Adelaide women debate way forward
Comment by Kathy Newnam
ADELAIDE — On International Women's Day, more than 800 women vibrantly demanded native title and justice. The platform of the rally included a range of women speaking on the way forward for women in the '90s. The speakers and discussion that followed brought out clear differences.
A particular point of discussion was the position put forward by Resistance member Michelle Sochoki, who spoke on feminism in the '90s.
Sochoki elaborated on why the women's liberation movement cannot rely on women in parliament or positions of power to bring about change. She pointed out the role that some women parliamentarians have played, from Liberal politicians Amanda Vanstone and Jocelyn Newman to the former ALP state minister for the Office of the Status of Women, Anne Levy.
This strategy was counterposed to that put forward by the ALP speaker, Stephanie Key, who used the opportunity to call for support for Labor Party candidates in the next federal elections.
Resistance came under fire for making a political attack against the Labor Party on International Women's Day. In particular, claims were raised that the political attack on Anne Levy destroyed the unity of the movement.
This criticism was firmly based on the political role of Levy as the state minister for the Office for the Status of Women at the time when the Adelaide Rape Crisis Centre was closed. This example was used to demonstrate that the women's liberation movement cannot simply rely on women in "positions of power".
Unity is crucial to building a strong, diverse movement. But this does not mean the silencing of differences on the way forward. Nor does it mean silencing criticism of political parties that do not further the development of this movement.
This discussion on strategy is an important part of building and developing any political campaign. In the context of increasing attacks on women's rights and the desperate need for a movement that will be capable of defeating these attacks, the need for such discussion cannot be understated.
The stifling of discussion only serves the interests of those who are threatened by the growth and development of a vibrant and independent movement.