Before the beginning of the women’s rights movement in Australia, Australian settler women were oppressed within their households and communities and had significantly less rights to autonomy and political power than their husbands and male acquaintances. Early women were deprived of many rights, and they gradually claimed these rights through a series of movements. Married women had even less rights than the average single woman, as married women were forced to forfeit what little rights they had to their husbands. Several organizations started to gain support at the beginning of this movement, including suffrage societies, unions, women’s clubs and even solo advocates for women’s rights made a large impact. The purpose of this paper is to explore the treatment of non-Aboriginal women in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, early feminist movements in Australia and the issues that anti-suffragists posed to settler women fighting for their rights.
Australian women were treated poorly and given unequal rights within their own marriages, and were forced into political and sexual subordination. An article published by the National Museum of Australia explains how once married, women in Australia were forced to give all of their property rights and job earnings to their husbands. Women were unable to file for divorce until the 1880s, and wives were often abandoned and forced to earn their own living. It was difficult for abandoned women to support themselves, as women would be paid two thirds of what a man would be paid for the same job. Many men protested having women in the workforce at all, as they believed it would compromise men’s pay rates. The National Museum of Australia publications also outlines the poor conditions working women had to face: women who went to work to support themselves had to resort to working in unsafe and unregulated conditions because of the limited support for working women. Early Australian women were deprived of many basic human rights and were treated poorly even in their own households.
The first significant policy changes that benefited women were granting women the right to vote, attend school and work and changing the age of sexual consent for girls. These were accomplished because of activists who fought for basic human rights for women. A document published by SA Memory describes the impact of one influential woman in particular, Mary Lee, helped form the Society for the Promotion of Social Purity, which played a large role in the girls’ Age of Consent change from twelve to sixteen in 1885. This society helped form the Women’s Suffrage Society in South Australia. This suffrage society promoted higher education for women, and women were able to learn trades such as cooking and needlework in primary school and were given the right to enroll in secondary school programs to study a number of disciplines. Lee also influenced the formation of the Working Women’s Trades Union (WWTU). This formed as a response to the poor conditions women were forced to work in in sweatshops. Additionally, women were granted the right to vote in New South Wales in 1902, Tasmania in 1903 and Queensland in 1905. The remaining states did not allow women to vote until many years later due to the large population of conservatives who challenged women’s right to vote.
Much of the Australian population opposed these movements, so it took several years to institute change for women’s rights. Many believed that putting women in positions of political power would compromise the positions men upheld. John Warren MLC quotes historian Goldwin Smith’s essay: “it shocks our prejudice, at first to see her taking part in a faction fight, mounting the pulpit, or thundering from a platform, as well as to see her in half-male attire, or riding in man’s fashion.” People were not ready to watch women “hold a man’s job” and believed women were unfit for these positions because of their nature. Australian Academic Patricia Grinshaw explains that property-owning white men fought against changes for women’s rights because they believed it would threaten white men’s political and economical advantages. The parliament at the time that these movements tried to institute change was biased because of the large number of conservative men who held positions. This was an obstacle for women’s suffrage activists, and it delayed many bills from being passed. Grimshaw also maintains that many anti-suffragists also argued that granted women more rights might distract from their “domestically oriented nature.” Men maintained power by asserting their biases regarding women’s role as caregivers and homemakers and men’s role as providers. They argued that these intrinsic qualities of women make them unfit to hold any power to vote or hold government positions. From their perspective, any woman who tried to fulfill any role outside of their domestic duties were mentally ill. These men would belittle women as a tactic to stay in power and ensure that conservative white men maintained the advantages that they had.
Before the formation of these societies and beginning of these movements, women were not entitled to many basic human rights. They had poor working conditions, little autonomy over their own bodies because of the young age of consent and laws regarding women’s marital rights and little say in political change. The gradual support that the activists behind these movements gained helped better the lives of Australian settler women. These movements progressed slowly because of the large number of conservatives who challenged the idea of granting women rights because they viewed women as a potential threat to their power and as nothing more than wives and mothers. Eventually, the persistence of the activists and supporters allowed women to escape extreme oppression and to claim the rights and autonomies that modern Australian women have freedom to today.
While many historians have written about the anti-suffragists’ strong opposition during the time of the women’s rights movements, there are significant gaps in the literature regarding analysis of women’s perspective during the time of these movements. Historically, those reporting on these events were men, as women did not have access to the press to report their side of the story. Writings from women during these movements have been recently discovered but lack appropriate analysis to form a full picture of what life was like for female activists during the women’s rights movements.
Katie Spearritt, CEO and founder of Diversity Partners, discusses how the stories of women’s activists have faded into the background in her piece “New Dawns: First Wave Feminism 1880-1914;” Spearritt comments on a quote from Mary Lee before her death, where Lee states that her efforts for change ultimately left her lonely and impoverished despite the great impact she had for the rights of Australian women. Revisionist writer Susan Margarey offers her own alternative account on early feminism in Australia in her article “History, cultural studies, and another look at first-wave feminism in Australia.” Margarey theorizes that there is a lost perspective of the women during the nineteenth century and their motivation to institute change for women’s rights: she believes that women pursued these freedoms for the opportunity to have sexual freedom. Women suffocated within the confines of their marriages and wanted to break free from “enforced maternity,” and Margarey sheds light on this as a motivation for the women’s movements. This is a perspective previously unanalyzed, and comes to light now that there have been developments in findings and cultural studies.
Author Lynne Spender published a collection of women’s writings from the nineteenth century in her book Her Selection: Writings by Nineteenth Century Australian Women. She introduces these writings by indicating that it is “a rare pleasure” to share the pieces produced by women from this time, as “in the past, collections of women’s writings have been put together on the basis of accepted literary traditions rather than on women’s interests and concerns with the results that women’s experience has been marginalized…” The author explains how women’s voices were heard only in the context that historians chose to include them in, rather than analyzed based on the women’s intentions. Most history from the nineteenth is documented by the dominant voices of the men, and women’s true voices are seldom understood. Historical events are more accurately represented when all people present are given the opportunity to share their side of the story, but this was not the case for nineteenth century Australian women.
Perhaps further analysis should be done on nineteenth century Australian women’s true perspectives when assessing the women’s suffrage and quality of treatment during this time period, rather than examining history through dominant male points of view. Gathering all points of view will allow a more accurate representation of these events to be created, and perhaps the women’s movement will be able to be viewed through a new lens and previously unanalysed perspectives will come to light.
The Trove archives contains a collection of historical newspaper snippets that reflect the events early on in the Australian women’s rights movement. One article from February 1889 shows the backlash that women’s suffrage activists faced when fighting for women’s rights. The author starts by stating how he used to be opposed to all movements fighting for women’s rights, but he now feels that women have more of a purpose than just being wives and mothers. The author of this newspaper article compares the commencement of the Women’s Suffrage Society in Brisbane with other countries where women have been given more rights and put in positions of power. In these countries, women have raised the standards and have made fair and pure laws. The author continues by arguing that these other countries are “put on their metal,” or proving their worth. He believes that these countries are progressive. The author also explains how most people who challenge the formation of organizations like the Women’s Suffrage Society merely do not understand what these women are fighting for: he feels that most critics believe women are trying to take over all government power, but in reality women are fighting merely to have a voice in electing lawmakers.
Another Trove newspaper article by Ferio Tego provides evidence for the criticism that the women’s suffrage movement received in the nineteenth century. It indicates that men closed off the opportunities for women to work a “man’s job” because men doubted women’s abilities. The author of this telegraph asserts that even if women were to be granted the right to vote, they should also have to fight in wars, become police officers or ministers, and hold many other positions that the offer does not believe women are capable of handling. Tego concludes by stating, “[o]ur advice to [women] is that as you cannot change your sex, confine yourselves to your sex’s legitimate sphere; there is plenty for you to do if you only turn your energies in the right direction, and all right minded men will only be glad to assist you in every way possible.” The writer generalizes that all men would be willing to support women in their role as mothers and wives but that the pursuit of anything more would be challenged. The author of this newspaper article was among many other men who felt that granting women any rights would be futile as they would struggle to correctly uphold duties beyond housekeeping and motherhood.
Both of these newspaper articles provide evidence for the harsh opposition that women and their advocates faced when fighting for women’s rights. Women in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were told that they would never be able to fulfill the work of a man and that they should remain satisfied with their domestic duties. These newspaper articles also confirm that most historical perspectives during the women’s rights movements were that of men, as women’s opinions during the time were seldom published.
2019-11-26-1574738123