eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781742244181 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | UNSW Press |
| Publication date: | 02/13/2018 |
| Sold by: | Barnes & Noble |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 272 |
| File size: | 891 KB |
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
Introduction This is How We Forget to Remember
'Wowsers' they were called, because some campaigned against drunkenness. 'Moralistic', because they were opposed to men's casual sex. Anne Summers made them the turn-of-the-century version of her God's Police stereotype. I remember, myself, early in the 1970s, dismissing them because they did not question the institution of marriage; they could not even see the bars of the cage that imprisoned them, I argued. We thought their aspirations limited: they campaigned for the vote, and the vote alone. They were 'ladies', Germaine Greer told us; they were anxious to point out that they did not seek to disrupt society or to unseat God — although she did seem to be concerned with suffragettes in Britain, rather than suffragists in Australia. Even in the far better informed and theoretically sophisticated histories that have been published since the heady, arrogant 1970s, the women of suffrage-era feminism in Australia — the Woman Movement — have had a bad press. Patricia Grimshaw maintained that it was only as mothers that they campaigned for female suffrage. Marilyn Lake described them as 'spoilers of men's pleasures'. Our image of them, collectively, has been of women who were fearsomely respectable, crushingly earnest, socially puritanical, politically limited, and sexually repressed.
And how astonishingly wrong we have all been! The women engaged in the Woman Movement — what today is most often called First Wave Feminism — were as various as we are, their politics complex and wide-ranging, usually far more adventurous than current representations of them could even begin to suggest. It was the sexual double standard governing heterosexual relationships that they objected to. Not sex itself. Indeed, rather than being opposed to sex, they were centrally preoccupied with sex, and with the pleasures as well as the dangers of heterosexual union. Rather than being grim and earnest, they were passionate, and passionately engaged in their political campaigns. Rather than being socially puritanical, they challenged social convention on every side. Rather than being repressed, they were utopian visionaries.
This book will redress an imbalance which has persisted for far too long. It will do this by focussing on the passion which drove the political mobilisation of women, as women; on the changes that they desired in the ordering of their worlds; and on the centrality of sex and sexual relations to those changes. Passions of the First Wave Feminists offers a new view of suffrage-era feminism in Australia. It is a view that allows the feminists' passions an appropriate emphasis and shows how integral those passions — both as fervour and as a preoccupation with sex — were to their other campaigns concerning marriage, work and citizenship.
They were preoccupied with sex — because everyone else was, too. This was a period when, across the Western world, a discourse on health brought into prominent focus the health of national populations — as producers of cannon-fodder in imperialist wars, as producers of healthy industrial workers and prolific consumers in an increasingly competitive capitalist world. Because it was concerned specifically with reproduction, this discourse positioned women and men as polar opposites. An emphasis on sexual difference and heterosexuality necessarily followed. And from that, complementarily, emerged a solidarity between members of one sex as opposed to the other.
This was a discourse which positioned women primarily as women, as members of a sex, rather than primarily as, say, middle class or working class, English or Scottish, Catholic or Protestant. The same discourse, similarly, positioned men primarily as men. In Australia, this discourse acquired particular force as it combined with the nationalist project of forming a new and modern, prosperous and healthy white nation — rising above the ills and decadences of old Britain and Europe, competing with the newer ills and corruptions of North America. The 'hysterisation of women's bodies' that French historian of ideas, Michel Foucault, has so famously observed occurring throughout the West in the nineteenth century certainly took place. A complementary biologisation of men's bodies was no part of Foucault's story; like so many white male philosophers, he made no distinction between the universal human and the male. I will argue, here, that in Australia, at least, the 'hysterisation' of women's bodies was matched by what can only be called a 'testosteronisation of men's bodies', a complementary assumption that men's sexuality was 'hydraulic' (automatically aroused; irrepressibly ejaculatory) and insatiable in what Foucault called the 'socialisation of procreative behaviour' (that is, an array of fiscal, political, medical and social incitements and restrictions brought to bear on the reproductive couple). Indeed, men's sexuality was held to be 'hydraulic' in relation to any sexual expression by men, reproductive or not. However, as Foucault has also famously noted, wherever there is power, there is also resistance. Some people objected to such subject positions, indeed the scope of their lives, being defined primarily by their sex. Among them were some of those involved in the Woman Movement.
My argument is that it was the discourse on health that generated the subject position which made it possible for the Woman Movement to emerge as a political mobilisation based in sexual difference, in the sexually specific conditions of women's lives. It ensured, complementarily, that at least some men — as men — would mobilise, too. But the Woman Movement's campaigns over the 30 years between the 1880s and World War I were most often campaigns to resist or contest these discursive imperatives. When feminists sought change — to conditions of marriage, to conditions of work, to rights to citizenship — they were also, and simultaneously, seeking new definitions of womanhood, definitions of women as 'human beings' rather than as 'the sex'. 'In the old order,' wrote feminist Vida Goldstein in 1914, 'the old chattel idea of things' prevailed. 'Women were regarded primarily as sex creatures ... to be chosen by men as sex mates ... as outlets for the impulses and alleged needs of men.' But women had rebelled against 'exploitation of her body in and out of marriage', and their rebellion had brought into being a 'new and sweeter order' in which 'women would attain a greater degree of independence, marriage would be placed on a higher plane and self-restraint would prevail'. 'Self-restraint' did not necessarily mean abstinence; it was more usually code for mutual care and consideration. Feminists' campaigns for equality between women and men were campaigns for new civil and political rights, to be sure. But they were also campaigns for new definitions of sexual relationships between women and men, definitions which would allow women pleasures which the current discourse denied them.
In This Book
The Woman Movement emerged in Australia in the 1880s as one crucial element in a general social, political and cultural upheaval, characterised by an immense and visionary optimism coupled with profound anxieties about change. Its central focus was the campaign for votes for women in the various British colonies on the island continent of Australia. The earliest organisation to work for female suffrage was the Victorian Women's Suffrage Society, formed in Melbourne in 1884, initially with the exotic Henrietta Dugdale at its helm. Others included the Women's Suffrage League, founded in South Australia in 1888, driven along by fervent Irish-born Mary Lee, and the Womanhood Suffrage League of New South Wales, established in Sydney in 1891, over which beguiling Rose Scott assumed leadership. The landmark dates in the campaigns for female suffrage surround the federation of the colonies into a semi-independent nation, the Commonwealth of Australia — in 1901. South Australia enfranchised women in 1894; Western Australia in 1899; Australia in 1902; New South Wales also in 1902; Tasmania in 1903; Queensland in 1904; and Victoria, finally, in 1908.
But, if a narrative about votes for women provides the chronological skeleton for any discussion of First Wave Feminism in Australia, then its bloodstream, flesh, muscle and mind become visible in looking at other activities associated with it. These must include what feminists were reading, writing and publishing. In Chapter 2 I examine two kinds of reading: advice manuals; and new novels in which Australian women novelists were creating 'the Australian Girl', the Australian version of 'the New Woman'. Women usually identified themselves in relation to the men in their lives, as daughters, sisters, wives, mothers; or in relation to their economic circumstances, as middle class or working class; or around their beliefs and religious communities, as Protestant or Catholic. It is necessary, then, to try to explain how the condition of womanhood — being members of a social category defined by its sex — became central for some women, and their source of social critique and political activism. This chapter's consideration of what women might read, and how they might read it, is part of that explanation. A major point in its argument is the centrality — in both the conditions against which women protested, and in feminist visions of possible futures — of change in the conditions of heterosexual sex.
It is necessary, too, to understand how First Wave Feminists organised, how they defined the nature and goals of their social and political movement, and how they developed the utopian visions which gave them such certainty that they were right. Chapter 3 looks at the process of organising in the 1890s in one feminist organisation, the Womanhood Suffrage League of New South Wales, arguing that conflict and cohesiveness within it were two sides of the same coin and that that coin was about ways of defining feminism. The differences in definition, I argue, arise from differences over political allegiance based in solidarity on the grounds of sex. The same chapter examines three feminist periodicals for their depictions of the nature and goals of the Woman Movement. Faced with the apparently unresolvable contradiction of arguing for sexual equality on the grounds of sexual difference, feminists sought to transcend that contradiction by introducing a third term, 'evolution'. This was the concept which also fed and helped frame feminist utopian desires, desires which included — centrally — radical transformation in sexual relations.
Chapters 4, 5 and 6 are about the Woman Movement's central issues: sex, work and citizenship. These chapters set out to explain how the apparent victory of the feminists in gaining the vote for women — white women — all over Australia by 1908 could have become, by the beginning of the Great War in Europe in 1914, so partial and unsatisfactory an answer to suffrage-era feminists' desires.
Chapter 4 looks at the exhortations to heterosexual union and marriage pronounced by the medical profession, as a particular manifestation of what Foucault called 'the hysterisation of women's bodies'. It considers, as well, how the same exhortations produced the 'testeronisation of men's bodies', a discursive positioning of men which, logically, complements that of women. But then — all exertion of power producing resistance — this chapter also looks at resistance to (or fears of) such positioning among men, and at ways in which late nineteenth-century feminists both critiqued and refused such imperatives. This chapter argues that relationships between women and men were far richer and more varied than their positioning in the discourse on health — as compulsorily heterosexual breeders — would allow. One dimension of that richness appeared in the fertility figures. During the three decades around the turn of the nineteenth century into the twentieth, women in general were following the same imperatives as represented in arguments of feminists concerning their right to reproductive control, at least as much as they were conforming to their positioning in the prevailing discourse. This is not an argument that feminism caused the Australian 'family transition'. Rather, it is an argument that both the Woman Movement and the widespread desire among women for sexual autonomy arose from the same source, from the current discourse on health.
Chapter 5 begins the explanation of what went wrong for First Wave Feminists. It argues that at the same time as the feminists were successfully challenging patriarchal domination over women's sex lives, in the 1880s and 1890s, women were also moving into paid employment of a kind that allowed them a measure of economic 'independence' from men. For a time, particularly in the 1890s, marriage was no longer the principal means to economic security for adult women and a large proportion of women chose not to marry.
However, men — equivalently positioned as primarily members of a sex — worked to counter these shifts. Old men schooled in the traditions of the craft unions expressed outrage at reorganisation in the labour market which turned women into competitors for jobs. New men, armed with a particular nationalist fervour, set out to secure the health of the new nation — specifically in terms of relations between the sexes. A solidarity — brotherhood — united them. Masculinist negotiations counteracted feminist challenge and labourmarket change. Demographic definitions, legal determinations, workshop confrontations and resolutions during the first decade of the twentieth century set up new barriers between women's and men's work, and between women and men in the labour market. These were barriers set up specifically on the basis of sex: they defined work as masculine and the worker as male. They reconstructed the separateness of the 'separate spheres' of women and domesticity, men and affairs of state.
These barriers worked to limit the emancipation that women had been achieving. They restricted the employment opportunities which had provided women with an alternative to marriage as a livelihood, thereby undercutting the force of feminist campaigns for a new order of power in the marriage bed. They relegated women once again to the category of economic 'dependent', regardless of the care-giving work that they did in households, and even if their work in the labour market made them the principal breadwinners for their families. One way of determining an individual's claim to citizenship has been based, as feminist political theorist Carole Pateman has argued, in that individual's right to work, to economic independence. It followed, then, that by redefining women as economically 'dependent', these resolutions eroded a whole dimension of the citizenship women had gained by winning the vote.
In Chapter 6 I consider the question of women's citizenship directly, and as a way of continuing the explanation of why First Wave Feminists felt they had been defeated, even though they had won the vote. First, I present a discussion of a novel which depicts the concerns that women expected they would be able to address once they had gained the vote. Second, I offer a comparison of two events: the passage of the female suffrage legislation in South Australia in 1894, and the passage of the female suffrage legislation for the new and fervently nationalist Commonwealth of Australia in 1902. The comparison highlights the difference between the two. For, while the legislators may not have thought of such a consequence in South Australia, the 1894 legislation enfranchised Aboriginal women as well as settler women throughout the colony. But when it came to legislating for the whole nation, those legislators, who had just passed an Act installing the infamous White Australia Policy, explicitly disenfranchised those Aboriginal women admitted to the vote in South Australia and Western Australia, and those Aboriginal men who had, as long as they had been able to gain a place on an electoral roll, been enfranchised since the achievement of manhood suffrage decades earlier. My argument here is that by 1902 citizenship, at least as defined by the right to vote, could be defined as sexually in-clusive because it had, with the same legislation, also been made racially and ethnically ex-clusive. The Other of the new Australian nation was to be defined by skin colour, rather than by sex-specific reproductive capacities.
This development was paradoxical, though, because such inclusiveness for women carried with it the seeds of its own limitation. Being included harnessed the new white women citizens to a thoroughly racist national agenda in which it was their reproductive capacities that would become white women's most important contribution to the nation. Citizens only for a moment, they had been reduced to citizen-mothers or maternal citizens by the time the Great War lured their menfolk off to defend the British empire on the killing fields of Europe.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "Passions of the First Wave Feminists"
by .
Copyright © 2001 Susan Magarey.
Excerpted by permission of University of New South Wales Press Ltd.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Illustrations,
Acknowledgments,
1 Introduction: This is How We Forget to Remember,
SECTION 1: A MOVEMENT OF WOMEN,
2 The Rising of the Women,
3 Women in Movement,
SECTION 2: THE WOMAN MOVEMENT'S ISSUES,
4 Sex,
5 Work,
6 Citizenship,
SECTION 3: THE ENDS OF THE WOMAN MOVEMENT,
7 In Conclusion,
Endnotes,
Bibliography,
Index,