Edited 18 January 2023
I don’t want to get too optimistic about this, but I think I may be starting to make some progress on this. Last year I had a meeting with Senator Janet Rice, and we agreed on the following points:
- Vic Greens processes are intended to promote non-violent conflict resolution
- They have not always worked effectively
- because of lack of skills and capacity and
- because some people have used them in a way they weren't intended, to target individuals
- People, including people such as myself, Alex Bhathal and Liz Ingham, have been hurt through lack of processes, failure of processes or misuse of processes
- It would be good to find a way of reconciliation for these historical failures
- The Greens have recently set up a lot of new systems and processes in the party that hopefully will work better
- An Inclusion committee has recently been set up, it is mainly focused on trans inclusion following recent disputes
- It is possible that it could look at some of these historical failures and look for ways of reconciliation
- In the past there were differences between 'social justice’ and 'climate/ environment' people in Greens
- Janet now believes that it is widely recognised in the party that these are interlinked, that fairness and environmental sustainability are both part of an integrated agenda
- She feels that a person like [name removed]* the former Convenor I was in dispute with, who had a commitment to environment but an authoritarian, top-down approach to authority, would not be seen as a suitable convenor for Vic Greens today
- Janet will follow up re inclusion committee and processes for reconciliation of historical hurt and damage [note - Janet later decided it would be better raised at State Council rather than that committee]
I think there is also some progress within my family circle towards resolving our differences over these issues but I won’t go into that further for privacy reasons at present.
Won’t say anything further at present but gosh this has been a long and painful process.
[*edited after posting because not necessary to name the person here]
……………………….
Edited 5 May 2022. The introduction below was written in November 2021. Since then I have been able to talk to one Greens MP (without making any progress) and another person has agreed to talk to me after the federal election (21May). I am hopeful that with this person there is more hope of progress, so have not entirely given up hope, in spite of the statements below.
……………………..
(Introduction originally written 8 November 2021)
This is a copy of a submission to the Victorian Greens that I first made in May 2021. I have unfortunately given up hope that I will get a respectful response.
It is very sad that in spite of all the protests about poor treatment of women in politics, the Victorian Greens are still unable to talk about problems in their own party. I really don't understand why they are like this.
I, and other women, have been deeply hurt by the way we have been treated by the Victorian Greens. The party's own values, or even simple humanity and kindness, might suggest they could acknowledge this and try to do something about it. Sadly, that does not seem to be the case.
Submission
to the Victorian Greens regarding treatment of women in the party
(First
submitted 17 May 2021, resubmitted 9 September 2021, resubmitted with
correction 20 September 2021)
From: Valerie
Kay
To: The
Victorian Greens State Council
CC Samantha Ratnam
Adam Bandt
Tim Read (as of 20 September 2021)
Dear Victorian
Greens
Following
previous discussions with office-bearers in the Victorian Greens in recent
years, I am making a formal submission regarding the treatment of women in the
party. I make this submission as a citizen and community member, as an academic
working on climate change and public health, and as a former member and office
bearer in the Victorian Greens.
The context
of this submission is that we face an environmental and climate crisis and are
seeing worsening inequality, but in Australia we have a federal government that
is unfit to deal with this situation. The current Morrison government still reflects
the values of the white supremacist, hierarchical, patriarchal and exploitative
social order that stole this land from First Peoples over 230 years ago.
While
individual members of federal parliament, such as Lidia Thorpe, represent an
alternative to this, there is no clear alternative at party level. All major
parties, including the Greens, currently conform to the norm of a hierarchical
organization led by a white man.
In
Victoria, although the state party is currently led by a woman, the Greens have
shown a lack of fairness and accountability in the way they have treated women.
Numerous women (of whom I am one) have been effectively forced out of the
Greens, and the party has failed to acknowledge this problem or respond to it.
The most
well-known case is that of Alex Bhathal, former candidate for the federal seat
of Batman (now Cooper).[i]
[ii]
[iii]
The way this situation was handled by the party led to the resignation of many
members and was the likely cause of a significant decline in support for the
Greens in the following state and federal elections. Several women who have
held significant positions left the party, citing concerns over party internal
procedures.[iv]
[v]
[vi]
[vii]
I am aware
that men have also been affected by the problem of poor internal processes
within the Greens, and that men have also resigned from the party over this.
However, it appears those most prominently affected have been women. Women who
have spoken out publicly about poor processes in the Victorian Greens include
two former Members of the Legislative Council in Victoria (Samantha Dunn and
Nina Springle), a former political adviser for the Victorian Greens (Liz
Ingham), and a former office bearer and local Councillor (Lynette Keleher). To
have these women, representing such a weight of experience in the party,
speaking out publicly, should be of great concern. Undoubtedly there are many
more, both men and women, who are concerned about the issues. Yet there is no
apparent evidence that the party takes these concerns seriously.
The
Victorian Greens ought to be a major area of strength for the party in
Australia, but lost support in recent elections, while Greens parties around
the world have been improving their position. There is no sign of the Greens party
leadership taking responsibility for this.
Please note
my criticisms are not directed towards Adam Bandt personally. I believe he is a
good politician and holds good values. But goodwill alone is not enough. The federal
and Victorian Greens must own the way women have been treated and deal with it openly.
Women who have left the Victorian Greens may not come back. But the party must
acknowledge their feelings and the hurt and harm that has been done and do
whatever it can to make up for this.
The Greens
have now preselected Celeste Liddle for the seat of Cooper (formerly Batman).
This is a significant achievement, to have another Indigenous woman with an
impressive track record standing for the House of Representatives, in addition
to Lidia Thorpe in the Senate. However, it does not in itself make up for the
way Alex Bhathal was treated. It would be unethical for the Greens to act as if
women are disposable, as if the party can forget the damage done to one woman when
another woman (no matter how good) is pre-selected. Having another great
candidate makes it even more important to acknowledge the previous candidate
who was so deeply hurt by the actions of a few members and the party
leadership. It would be a great time to heal wounds in the party and begin to
repair the damage done.
In this
submission, although it concerns the way women have been treated, I am not attempting
to speak on behalf of other women. I am speaking for myself. However, my
research has explored how the treatment of women, and the global crises we are
facing, are related, through the history of patriarchal social organisation. I
believe this understanding may be helpful in clarifying what has happened in
the Victorian Greens and how it may be resolved.
Crises of
environment, climate and inequality are interlinked and result from the kind of
patriarchal, imperialist, white supremacist and exploitative social order that was
established in Australia following the British invasion. I have recently
published, with my co-author Charles Livingstone, an article on political
discourse in Australia.[viii]
This includes analysis of the dominant ‘economistic’ discourse and how it is
used to maintain power in Australia. The economistic discourse expresses the
traditional values of white supremacist patriarchy, as exemplified by Scott
Morrison.
In contrast, we identified an alternative discourse at local
community level, of ‘socio-ecological’ or ‘ecosocial’ care. This discourse is
similar to values the Greens have expressed since their beginning, of the need
to care for both people and ecosystems. I would be interested in talking to the
party about this discourse and how the party might offer it as a more convincing
alternative to the current destructive economistic discourse. However, I would
not do so in circumstances where I and other women have been deliberately
excluded from the party.
I submit that
if the Greens wish to represent an alternative to the exploitative patriarchal
order in Australia – to provide real, grassroots leadership, for an effective
national response to the crises of our times – they need to make significant
changes. At national level, this would probably involve having a female leader,
or at least joint male and female leadership, not as leaders of a hierarchical
organization but as coordinators and facilitators of a truly democratic party.
At the Victorian Greens level, it needs to involve a genuine and heartfelt
apology to the women who have left the party, an acknowledgement of the
patriarchal and misogynist influences within the party that contributed to this
happening, and processes to ensure it does not happen again.
Detailed
submission
A more
detailed discussion and analysis of my own experiences and the reported
experiences of other women who have left or been forced out of the Victorian
party is below, showing how they reflect problems of patriarchy, hierarchy,
misogyny and an overall lack of transparency and accountability in the party.
I left the
party in 2004, due to concern about party processes. This followed my
unsuccessful attempts, as then convenor of the Victorian Greens Women’s
Network, to ensure female administrative staff were fairly treated during a
restructure in the Greens office. Some years later, when I applied to rejoin, I
found that internal processes in the local Branch were being used against me by
anonymous members to ensure I could not be readmitted. Their complaints about
me were never revealed to me and there was no opportunity for peaceful
resolution, even though this is meant to be a key principle of the Greens. At
the time, I spoke to the local media about this as I was concerned by the poor
process and lack of accountability.
A few years
later I re-applied for membership of the Greens and was refused again. This
time, however, I was able to hold discussions with office bearers in the
branch. I found that although they showed understanding of my position and suggested
I could engage with the party as a supporter or ‘friend’, particularly in
policy development, the fact that I had previously spoken to the media was seen
as a mark against me.
Similarly,
when Alex Bhathal was unable to have her concerns satisfactorily resolved
within the party, she spoke to the media. In both cases this was held against
us. In summary, we were not able to have problems effectively addressed within
the party, but when we raised concerns publicly, this was held against us. This
is of great concern as it suggests a lack of democratic accountability and a practice
in the party of punishing whistleblowers.
Lack of acknowledgement
or action by the party
Although
there have been several reviews, of the Batman campaign and of following
elections,[ix][x]
there appears to have been no acknowledgement of the number of women who have left
the party and spoken publicly about their concerns.[xi][xii]
In relation to Alex Bhathal, in particular,
it appears the party was more focused on censuring her than it was on
identifying or censuring those who anonymously attacked her, undermined her
campaign, leaked confidential documents to hostile media, and seriously damaged
the campaign and the party. The author Paddy Manning, in his book Inside the
Greens, writes:
Bhathal was surely but slowly forced out of the
party for talking to the media, unlike those who sabotaged the Batman campaign.[xiii]
This
occurred even though it is known within the party who organized the ‘dossier’
of complaints against Alex Bhathal, and there are grounds for suspicion about
who may have leaked the material to hostile media.[xiv]
[xv]
This is an extraordinary position for any political party to be in, let alone
one that purports to stand for fairness, social justice, accountability and
democracy.
Conflict
with male authority and hierarchy
A common
theme, in Alex Bhathal’s, Liz Ingham’s and my case, is that we had come into
conflict with men in the party. In my case, the then convenor Adrian Whitehead
felt I was wrongfully opposing his authority.
In Liz Ingham’s
case, she made claims of misogyny and bullying against a sitting member, Greg
Barber. Even though she was awarded a payout, Greg Barber has repeatedly denied
her claims. Liz Ingham reported that officials of the Victorian Greens had
tried to dissuade her from making a complaint and suggested there would be
retribution against her for doing so.[xvi]
It seems extraordinary that at a time when even Hollywood was finally learning
to “believe women”,[xvii]
the Victorian Greens were still trying to silence women and say that they would
not be believed.
In Alex
Bhathal’s case, Trent McCarthy appears to have borne animosity towards her
because she supported Lidia Thorpe for the preselection for the state seat of
Northcote.[xviii]
An
associated factor is that we came into conflict with hierarchical authority in
the party. In my case, I was in conflict with the party convenor, and part of
my concern was that he was trying to make the party administrative structures
more hierarchical. In Liz Ingham’s case, she was in conflict with a man who was
an elected Greens MP and her ‘boss’. In Alex Bhathal’s case, she was known to
have a record of opposing hierarchical concentration of authority in the party
and had come into conflict with party officials over this previously.
Hierarchical
‘pyramid’ forms of organisation, where power and income increase ‘up’ the
pyramid, are not neutral forms of social arrangements, but historically derive
from patriarchal forms of authority, of which the ‘kingdom’ can be seen as the
archetype. They have a ‘leader’ or ‘boss’, with subordinates ranked in decreasing
order of power, and the majority of people (employees, members, the general
population) at or near the bottom of the pyramid. This is still the most common
form of work organization in Australia and one which many people regard as ‘normal’.
People may struggle
with more democratic and flatter forms of organization because they have been
brought up in a society where these are not the norm. Women who oppose
hierarchical authority (whether exercised by a man or woman) are at particular
risk of being seen as ‘difficult’ or ‘troublemakers’, because they are opposing
a patriarchal norm.
Victim
blaming
Following the
problems in recent years, the Victorian Greens, particularly through the leader
Samantha Ratnam, have promised party reform. However there appears to be no
evidence of this, and there never appears to have been an apology to any of the
women concerned from the party.
In Alex
Bhathal’s case, and mine, there appears to have been victim blaming. The party
appears to have officially endorsed this in my case by suggesting that my
relationships with unspecified people had been ‘consistently fraught’. In Alex
Bhathal’s case it appears to have condoned ongoing suggestions that she was
‘the problem’, by allowing repeated censure motions against her. I am also
aware of individual Greens members who use victim-blaming rationales to explain
why the party has not effectively dealt with the attacks on her.
Why
women are blamed: understanding misogyny
Researchers
who have studied violence against women have highlighted the common phenomenon
of blaming women in cases of conflict between men and women.[xix]
As the philosopher Kate Manne explains, this form of misogyny does not involve
hatred or contempt towards all women, but rather arises from a social
expectation that women should be supportive to others.[xx]
Therefore, if there is conflict between a man and a woman, it is seen as the
woman’s fault: in the worst case, she is seen to have provoked the man’s anger,
in the more apparently neutral, she is seen to have handled the situation
badly.
Kate Manne
explains that this social expectation is shared by both men and women. The feminist writer bell hooks similarly
notes that women, as well as men, can be patriarchal in their values and may blame
women when men are angry.[xxi]
It is
apparent that while there was conflict between a man and a woman in the
situations of Alex Bhathal, Liz Ingham and myself, some of the censure we faced
was from women as well as men. However, even taking the least apparently ‘victim-blaming’
rationale, for example that we could have handled the situation better, there
is no evidence that the men involved wanted peaceful resolution. For example, I
know that Adrian Whitehead, and some of his supporters, wanted me expelled from
the party for opposing him publicly.
In Liz Ingham’s
and Alex Bhathal’s cases, it similarly does not appear that the men involved
wanted a peaceful resolution. In Liz Ingham’s case it seems Greg Barber and his
supporters wanted denial and silence. In Alex Bhathal’s case, the people
associated with Trent McCarthy in the complaint against her wanted her
expelled, and when they could not get that, at least some of them wanted her
publicly shamed. If the response of a man who experiences opposition from a
woman, and of his supporters, is to call for silencing, expulsion or shaming of
the woman concerned, that is clearly not about peaceful conflict resolution.
Moreover, it
sends a message to other women. The labelling of women in these cases as
difficult, or disloyal if they talk about these issues outside the party, sends
a message to other women that if they upset anyone, they can be subject to victim
blaming, and the party will do nothing to support them. Thus, women are
effectively told that they can be accepted in the political sphere as long as
they don’t upset men or challenge patriarchal norms. How can real change in politics
happen if women are given such messages? It is similar to Scott Morrison’s
statement that women should “rise” but not at the expense of “others”.[xxii]
Undoubtedly
there were attempts by Labor to use the problems in the Victorian Greens for political
purposes, which led Samantha Ratnam to accuse Labor of dirty “smear” politics,
but this also looked like an attempt to cover up real problems.[xxiii] [xxiv] Overall, the way that the party responded to Alex
Bhathal’s case, in particular, appears to have contributed to women leaving the
party, and to voters, particularly women, deciding not to support the Greens.
Why
‘careerism’ is not the whole explanation
How have
these problems arisen in a party which has a good track record in getting women
elected to Parliament? Lee Rhiannon, in a Q and A session (14 May 2020)
following the online screening of the film ‘The Candidate’,[xxv]
suggested it is due to increasing ‘careerism’ within the Greens. Statements by
other Greens members in the media suggest this is a popular explanation.[xxvi]
In this
view, as I understand it, the Greens are believed to have been committed to
inclusion and grass-roots democracy, but the increasing political success of
the party in the early 2000s led to people being attracted to the Greens who
were not committed to these values but were seeking political careers. Such
‘careerists’ were prepared to use methods such as creating factions for
personal advancement, and leaking ‘dirt’ on others, to advance their own careers
and get rid of potential rivals.
While I
respect the experience and knowledge of those advancing this position, and
believe that it partly explains the problems, I suggest that there is more to
it than this. I suggest it is related to traditional, often unconscious,
understandings of politics in a society which has historically been, since the
British invasion of Australia, predominantly a white supremacist, hierarchical
patriarchy.
White men,
particularly ruling class or educated men, were seen in this society as the people
who had a right to own and control land and property, and profit from the low
paid or unpaid work of others. This was supported not only by established
patriarchal tradition in Britain and Europe, but also by the more recent
enlightenment ideas of science and rationality,[xxvii]
[xxviii]
which saw white men as fitted to dispossess Indigenous peoples because they
could ‘improve’ the land through rational land management practices, even
though their impact in reality was environmentally destructive.
Adult white
men were seen in this society as natural ‘heads of households’ and natural
leaders in organisations and politics. Much of the law underlying this
patriarchal system has been dismantled from the late 19th century onwards,
but cultural practice lingers much longer, particularly in the hierarchical
organization of most institutions, where those ‘higher up’ have more power and
wealth, and the highest positions are disproportionately likely to be occupied
by white men.
Another
aspect of this patriarchal society was that the public world was seen as the sphere
of competition and conflict, where ‘rationality’ was supposed to govern
conduct, but where ‘toughness’, aggression, anger and violence could also be
positively valued (for example in war, but also in political competition).
Qualities such as kindness and care for others were seen as belonging to the
‘private’ sphere of homes, the domain of women. Caring for others, and keeping
loving homes for families, was seen as women’s responsibility.
Again,
while these are no longer formally endorsed positions, there are still many
people who see politics as a ‘tough’ area, where people are not expected to care
actively for the wellbeing of others. Gendered understandings of politics can
continue at an unconscious level, even when people think they are being
objective or gender neutral.
What is
fairness in politics?
People may
think that ‘fairness’ in politics consists of achieving equal numerical
representation, rather than changing the structures and processes. The
limitation of such thinking is apparent in terms of First People’s
representation. Indigenous peoples were almost destroyed by White Australia,
before their numbers began to increase slowly in the early 20th century.
To think that fairness can be achieved by electing a tiny number of Indigenous
representatives in a culturally White parliament is clearly unreasonable, even
if numerically representative. Much more profound change is needed, as set out
in the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
Achieving a
fair deal for women likewise is not only about numerical representation of
women in an institution designed by and for men. If parliaments are to be truly
equal for women, they need to change. At
the most basic level, this has been illustrated by women bringing their
breastfed babies into the Chamber, as Senator Larissa Waters has done. More
broadly, the concept of Parliament, and public life in general, as an area of
competition between men, from which they can seek refuge in the domestic sphere,
can no longer apply.
Women still
do most of the paid and unpaid caring work in society, as Covid19 has
highlighted, but a progressive political party should be working to introduce
an ethic of care in public life, including parliaments and political parties.
The movement of women, Indigenous people and people of colour into politics
should not simply leave the institutions unchanged, because what would be the
point?
Recent
events in Australia have highlighted how much politics in this country is still
a ‘boy’s club’ and how damaging this is for women. Thousands of women have
shown that they have had enough, through the Women’s March for Justice in March
2021. If the Greens are to participate
in and support this movement, it is imperative to be a party that is inclusive
of all women, not a party that excludes women who are seen as ‘difficult’.
Rightwing
patriarchal backlash and division in global politics
Globally,
we have seen in recent decades a rise of right-wing parties led by conservative
patriarchal figures, such as Trump (until his recent defeat), Johnson,
Bolsonaro, Putin, Duterte, Modi, Hofer, Mareshki, Orbán,
Wilders, Erdogan, and Morrison in Australia. [xxix]
[xxx]
The recent coup in Myanmar provides a frightening example of patriarchal power.
At the same
time, in some countries, there has been a rise in Green parties.[xxxi]
There has also been some increase in female representation in parliaments, and
an increase in female leaders, including relatively young women, for example in
some Scandinavian countries and New Zealand, even though globally women are
still a small minority of government leaders.[xxxii]
In this
sense there appears to be an increasing division occurring in politics. Female
leaders and former leaders have warned that, although there has been some
increase in female representation and leadership, we are at a dangerous time
due to the rise of “strongman” politics, where the gains of women are at risk
of being lost.[xxxiii]
If women are to resist and replace these
patriarchal, militaristic societies that are destructive to human life,
ecosystems and other species, we cannot allow ourselves to be divided into
‘good’ compliant women and ‘bad’ troublemaking women.[xxxiv]
[xxxv]
In
Australia, women’s representation in federal Parliament has increased slowly in
recent years, currently being about 35%. However, women’s representation in
leadership roles has recently gone backwards, with no women currently in leadership
roles in the ALP, the Liberals or the Nationals. The Greens have Larissa Waters
in a co-deputy leader role, but both the present and former leader are men.
This contrasts with the earlier period when the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard,
and the Greens leader, Christine Milne, were both women, and even the Liberals
had a female deputy leader, Julie Bishop.
The sexist
treatment Julia Gillard received is well-known, but Christine Milne also was
subjected to gendered criticism and sexism during her career. It appears that since
then, rather than presenting a clear alternative to right wing populism and
patriarchal ‘father figures’, the supposedly progressive parties, Labor and
Greens, have responded by becoming somewhat more conservative themselves, including
by choosing male leaders.
In Victoria
in the 2019 federal election all but one of the five candidates for potentially
winnable or high-profile seats were men. I am not suggesting that this is a result
of ‘conspiracy’. As the historian Judith Bennett puts it, patriarchy is not a
conspiracy led by “a committee of white-haired men”[xxxvi]
but rather flexible processes by which, for example, it may simply seem that men
are the best candidates, or that women are not ‘choosing’ to stand. Women may in
reality be deterred by seeing other women subjected to relentless personal
attacks, as Alex Bhathal was. There is evidence that some young women were
deterred from entering politics by the way Julia Gillard was treated.[xxxvii]
If women
are leaving the Greens or are reluctant to stand for candidate selection or
leadership positions, it may appear simply as ‘natural’ that candidates for
winnable seats are predominantly men. Women who raise concerns may then be
stereotyped as difficult or anti-men.
Lack of
transparency and accountability allows Greens processes to be weaponized
against women
Greens
processes have been used to exclude women from the party. In a general sense this
may be summarized, as Samantha Dunn and Lee Rhiannon have put it, as processes that
are meant to resolve dispute being ‘weaponised’.
For example
in my case, some members of Moreland Branch argued against me being readmitted
as a member, on grounds that were not revealed to me, and against which I was
given no opportunity to defend myself, or to talk about positive things I had
done for the party. I do not know what they said, but it is the case that
anonymous members of the Moreland branch provided information about me to the
local Leader newspaper that was false. The Leader subsequently gave me an
opportunity to rebut this, but it raises the possibility that these members may
also have made false statements about me to the local Branch, under the cloak
of secrecy.
These
members were using processes of the Greens that are meant to support consensus
and prevent crude injustices of ‘majority rule’. They are not meant to be
‘weaponised’ by allowing small groups to make statements about an individual, where
there is no check on the truth of what they are saying and no opportunity for
the person being attacked to defend herself. This is reminiscent of
totalitarian states rather than democracy.
In Alex
Bhathal’s case, her opponents in the Darebin Branch weaponised complaints
processes that were intended for the peaceful resolution of disputes between
individuals. Rather than attempting to resolve their disputes with Alex, her
opponents organized a group complaint, including complaints which were trivial
and insubstantial, with the apparent intent of making it seem as if there was a
major problem. Party officials then seem to have compounded the situation by
dismissing the complaints without any attempt to resolve the dispute on a
personal level. Some members of the Branch then weaponised the process even
further when they leaked the complaint to hostile media who used it to attack Alex
and the party. The unsubstantiated accusations of bullying against Alex were
likely particularly damaging because as a female candidate she was expected to
be ‘caring’, as Kate Manne’s analysis explains.
Members and
officials of the Victorian Greens have portrayed these problems as
non-gendered, as simply being the kind of ‘dirty political tactics’ found in
all parties, or as related to one ‘dysfunctional’ branch (Darebin).[xxxviii]
This is a common form of denial, seen for example in references by journalists
to ‘sex scandals’ in federal Parliament when what is actually happening is
discrimination, harassment or sexual assault towards women.[xxxix]
It is an attempt to deny or obscure the gendered nature of these problems. It should
be impossible, however, to ignore or deny the women in the Victorian Greens who
have spoken out or left the party.
What can
the party do?
There appear to be limited guidelines or regulations in
Australia regarding how political parties should conduct themselves to ensure
fairness. In ‘older’ democracies, like Australia, such guidance was not
provided under original constitutions or parliamentary practice because parties
at the time were not well established and to some extent were regarded unfavourably.
Newer democracies appear to have given more thought to how parties should
regulate themselves to ensure procedural fairness and internal democracy both
internally and at parliamentary level, and may provide useful models for the
Greens.[xl]
In the case of the Greens, the fact that women are being
selected and elected nationally may have obscured the fact that simultaneously
other women, at least in the Victorian Greens, were being excluded. Yet, as
Kate Manne suggests, these may be two sides of the same coin, giving the
message that women can succeed but only if they conform to societal
expectations of not upsetting anybody, especially men.
I urge the Greens to acknowledge the harm that has been done
to myself and other women, and to the party, by these processes of exclusion. I
urge you to set up a process for apology and resolution. I do not suggest that
every woman affected would want to take part in this, but at least it would be
a start. This process could assist the Victorian Greens to identify what went
wrong, and how the party can become fairer and more accountable.
Finally, I will talk about the pain this has caused me
personally. I am deeply committed to the values the Greens purport to
represent. I worked hard for these values when I was in the party and have
continued to do so since. In my professional life I have been researching and teaching
about climate change and public health for years. Student evaluations of my
teaching have been consistently positive.
It has been very painful to know that in spite of this work, I am
stigmatised in the Victorian Greens as a trouble-maker, someone the party is
better off without, someone whom people can say anything about with no recourse
or regard for truth. I cannot think that this is what the party wants or stands
for.
Yours sincerely
Valerie Kay
In making
this argument, I am drawing on my own experience in politics, both in the
Greens and as a former Labor party member, researcher and adviser in the
Victorian Parliament 1997-99. More particularly, however, I draw on
considerable research on Australian politics and political discourse, both for
my PhD thesis in public health and earlier research for an MA in Australian
history.
[viii]
Kay VA & Livingstone CH. A socioecological discourse of care or an
economistic discourse: which fits better with transition? ANZJPH. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.13070.
See also: Kay VA & Livingstone CH. Promoting environmental sustainability,
equity and health in Victorian Primary Care Partnerships. Aust J Health Prom.
2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpja.281
[xiii]
Paddy Manning Inside the Greens 2019 p 422
[xix] Jess
Hill See what you made me do: Power, control and domestic abuse Black
Inc 2019
[xx]
Kate Manne Down Girl: The logic of misogyny Penguin 2017
[xxi]
bell hooks Understanding patriarchy No Borders (undated)
[xxvii]
Carolyn Merchant. (1989). The death of nature : women, ecology, and the
scientific revolution. New York: Harper & Row.
[xxviii]
Nancy Folbre, (2009). Greed, lust & gender: a history of economic ideas.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
[xxx]Ulf
Mellström
Editorial ‘A restoration of classic patriarchy?’ Norma: International
Journal for Masculinity Studies 2017 VOL. 12, NO. 1, 1–4
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18902138.2017.1299901
[xxxiv][xxxiv]
Jill Matthews Good and Mad Women: The Historical Construction of Femininity
in Twentieth-Century Australia ANU
1985
[xxxv]
Anne Summers Damned Whores and God’s Police First published 1975, latest
edition 2016.
[xxxvi]
Judith Bennett History Matters: Patriarchy and the Challenge of Feminism 2006
[xxxix]
This can be seen for example in Paul Barry ‘Sexual politics’ ABC Media Watch
16 November 2020 available at https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/4c/12888562
accessed 25 March 2021. Paul Barry asks whether a “Four Corners’ expose on
Ministers’ sex lives” was justified. The reporter Louise Milligan points out
that there was a power imbalance between the male Ministers and female staff
members involved, but Barry continues to portray the program as being about
“sex scandals”, rather than gender and power.
[xl]
Some notes by me from the literature on this issue may be found in a blog entry
at https://fairgreenplanet.blogspot.com/2019/02/submission-to-greens-blown-off-course.html.
Some relevant literature can be found in a special issue of Election Law
Journal, including:
Anika Gauja 'The Legal Regulation of Political Parties:
Promoting Integrity?' Election Law Journal 15(1) 2016
Anika Gauja 'The Legal Regulation of Political Parties:
Is There a Global Normative Standard?' Election Law Journal 15(1) 2016
William P Cross 'Considering the Appropriateness of
State Regulation of Intra-Party Democracy: A Comparative Politics Perspective' Election
Law Journal 15(1) 2016
