I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Australia’s Me Too movement isn’t moving forward. It lacks direction, inclusivity and government support.
You’d be forgiven for thinking the alternative, that change is afoot. We’ve had women coming forward en masse to disclose their allegations of sexual assault. Students have called out harassment and abuse in high schools. Universities have introduced consent courses. Laws gagging sexual assault victims have been overturned. We’ve had an inquiry into Parliament’s workplace announced. The Australian of the Year is a sexual assault survivor.
With tens of thousands rallying in front of parliaments across the country, there’s a new energy spreading like wildfire. It’s kindled by rage and chants of “enough is enough”.
But how much of this anger and energy is leading to long-lasting societal and policy change?
What has changed in the past few weeks since Brittany Higgins came forward? Or in the past few years since the Me Too movement started trending on social media? Or in the past nine years since Julia Gillard’s misogyny speech?
This latest wave of feminism has focused on the symptoms of a societal illness, but not the disease. It focuses on women — their experiences, their wellbeing — and on individual men, but rarely on how a society cultivates sick behaviour. Its focus has been on soliciting stories, raising awareness, offering support — but not creating change.
The movement has also been led by powerful white women, often putting their faces at the front. While Indigenous and culturally and linguistically diverse voices have been added, it’s often as an afterthought. As experts have told me, focusing on sexual violence instead of the societal drivers behind it (including power and poverty) goes against what these communities fight for.
Distinct from previous feminist movements, Me Too lacks both government support and specificity. The closest Australia’s movement has come to having specific demands is the latest petition presented at March4Justice — but even here there’s no direct policy change.
Petitions and anger can only get a movement so far. There needs to be work behind the scenes to address the drivers of inequality, sexual violence and our response to it. There needs to be a greater community feel that we, society as a whole, want change — not just the scalps of sleazy men.
This massive reckoning risks fizzling out, moved off course by a distraction or a tokenistic gesture. But on the ground for women, things will stay the same. Unequal division of labour. Women shouldering unpaid work. Women on visas trapped in violent situations. Sex trafficking. Paltry domestic violence funding. The murder and abuse of Indigenous women.
Over the next few days, I will explore how the movement has focused on awareness-raising, calling out harassment and soliciting stories — the first few steps in a long march to justice. But I’ll also look at how it has yet to demand targeted change, and how it focuses on the stories and experiences of a select few.
We need to work together as a community to demand equality, led by the women of colour who have been fighting this fight for decades. I’ll ask what needs to change, and how we can keep this movement in momentum.
Unless change happens soon, we may well be doing this all over again. We’ll rally and shout, again and again, as a new generation wonders why we put up with so much and did so little.
We better have a good excuse.
If you or someone you know is impacted by sexual assault or violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit 1800RESPECT.org.au.
Read the next part of #MeTooWhere? here.
Help us keep up the fight
Get Crikey for just $1 a week and support our journalists’ important work of uncovering the hypocrisies that infest our corridors of power.
If you haven’t joined us yet, subscribe today to get your first 12 weeks for $12 and get the journalism you need to navigate the spin.
Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey
Leave a comment
I am sad and disappointed and would love to be proved wrong. Scomo’s women’s circus is exactly that. Window dressing by the marketing department. I am afraid that real change, and we need it, will not come out of the present Government.
God yes Amber thank you for writing this article. Looking forwards to the rest of the series
Think Bigger, strategic change, women Independents standing against Liberals and Nationals. Back the Independents and Vote for Women. The wall of women warriors behind Albanese will take care of the rest if they win the next election
I hope you can come up with concrete suggestions because to be critical and leave us up in the air is very disheartening. I would feel more can be achieved with a Labor Government with so many strong women in PH It will still require continuous calling out of bad and/ or excluding behaviour . Morrison has framed it as a woman’s problem but should be setting up a task force of nature men ( if any can be found) to address men’s bad behaviour.
You only have to look at the latest polling which shows how women have reduced support for the PM significantly in the last two months whereas the level of support from men has not shifted. A Labor government would be preferable regarding this and most other societal problems but with powerful sections of the press blatantly biased towards the LNP, Labor may have difficulty getting a chance to rectify matters.
I can think of one concrete suggestion, but not how it can be implemented.
The court system whereby victims of sexual assault/rape are re-traumatised, as has been widely acknowledged – by women at least. If you are a victim of a mugging I doubt you would be asked on oath to say what you were wearing, whether you had been drinking or why you were where you were.
And if the victim’s sexual history is relevant so to should be the sexual history of the accused.
Laws of interrogation can be amended if there is a will to do so – yes it would take a lot of work, but those women and men who work in the legal profession (who are very highly paid) have, I think, an obligation to put serious effort into doing this. It would not mean the accused would not get a fair trial but that the two people facing the court would be treated fairly.
Hi Mary
I think you are heading this discussion around ‘being believed’ in the right direction. Rather than shouting slogans and running away from the resultant probing questions, you are delving into the practicalities and how we can make it work. And we need to make this work for everyone’s sake!
Ive written a VERY long set of comments under the Crikey article on the Consent App, trying to understand the conundrum of ‘believe vs convict’. No one will touch the issues I’ve raised.
Im hoping you and SueC might be able to respond to those.