Stephanie Otorepec
Anne Summers’ The End of Equality critically examines the reality of women’s lives in contemporary Australian society with regard to their two most common life experiences: having careers and having children. She asserts that there is a discrepancy between the commonly espoused ‘language of equality’ and the reality of women’s experiences as they try to juggle the demands of motherhood with their careers. Coming from an unapolegetically feminist perspective, she traces the roots of the women’s movements in this country and looks at where women are today in terms of their economic and social wellbeing. She looks at the idea of 'work, babies and women’s choices' from several different angles.
The book is divided into 11 chapters, which deal with vastly different topics (though at times the distinctions between certain subjects seem artificial). As a starting point, she tells us what she has found young women expect from their lives in these modern times. She then looks at why women are having fewer children, and what women’s actual experiences are when they enter the workforce and/or have babies. She argues that women are often forced to give up too much when they become mothers, and that the current government is trying to force women out of full-time work and back into the home (and she does not suggest that the opposition would take a more liberal approach). She also examines the attitudes to working women in Australian workplace cultures, as well as touching on another pressing issue for women: that of sexual and domestic violence. The book is a polemical work which aims to paint a picture of women’s (particularly economic) status in Australian society as poor and generally worsening through complacent attitudes and a regressive administration. I will look closely at some of her main arguments.
Summers looks at the representation of women in Australian politics in detail, and argues that female politicians today do not ‘make enough noise’. 'When was the last time the women of Canberra, on either side of politics, defied their leaders and stood up publicly to protect women?' (p202) This seems a naïve question, particularly when asked in reference to the lack of protest parliamentary women made about the banning of an abortion pill (p202). While Summers and many people in Australia may be pro-choice (and women), surely this doesn’t mean that all women are? It is no surprise to me to learn that many women in parliament are conservative, whether they sit on the ‘left’ or the ‘right’. Summers often refers to women as an homogenous group, which jars on the critical reader as a recurring logical error.
The women in the focus groups were adamant that this is what they expected from their female representatives…If the women in Canberra started to act more forcefully and, in particular, began to defend women’s interests they would soon find they had powerful allies – about 10 million of them, in the form of the women of Australia. (p223-4)
If all women clearly want the same things, why do they so often vote for different parties which have very different attitudes towards women’s issues? Clearly women are a no more homogenous group than men.
Summers has expectations of women in powerful and visible positions which seem to me unfair. For example, she criticises female politicians such as Tanya Plibersek for not being 'ambitious' enough (p215). Simply because you are a woman does not mean you are betraying your sex by not wanting to be as 'successful' as possible (whatever that means). It seems a strange notion that a feminist would judge women by comparing them to males on an utterly conventional scale of ‘success’. Jackie Kelly is also criticised for not 'setting a good example' by declining to continue as a minister after the birth of her second child (p167). Surely the aim of feminism is to empower women to make whatever choices they wish to regarding their work and family lives. If we expect women to conform to professional moulds (as opposed to domestic ones) isn’t that sexist, too? This idea also implies that all women should and do want to get straight back into the workforce after the births of their children and that the only barriers to doing so are societal and economic ones. One only needs to talk to a mother of young children to see that giving birth is an emotionally and physically draining experience. It is not simply a matter of ‘popping out’ a baby and then going back to work some weeks later. Summers over-simplifies the issue, and one wonders whether her expectations of women are unrealistic given that she herself has not had children. Indeed, one could ask Summers why she did not 'set the right example' herself by having children and continuing her successful career in journalism.
The examination of violence against women is in interesting contrast to the rest of the book’s subject matter. It seems, at times, slightly ‘tacked on’ to the book (which deals mainly with the problems women encounter balancing their work and family commitments). Summers tries to tie in the issue by saying that women’s increased economic independence has somehow aggravated problems of violence (indeed, the chapter on domestic violence is entitled ‘Payback’).
All forms of violence against women seem to have increased markedly…it is hard not to make a connection between this horrifying violence and women’s increased opportunities and the economic independence so many women today enjoy or strive for. (pp78-9)
I’m sure this is true in some cases. But it would certainly be drawing a long bow to suggest that this is the main cause of violence against women today. Women have been subject to violence at the hands of their loved ones since time immemorial! This seems an unjustified assertion.
Despite this, some of the issues raised in the discussion of sexual violence are compelling. I would agree that women rape victims are often classified as either 'good' or 'bad'. Poor attitudes towards sexual assault victims still pervade even among the judiciary. Summers’ evidence is chilling when she quotes a Supreme Court judge deliberating in a rape in marriage case:
There is, of course nothing wrong with a husband faced with his wife’s refusal to have intercourse… to persuade her to change her mind, and that may involve a measure of rougher than usual handling. (p111)
This said about a women who was raped and degraded by the use of a bottle! Attitudes towards rape victims are demonstrably still draconian at times.
This book was obviously not written in a vacuum. The feminist movement of the 60s and 70s may be in the past, but there are certainly women writing about the very issues Summers delves into. Two such contemporary writers include Bettina Arndt and Eva Cox. Arndt, a one-time feminist turned conservative, argues (in direct opposition with Summers) that women can't 'have it all'. In response to the news of a political candidate’s pregnancy, Arndt wrote:
The voters can decide whether she’s really in a position to take on the competing demands of two huge new jobs – is she being fair on herself, on the baby and her political constituents? (Arndt, 2004)
Cox, on the other hand, while very much a feminist, takes a more realistic view than both Summers and Arndt and gets to the crux of one of the issues when she writes:
Let’s really change the cultures, so the stereotypes of masculinity and femininity in the workplace do not correlate with high and low-status jobs. (Cox, 2004)
The most glaring difference between Cox's work and Summers' is that Cox appears to be interested in gender equality for the sake of equality, whereas Summers seems to concentrate primarily on women while dismissing other forms of inequality as less important.
While I am critical of some of her assertions, Summers’ work is certainly one that is enlightening and refreshing. While some of the inferences she draws from her research seem naïve and at times arrogant, she generally illustrates her points well by using substantial statistical evidence. As a work of opinion, the book works best; as an objective investigation that makes wholly convincing arguments (even to young feminists, like myself), the book leaves some things to be desired. Overall, though, a worthy read.
Bibliography
Arndt, Bettina 'Do political mums really know best?' The Age, September 10 2004,http://theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/09/1031115997546.html (17/08/04)
Cox, Eva 'It’s about status, not sex' Sydney Morning Herald, March 15 2004. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/14/1079199096399.html (18/08/04)
Summers, AnneThe End of Equality Random House, Milsons Point 2003