What Ireland’s repeal means for Australia

MASER's Repeal Artwork, DublinBy Louise Omer

Over the weekend, I witnessed Dublin in the midst of revolution. A revolution where grins of solidarity were shared between strangers wearing Yes badges or where you could see the tense hope of Mar canvassing at Dublin Connolly station twenty-seven years after campaigning for an illegal condom machine at a university. The moment when Ilaina cheered gregariously, a Malaysian woman fighting for the visibility of migrant women, rang out. The moment we all literally felt the electricity of triumph at Dublin Castle as people poured and kept pouring into the cobblestone courtyard, the roaring crowd celebrating the activists and politicians onstage – almost all of whom were women.

It’s hard to describe the rage and hope and relief, the sense of power toppling, of a new world unfurling. Instead, here are the facts.

On May 25, Ireland voted Yes in an historic referendum to legalise abortion. The vote was to repeal the eighth amendment, a 1983 addition to the Irish constitution that gave “the unborn” “equal right to life as the mother”.

As many advocates for women’s rights know, outlawing reproductive healthcare doesn’t stop women seeking abortions, but instead makes them harder to access. It increases the suffering of women in crisis.

Each day, 12 women travel from Ireland to England to seek reproductive healthcare; at least 170,216 women and girls have done so between 1980 and 2016. A further number order abortion pills to take at home without medical supervision, under risk of breaking the law. This carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment under 2013′s Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act.

But on Saturday May 25, the country staged a referendum to repeal the eighth amendment, with 66.4% voting Yes. The 2:1 victory was a surprise to the entire country – even prominent Yes activists on the day of the referendum feared it mightn’t pass.

In a country emerging from the stronghold of Catholic values, testimonies of women’s experience have been tantamount in changing the hearts and minds of voters. The story of Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year-old dentist who died in 2012 from septicaemia after she was denied an abortion, galvanised the movement, and her image has come to represent the pain of Irish women.

Similarly, Not at Home is an art project that published the testimonies of women travelling to England. The group Terminations for Medical Reasons campaigned hard to make the lived experiences of women who had a termination in a case of foetal abnormality heard. On Twitter, in newspapers, and in conversations across the country, the taboo was broken as women bravely revealed their stories, provoking emotional responses, and educating about the personal impact of the abhorrent laws.

The punishment of female sexuality is the historical context of the referendum. Throughout the 20th century “fallen women” who became pregnant out of marriage were pushed into Mother Baby Homes or Magdalene Laundries. These state-sponsored institutions were run by the Church, with incredible evidence of slave-like conditions, starvation and abuse.

Young women I know told me a No vote would have signified that Ireland doesn’t care about women (well – stronger language may have been used). They spoke about leaving the country, or if they were expats, about never coming home.

The evening the results were announced, the streets of Dublin were jubilant. Repeal t-shirts were everywhere and pubs were packed; a group of women decorated their car with colourful “YES”s and drove up and down Dame St, shouting from a megaphone and beeping at pedestrians who whooped in return. Locals were not celebrating, as conservative Catholics claimed, because they wanted to “kill babies”; but because it illustrates a shift in the Irish attitude towards women. By successfully fighting for bodily autonomy, women in Ireland have claimed their freedom.

The day after the victory, I spoke to Kathy D’Arcy, editor of the anthology Autonomy and Chair of the Cork Together for Yes campaign. “I felt in my heart that the country hated me,” she said. “A lot of women felt that. But we woke up this morning and we realised this country belongs to us.”

She was in her office, already sending emails to politicians. Legislation, for terminations up to 12 weeks of pregnancy, is hoped to be passed within six months. That’s not fast enough, D’Arcy says. It’s important to remember that women are leaving the country on planes this morning to access abortions.

This has similarities to Australian reproductive healthcare. In January the last clinic in Tasmania to provide terminations closed, forcing women to travel to access abortions. Michelle Thompson, chief executive of Marie Stopes, told the Guardian this year that 10-12 Tasmanian women are visiting the Melbourne clinic every month. This is only five years since abortion was decriminalised.

As well as being an incredibly stressful experience, travelling to access an abortion is expensive. There is the cost of the surgical procedure itself, add up flights, accommodation, and time off work; this is an economic issue.

Australian laws are different in each state. In Queensland and NSW, abortion remains illegal – unless a woman’s mental or physical health is threatened. Seeking a solution, many women order the abortion pill and take it without medical supervision. This situation puts the health of many at risk.

As we’ve seen in Ireland, campaigning for abortion is not about the ethical legitimacy of the procedure; we know that women will seek the reproductive healthcare they need, whether it’s legal or not. Instead, the provision of safe and easy access to abortion is about prioritising the medical care of women. And Australia needs to keep fighting.


Subscribe to our Newsletter

Stay in touch with us and we will stay in touch with you. Subscribe today and receive our monthly newsletter.

Louise Omer, photographed by Bri Hammond
Louise Omer writes on feminism, religion and books, with work published in The Guardian, The Australian, The Saturday Paper and The Lifted Brow. In 2017 she was a Wheeler Centre Hot Desk Fellowship recipient and shortlisted for the Scribe Nonfiction Prize. She is currently working on her first book, Holy Woman

    Posted in Newsletters | Comments Off

    The life-changing magic of actually listening to women

    By Amy Gray

    The past 12 months has taught us that stories can change the world. #MeToo has sustained itself into an ongoing movement through the power of personal stories, traumatic testimonies and calculated action.

    When you listen to what women have to say, it is truly extraordinary.

    Yet, when it comes to publishing, we still aren’t listening to women, let alone printing their stories. For an industry overwhelmingly staffed with them, it is still men in positions of power and higher salaries.

    This has a flow-on effect to what gets published…and guess which way it goes? More men will submit or pitch their manuscripts, more men will get signed up or commissioned, more men will get reviewed by the media, which will lead to greater promotion budgets, stock levels, then sales and, finally, literature prizes.

    Taking it further, most publishing professionals across the US, UK and Australia are white, generally heterosexual and cisgendered. It has exactly the sort of impact you’d expect: we are left with bookstores stocked with the same characters written by the same writers all coming to the same conclusion.

    Sunili Govinnage discovered the impact of this when she spent 2014 reading nonwhite writers: it was bloody hard to access recommended, reviewed or rewarded literature in the usual sources in mainstream press or even online bookseller lists.

    For women writers of colour, this is further complicated by the racial bias they face. Not only are they published less, but they are often forced to perform their race within their work for a readers the industry assume are white, forcing them into dual roles of artists and translators.

    As Nayuka Gorrie wrote in a speech for ACMI’s screening of James Baldwin doco “I Am Not Your Negro?”, this often translates into forcing writers of colour to perform their trauma to entice a white audience to believe white supremacy exists, despite a bounty of daily evidence doing the same.

    The art of trauma – whether highlighting white supremacy or misogyny – is the literary cul-de-sac where women writers reign. The dominance is a combination of trauma memoirs’ popularity with readers and editors, plus…it’s easy to cover your trauma when you’re a woman living under a white supremacist patriarchy.

    There’s something decidedly uneasy about this. Women’s stories are being fenced into pens with restrictions on what they can discuss for a marketplace already conditioned to dismiss women’s work as niche novelty. Whether fiction or memoir, we want trauma, a performance of womanhood and race.

    Even if these works are amazing and informative, it places a standard or stereotype on writers which is impossible to escape and limits their ability to tell stories. It can even hamper careers, with writers defined by their trauma rather than their talent.

    Perhaps it comes back to whether we actively read broadly and entertain the radical notion that white male writers are not the default in either expression or experience. It’s rare for a male writer to be tokenised – his issues are considered universal, his interpretation rational rather than emotional. White male writers are given an access-all-areas pass – their work is considered universal and will be sold to all audiences.

    The rest of us are not so lucky. Neither are readers, who are missing out on a universe of stories through this restriction

    If there is power in a story, there must be power in a reader. Because if sharing your story is a radical act, seeking out those story tellers to listen is just as radical.

    Join 2018 Stella Prize winner Alexis Wright and artist, writer and researcher Evelyn Araluen for a special conversation about the process of recording and crafting history that is both intimate and national. June 12 – QVWC – Waitlist available here.


    Subscribe to our Newsletter

    Stay in touch with us and we will stay in touch with you. Subscribe today and receive our monthly newsletter.

    Amy Gray is a Melbourne writer whose work focuses on feminism, culture and parenting. She tweets via @_amygray_

      Posted in Newsletters | Comments Off

      Vote like a girl

      Gabriel Hackett

      You know who is amazing at voting? Black women who came out in force during the Trump/Clinton campaign.

      By Amy Gray

      We asked an interesting question over at the QVWC Facebook page the other day: do gender rights and feminism change your vote? Everyone said it was a large factor.

      Over in America, this positivity doesn’t hold much water.  A Washington Post survey into American feminism found 58% of women would not vote for a politician based on their position on women’s rights. When questioned further in the survey about what prevents women achieving full equality with men, answers were split: 44% believed sexist discrimination, while another 44% maintained it was because of “the choices women make themselves”.

      While we may not be identical, it’s safe to assume some similarity between (generally white) women voters in America and Australia view womens’ rights and voting…and it’s not a great view, to be honest.

      To be fair, it’s hard to see a place for women’s rights in politics given how male-dominated the space is.  While some political parties may try to boost the number of women candidates, most election campaigns are simply the sausage fest before the sausage sizzle: bland men in bland suits spouting bland talking points.

      Where are the women in all of this?

      Normally, women are seen when paternal politicians grab a nearby wife or woman candidate, head to the local kindergarten and talk about childcare rebates or paid parental leave.  The subtext is clear: progressive or conservative, most politicians think the women’s vote can be snared with a childcare rebate because women only care about children.

      If childcare, baby bonuses and paid parental leave is all geared towards the “women’s vote”, it’s tempting to see all other policies as either male or gender neutral – you know, they’re considered generic or affect all people equally. But when we erase gender (and race and class) from view, we’re often left with the “default”, which is often viewed as a white, heterosexual man.

      It’s hard to argue that any policy or ministerial portfolio is truly gender neutral. The economy may not be explicitly female, but the economy impacts women in very specific ways from which men are immune. Yet, these issues are rarely discussed in our analysis or addressed in political campaigning.

      But what if women’s rights truly became a voting issue? The Washington Post survey highlighted that around 60% considered themselves either fully-fledged or somewhat feminists – if we can assume the same percentage for Australian women, wouldn’t that make a giant vote politicians would have to take notice of?

      More so when you consider what has taken place since that 2016 survey, where the world has become far more political thanks to the actions of black women. Black Lives Matters (created by Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi) has thrived and become a colossal movement. Tarana Burke unleashed #MeToo upon the world, and millions of people have taken it as the moment to say “Time’s Up”. All of this has combined to forge activists out of apathists and there’s never been a better time to be a loud woman demanding more for her vote.

      But only if women seize this chance and demand answers from politicians and media. Emailing candidates and standing politicians for policy statements and letting them know what you want and why. Campaigning every minister and collectively working to let them know just how powerful women can be.

      This means more than questioning them about the gender pay gap or what they did last White Ribbon day.

      • It could mean pressing them to address environmental issues, which should be a feminist cause given women are far more affected by climate change than men.
      • Depending on your economic bent, it could be campaigning for an end to the free market system which has removed services for women and tends to reward already privileged men more, because they are unburded by unpaid labour.
      • Your feminist vote could be for the indigenous matters that mean the most to you, or in solidarity with Indigenous women – a reminder for any white or ethnic woman that feminism transcends individual choice; it is a vote in solidarity for other’s liberation. This could be elevating the issue of racial profiling and high incarceration rates, the continuing forced removal of children, reduced access to health services and ongoing discrimination and oppression.
      • Foreign Affairs? Foreign Feminism. What are the candidates or ministers doing to ensure there are more women negotiating in matters of Foreign Affairs (yes, more than one)? This is a central focus for the UN, looking to increase representation in the hopes women are actually represented in peace talks and deals. What about foreign aid that specifically focuses on women, an approach that often yields greater stability for their local communities. Refugees are another feminist issue, as is our treatment of asylum seekers in Australia, many of whom require protection from sexual assault and are often blocked access to medical services and their human rights.
      • Workers rights – oh you better believe that is a feminist issue. Women’s work can often be precarious and the gig economy is not just about Uber drivers – it is  definitely affecting women, particularly those working in hospitality, child care and cleaning. More women are working more for less money and entitlements, with little career progression or superannuation. But it’s not just local workers rights – don’t we have an obligation to ensure women around the world hold similar rights and start to question the amount of sweatshop labour performed by women to give Australian’s everything from fast fashion to the tinned tomatoes on our supermarket shelves?

      There are a lot of elections coming up and there are even more issues than the ones mentioned here, which means that women’s rights are a huge issue for politicians…if we make it one.

      Go out. Demand answers. Elevate your questions and the voices of women around you.

      Vote like a girl.


      Subscribe to our Newsletter

      Stay in touch with us and we will stay in touch with you. Subscribe today and receive our monthly newsletter.

      Amy Gray is a Melbourne writer whose work focuses on feminism, culture and parenting. She tweets via @_amygray_

        Posted in Newsletters | Comments Off

        There are no sorries here

        By Nayuka Gorrie

        Queen Victoria Women

        I haven’t participated in team sports since my Mum’s friend invited me to play netball in 2008. Mum, forever confident in my abilities, told my Mum’s friend that I would be excellent at netball, “put her in goal attack, she can shoot!” It turns out, I could not shoot. Mum ended up throwing a bib on, screaming from goal defence, “fucking shoot Nayuka!” It didn’t matter how much I tried I was, quite simply, shithouse.

        A few months ago I moved to the country. Have you been there? It really is lovely. I moved to the country mostly to get away from people. I’m a freelance writer and work from home. There are many benefits of working at home, you get to wear pyjamas during the day, you can have wine and work at the same time and not be judged by your colleagues because your colleagues don’t exist. On my first weekend I ran into a friend, another black woman, at the local market in town. We hadn’t seen each other in about five years but one of the first things she told me was that she’d joined an AFL team and maybe I should think about it.

        It took me few months and a few different invitations before I finally said yes. Organised sport is very binary, there is a men’s team and a women’s team. During the first training I found myself reverting to old conditioned behaviour.

        I felt a familiar shame that I hadn’t felt since childhood; doing a “boys” thing and not doing it particularly well. I was, and still am, afraid to scream and make noise for the boy. The only time I really make noise during training is to apologise for kicking or handballing badly (which is often).  While there is the waking of a dormant shame, it is not met in the same way anymore. During my first training all I said was, “imsorryimsorryimsorryimsorry.” After one too many apologies, my coach yelled at me, “there are no sorries here!”

        Though I only joined a few weeks ago and have only been able to attend a few training sessions but no games, I have already learned a few things. I felt trepidation about joining. In all honesty, I don’t spend a lot of time around white people and try to spend as little time because largely the sexism, racism and queerphobia i have experienced has been at the hands of white people. Beyond that though, I think deep down I was worried about how they would see me. Some black weirdo that they don’t know what to do with. It turns out people don’t really care if you don’t shave your legs or wax your moustache, and they don’t care what your politics are – they just want you to kick the ball.

        Sport does not exist in a vacuum and has not been immune to racism, sexism and transphobia. The AFLW came under fire last year for excluding Hannah Mouncey on the basis of her being trans. On a local level, my friend told me there are teams that hate our team and that a young black woman was racially vilified all season last year by a particular team. It heartens me though that the coach is black and there are other black people on the field. In a world becoming increasingly siloed, it is refreshing to be part of something with women I know nothing about, to share camaraderie with other women over something that is low stakes.

        There are a few mothers on the team and I have heard more than once these mothers talk about how important the social aspect of the game is and, for someone who spends most of her time online at home alone, it is refreshing to be part of a team in the flesh. It has also helped me connect with other mates on the internet. My Mum and I facetimed and she showed me how to tackle people. Other friends have helped me pick a ball to train with at home and have shown me how to handball.

        All of this is just to say, if you’ve ever thought about doing something new, do it, even if it’s scary. Don’t be afraid to recruit mates to do your thing, you just might have to ask more than once.


        Subscribe to our Newsletter

        Stay in touch with us and we will stay in touch with you. Subscribe today and receive our monthly newsletter.

        Nayuka is a Gunai/Kurnai, Gunditjmara, Wiradjuri and Yorta Yorta woman working in the youth sector. Nayuka writes about black politics and feminism. And plays a bit of footy. She tweets at @nayukagorrie.

          Posted in Newsletters | Comments Off

          Feminism’s man problem (spoiler: no, absolutely not)

          Vivia Hickman, our previous CEO, once shared a story of a man found wandering the building. Asking her about the Queen Victoria Women’s Centre building, she told him how it houses many women’s organisations and hosts women’s events in its mission to help all women in the state – through research, referral and reasoned debate.

          This angered the man, outraged that prime city real estate would be squandered on women. “What about the men?”, he demanded. “Where is their special space?”

          Vivia pointed outside – “it’s all out there”, she said as she ushered him to the world outside.

          This fabulous story popped into my head when I read a recent article over at Bloomberg. “A Big Concern in Norway, a Country Now Ruled by Women: Male Anger”.

          With more women in positions of political power, the article frames Norway as a utopia for women, but dystopia for men. Until you read on and discover men still control the other favoured avenue of power: money, with a gender pay gap and more men running banks and financial organisations.

          But still, the article persists, there’s a problem with angry white men with the suggestion this is a problem women will have to fix.

          Over in New York City, the local Human Rights Commission is investigating the Wing, a women’s social and co-working space, for potential sex discrimination. The discrimination? Men aren’t included.

          Also in America: people are suggesting students should have been nicer to Nikolas Cruz, so he wouldn’t become a mass murderer, killing 17 students and wounding 17 more.

          Appearing in the space of a week, these articles all point to a broader issue: won’t someone think of the angry white men? Those men unable to accept responsibility for their actions because its everyone else’s fault, mainly women.

          It’s a curious notion that some (oh, not all) men feel they must be a priority in all life, amply evidenced by anyone who had to pause their enjoyment of International Women’s Day to answer “but when is International Men’s Day?”. It’s as if they are worried people will forget men exist, which shows an almost-charming ignorance of statistics and the Patriarchy.

          How possible is it to forget about men when there are centred in almost every industry and form of cultural expression? When they earn more, get hired more, are depicted more across the arts, have greater privilege to travel without harassment and can generally assume more attention in the medical and legal systems?

          Meanwhile, people are still writing articles about how boys won’t read books if the main character is a girl. I mean, what’s the point if it’s not about them? In totally unrelated news: boys are now statistically reading less.

          The assumption that men must be tended to like some fragile hothouse flower and given the best position so they can thrive also relies on another expectation: that women not men must do the work of centering or tending to men.

          In a recent searing editorial for the New York Times, fellow Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School student Isabelle Robinson outlined how women dropping everything (including their standards and safety) to help angry white men won’t work. She details how he had previously winded her and that attempts to tutor Cruz resulted in sexual harassment. Women’s labour wasn’t going to prevent male violence, because male violence is a choice.

          Naturally, feminists have been saying angry white men have been a problem for years and, to own the truth, women of colour have been saying it for a hell of a lot longer.

          Just as naturally, this has been ignored until men felt a slight shift in power. But they don’t frame their concern about angry white men as “I agree with feminists” – suddenly it’s the feminists’ fault, that somehow, men were never violent, underemployed or angry until feminism took hold, tainting all that we (and by that I mean men) hold dear.

          There are men who do this work – who write for men, try to help men, mend the crises and and give support. But so often this is done by men who seek in reinforce male priority and primacy over women, as can be seen with Jordan Peterson, who tells men to make their beds and decries feminism. Sexism is not the magic ingredient in treating male malaise, or male-aise.

          Women aren’t dominating the world and causing men to suffer, nor are they truly being excluded from anything that women haven’t been blocked from for millennia.

          As Ruth Bader Ginsberg says “I’m sometimes asked when will there be enough [women on the supreme court]? And I say ‘When there are nine.’ People are shocked. But there’d been nine men, and nobody’s ever raised a question about that.”



          Subscribe to our Newsletter

          Stay in touch with us and we will stay in touch with you. Subscribe today and receive our monthly newsletter.

          Amy Gray is a Melbourne-based freelance writer currently working on Mother’s Ruin, a book exploring the feminist politics of motherhood. .

            Posted in Newsletters | Comments Off

            What Annihilation taught me about gaslighting


            Sorry – spoilers lie ahead. Why not watch Annihilation first on Netflix and come back?

            For a genre obsessed with the future, sci fi has a habit of telling you about the present. Perhaps audiences can only explore deeply personal issues when played out on spaceships or by aliens, needing a galaxy to get enough space to view the problem. It’s a thematic safe space where the unreality of the scene makes the real life issues easier to view.

            Yet, Annihilation, the straight-to-Netflix film directed by Alex Garland, doesn’t promise anything so overt. The film follows the muddled steps of an all-women science team who explore “the Shimmer”, an area in Florida where an iridescent oil-like glow acts as a force field and transforms everything it touches. The new team navigate the spot, trying to understand both the anomaly and the fate of the teams who disappeared while exploring the Shimmer.

            Each frame of the film toys with ideas of perception and reality and how their absence causes huge disruption. Stretched out on the screen, the film tells us that the characters and that strange, subverted land are both true and false at once. They can’t make decisions because they can’t trust what they see, think or hear and the land around them is now suddenly unpredictable. The further they progress, the more the Shimmer infects them, altering how they react and may survive.

            Annihilation is basically science fiction’s attempt to show gaslighting, when a person manipulates you into doubting your feelings and thoughts (and therefore your judgement). When you’re gaslighted, you end up feeling disorientated and insecure, more likely to trust another person’s version of reality – often the very person manipulating you.

            The more I watched the film, the more I was reminded of time when I had been gaslighted – in abusive or dysfunctional relationships. Times when I was told I was “seeing things”, that things I witnessed “didn’t happen”. Times when I was told reacting against an insult was me being “overly sensitive” or “paranoid”. Times when I used to remember how much stronger and happier I was before. Times when I wasn’t constantly feeling on edge, that thrum of anxiety and adrenaline, when your body is certain you’re close to danger but can’t explain why to your brain, unwilling to see the signs.

            The film’s main character Lena, played by Natalie Portman, constantly endures forms of this – whether the gaslighter is men or the alien landscape around her. Scene by scene we see her observations doubted by men, who then tell her what she should feel or what she really saw with her own eyes, as though they greater experts in her life than her.

            By the time we see her and the team in the Shimmer, we see women terrifyingly immersed in a world where the rules have changed without warning and the familiar is now as unfamiliar as any possible path home. Living with a gaslighter is often like living in the Shimmer – the rules and terrain can change all at once, leaving you disoriented and afraid.

            Whether Alex Garland deliberately meant to make a film about gaslighting is debatable – like relationships, intent and impact can have vastly different paths. But for a film focusing on perception with a strong female cast, it would be a stubborn male gaze that didn’t add the two and found it equaled gaslighting.

            Though statistics are hard to come by, gaslighting is often one of the first signs of a physically or emotionally abusive relationship and continually present as a technique for an abuser to remain in control of an incapacitated partner. But it can also be used in everyday dysfunction, especially in cases of workplace bullying.

            Ariel Leve often covers abuse and gaslighting in her work, and mapped out an escape route for anyone lost in its fumes. She points to defiance (refusing to bend to an abuser’s script) and detaching yourself from their views or any hope they will change or apologise. The author suggests writing down things as they occur and referring to them when you feel calm – a form of testimony free from manipulation.

            In the film, Lena’s salvation comes from having something “to live for”, something her “damaged goods” team doesn’t have. Her resilience and defiance in the face of fear and confusion give her a path home – forever changed from the infection that is gaslighting, but home and more safe than she was before.



            Subscribe to our Newsletter

            Stay in touch with us and we will stay in touch with you. Subscribe today and receive our monthly newsletter.

            Amy Gray is a Melbourne-based freelance writer currently working on Mother’s Ruin, a book exploring the feminist politics of motherhood. .

              Posted in Newsletters | Comments Off

              Fiji’s Feminism

              by Amy Gray 

              DIVA For Equality

              This is what a feminist looks like.

              After flattening the Tongan parliament in the worst storm seen in 60 years, Tropical Cyclone Gita is currently headed towards Fiji.

              Like many South Pacific nations, Fijians are used to this and can see the link between climate change and more aggressive cyclones as the years roll on. Cycles of behaviour are linked to cycles of action and inaction, with consequences quickly following behind.

              Perhaps that’s why Maria Nailevu and Noelene Nabulivou seem so casual as they tell me about the incoming cyclone as we chat on Skype. While cyclone season has long been part of Fijian life, as members of Diverse Voices For Action & Equality (DIVA for Equality), both Maria and Noelene  can often see cycles at play.

              With their group work, DIVA for Equality has become one of the most transformative and innovative feminist collectives whose ability to spot a destructive cycle, dismantle it and build lasting change is a lesson for everyone on how feminists get it goddamn done.

              “[DIVA] comes out of earlier South feminist works (the Fiji Women’s Rights Movement, Women’s Crisis Centre and Women’s Action for Change)”, explains Noelene, who acts as the groups Political Advisor. We did a lot of the earlier grassroots-focused action – you know, how do you take concepts of feminism and work through them at local and in autonomous forms.”

              The group started when “in about 2011, Shirley and I were approached by a group of younger and emergent lesbian, bisexual, transmasculine and gender non-conforming people and asked ‘look can we do something? We don’t even know what we want to do but we want to do something for ourselves and with our lives.”

              In its early days, DIVA for Equality “didn’t do much work outside ourselves but working on ourselves in what we called Free Schools”, Noelene says. “Free Schools are basically embedding the knowledge in our own collective and growing our politics from inside”. This inside work helped the group strengthen their political positions on bodies, identity, expression and orientation.

              DIVA use a praxis-based approach where they combine theory with personal reflection, community consultation with action – a magic mix of watch, think and act.

              DIVA ask themselves how a vulnerable group in need of help works and how that fits in with their understanding of theory. They talk with the group to see what they need (a question that is always asked because marginalised groups understand their needs better than any NGO could) and then get a collective agreement to help get them access to resources and rights.

              It often means they “act and reflect in cycles”. Which means they often balance issues on a needs basis, devoting attention to the biggest vulnerability or need at the moment with their commitment to universal human and sexual rights, political ecology (which should never be separated, according to Noelene), resisting the often rigid and colonialist presence of NGOs while retaining their internal focus to reflect on theory and action.

              Maria Nailevu, the focus point for DIVA’s Women Defending The Commons and climate change campaigns, has noted women in more remote areas are already doing “groundbreaking work” but just “needed the guidance and affirmation”, through connecting them with other women’s groups and concepts to help them use new techniques, build relationships and access resources the need.

              One group of women in remote Fiji who harvest sea slugs to sell at market needed DIVA’s help. The women were forced to sleep on the beach where they worked due to a lack of transport which, combined with hours spent in the water, left them continually cold and sore.

              DIVA fundraised for them so the women could get what they said would make their lives easier – hot water bottles and other sources of heat. Though a potentially small move, it was transformative for the women, not only solving an issue but teaching a greater lesson: they’re not alone. “It’s a new thing for them to see an organisation prioritising women’s needs”, Maria notes.

              But that effect goes both ways, with Maria highlighting the work “builds a community between regional and urban women” that is desperately needed. The more women and people work together, the more there can be an intersectional and interlinking feminism where people listen to one another, lend their skills and resources and collectively work to improve everyone’s lives.

              This is tied to a broader view that encompasses what is happening or getting discussed now with feminist history, something that isn’t always seen with a lot of Western feminism’s intergenerational in-fighting with barbs thrown across Feminist waves (and sometimes, damn accurately).

              DIVA’s love for a praxis-based approach provides an amazing example of how to manage this. The group practice what they call “the golden apple approach” where they look for the good in people and, through conversation and deep listening, determine if there is enough goodwill to work together. Noelene says this approach helps them to focus on the real source of power and oppression – the patriarchy.

              It’s a collaborative approach that respects feminism and feminist organisers. “We like to look back at the feminist movement as much as forward and say we’ve got such beautiful thinking and strategies that have come out of different kinds of work.” That perspective allows them to track their progression as a whole, asking themselves “what do we take from that and how do we move forward?”

              The answer they’ve arrived at is one that understands their politics needs both a foundation and future. DIVA focuses on building skills for all to make sure there is sustainable growth. Nolene and the group direct that need for sustainable growth at the group as well, noting  they are “in a 18 month period where two younger members will be gifted the leadership, so me and Shirley will step back”.

              In a world of instant action where solutions are expected to be immediate and perfect, the DIVA approach appears as unique as they are grounded in common sense. And yet that very combination is revolutionary. They are an iconic and truly transforming force for real, actual empowerment: their approach to people and the world is a blueprint for all feminists.

              If 2018 is the year of resistance, it starts with personal action. DIVA’s approach is a blueprint for personal and social change  – form a group, refine your feminist politics, listen deeply to what those around you need and give them the tools they need to make change so liberation can spread.

              You can find out more about DIVA for Equality at

                Posted in News, Newsletters | Comments Off

                Tara Moss is Speaking Out

                Photo by Berndt Sellheim

                Tara Moss

                By Amy Gray 

                It’s hard to find a feminist writer more accomplished than Tara Moss – the author of countless books, ambassador for UNICEF, creator of the compelling series Cyberhate, academic, public speaker and listed as one of the Top 5 Diversity Figures In Public Life – and she’s bringing her laser-focus to QVWC to discuss why women’s voices are so important and why we need them more than ever.

                Over in the US, there is an unprecedented increase in women seeking public office since Trump took office. The reason for this, according to Tara, is “put simply, survival”.

                “When women’s rights are actively stripped away it is a pretty stark reminder of the need for women’s political representation. It’s about protecting the wellbeing and quality of life of women, but also about saving real lives. Make no mistake, politics impact us all, and most severely impact the already disadvantaged,“ she says.

                Tara believes this response from American women directly connects to what is happening in Australia. “When political will lags behind public sentiment, as with marriage equality for example”, she says, “the public is put in a position where they need to make their positions known and they must hold the politicians accountable – they are public servants, after all.”

                There has been reticence to this approach, with some arguing this is an extension of the “women on boards” syndrome where the addition of some women perpetuates rather than changes the system.

                But Tara disagrees this would happen, noting that “women’s greater representation in political and public life does, on average, correlate with improved quality of life for women and lower rates of violence against women, but it isn’t as simple as having a handful of high profile women thrown into a male dominated domain.”

                To Tara, there’s a balance between what women can change, our continual expectations women will do all the work and our community obligations. “A handful of determined people elected to public roles cannot be responsible for changing a whole system, much as they might make their mark”, she says.

                “It is a combination of public sentiment and greater political equality that ultimately makes the difference for any marginalised group, or any form of change.”

                This places more importance on community engagement and highlights their power when mobilised into sustained action.

                “Politicians are supposed to be representatives of their electorates, the voters and taxpayers. There must be overt public support for the transformative goals of gender equality and human rights for women or other marginalised people in politics to be able to afford to use their positions of power to make change.

                Part of this sustained action forms the wave of conversation and protest sparked by the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements, which Tara has found heartening.

                “It has taken a lot of women speaking out over a lot of years – many of them paying a heavy price for it – to arrive where we have today with #MeToo and #TimesUp. The idea that women are ‘just now speaking up’ is a fallacy. In many cases women were speaking out loud and clear but they are finally being heard, and in other cases the numbers have reached critical mass where the risk levels for some women only just now make it possible for them to speak out without finding themselves ostracised and broke. These are brave people, brave women. We must seize this moment to keep up the pressure, support one another and install real change so that serial abusers no longer find themselves validated and protected, their crimes downplayed, excused and covered up.”

                If this sounds like a hell of a lot of work, it is. It should be no surprise that this often-unpaid social activism often results in burnout.

                Tara is a huge advocate for self-care, covering it in her book Speaking Out and practicing in with her heavy workload.

                “We need women to speak out and to be able to keep on speaking out. We need them in for the long haul, so self-care and support is vital in both an ethical and practical sense, she says”

                “Participating in the process of speaking out can be important but risky, so we need to support ourselves through the process, and support one another”, she says.

                Tara will speak out as part of Queen Victoria Women’s Centre IWD celebration on March 7, 2018 at 6pm.

                Tara’s event is booked out – tickets are no longer available.

                  Posted in Newsletters | Comments Off

                  QVWC Primer: how homelessness is a feminist issue

                  Recent figures from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare show that the average person experiencing homelessness is a woman aged 25-34, often with a child in tow. During the 2016-2017 period 60% of people seeking support from homeless service providers were women – with Victorian women at the top.

                  Homelessness is a feminist issue for the high number of women who need support but there are additional factors that make it an urgent crisis that requires intervention.

                  The major reason women face homelessness is from leaving domestic violence situations. 40% of those surveyed –mostly women – reported that they and their children found potential homelessness was a safer option that remaining with their partner or family.

                  This is further compounded by ongoing cuts to government services to help women and their children escaping violence. Often, an increase in public demand can act the same as a cut with many funded services unable to help and protect women and their children.

                  While many of the women surveyed were able to access some form of housing, the huge spike in housing affordability (rental as well as mortgage-based) makes homelessness an ongoing, ever-present threat looming over their heads.

                  Their options are thin on the ground – moving to regional locations may appeal for the lower housing costs, but 60% of people sleeping rough live outside city centres. Those sleeping rough are cut off from reduced or non-existent homelessness services.

                  What are some potential solutions?

                  • Balancing housing affordability to have a greater emphasis on accessibility rather than extreme profit
                  • Increase amount of social housing
                  • Increase funding to homelessness services
                  • Increase funding and services to help women and their children escape domestic violence
                  • Employment options that are flexible for mothers and allow them to maintain economic independence…without the gender pay gap.
                  • Reintroduction of the single parent pension and extending the age limit
                  • And, according to Dr Petra Bueskens, introducing a universal basic wage which will give women the finance and protection they need to find safe housing and food for them and their children.


                  Below is a reading list to find out more:


                    Posted in Newsletters | Comments Off

                    Matricentric feminism – the feminism you should be talking about

                    by Amy Gray 

                    There are moments in our lives that make us a feminist or confirm our subscription – and one the biggest ones is becoming a mother.

                    This differs from when a man says “of course I’m a feminist, I’m a father”, who can trot out the line and then go back to enjoying higher wages, greater professional opportunities and less housework than women while doing absolutely nothing to advancing women’s rights they apparently adore. Put it this way: a mother will embrace feminism because, unlike men, she cannot escape sexism she or her daughters will face.

                    The reason for this milestone is that motherhood can be an accelerant for abuse, especially when it’s compounded by existing discrimination based on their gender, race or ethnicity, sexual identity, disability or class.

                    Take it a step further and add motherhood into the mix and you have a situation where discrimination can increase on top of identity. It’s not so much that motherhood is an identity, rather, an identity lens, not unlike a magnifying glass under the sun focusing its burning intensity to increase discrimination ten-fold.

                    This is where matricentric feminism comes in: feminism that is centered around the experience, discrimination and skill involved with mothering work.

                    It’s an avenue of feminism that feeds into the larger movement of women’s liberation, one that touches upon other areas – as there are people devoted to queer feminism, there are queer parents with experiences unique to motherhood; so too with women of colour who are parents and face another set of historical and current discrimination explicitly centered around both their race, their children and their status as mothers.

                    Matricentric feminism looks at motherhood as a lens that can increase the experiences and discrimination women face – because motherhood is not only what society often demands of women, it’s also what they use to punish them or make them more vulnerable to existing discrimination.

                    Because motherhood is when women’s unpaid labour increases and job security decreases, it’s when women begin to leave their jobs, leaving their superannuation to stagnate. It’s when domestic violence can ramp up, medical issues become fraught or when the very ability to keep your children with you depends on the lottery of unearned privilege.

                    And that’s just the start.

                    Yet, as I’ve stated before here at QVWC, motherhood requires serious structural feminist analysis we don’t see in the mainstream press.

                    In the process of writing a book about this topic, I’ve been honoured to read the work of academics and researchers who are experts in matricentric feminism. Like Dr Andrea O’Reilly, who not only coined the phrase matricentric feminism, but has been its loudest and most prolific advocate in academia and her specialist publishing arm, Demeter Press. Researchers who dive deep into data to measure the impacts government policy have on Australian mothers, like  AMIRCI who dedicate themselves to researching motherhood and how it is impacted by politics and society. Dr Petra Bueskens constantly writes about the psychology and reality of motherhood, most recently about the rise of homeless mothers raising their children on extended “holidays”.

                    It is tempting to lay much of the blame on mainstream media uninterested in the wealth of experts who exist beyond the veil of hot takes and quick columns. But feminism isn’t performed solely in op-eds to an enraptured audience of women, employers or politicians.

                    This is an issue that requires more than a simple solution – it requires the courage to dismantle and rebuild everything from how we hire, promote and pay, to a legal system that favours male protection and women’s labour, to our concept of families and who does the work and the unpaid work we all unwittingly take on to uphold society’s uneven standards.

                    But 2018 is just around the corner and, as we make our resolutions for a brighter year, let’s include a vision for a more just and curious society, one that questions the assumptions we’ve carried for far too long.



                    Subscribe to our Newsletter

                    Stay in touch with us and we will stay in touch with you. Subscribe today and receive our monthly newsletter.

                    Amy Gray is a Melbourne-based freelance writer currently working on Mother’s Ruin, a book exploring the feminist politics of motherhood. .

                      Posted in Newsletters | Comments Off