The Role of Women in Australian Society - Essay Example

The roles of women in Australian society Introduction There is not a doubt that the lives of women have changed over the past century. Australian women have gone through periods where she was the property of the man, and her father could arrange a marriage between her and somebody else. She has seen periods where she was unable to initiate a divorce, and periods where she could initiate a divorce, yet had to show grounds, which made divorcing difficult. She has seen periods where she was discouraged to work outside the home, yet her work inside the home was not deemed valuable to society. She has been oppressed in bad marriages, yet had little recourse to leave. Finally, she has seen a period where she has entered the labor force, therefore has money of her own, and this, in turn, has made her less beholden to the man she married. This is where the current state of woman is, and it has resulted in a high failure rate for marriages. This paper will examine how the roles of women have changed in Australian society, both in and outside of marriage, and how these roles have affected marriage and divorces in the last century. Discussion The largest change for women, in the realm of marriage, is the fact that patriarchy has shifted. For instance, one may view the movie The Piano for an example of how things used to be for women in Australia and New Zealand. In The Piano, the woman in the marriage was in the marriage because it was arranged, and, although it was evident that the main character, Ada, had a husband who wanted a “real” marriage, this never manifested. It was quite simply obvious that Alistair, the husband in this scenario, saw Ada as a way to bolster his social standing and really nothing more (The Piano). The Piano reflects a time in Australian history, indeed, in the history of the world, where women were regarded as property, and, because of this, fathers were able to force their daughters into loveless marriages. This reflects the standing of women in general during the 1850s. While The Piano reflects a time during the 19th Century, this paper will deal with the changing status of women during the 20th Century, but it is a helpful touchstone nonetheless. From the patriarchy in the 1850s, as evident in The Piano, a wave of reforms hit Australian society in the late 1800s, in a first wave of feminism in which women demanded to be counted as an equal in society, as well as within her own family. This was a wave of reform in which women were able to divorce their husbands, instead of divorce being the sole province of the man, which is what the case was before these reforms. This actually showed that the feminist movement gave more rights to women then did England, as women were not granted the right to divorce her husband on the grounds of adultery until 1923 in England, yet this right was granted in New South Wales in 1881 (James, 2005). This all leads to the rights of women at the turn of the century. The irony is that, according to Folbre (1991), while women were beginning to have parity with men in divorce court, their rights as within the marriage were actually being rolled back a bit. Folbre states that, in 1800, the work that a woman performs within the marriage was considered productive work for the purpose of labor force participation. In other words, the work that women did in 1800 was considered a part of the overall economic structure, and this work was considered to be a source of wealth. By 1900, however, this work was no longer considered productive, and women were considered to be “dependent,” along with senior citizens, children and disabled persons (Folbre, 1991). In other words, at the beginning of the 19th Century, the women’s contributions to the household were considered a driver of economic growth; by the beginning of the 20th Century, this was no longer true. This shows that, at a time when women were getting some parity when it comes to divorce court, she was simultaneously being oppressed within the marriage itself, as she was considered to be the same as a child or a disabled person within the marriage and not as an independent entity. From 1900 to around the 1950s, the role of women within the marriage, as well as outside the marriage, was subjugated to patriarchy. This was evident not only in the devaluation of her role as homemaker and child-rearer, but also in the way that the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959 began to, once again, restrict divorce. Whereas before the Act was passed, there were 30 grounds for divorce, this Act reduced the grounds for divorce to just 14. James (2005) states that this was the Australian Commonwealth’s response to the church, which opposed “any reforms of divorce laws to avoid weakening the male-headed, marriage-based family” (James, 2005). In other words, although women had gained some ground in the previous century, as far as the ability to end a bad marriage, this right was increasingly restricted in the early part of the 20th Century to the mid part of the 20th Century, in part because the church felt that the patriarchal structure of marriage was beneficial to society and any weakening of this structure, by divorce reforms, would be detrimental. In the end, however, this really denoted that women continued to be property, a theory which was strengthened by her status as a dependent in the household, as opposed to being recognized as an independent contributor, and the increasing inability to divorce. This changed, again, in the 1950s, as the “second wave” of feminism hit the Australian soil, and women began to organize. With this second wave came other changes in the status of women, which was brought about by urbanisation, industrialisation, greater social mobility, increased all-around prosperity, the weakening of religion and the emancipation of women (James, 2005). Women were tired of being treated as property and tired of being forced to stay in a bad marriage, and, with the overall upgrade in the lives of women due to the above causes, came the opportunity to have new freedoms to divorce. The major change to the divorce law during this time, The Family Law Bill eliminated the need for fault to end a marriage. Women merely had to show that the marriage had an “irretrievable breakdown” (James, 2005). To be sure, this was a victory for women who wanted independence, as they were now able to divorce their husbands without going through the embarassing spectacle of showing cruelty or some other grounds. At the same time that women were getting even more parity in divorce, again there was indication that the woman’s actual role inside the marriage was stagnated and still subject to patriarchy, at least in the native population. Such was the argument put forth by Van Baal (1970). He states that in traditional societies, and he included Australia in this analysis, women were “at the mercy of the men who know how to bully them into submissiveness” (Van Baal 1970). This is not the case with all women in Australia, however, but, mainly, the native woman. The irony is that, perhaps because of the continued patriarchy in the native population, the current status of the native marriage is more stable, as there are fewer divorces in this population then in the Australian population at large (Hewitt, 2008). While this was the general state of affairs in the native population, in that women were continuing to be subjugated to men, there is some indication that this was still the case in the Australian population as a whole in the 1970s, which was years after the second wave of feminism that brought a reform in the divorce laws. For instance, in 1972, author Jessie Bernard stated that women continued to get the short end of the marriage stick. According to Bernard, men still had control over women, women’s work within the home was still not valued, and women were more likely then men to report being unhappy in the marriage and wanting divorce. Married women also had poorer mental and emotional health during this time then did unmarried women. Further, Bernard stated that marriage caused much of the female psychological and emotional distress, as unmarried women had better emotional and mental health then men; married women had worse (Baxter & Gray, 2003). In the thirty years since Jessie Bernard has published her thesis, there are mixed signals on the status of women, both in marriage and in Australian society in general. Berns (2002) argues that women continue to marginalized in the labor force, as the work force is still sex segregated and women still have a persistent and ever-widening wage gap with men. Moreover, the work force is still tilted against married women with children, as employers increasingly demand overtime, travel and special projects, all of which are not conducive for a caregiver, and women are still expected to meet the caregiver role (Berns, 2002). Nevertheless, the statistics show that the workforce has increasingly been made up of married women, as the labor force has grown dramatically since the mid-1950s, and this was “brought about almost entirely by changes in married women’s behaviour” (Evans & Kelley, 2004). Other studies show that being married brings a financial premium for women, and this is attributed to partnering (Breusch & Gray, 2004). Bertocchi et al. (2009) expounded upon this in an interesting study that stated that marriage, for women, is a source of financial security, because a woman becomes entitled to a portion of the gender gap when she marries. However, the increasing divorce rate, as well as the erosion of the traditional family structure, has eroded this sense of financial security. Because of this, married women are less likely to engage in risky investments then she was previously, as, previously, marriage was more secure, therefore more of a safe asset. This encouraged the married woman to take more risks in investing; as stated above, this is not the case anymore (Bertocchi et al., 2009). Therefore, while women might have been able to look upon marriage as a stable asset that closed up the wage gap, this is no longer the case, as divorce is so prevalent now and the traditional family has suffered such a breakdown. Perhaps because of increasing of employment of married women, along with the other societal changes regarding women, women are increasingly choosing to delay having children. Specifically, according to McDonald (2000), women are delaying having children because of gender equity in the labor force, as women are provided with the same opportunities in the labor force as men, yet, these employment choices means that having children would derail the climb up the corporate ladder. Therefore, because of this, women are delaying having children. This has led to a slide in fertility, as the fertility rate was, as of 1999, 1.73 children per woman. This is compared to the fertility rate, pre “second wave” feminism in the 1950s of 2.35 births per woman (McDonald, 2000). Another reason that fertility is lower now then before is that women are increasingly not feeling the pressure to have children, and some women are ambivalent about having children, worrying about what having children might do their careers. Nonetheless, these same women, called “watchers and waiters” by Cannold (2004) will have children if their husband or partner wants them (Cannold, 2004). Therefore, the changing roles of women have brought changing laws regarding divorce, changing roles of women within the marriage partnership and changing attitudes about having children. Perhaps inevitably, there has been an additional change for women with regards to marriage, and this, too, has changed with the status of women in society in general. And this is the acceptance of gay marriage and domestic partnerships. The laws in New South Wales, for instance, have evolved to recognize domestic partnerships, with the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 1999. Victoria did the same in 2001 (Sandor, 2002). While domestic partnerships are increasingly being recognized in the Australian provinces, lesbian marriage has not enjoyed such widespread acceptance. However, this, too, is likely to soon change (Edwards, 2009). This is to the consternation of conservatives as well as some feminists, such as marriage and family law expert Camille Williams, who argues that lesbian marriage hurts the prospects of women because women no longer have access to a “man’s resources and parental investment” (Williams, 2006). Thus, women’s roles have changed over the years, and her roles regarding marriage and divorce have changed along with it. Perhaps one of the biggest changes is that, because women are increasingly independent, as far as making their own money, they no longer have to rely upon a man for financial resources. Therefore, women can marry for love. As David Shumway (2003) notes, love increasingly means intimacy, which evolves from purely romantic love. Moreover, according to Shumway, marriage is increasingly predicated on emotional fulfillment, especially because society has become so fractured that emotional ties in the outside world are decreasing, which means that marriage is increasingly filling this emotional role (Shumway, 2003). This increasing emotional role of marriage has been beneficial for both women and men, as men, too, need intimacy and social bonding, even if it is not exactly socially acceptable for the man to admit to this (Foucault, 1997). On the other hand, feminism has also encouraged a somewhat cynical view of marriage from an extremist view held by Laura Kipnis. According to Kipnis, marriage is stifling. She views the edicts that marriage puts upon the individual, that the husband and the wife vow to have sex only with one another for the rest of their lives as repressive. More importantly, she feels that couples are unrealistic in their view of marriage, in that they expect marriage to provide their every need. Marriage subverts the partners’ independence, so much so that, in order to have a happy union, the man and the woman must modify their behavior so as not to cause anxiety and strife. Each person is thereby put into a straightjacket, and, for Kipnis, infidelity is a logical extension of this - “infidelity is the sit-down-strike of the love-takes-work ethic.” In other words, marriage is a soul-deadening institution, infidelity is somehow liberating and nourishing, yet ultimately destructive to the union. This is why, according to Kipnis, marriages die (Scheinkman, 2005). And, because women’s roles have evolved in society so that women can take care of themselves, they no longer have to endure such toxicity. They can get out of these kinds of marriages, due to the change in the laws and change in labor practices, and she often does. This all creates a perfect storm where 50% of marriages fail (Scheinkman, 2005). Conclusion From the time of the 1850s, when women were essentially contracted to be married, to today, women’s lives have changed considerably and marriage has changed right along with it. For many years, from the mid 19th Century to the turn of the 20th Century, divorce was difficult to get, and, for a long time, impossible for a woman to initiate. Even when the divorce laws made it possible for a woman to initiate, she still had to contend with repressive laws that stated that she must show grounds for divorce. This all changed around the 1950s, as no fault divorces went into effect. This happily coincided with a wave of feminism which saw women entering the work force in increasing numbers. This was a good thing for women, because she had increasingly realized that her work around the house was not of value to society. Marriage continued to be oppressive, however, even as women entered the work force, and having children has proved to be a detriment to the woman’s desire to climb the corporate ladder. These trends, in turn, have caused two othe trends – the delay in child-bearing, which has led to a corresponding overall decrease in Australian women’s fertility, and a high divorce rate. Women are increasingly unable to take the oppression, which, according Kipnis, seems to be inevitable in marriages that straight-jacket both partners as each attempts to appease the other by modifying their own behavior. And, because she is more likely to work, she is able to get out. These changes may be seen as either valuable, in that they embolden the individual and women no longer have to live in unhappiness; or detrimental, in that the breakdown of the family, and the effects on children, are bad for society. Either way, the changes have occurred, and there doesn’t seem to be any way to reverse them. Women just want to be happy. Now they can be, and that is really the bottom line. Sources Used Baxter, J. & Gray, E. 2003, For richer and poorer: Women, men and marriage. Available at: http://lifecourse.anu.edu.au/publications/Discussion_papers/NLCDP012.pdf Berns, S. 2002, Women going backwards: Law and change in a family unfriendly society, Griffith Law Review, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 149-154. Bertocchi, G., Brunetti, M. & Torricelli, C. 2009, Marriage and other risky assets: A portfolio approach, Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1336092 Breusch, T. & Gray, E. 2004, Does marriage improve the wages of men and women in Australia? Available at: http://www.apa.org.au/upload/2004-7D_Breusch.pdf Cannold, L. 2004, Declining marriage rates and gender inequity in social institutions: Towards an adequately complex explanation for childlessness, People and Places, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1-11. Edwards, J. 2009, Gay marriage: Social revolution, evolution or largely insignificant? From Badgett, M. 2009, When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage? New York: New York University Press. Evans, M. & Kelley, J. 2004, Trends in women’s labour force participation in Australia: 1984-2002. Available at: http://melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/reports/26_wp.pdf Folbre, N. 1991, The unproductive housewife: Her evolution in nineteenth-century economic thought, Signs, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 463-484. James, C. 2005, To have but not to hold: A history of attitudes to marriage and divorce in Australia 1858-1975, Newc Law Review, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 115-122. McDonald, P. 2000, Low fertility in Australia: Evidence, causes and policy responses, People and Place, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 6-21. Sandor, D. 2002, Legislating in Australia for love outside of marriage, Available at: http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/ebb87b048770c86/sandor.pdf Scheinkman, M. 2005, Beyond the trauma of betrayal: Reconsidering affairs in couples therapy, Family Process, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 227-244. Shumway, D. 2003 Modern Love: Romance, Intimacy and the Marriage Crisis. New York: New York University Press. Van Baal, J. 1970, The part of women in the marriage trade: Objects or behaving as objects? Available at: http://www.kitlv-journals.nl/index.php/btlv/article/view/1939/2700 Williams, C. 2006, Women, equality, and the Federal Marriage Amendment, vol. 20, pp. 487-499. Read More