193> and ain't i a woman? More or less equalMore or less equal
"For all of us." Those fateful words heralded a sharp upturn in the suffering of most of us.
Under the Howard government, women, indigenous people, immigrants, the unemployed, the aged, young people and trade unionists have been subjected to a barrage of propaganda about "special privileges" that has helped to smooth the way for escalating attacks on our living standards.
In the same spirit, Pauline Hanson justifies her racist attacks on Aborigines and Asians by saying she just wants "equality for everyone, not special treatment for some".
Now Attorney General Daryl Williams has joined the champions of Orwellian Newspeak. According to the July 28 Australian, Williams strongly believes that "all Australians should be equal in the eyes of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission". He plans to abolish the positions of sex discrimination, race and disability commissioners at HREOC, and replace them with "generalist" staff.
Introducing a word we are sure to hear more of from this government, Williams argues that Australia is a "pluralist" society and should reject the very idea of special disadvantage and therefore specialist services. (In any case, he says, the existence of specialist commissioners only creates demand from other disadvantaged groups for their own commissioners!)
Williams' "pluralism" translates as "Discrimination does not exist in this country". Contradicting all the evidence (women's lower average wages, higher rate of poverty, greater load of unpaid work), he is asserting that equal opportunity exists for all; there is no need to take special measures because the problems don't exist.
Williams' attack is more than just ideological. If implemented, his plan will have almost the same effect as abolishing the Sex Discrimination Act: it will facilitate even greater exploitation of women.
The existence of HREOC is a recognition, however inadequate, that the legal right not to be discriminated against has to be policed and enforced, and that that takes resources — resources that the victims of discrimination do not have, precisely because they suffer discrimination.
Any weakening of HREOC's capacity to investigate and pursue sex discrimination cases on behalf of women will strengthen a status quo which stereotypes, disadvantages and excludes women in workplaces, educational institutions, the media and all other sectors.
Cabinet is said to be split on Williams' plan. This is not because there are any staunch defenders of women's rights and services in the government, but because some Coalition leaders believe that the move would generate enough public anger to cost them at the polls.
They want to chip away for a bit longer at the persistent consciousness left over from the 1970s women's liberation movement. They understand that if they are to avoid paying an electoral price for this attack on women's rights, public acceptance of the fact that sex discrimination does exist and should be eradicated must be considerably weaker.
This is not an easy task. Many women are reminded daily of the reality of sex discrimination, even more so as the government's child-care funding cuts, undermining of the unfair dismissal laws and other Thatcherite policies begin to bite.
Nevertheless, in the absence of a strong, visible women's liberation movement today, public recognition that sex discrimination exists and is unjust does not readily translate into a demand that governments do something about it.
Unless a movement is rebuilt which can raise the issue again, educate the public and put concerted pressure on governments, the enshrining in law of women's right to equal treatment will be useless (and eventually abolished), and Howard, Hanson and Williams' reactionary Newspeak will win growing public acceptance, exposing women to a degree of discrimination and exploitation not known in this country for 50 years.
By Lisa Macdonald