The Times They Are a-Changing

By Katy Erlich

Hello family and friends,

It’s mid-March, and we’re getting into that scary part in the semester where there’s so much behind us that we are baffled at what happened to the time. It’s a mixture of thrilling (when we recall everything that we’ve done) and horrifying (we have to return to our mundane American lives in about a month and a half), and most horrifying is that it’s now technically autumn here. Alas, the days of sweltering heat and suffocating humidity are no more.

In case my dry excuse for sarcasm was lost on you, that last one was absolutely a joke; no one should ever miss that heat. What is left in its wake are pleasant days and cool nights. I assure you, we will have a lot less to complain about.

It so happens that last Tuesday the 8^th of March was International Women’s Day, a fitting segue into our lectures for that day (centering around issues of gender in Australia). Our cushy bubble of twenty-first century Portland, full of left-leaning zeal, can induce the regrettable condition of forgetfulness on many social issues both past and present. My own generation should consider itself quite fortunate, I now realize. Battles for things like suffrage, equal (or nearly-equal) pay, and basic respect were fought by activists of previous generations. Ladies, I tip my hat to you.

Our lecturer for the day, Jenny Kaighin, introduced us to the women’s movement in Australia, which has many similarities with the US equivalent as well as its own distinguishing features. Let’s start off with a basic citizen’s right: the right to vote. I think it’s relevant to point out that Australia was the first country to legislate women’s suffrage, a right that become universal shortly after federation for all states. In fact, the Northern Territory allowed women to vote before Australia was federated in 1901.

At the same time, Australia is still very much a patriarchal country. When we think about the iconic stereotyped “Australian”, we tend to picture someone who approximates Crocodile Dundee. That, or a tan surfer. However, the idea of the “Australian woman” is somewhat lost on us. I would say that this is a remnant of the overt sexism (which has morphed into a quiet, subdued sexism) that once pervaded Australian culture. Consider the origins of White Australia: shiploads of convicts forced from their homeland to toil in a continent they might have likened to hell. Now take this image, throw in a bit of bushranger, and turn it into a mythology. It’s a recipe for machismo if I ever saw one.

From what we’ve learned, it’s safe to say that women in Australia were for many decades seen as accessories rather than integral, productive members of a growing nation. The language of the 1950’s that we’re all so familiar with encouraged women to forfeit their independence in exchange for a family-based lifestyle. For some women today, that is truly where their goals lie. But let’s be honest – options are nice.

The idea that women (endearingly called ‘the gentler sex’ by certain individuals whom I would like to have a word with) must be protected from the world by men is slowly becoming an Australian value of the past. Nevertheless, we see sexism rear its ghastly head in crafty ways, namely in Australian politics.

The current Prime Minister of Australia is Julia Gillard of the Labor Party, which is the Australian equivalent to the Democratic Party (a side note – is it not confusing that the Australian Liberal Party is the equivalent of the American Republican Party?). In order to be a successful Prime Minister, you need to have a great deal of socio-politico-economic knowledge, or at least that is what most people would say. Apparently, all of us logical beings are wrong. It turns out that in order to be a successful Prime Minister, your kitchen’s decorative fruit bowl must actually be filled with fruit.

Prime Minister Gillard apparently made the mistake of leaving her fruit bowl empty during an interview at her home, leading the insightful media to conclude that she is a poor homemaker and therefore unfit to lead a national government.

Yeah, I don’t get it either.

But let’s not judge the Aussies just yet. Think back to the 2008 US presidential elections. Remember those two ladies we heard so much about? Palin and Clinton? The attention they got for their suits, hairstyles, and cadence of speaking seemed at times to overwhelm the details on their political platforms. There is a very sneaky game being played out in the realm of politics; whether we admit it or not, social norms dictate how women are seen in politics.

The matter of Aboriginal women’s struggle is a whole different story altogether. Take the 1950’s housewife scenario, which I posited in a somewhat negative light: a rather sheltered life rich in amenities where the principal concern is taking care of your husband and children. It sounds like a prison for many of us, but to an impoverished, overwhelmed Aboriginal woman living in a racist country, it could sound like paradise. Rather than fighting for their independence from this protectionist mindset towards women, Aboriginal women often found themselves longing for any kind of home stability. As you can imagine, this thrusts a wedge in the women’s movement because not every Australian woman wants the same thing. It means that the outcomes of the women’s movement are not necessarily representative of the desires of all women, just those with the loudest voices and the greatest numbers. In many ways, Aboriginal women have historically been (and to a degree still are) the most disadvantaged group of Australian citizens. From one front, they faced the glaring racism against their people and culture, and from another, sexism further stunted their independence and livelihood. It almost makes the white women’s movement seem whiney by comparison.

Even progressive social reforms present in the twenty-first century can’t hide the undercurrents of antiquated values when it comes to gender. Despite these concealed setbacks, women in Australia have made great strides since their initial rights were endowed upon federation. One example close to the Australian heart is the right to drink at bars (yes, now we too can drink too much Victoria Bitter and regret it the next day). On a more serious note, self-reliance and independence amongst Australian women are as strong as ever, the next step being mandatory equal pay between the sexes.

Phew. I didn’t know I had such a soapbox feminist in me.

The issue of women’s rights in 2011 is not nearly as volatile as it was in decades past, making it somewhat of a backburner issue in the grand scheme of things today. A much younger point of controversy in Australia centers around homosexuality. Many of the questions are similar to those being fiercely debated in the US at both the dinner table as well as Congress. Again, our Portland bubble makes us forget that the US still has a great deal of homophobia to deal with. Australia as well is, and I quote from Jenny Kaighin, “still a very homophobic country.”

The legality surrounding families of same-sex couples is multi-faceted and incorporates questions of the meaning of marriage and childcare. Gay marriage is not legal in Australia, but there is a rule that any couple living together for several years in a committed relationship becomes a de facto couple, and legally they have many of the same rights as a married couple. Although this might seem a suitable alternative to a formal marriage, the symbolism behind this law underlines that homosexuality is merely tolerated, not accepted. The actual ceremony of marriage is also greatly desired by many same-sex couples, especially by those of a religious creed that wish to be seen as married in the eyes of their religion.

Although Australia is not as religiously charged as the US, there is still a desire from a certain demographic to keep marriage a heterosexual right. Whether for religious or other, more nebulous feelings, factions of political leaders and citizens fiercely hold onto the institution. Prime Minister John Howard of the Liberal Party (which takes a conservative stand, mind you) was the first Australian leader to explicitly stipulate that marriage must be between a man and a woman with the Marriage Amendment Act of 2004.

Not long after, our dear President George W. Bush followed suit and made similar statements regarding same-sex marriage in the US. After seven years and dozens of lawsuits, propositions and over-turnings, the matter is still inconclusive.

De facto same-sex couples also find it more difficult than heterosexual couples to raise a family. Same-sex couples find the adoption process more rigorous, and guardianship in the event of a divorce is plagued with myriad pitfalls. Take the scenario where one of the parents is a birth parent by way of artificial insemination. Does that give them more of a “right” to the child than the non-biological parent? Every dissolved family has its own struggles to sort out, and the unconventional nature of same-sex marriages makes the legal entanglements even more heinous.

These matters should sound familiar, as similar discussions are active in the US. Another hot-button issue that is uniquely able to polarize people is the matter of abortion. As it stands right now in Australia, abortion is only legal if the pregnancy will have a negative impact on the mother’s mental health. Don’t worry – rape victims fall into that category. Abortion is definitely an ardently contested topic in Australia, although not nearly as violently fought over as in the US.

But enough controversy and tension for one blog post.

Later that afternoon, we watched The Castle, a 1997 Australian movie about a Melbourne family fighting the federal government for rights to their property and home. Although the legal questions posed are presumably of academic significance, our interest in the movie lay in its caricature of an Australian family based on stereotypes. It was also pretty darn funny, complete with satire somewhere between Spinal Tap and Monty Python.

After a free day on Wednesday, we reconvened on Thursday and picked up with a short discussion of The Castle. Our ensuing lecture then detailed the conceptualization and actuality of the Australian family. The country has seen major social and economic changes in the last 30 years, leading to a notable upheaval of the former “typical” family lifestyle. The 1990’s can be considered the milestone in Australian family reorganization, as the decade brought a striking set of new trends. Like the US, Australian divorce rates are increasing and fertility rates are decreasing, the latter being true of many other Western countries. Australia is also experiencing an increase in single-parent households (most of them headed by mothers) and labor force of women of a child-bearing age.

However, when we look at the trends of Australian families, the data do not necessarily reflect the minorities. Australia’s population is overwhelmingly white, causing many cultures to become engulfed in the statistics of the majority.

The story of migrant families has taken its own path in recent years, as there is often a strong desire among immigrants to hold onto one’s culture of origin. Many of these families come from a more traditionally-minded culture, and thus uphold social norms that might be viewed as retrograde from a twenty-first century Western mindset. Higher fertility rates and a greater utility of the patriarchal family structure, for example, are more common in migrant families than in native Australian families. This distinction in cultural values can create “bubbles”, or physical divisions between communities that we understand as pockets with a disproportionally high population of one ethnicity or another. The Australian government has always had a history of encouraging assimilation to form a more homogenous country, and it is only in the last few decades that retaining one’s culture of origin has become acceptable.

Due to the weight of historical events and current socio-economic restraints, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families tend to be the most fiscally disadvantaged out of any demographic. They are more likely to have single-parent households with younger parents and larger families. In addition, rates of education fall far below those of white Australians, leading to lower average incomes. Despite the end of the White Australia policy, Indigenous Australians have been unable to get a solid foothold on the socio-economic ladder.

Another factor that creates a schism between Australian lawmakers and Indigenous Australian families is that the understanding of parenthood has the potential to be wildly different between white and Indigenous families. Westerners typically understand the “parents” to be the biological mother and father, but Aboriginal Law often dictates that multiple men and women in a tribe participate equally in the joint raising of children. This Law is often realized by contemporary Indigenous Australian families, making the interface between the Australian government and Indigenous families a complex one.

See? We’re learning! And our Neighborhood Projects and Independent Projects are coming along steadily. Parents, don’t worry: you didn’t just sink thousands of dollars into a three-month vacation for your bright-eyed children.

The program also provides us with entertainment unique to Australia. On Friday we will be attending a rugby game, the Broncos vs. the Cowboys. Seriously. You can’t make stuff like that up. Based on the Youtube videos Nat has shown us, this looks to be the most savage sporting event I have ever attended. I twitch with anticipation.

(Also, congratulations for making it to the end of this little novel. You deserve a gold star for such dedication.)

--Katy

Above is a photograph taken of a 1970’s International

 Women’s Day march in Australia.

Julia Gillard, the current Prime Minister of Australia and head of

 the Labor Party. She doesn’t let a fruit bowl run her life.

Poster for The Castle (1997). It reads, “The Government wants this
 house torn down. But he’s not giving up his home,
his memories, or his view without a fight.”

Indigenous Australian families can be quite large, and the

 role of parenthood is not restricted to a child’s birth parents.

 This creates an intricate network of “aunties” and “uncles” that

 all partake in raising children, producing a larger 

family built of community.

A preview for the next blog post. Trust me when I say the game was nuts.