Office of the status of (one) woman?
Office of the status of (one) woman?
On December 5, the Howard government abolished the Office of the Status of Women's $1 million grants scheme and cut its funding by 46%.
The cut, which will affect more than 20 women's organisations, was a barely disguised party-political assault on what Liberal Senator Jocelyn Newman describes as "women's groups which are fronts for Labor", as much as it was an implementation of the federal government's anti-feminist agenda.
The establishment of the OSW was a victory, albeit limited, for the women's movement. Its existence was a concession to feminists' demands that the federal government support programs and services to advance women's status and begin to redress the discrimination they face in all spheres of society.
Regardless of the political limitations of the OSW, the women's liberation movement should therefore demand that its funding be reinstated.
The silence from feminists within the bureaucracy, however, has been deafening. Since the funding cut is not only an assault on hard-won gains of the women's movement, but also a direct assault on those femocrats' career paths, this is somewhat surprising.
But then again, maybe it's not. On February 1, an advertisement in the Australian sought applicants for the position of head of the OSW. "The ideal person for this position", it said, "will show an awareness of the diversity of women's needs". The appointee "will also have the experience and drive to promote the policy objectives of the government and satisfy a wide range of stakeholders".
The position comes with a salary and car package of $140,000 per year.
Now it might be argued that head of the OSW is an onerous job. Finding the ways to carry out the policies of a government which has not only banned its staff from using the word chairperson (in favour of chairman), but also slashed funding to the Family Planning Association, community child-care, women's refuges, health care and public education, while still being seen to promote the status of women, will be no mean feat.
But then I guess when you're taking home around $2000 in cash every week, your understanding of the effects of those policies on ordinary working women might be a bit fuzzy.
The principle of equal pay for women was won more than a decade ago. That it should apply in all areas of employment, including the male-dominated echelons of management (where $140,000 per annum salaries are the norm), is not in question.
What is questionable is that any head of a public service department, whose duty is supposedly to represent and serve the interests of the public, can possibly do so when their salaries and career paths mean that their interests lie on the other side of the class divide from the overwhelming majority of people.
The resignation last week of federal sex discrimination commissioner Sue Walpole underlines this point. Walpole was apparently concerned about proposed legislation which would downgrade her role. Rather than stay in and use her position to fight for the interests of all women, who need a strong anti-sex discrimination advocate more than ever under this government, Walpole is bowing out in search of greener (or at least equally green) personal pastures.
For two decades, some successful feminists in the professions have argued that women should strive for "powerful positions" in government and the corporate sector because there they can "make a difference". Change starts at the top they said, and for those few who made it, this was true.
The majority of women's living conditions did not change much during those years, however. Women receive, on average, 67% of men's wages, a gap that has been widening since 1994; discrimination and harassment continue; public child-care and aged care services are still grossly inadequate; abortion is still on states' criminal codes. It is clear that getting more women into "powerful positions" has been of little benefit to most women.
What will make a difference is ordinary women coming together in workplaces, schools, neighbourhoods and the streets to demand government funding and public services that will improve the status of all women. If that sometimes places us on the other side of the barricades from the women in "powerful positions" who sacrifice the needs of all women to the pursuit, protection and strengthening their personal career paths, then so be it.
By Lisa Macdonald