There is an excellent TV series ‘Julia’ now streaming about Julia Child, the multi-award winning American chef. With a first-rate cast led by Sarah Lancashire as Julia and an intelligent script, the series focuses on Julia’s battle to put her cooking show on American television in 1963. From our perspective today this doesn’t appear to be a big deal. But it was. Remember, feminism didn’t really become a major movement until the late 1960s and 1970s. Before that, women were pressured not to enter the workforce if they had someone to support them, not to enter the universities and not to pursue careers. Ruth Bader Ginsburg could not get a job in a law firm.

Betty Friedan in her book ‘The Feminine Mystique’ published in 1963, captured the alienation of women of the era excluded from the workforce and confined to their homes. It lit the flame of feminism. There is a pivotal scene in this ‘Julia’ series when Julia meets Betty. It is at a gala event and Julia has just achieved recognition for the great success of  her cooking show ‘ The French Chef ‘ on public television.

Friedan berates Julia for reinforcing the traditional roles of women and forcing them to spend even more time in the kitchen cooking her complicated dishes. Julia is so struck by this argument that she decides to end her TV cooking series.

Does Friedan have a point? Well, we don’t know what the real Betty Friedan would have thought, but the Friedan character in the series does correctly identify that domesticity and cooking at the time seemed to represent the antitheses of feminism. 

But she overlooks the ground-breaking achievements of Julia who actually embodied feminism – the right of a woman to pursue her passion and ambitions, develop a profession and even reach the pinnacle of a career. 

Let’s place things in context. Television in America and elsewhere in the 60s was almost exclusively a male domain. The women who were permitted on screen were usually pretty, young, slim with perfectly sprayed hair. Julia was a 6 foot tall, large, ‘loud’ older woman, aged 51. She wanted to do a show about cooking when TV executives superciliously thought cooking was not a worthy subject for television.

Julia was very brave in charging into the local TV studio, convincing them and even paying for the entire production costs of the show – so determined was she to pursue her dream. Her talent and her personality made the show a commercial and popular success. 

In addition to being berated by Friedan, Julia also cops it in the series from a top male chef. He condescendingly tells her that as a woman she cannot aspire to be more than a cook, an amateur, and that only males can be professional chefs.

Julia didn’t have a feminist movement supporting her, but she did have a close network of female friends whom she called her   “ Confederacy of Women. An oestrogen safety net.” We all need one. 

 

One of the distinctive features of Budget 23 was that for the first time there was recognition that women aged 55+ on Jobseeker had little in savings and little chance of finding work. This was a meaningful step towards recognising that older women in the workforce face distinctive problems. However, Treasurer Jim Chalmers chose to award them only $6 p.d. extra in their Jobseeker payment. Not enough to lift them above the poverty line or out of homelessness.

These timid increases in Jobseeker are symptomatic of a failure to grasp the essential nature and magnitude of the problem. What we are seeing is the result of a lifetime of economic and social discrimination against women.

This systemic discrimination puts women onto Jobseeker. Then age discrimination keeps them there. 

Many of these women belong to the first generation in history of highly educated, older women with professions and skills. Nevertheless, as they age, tens of thousands of these women fall off the cliff into poverty and homelessness.

That’s why Jobseeker is a feminist issue and is part of a broader issue.

Holistic solution

Government needs to recognise that there is a social crisis that directly affects the present generation of older women and will most likely affect future generations of women. Government needs to formulate an holistic, targeted strategy and measures to address this crisis as rapidly escalating numbers of women continue to fall off the cliff. 

It requires a holistic solution. This is understood when it comes to improving the economic security of younger women, but not when it comes to older women. Minister for Finance and Minister for Women, Katy Gallagher is to be congratulated for measures in the Budget that will reduce the barriers to the workforce participation of younger women with children, their welfare payments and pay. 

But there were no significant measures to improve the economic security of older women by reducing the barriers to their employment. At a time when Labor is hailing the strongest jobs growth, the unemployment amongst older women is rising. 

Furthermore, it is now well known that older women are the fastest growing demographic of homeless people. But the much touted increase in rent assistance in the Budget of $31 a fortnight is ineffectual. Anglicare Australia’s 2023 survey pointed out that there are only 5 places in all Australia that someone on Jobseeker can afford to rent. Older women are  still forced to sleep in cars and tents. 

The Government’s Housing Plan is also totally inadequate as it only allocates 4,000 social housing places to be shared between domestic violence victims and older women.

Despite the Budget being in surplus, the Treasurer chose to ignore the recommendations of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee to raise Jobseeker from below poverty levels. One way to fund this increase in Jobseeker could have been to drop the Stage 3 tax cuts. This would have enabled raising Jobseeker to the level of the minimum wage ($1,625 per fortnight).  It would have cost $70b less than the Stage 3 tax cuts over the first 9 years, according to the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work.

The Government must acknowledge the nature and magnitude of this social and economic crisis and deal with it not only incrementally, but also develop a holistic strategy to address it.

The ABS recently released its latest homelessness estimates based on the census of 10 August 2021.

I believe that it is necessary to question the current accuracy of these figures regarding the numbers of older women who are homeless.

First, the ABS says that “The rate of homelessness for people aged over 55 decreased from 29 people per 10,000 in 2016 to 26 people per 10,000 in 2021.”

The census was taken prior to the 11 interest rate rises and the spiralling cost of living over the last year. We know that there has been a massive increase, not a decrease, in the numbers of older women who cannot afford to pay rent or their mortgages. 

The rapid rise over the last year in the cost of rentals has also meant that older women who constitute the majority of those on Jobseeker, are unable to afford to rent any places in the capital cities. It is a 10 year wait for public housing in some cities and in others, women cannot apply before the age of 80.

Second, the ABS acknowledges that its statistics on homelessness are a Homelessness Estimation. The ABS is to be commended on the fact that unlike the previous census, this one included a Homelessness Enumeration Strategy. 

It sought to collect more data about homeless people living in three broad situations on Census night: 

• Not in a dwelling, ( tents, sleeping rough)
• In a private dwelling but temporarily or in overcrowded conditions
• Non-private – boarding house, temporary lodging

But, I noticed that although the ABS specifies tents and sleeping rough in the ‘Not in a Dwelling’ situation, there is nothing listed to indicate that census forms were to be delivered to women sleeping in their cars. Older women forced into homelessness often choose to live in their cars rather than risk sleeping rough or in disreputable, unsafe boarding houses. It is highly unlikely that census officials could locate these women even if they were asked to do so. Nor is it likely that census forms reached the thousands of older women couch surfing. In addition, the ABS does not even have the workforce or the capability to locate women sleeping rough.

Third, the census was taken during lockdown so that the capacity of officers to deliver the forms was severely limited.

It is widely understood that older women are invisible in our society.

The fact that too many are invisible in census statistics must be urgently remedied in order to fully understand the magnitude of this social crisis engulfing them.

 

 

 

WomanGoingPlaces wholeheartedly endorses a ‘Yes’ vote in favour of the enshrinement of a Voice for First Peoples in the Australian Constitution.

We cannot forget, erase or provide meaningful restitution for the injustices committed against the Indigenous peoples of Australia over the last 235 years. But by voting ‘Yes’, we will finally be empowering Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians to change the present and improve the future for First Peoples.

As Noel Pearson, one of the key creators of the Uluru Statement from the Heart stated, the point of the referendum is first and foremost to provide Constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the First Peoples of Australia. This has never happened before. Without recognition, there can be no real reconciliation.
And “ without recognition, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and identities are under an existential threat,” he writes.

The fundamental first step in this process of recognition requires a constitutional amendment to establish a Voice for Indigenous Australians to have a say in their own affairs. In the referendum, Australians are simply being asked if we agree to this or not.

The politicians who are undermining the ‘Yes’ vote today are the same politicians who bear a great measure of responsibility for the total failure to close the gap over  previous decades.

As Mr Pearson writes, “ Until we have a constitutional voice, the cycle of misery caused by top-down and tone-deaf policymaking will not end. This is about creating a partnership, and embedding that principle in the Constitution, which will be permanent and authoritative.”

Growing up in Australia, I can say that it was not only the leadership that showed a total lack of perception of Indigenous Australians. We did not hear the Indigenous voice. Not in the media, not in public forums and certainly not in the education system. There were no references to Indigenous people, their culture, communities or history in any of my textbooks. Not at school or at university. I received a thorough education in the history of Great Britain and can still recite the names of the kings and queens of England. But not a word was taught about 60,000 years of Aboriginal history.

It is time for Australia to enshrine the Voice of First Peoples in the Constitution.

A ‘Yes’ vote is right, it is just and it is irrefutable.

 

 

Between 20,000 to 25,000 Australians died from Covid in 2022, according to Professor Brendan Crabb AC Director & CEO of the Burnet Institute. “  These people would have lived if not for COVID. The scale of the tragedy is enormous. And the silence deafening. ”

An additional 1586 people died just in the first 27 days of 2023. One Australian is now dying every 30 minutes from Covid.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese quite correctly expressed his condolences when one Australian was killed in an airplane crash in Nepal recently. But he and the State Premiers have been silent about the alarming death toll from Covid in Australia. No emergency National Cabinet meeting has been held. No public health statements or measures have been announced. No reports or accurate official information about deaths and illness have been made public. Both the and State Governments have adopted a ‘ See No Covid, Hear No Covid and Speak No Covid’ policy.

 

There are warnings in the media now that cases in China could hit 900 million, and that Australia should brace itself. The highly contagious XXB.1.5 variant is already the dominant type of Covid in Victoria.  Australian scientists, doctors and researchers are publishing reports and issuing dire warnings in the media and on social media.

But Australia’s PM Albanese and State Premiers still remain silent.

Health Minister Mark Butler merely mumbled something vague to Laura Tingle on ABC 7.30 about ATAGI possibly approving a 5th bivalent booster early this year.

 

Bivalent 5th Booster

The availability of the bivalent booster is an extremely important matter. The XBB.1.5 virus is considered more immune-evasive than previous versions of the virus. However, the bivalent booster in people aged 65+ has been shown to be very effective in reducing deaths by 86% deaths and hospitalisations by 81%. (See image above).

 

An Australian study published in the Medical Journal of Australia as recently as 28 November 2022 found that “ Hospitalisations of people with myocarditis and pericarditis, pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke were significantly more frequent after COVID‐19,” and they concluded that “ Our findings reinforce the value of COVID‐19 mitigation measures such as vaccination,”

And indeed in Australia, deaths from ischemic heart disease have now lurched 17 per cent higher than would be expected in a normal year.

Nevertheless, the Albanese Government is withholding release of the 5th bivalent booster for vulnerable and people aged 65+.  Most people in this age group had their 4th booster around April last year, so they now have little if any immunity. People in aged care are particularly vulnerable and they represent the majority of those dying.

Effectively, the Australian Government is leaving Australians defenceless.

 

Covid & Long Covid Damaging Economy

The Government’s ‘ See No virus, hear no Virus and Speak no Virus” approach is to create the impression that Covid is over so that the Australian economy can boom unimpeded.

Except that it won’t. This month, the U.S. Federal Reserve Chair, Jerome Powell, when discussing the US economy, bemoaned the fact that “close to half a million who would have been working ..died from Covid ”.

And let’s not forget the impact on people and the economy of Long Covid. One in ten people will end up with Covid, according to what has been described as a ‘jaw dropping study’ of the effects of Long Covid. Professor Eric Topol reported that even with mild cases of Covid,  “One year after the initial infection, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections increased the risk of cardiac arrest, death, diabetes, heart failure, pulmonary embolism and stroke,”.

Although the Albanese Government has had some significant successes in a range of policy areas since it came to office, it is now showing total dereliction of its duty to protect Australians in this national health crisis.