We stayed recently on a deligtful 20 acre property called 'Amryhouse'.
Below is the reproduction of a Miners Cottage we occupied and the surrounds.
Their homestead is further down. There is a lake, tennis court and croquet lawn surrounded by a privet hedge grown purely from the old convent cuttings.
All was constructed from bushland by the owners.
A few quotes to consider:
· Those who do not remember
the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana.
· History is a set of lies
agreed upon.
Napoleon
Bonaparte.
·We are not makers of history. We
are made by history.
Martin
Luther King.
As far as my conclusion is concerned
you may query is it really about truth as I suggest? Is the truth possible?
Truth telling.
I believe history in a nutshell boils
down to our ability in truth telling. That’s improving in modernity given
the ability to validate writers based on styles, archaeological references
and carbon dating. That allows historians to modify history as a
consequence of these improved historical analysis tools.
At the same time, paradoxically, we
seem to be less interested in the subject now that potentially such tools shed
more light on our past so much better than previous generations?
Hence, regardless of whether or not
an accurate linear progression of events and their probable causes is best or
just a mode of investigation or speculative or analytical approach is
undertaken, the historical philosopher’s quest, in my view, must be to
discern as far as possible the truth.
Mythical narratives
That doesn’t mean we dismiss myths
that inform us of how cultures attempt to make sense of existence but we do
need to know that they are myths in the first instance.
In this way lessons can be
gained for future reference and enrich one's sense of wonderment to
promote discussions. In a nutshell we need to determine the truth from
whatever best tools complement your narrative.
History conducive to existence
However history can be used to
support particular aspects such as was talked about by Nietzsche e.g.
For instance Nietzsche constructs
three forms of history that can be conducive to life: monumental history,
antiquarian history, and critical history. The first favours myths and
action and the belief in great men and events. The second can help to affirm
life through an affirmation of one's roots, traditions, and identity. The third
can be used to liberate those who feel oppressed by tradition. Nietzsche also
suggests remedies for the exaggerated concern with history in the nineteenth century
that is, emphasizing the unhistorical and the over-historical. With the latter,
which is closely akin to the metaphysical, Nietzsche meant that which he
believed transcends history, such as religion and art.
Although Truth for Nietzsche
might be considered a relative matter, dependent upon our interpretations- at
first glance we might be inclined to say he is a postmodernist which however he
isn’t. His idea of truth depends upon whichever interpretation prevails at a
given time which is a function of power. Page 45 - What Nietzsche
Really Said - Solomon / Higgins.
A historian in truth ideally aims to
discern the prevailing thinking that permeated society then and to talk about
the veracity of claims based on the best analytical tools available.
First early roots and emergence of
the concept of eternal recurrence
But prior to civilization and
stretching back as far back as the great migrations (triggered by severe
climatic conditions) the oral history tradition formed their cultures which was
integral to ensure meaning could be attributed to their existence. Anthropologists
now believe we came very close at one stage to extinction, as a
consequence of severe climatic change. Subsequently in the aftermath it's
very likely wisdom streams (in whatever early conscious states they
existed) filtered through into the cultures of the first nation’s people.
Those ideas, underpinned by survival, later on formed the deterministic ideas
of eternal recurrence we associate today in indigenous communities throughout
the world.
Discerning the truth from divergent
sources inclusive of the diaries and everyday accounts of ordinary people and
oral sources.
In this respect many Historians, up
until fairly recently did not properly understand First Nations people and
their rich culture in Australia. I vividly recall descriptions of
First Nations people from my early school books depicted as small groups of
nomadic hunter gatherers, solely reliant on stone implements and spears whose
only shelter from the elements were temporary ones, constructed from
branches and the bark of trees. Whilst that may have been true, by way of
necessity for the more arid areas, they occupied, it was certainly not so
for the more densely populated areas in around the coastal areas where game was
more plentiful and farming was undertaken. Evidence exists of what must have
been similar to maize harvested and stored in certain areas. We also
have evidence of stone buildings where they stayed during the season of
eel farming.
The significance of dreamtime stories
which gave meaning to successive generations and ensured an ongoing
affinity with the land was mostly overlooked, as was their complex
system of law, extensive kinship and spirituality.
Hence, from this multiplicity of
ideas the reality, I believe, is for the modern historians to aim
to discern the truth from whatever sources are reasonably available and
particularly from the diaries and everyday accounts of ordinary people and any
relevant oral sources. Early historians in Australia could have avoided such
inaccurate accounts if they consulted more widely with First Nations people.
The same was true for early anthropologists who had no idea of the structures
of skin types within clans and nations that underpinned their existence.
I suggest this view of history
applies equally to nations throughout the world but now is being
reversed as historians are so much better equipped to discern
the truth and provide more accurate conclusions now on ancient times than those
only a few hundred years after such events occurred to which they
sought to describe.
The reason being advances in
science and translation, writing styles and so forth.
The History wars
But of course such direct sources are
to be complemented by those luminaries who likewise seek the truth.
Hence, perhaps it is not surprising
we have the history wars, as those respective warriors see themselves as having
all the answers from prior sources whose sparse resources see history through
the lens of the colonists. History then in effect, needs to aim to be a true
representation to see ourselves then as we were, in the context of that era to
potentially underpin lessons learned for the future.
A failure to question immorality.
I once, in an effort to better
understand the reason why slavery persisted for so long (and continues even in
modern day derivatives) undertook an examination of its history.
I attempted to trace what was talked
about and evolved firstly paradoxically principally as civilisation flourished
in ancient Greece, from a factual perspective to why it continued on for so
long notwithstanding its detractors.
Why do such eminent thinkers and
nations founded on freedom and democratic principles either endorse slavery or
turn a blind eye to it. ?
How is it possible to reduce humans
to the status of goods that could be bought and sold in markets or acquired in
conflict?
I found the failure to question
slavery’s immorality (as in seeking the truth) was the dominant theme that
emerged from the multiplicity of other reasons. One finds errors in
translations, confused thinking and constraints on the authors imposed by
rulers at various times, making face value assessments very risky. So too was
the idea that those enslaved will have their suffering rewarded in the
next life- to justify acceptance of their current plight.
However Aristotle’s position was
somewhat nuanced as he talks about slaves, who by their nature are best ruled
by masters. What he said is ‘those human beings that are by nature suitable
to be ruled, but (are) unwilling (is) by nature just.
He tells us why ‘those who
are different (from other men) as the soul from body or man from beast and
their work is the use of the body, and this is the best that can come from
them, are slaves by nature.’
Ironically
Aristotle left instructions on his death for all of his slaves to be
freed. This practice was known as Manumission and for the few there was
always the prospect that, at any time, owners could grant freedom. The reason
for manumission was complex and varied. It could be purely benevolent as was
most likely in the case of Aristotle by way of gratitude as prescribed in his
will. It was also used to incentivize slaves to work harder, given the prospect
of release as a reward.
His ideas on slavery were virtually
unchallenged for thousands of years.
Aquinas
then endorsed this same idea that served to justify its existence and help
foster that ongoing ambivalent attitude to its immorality. This was also true
of most of the enlightenment philosophers who failed to confront the immorality
of slavery whilst endorsing freedom as a right to be drafted in a
constitution.
Simply put, my conclusion was that its continuity occurred because the
obfuscation created by a concoction of ideas which formed the basis of later
hideous arguments was a significant contribution augmented by greed and
ignorance.
But we need to rescue any idea that
truth is relative to the extent truth and truth telling is irrelevant - rather
its essential just as it is for historians.
In short, truth is far from empty, as
Davidson claimed; and the theory of truth is not “a set of truisms,” as J.L.
Austin said scornfully. Truth is rich, and the theory of truth complex. This is
precisely what we might expect, as the nature of truth touches on what is most
distinctive about us. Of all the creatures in the universe who experience what
is the case, we are the only ones who make explicit what is the case, and
assert that it is the case. We are explicit, or truth-bearing and
falsehood-bearing animals, and to see truth truly is to see ourselves
truly.
Quote from Raymond Tallis in Philosophy
Now.
Turning to the activity
Activity
So then, what is history?
I think history is the attempted
reflection of how we see ourselves at various points of time or events and
their causes.
Is
it something which moves us along? A time-stream in which we float, imagining
we act freely but in reality not with any directional control?
The extent we learn from it and move
along as truth seekers is a moot point. That should be the aim but often
is not the reality
A truth seeking narrative does yield
life changing outcomes and history teaches us when we go off the rails.
Can
you do history personally?
That’s available to everyone.
What’s
positive about the way you do science?
Archeological and improvements in
translation and research methodologies means today we are in a far better
position in modernity to much better understand people’s views
today than in much earlier period.
Or
is there something about history which needs a different approach?
Carbon dating and a host of other
tools support a rewriting or confirmation of many historical events and their
truth. The narrative on truth seeking underpins an adaptive approach by
historians
Are
there laws of history as there are physical laws in science?
The only concept of a law rests with
the idea of eternal recurrence analogous to the Hindus religion.
If
there are laws of history, if we know them and can apply them, then we should
be able to predict the future, don’t you think?
Certainly one might stretch
the imagination and talk about that possibility given the idea of eternal
recurrence and the nature of energy that goes from one state to
another but never actually disappears.
Lots
of interesting ideas can ensue along those lines.
References
Please
look for details on Toynbee at https://www.britannica.com
Psychohistory- a derivation.
Patrick Lancaster Gardiner, Emeritus Fellow in Philosophy, Magdalen
College, University of Oxford. Author of the Nature of Historical Explanation
https://www.britannica.com/contributor/Patrick-Lancaster-Gardiner/1025
Stanford University
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/history/
History Wars
The suffrage movement
Origin and momentum
Beginning in 1848 in New York a "Declaration of Sentiments” Agenda subsequently adopted 11 resolutions at a convention, foremost of which was the right to the vote, the overthrowing of the monopoly of the pulpit and for women to have equal participation in the trades, professions and commerce. The Civil War halted rapid growth in membership just as enthusiasm waned in Europe before momentum returned.
But by 1869 a focus had emerged by reference to the natural law and the inalienable rights granted under the Constitution.
In 1894, Carrie Chapman Catt declared that the votes of literate, American-born, middle-class women would balance the votes of foreigners. She became known around the world to expand on women’s rights and to strive for international peace. She is recognized as one of the key leaders of the American women’s suffrage movement and her efforts and organizational skills led to the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in August 1920, guaranteeing women the right to vote.
But in the lower socio economic class those women were more concerned with their inferior working conditions and low pay than getting the vote or women's property rights. Understandably they opted instead to become members of the trade union movement.
Charlotte Perkins Gilman, in her publication entitled “Women and Economics” (1898), posited women’s liberty was contingent on gaining freedom from the ties of purely home and family responsibilities to end meaning for most women becoming totally dependent on men.
But from a historical perspective Australia was the first nation to grant women the dual rights to vote and stand for election in 1903.
In Britain Emmeline Pankhurst helped women to win the right to vote in 1918 but was widely criticised for her militant tactics.
Raising feminist consciousness
Following World War II, Simone de Beauvoir's Le Deuxième Sexe (1949; ‘The Second Sex, became a worldwide best-seller which raised feminist consciousness. She expanded upon the philosophy of Mary Wollstonecraft to illustrate how liberation for women meant the same thing for men.,
In Philosophy Now Sally Scholz traces the major currents of Simone de Beauvoir’s main work. Extracts from her paper are as follows:
De Beauvoir’s existential ethics holds freedom as a universal –requiring people to achieve freedom, yet our temptation is to actually shy away from the responsibilities of our freedom, even to the point of wanting to be more like an object than a human being.
De Beauvoir discusses many forms of oppression, including that of the working class by the bourgeoisie, that of blacks by whites, and the oppression of Jews, but it is the oppression of women which concerns her in The Second Sex. Women’s oppression differs as there appears no historical starting-point for it; nor is there any solidarity of economic interest, or even any ‘social location’ for this oppressed group.
De Beauvoir’s aim is to explore why women are oppressed, why they are ‘the second sex’. De Beauvoir turns to ontology. ‘Ontology’ means ‘the study of being’. De Beauvoir’s explanation for why women are oppressed is based on a woman's being, that is, what it means to exist as a woman. Girls growing up are taught by society how to be as women, i.e., passive and object-like. A woman is a free being mystified into believing she is confined to particular roles, thus limiting freedom. Using existentialist language, de Beauvoir says that woman has been defined as Other. The cult of ‘the feminine’ or ‘the feminine mystery’ is used to maintain the oppression of women as the idea is passed down from generation to generation.
De Beauvoir uses the concepts of ‘immanence’ and ‘transcendence’ to further explain women’s situation. Immanence is stagnation within a situation, while transcendence is reaching out into the future, through projects that open up freedom.
Although every ‘existent’ – every human being – is both immanent and transcendent, some social practices may imprison one in immanence such that one is unable to achieve transcendence (freedom). This happens in every case of oppression. Insofar as they work on meaningful projects that reach into the future men occupy the sphere of transcendence, while women’s oppression relegates them to the sphere of immanence, until they may be no longer aware that they have free choice.
It is important to remember here that de Beauvoir does not think that women are the only oppressed social group. Blacks are oppressed in relation to whites, and the poor are oppressed in relation to the rich. Here whites and the rich become the norm and blacks and the poor deviate from the norm and become the subordinate Other. But in addition to the fact that women have always been oppressed there is another important difference between the oppression of women and oppression based on class or race. Women are complicit in their own oppression. Women then strive to live up to this model of the ‘eternal feminine’. In other words, they become just what they are expected to become: a transcendent existent trapped in the immanence of being.
As an existentialist, de Beauvoir denied there was any essence of woman: there is no natural or universal characteristic that defines ‘woman’. Her identity is socially constructed. ‘Woman’ has been constructed by men, by a society which maintains ideological systems prescribing her subordination, and by women's own participation in those systems. This situation limits a woman’s freedom and determines her life projects. In other words, society keeps women blocked from freedom or transcendence. Therefore liberation is both an individual and a social transformation. Woman must see herself, like man, as subject and not object. She must embrace her freedom, and embrace projects which further disclose freedom. But women must also recognize themselves as a social group. Women must recognize their unity in their shared circumstances of oppression. Failing this assists in maintaining oppression.
Three strategies de Beauvoir suggests to aid women in their path to transcendence and subjectivity are:
(1) Women must go to work.
(2) Women must pursue and participate in intellectual activity (leading the change for women).
(3) Women must strive to transform society into a socialist society (seeking economic justice as a key factor in liberation).
Simone de Beauvoir’s monumental work on women ought not to be underestimated. By describing in vivid detail the countless ways women experience the limitations of femininity, she opened the way for women all over the world to recognize the social and political import of their personal experiences. Her works ushered in a new wave of feminist activism because she had the courage to make women’s social, familial, bodily, political, and cultural experiences public.
© Prof. Sally J Scholz 2008
Sally J. Scholz is Professor of Philosophy at Villanova University. Her publications include On de Beauvoir (Wadsworth, 2000). She co-edited The Contradictions of Freedom: Philosophical Essays on Simone de Beauvoir’s ‘Les Mandarins’ with Shannon Musset, and has published articles on violence against women, oppression, and just war theory, among others. She is former editor of the APA Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy.
Another notable publication was Betty Friedan's 1963 “The Feminine Mystique”. Her observation saw a problem in social conditioning where all women were seen to be eternally grateful as they mostly had nice houses, children and ;provider husbands, But her position was that such a predisposition risked deadening creativity and freedom within a women’s existence.,
Reformers and revolutionaries exert their influence
In June 1966, the National Organization for Women (NOW) was born which became the largest organization of feminist grassroots activists in the United States. Its purpose is to take action through intersectional grassroots activism , to promote feminist ideals, lead societal change, eliminate discrimination and protect the equal rights of all women and girls in all aspects of social, political, and economic life. But despite its size in the ensuing years it struggled to gain traction with more radical groups who battled against wars and to champion civil rights.
In September 1968, activists converged on Atlantic City, New Jersey, to protest the image of womanhood conveyed by the Miss America Pageant.
In New York City in November 1969 meetings were held aimed at establishing common ground between the radical and moderate wings.
The younger women's movement at that time, increasingly supported by college-educated mothers were seeking a new direction,
They were instrumental in presenting principles of equality and justice to end up on President John F. Kennedy's agenda. He created the President's Commission on the Status of Women led by Eleanor Roosevelt. What was documented was employment discrimination, unequal pay, legal inequality, and meagre support services for working women.
Dissension and debate
Subsequently (NOW) achieved improved educational, health and rape crisis centres and was instrumental in having children’s books rewritten to obviate sexual stereotypes. Employers found to have discriminated against female workers were required to compensate with back pay. Unlike the first wave, second-wave feminism provoked discussions on the origins of women's oppression, the nature of gender, and the role of the family.
Later, Germaine Greer, an Australian living in London, published ‘The Female Eunuch’, in which she argued that the sexual repression of women cuts them off from the creative energy they need to be independent and self-fulfilled.
But the latter part of her book largely revolved around castigating women for lacking assertiveness.
Moving into modernity
Following in the footsteps of Mary Wollstonecraft and Simmone de Bouvier Feminist philosopher Audre Lorde, expanded feminism to become an advocate for gender equality which embraced everyone but was seen through the feminine perspective.
She had conceded the first-waves of feminism had successfully gained the right for women to vote, the second for equal representation and opportunities in the workplace whilst contending the third-wave was to focus more on such things as reproductive rights, sexual exploitation, equal pay, and the need for more women to be in positions of power.
Her concern for females focused on women’s stereotyping and societal bias where she saw inequality based on perceptions that remained to underpin women to be seen as inferior to men. She dedicated her life and talents to confronting all forms of injustice, as she believed there could be "no hierarchy of oppressions among those who share the goals of liberation and a workable future for our children."
Men’s Issues
Lorde and other feminist’s set their sights on an additional focus. They included men’s issues where they saw societal gender inequality pertaining to the high rate of incarceration, the inhuman prison conditions, and high rates of suicide for men and so on. In addition they highlighted what they saw as the greater likelihood of men to lose custody of children indicative times as a form of bias to the mother.
It is hardly surprising amongst sectors of movement such ideas were not always welcome,
Further academic Feminist Philosophy
This field of academic feminist philosophy has taken hold around that time and has since flourished but also experienced some backlashes. But the future for the movement to maintain its relevance with an expanded vision is gaining some traction.
Hence is the move to include, within the feminist lens of societal gender, injustices and a lack of opportunity for inclusiveness to extend the scope away from issues confined to women.
Overseas there are moves to empower women through education to be part of the decision making process and infiltrate the political process.
One might aim to focus on methodology that embraces with an open-mindedness and in the absence of bias and or any sense of “superiority”.
The globalization of feminism
Twentieth-century European and American feminism reached into Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Many Western feminists soon perceived themselves as possible saviours of Third World women.
The conflicts between women in developed and developing nations have played out in the 1980 World Conference of the United Nations Decade for Women: Equality, Development and Peace in Copenhagen.
Their women from less-developed nations complained about controversial topics such as that the veil were chosen as conference priorities without prior consultation.
Notwithstanding, around the world, women are advancing their interests, in places like Afghanistan, where the Taliban banned the education of girls. Elsewhere, however, significant gains for women, as seen in the eradication of female genital surgery in many African countries or government efforts to end widow burning in India.
More generally, and especially in the West, feminism has influenced every aspect of contemporary life, communication, and debate, from the heightened concern over sexist language to the rise of academic fields such as women's studies and ecofeminism. Sports, divorce laws, sexual mores, organized religion—all have been affected, in many parts of the world, by feminism. To reiterate the field of academic feminist philosophy has taken hold around that time and has since flourished but also experienced some backlashes. But the future for the movement to maintain its relevance with an expanded vision is gaining some traction. Hence the move to include within the feminist lens of societal gender injustices and al lack of opportunity for inclusiveness to extend the scope away from issues confined to women
Different philosophical methods learn from one another to integrate fields such as feminism as they apply to race theory, Trans, disability and so on across and integrating work in these fields. Overseas there are moves to empower women through education to be part of the decision making process and infiltrate the political process.
Global feminism has decoupled from the old “colonial lens” to recognise the importance of respecting different cultures and conclude that women in various places are perfectly capable of having their own voice.
One of the more successful projects is the provision of micro loans to underpin much needed modest developments in 3rd world countries that identifies women’s groups as the catalyst for success by assisting with tools to ensure leadership skills further enhance such projects.
For instance the Grameen Foundation, created in 2008 by the French bank Crédit Agricole Group and Grameen Trust, a non-profit organisation started by Muhammad Yunus, a Bangladeshi social entrepreneur who shared the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize with Grameen Bank for pioneering the concept of microcredit for the poor.
The findings of the foundation is showing that giving small loans at good rates to women and farmers is one of the best ways to make rural areas sustainable. Small loans help women and children lead healthier lives. Financing for farmers helps a whole community.
My own limited experience chairing a small charity where I visited Malawi to identify projects we could support increased my awareness of groups participating in the International Women’s Fair at the capital in Lilongwe.
They were able to set up small businesses, which in turn then can allow those businesses to help poorer families and aid them to undertake further education.
Improving health care, water supplies and sanitation services is great for rural communities in poor countries, but directing small loans at good rates to women and farmers is one of the best ways to make rural areas sustainable. Small loans help women and children lead healthier lives. Financing for farmers helps a whole community,
Q & A
Question
How will Western feminism deal with the dissension in its ranks, from women who believe the movement has gone too far and grown too radical? Doesn’t freedom of choice allow? For traditional, conservative choices?
Answer
Feminists have told ABC News in a recent article their fight is for the benefit of everyone – of all genders, races and more – led by a diverse set of voices to pave the way for gender equality worldwide in this fourth wave of feminism.
That means Feminism embraces a vision that aims to support a belief in the equality of people of all genders, a set of values aimed at dismantling gender inequality and the structures that uphold it.
These inequalities then are aimed to foster gender-based health care to remove inaccessibility, entertain less rigid social expectations and gender-based violence. Ultimately there is reason to believe dissension will turn to consensus given the philosophical underpinnings which will help iron out differences and put a feminist agenda on a much firmer footing in the future.
How successful can feminism be at the global level? How can the problems confronting women in third world countries be considered.
Answer
The revised feminist perspective to work with women’s groups in those contrasts abroad in conjunction with Aid agencies acknowledges the differences in cultures and context.
By and large this revised agenda is having acing material beneficial result
In the 21st century we have new challenges confronting the women’s movement. Transgender issues have raised new conflicts among feminists [see J. K. Rowling https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j- k-
Answer
J P Rawlings comments risks unwittingly underpinning suicidal tendencies amongst the transgender community.
The reality is those confronted with the desire to identify with the opposite sex find life far more challenging than need be when societal pressure is reinforced by stereotypical comments.
Identifying herself as part of the feminist’s movement with such views I believe will further detract from those who have a contrary view and more generally the feminine movement.
The reality is at the coalface getting to know transgender individuals one discovers there isn't much to talk about except for uncomfortable feelings within their biological bodies which conflict with the mind’s perspective prior to any transition.
Those students in primary school class In Victoria when introduced to Tran’s students aren’t bothered when properly explained. Children hardly think anything much of it thereafter and if there are concerns it is usually at the behest of the parents. Although JP Rawlings opinion piece conveys a genuine concern and is reflective of a well- read individual, no attempt is made to present any form of proper research other than generalised opinions so that it is virtually impossible to analyse or even verify the veracity of her concerns.
She may have genuine areas of concern but in the absence of any valid empirical studies, references from case studies or properly compiled statistics or even a logical progression her assertions are rather unconvincing.
There seems no doubt as to her sincerity but proper research is such an important aspect about the nature of the Trans people.
Let’s just say why can’t accept the notion Trans women are women. Tran’s men are men, and no binary identities can still be valid in some circumstances. .
Having known transgender friends and colleagues, they express the view that this constant questioning of identities, all too often results in higher incidences of violence and abuse.
They simply want to live their lives peacefully, and it’s time to let them do so. They are no different to anyone else except they have strong feelings to reverse the biological bodies to which they feel imprisoned by their mindful feelings.
The transgender communities offer support from one to another and while there are those who no doubt who may engage in unconscionable aggression or go off the rails as a result of prejudice, the greatest response seems to be in seeking peace and harmony, acceptance and love with others regardless of their sexual orientation.
Male and female perspectives may differ but those combined contributions can offer more enlightened flexible outcomes. Add to that the minority who feel the reverse to their biology and it’s not a cause for concern. In fact it possibly always existed but in the past was treated as hysteria or the works of the devil.
Question: What does equality between genders actually mean? Can it be ‘context free’? Culture free?
Answer
It means inequalities that arise as a result of a lack of opportunities emanating from gender issues once eliminated provides equality.
It will mean different things within diverse cultures and contexts.
Click here for a history of Australian Feminism
https://www.vwt.org.au/gender-equality-timeline-
australia/?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw88yxBhBWEiwA7cm6pT6gYpCHNmzEOLYieC3oNTs TFFl6cCObWz53LWwvxuTSBOo4tMyX2BoCcYQQAvD_BwE
References
Elinor Burkett, Professor of Journalism, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://cattcenter.iastate.edu/home/about-us/carrie-chapman-catt/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmeline_Pankhurst
https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/education/womens-rights
https://abcnews.go.com/US/examining-modern-feminism-wave-now/story?id=97617121
