a podium position.

    For readers who may not have been following quite as closely as I have, I will backtrack a bit …

    Set the Standard

    In her keynote speech Kate Jenkins described her work on Set the Standard: Report of the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces as a ‘privilege’ and a ‘career highlight.’ The Set the Standard report, tabled in November 2021, followed her March 2020 report Respect@Work, which examined sexual harassment in workplaces throughout Australia.

    Kate Jenkins AO was the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner. Picture: Supplied

    Kate Jenkins AO was the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner. Picture: UC

    Set the Standard was effectively a more focused version of Respect@Work, targeted at the nation’s seat of power. It was initiated following media reports of sexual assault, sexual harassment and bullying in federal parliament, including former political staffer Brittany Higgins’s television interview in which she described her experience of being raped by a colleague at Parliament House.

    Over 1700 people participated in the review. I was among them. The report included the headline figure that 51 per cent of all people in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces had experienced at least one incident of bullying, sexual harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault.

    Upon its release, the Set the Standard report made news headlines not just in Australia, but around the world.

    The report made 28 recommendations. Recommendation 2 was the establishment of a leadership taskforce to oversee the implementation of the other recommendations, ensuring ownership and accountability.

    The Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce (PLT) was established in the 46th Parliament, and re-established in the current (47th) Parliament. It is made up of politicians from across the Parliament and has an independent chair. Following its initial establishment, the PLT implemented Recommendation 1, a Statement of Acknowledgement that included an apology for ‘the unacceptable history of workplace bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault’ in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces.

    The Statement of Acknowledgement also contained the words: ‘We are fully committed to working across the Parliament to implement all of these recommendations within the timeframes proposed by Commissioner Jenkins.’

    Progress on implementing Set the Standard

    It has now been more than two-and-a-half years since Set the Standard was tabled, and more than two years since that commitment was made. The Parliament has not, as it turns out, implemented all the recommendations ‘within the timeframes proposed by Commissioner Jenkins.’

    The delays have been criticised by the Greens and by some independent parliamentarians. By February 2024, less than half the 28 recommendations had been fully implemented. The explanation given for the delays by the responsible minister, Katy Gallagher, (who is also a member of the PLT) has been that ‘we are working hard to get it right.’

    Kate Jenkins herself appears to be satisfied with this explanation. She praised the leadership shown by the PLT and the Presiding Officers, adding that she ‘disagrees vehemently’ with any media reporting that there has been no change in parliament since Set the Standard.

    This may have been a reference to recent comments by independent senator Lidia Thorpe. Senator Thorpe has been a vocal critic of the toxic culture in Parliament House and claims there are people walking the corridors who have not been made accountable for their bad behaviour. While the government delays legislating the body that will investigate such issue and enforce penalties for perpetrators, I’d argue that her frustration is entirely understandable.

    The long tail of trauma and the silencing of survivor voices

    It is important to remember that the Set the Standard report only exists because brave people spoke out about their traumatic experiences in Australia’s parliament.

    Those people demanded a safer workplace and genuine reform. The Australian public was outraged by the stories that emerged from the report and called on politicians to act.

    Kate Jenkins and her team at the Australian Human Rights Commission can be justifiably proud of their work on Set the Standard. The report was comprehensive, thorough and trauma informed. Most importantly, it listened to the voices of people in parliamentary workplaces.

    Unfortunately, the listening seems to have largely ended with the tabling of the report. While I have taken every available opportunity to be consulted on Set the Standard implementation, such opportunities have been rare. Disappointingly, Set the Standard did not include a recommendation for ongoing staff consultation.

    While the PLT did eventually set up a staff consultation group, no mechanism has been established for ongoing consultation with people who have had traumatic experiences in parliamentary workplaces, but who — often for very that reason — no longer work there. Nor does the PLT appear to have engaged meaningfully with survivor advocates while undertaking its work.

    People discussing Set the Standard often refer, as Kate Jenkins did in her speech, to ‘the long tail’ of trauma. What the report’s recommendations and their implementation have failed to do is to provide much in the way of solutions for the people who have been traumatised.

    Apparently, contributing experiences and suggestions for the purpose of creating a safer workplace for other people – a workplace we may now be too traumatised (and not even welcome) to work in ourselves – is meant to be enough for us.

    Well, that … an apology most of us were not invited to attend in person, and free counselling from the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (PWSS). When sexual and other abuse was uncovered in the Australian Defence Force, the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce was established.

     Complainants were able to access reparation payments and to participate in restorative engagement conferences. I have no way of knowing if a similar scheme was ever considered as part of Set the Standard. All I know is that no redress mechanism made it into the report recommendations.

    In addition, the tendency of the media to turn the issue of workplace misconduct in federal parliament into a soap opera revolving around Brittany Higgins and Bruce Lehrmann has not done anyone any favours.

    As Kate Jenkins noted in her keynote speech, the intense media focus on a single case runs the risk of people assuming the problem in parliamentary workplaces is confined to ‘a few bad apples’, rather than being a systemic issue. Public attention has been on the ‘omnishambles’ rather than on fixing the broader problems.

    Also, the focus on politicians and political staffers has allowed the long-disregarded problems in the parliamentary departments that support them continue to fly under the radar. The ‘toxic workplace culture’ at the Department of Parliamentary Services, for example, has reached the point where Greens Senator David Shoebridge suggested during a recent Senate Estimates hearing that a new independent review should be considered – only two-and-a-half years after that same culture was examined as part of the Jenkins Review.

    Survivors believe Parliament "...is very much a boys’ club and if you don’t adhere to or agree with the boys’ club unfortunately you are cast out." Picture: Stock image

    Survivors believe Parliament “…is very much a boys’ club and if you don’t adhere to or agree with the boys’ club unfortunately you are cast out.” Picture: Stock image

    Listening to lived experience

    The tone of Kate Jenkins’s speech and of the panel’s conversation as they discussed the implementation of the Set the Standard recommendations to date was overwhelmingly positive, indicating there has been significant progress.

    But for many of us who have experienced the dark side of parliamentary workplaces, both before and after Set the Standard, this narrative feels disconnected from our lived experiences.

    As I wrote this article, I asked some of the people I know who currently work at Parliament House, or who worked there until recently, how they feel about the progress so far. Many of these people have experienced burnout, bullying, discrimination, sexual harassment, or sexual assault during their time in parliamentary workplaces.

    Here are some of the things they told me, speaking anonymously:

    On the pace of change:

    ‘The Set the Standard recommendations have taken way too long to be implemented.’

    ‘Progress has been very slow, and things haven’t moved much in practice.’

    ‘There is a lot of publicity on the progress of the Set the Standard recommendations but not much tangible change in the workplace. People are still being bullied and required to work unreasonable hours.’

    On whether Parliament House is a safe working environment:

    ‘I don’t feel that Parliament House is a safe workplace … I was still bullied post-Jenkins and didn’t feel supported at all. So many people I talk to had similar experiences and a lot of exceptional people have now left the parliamentary workplace to seek safer environments.’

    ‘Within the parliamentary departments, it is well known that there are members’ offices to which you never send female staff alone for any reason. While the number of these offices has been reduced by the demographic change that happened at the 2022 election, many remain. It seems redundant to argue that the building is safer for the Set the Standard recommendations when staff are still adjusting their business processes to account for the possibility of harassment, or worse.’

    ‘The place is toxic [but] senior management have done a good job in presenting a very different viewpoint.’

    ‘There is real abuse of power and people are too scared to speak up due to the real possibility of losing their jobs.’

    ‘There is no respect or genuine care for people [at Parliament House].’

    On diversity and inclusion:

    ‘The place is very much a boys’ club and if you don’t adhere to or agree with the boys’ club unfortunately you are cast out.’

    ‘Accessibility is considered too hard and too expensive and therefore those issues are completely ignored.’

    ‘It’s evident from the recent treatment of Senator Payman that the Parliament is still struggling to accept diversity. Parliaments will remain unsafe to work in until diversity is fully embraced, not just for the photo shoots and quotas but for all that diversity brings to the table in life experiences.’

    On the treatment of parliamentary department staff:

    ‘Implementation has not been accompanied by meaningful change within the three major parliamentary departments. The fragmented implementation has been very concerning for staff, with DPS, House of Representatives and Senate staff initially excluded from the PWSS process. This has led to a lack of trust in the process and the new structures from non-political building occupants.’

    ‘The non-political staffers at Parliament House have been wrongly assumed to have better and safer working conditions than political staffers. In comparison to political staff, non-political staff … enjoy less power and safety.’

    ‘[These] staff do not seem to have mattered as much to this government, which has been particularly detrimental to the efforts of such staff to obtain timely and proper justice in relation to very significant and permanent workplace injuries they have suffered, including sexual assault injuries.’

    These are the voices that the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce doesn’t seem to want to listen to. The people who won’t be featured on any discussion panels.

    In the lead up to the book launch, I had been particularly interested to hear Kate Jenkins’s thoughts on the reforms that have been undertaken so far. But on reflection, it occurred to me that the real question is not whether Kate Jenkins — or an academic expert in the field, or a member of the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce — is satisfied with Set the Standard implementation. The real question is whether the people the Statement of Acknowledgement was directed towards are satisfied.

    And, like the people I’ve quoted above, I am not satisfied. Two-and-a-half years after the report was released, I feel used and discarded, disregarded and powerless, much as I did after being raped and assaulted.

    Once more I am left behind, collateral damage, while others move onwards and upwards, free to build impressive careers. While people with higher profiles than mine congratulate each other on the positive changes they’ve made to parliamentary workplaces, I’m consoling former colleagues over the unjust and preventable collapse of their once promising careers and trying to talk them out of suicide.

    If we want to make real and lasting changes to parliamentary workplaces, we can’t observe them through rose-coloured glasses. We must examine them unflinchingly, acknowledge uncomfortable realities, and confront problems head on. Until our leaders are willing to do that, our parliament will remain toxic.

    This is really tricky because we are effectively defaming David Van, even though I’m sure he did actually assault her. (Because it’s not a proven allegation via a court.) I think we need to vague this up so we don’t get sued. Just say something along the lines of Senator Thorpe has been a vocal critic of the toxic culture in Parliament House and claims there are people walking the corridors who have not been made accountable for their bad behaviour. (We can link to external articles – I just don’t want to actually publish the allegation myself.

    The post Detoxifying Australia’s Parliament: A survivor’s perspective appeared first on BroadAgenda.

    This post was originally published on BroadAgenda.