Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 235–246, 2000 Copyright © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd Pergamon Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0277-5395/00/$–see front matter

PII S0277-5395(00)00072-8

SECOND-WAVE AND THE POLITICS OF RELATIONSHIPS

Mary Holmes Department of Sociology, University of Aberdeen, AB24 3QY, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK

Synopsis — Second-wave feminists challenged liberal democratic conceptions of the political. Part of this challenge involved politicising relationships. Relationships between women and men were the ma- jor target and connected to debates about in what ways sexuality was political. Focussing on examples from New Zealand feminist writings between 1970 and 1984, I argue that interrogating relationships led to an understanding of sexuality as both producing and produced by social relations of power. This in- sight was limited by a feminist view of power as ‘power over’, which prevented a constructive analysis of differences between women and could produce personalised conflict between feminists. But it is through the political exploration of relationships and sexuality that diversity could be recognised and that feminists could begin to consider how to represent themselves and their interests in more complex ways. © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Two of the most common of femi- women, and literature were fairly quickly nists are that they hate men and that they are transported to the Pacific, and the extent of all . These stereotypes are a reaction to this overseas influence will become apparent. the way feminists challenged naturalised ex- Once underway in New Zealand, feminism planations of relationships. Such challenges rapidly became a vibrant and varied move- emerged as part of second-wave feminist criti- ment (see Cahill & Dann, 1991; Dann, 1985). I cism of liberal democratic conceptions of the have always been sorry that I was too young to political. Feminists asserted that male– have been involved. My research has some- relations were political, not ‘natural’ and they what substituted for that absence, allowing me politically interrogated sexuality (cf. Jackson & to get to know many of the women involved Scott, 1996a, p. 6–12). I examine feminist de- through what they wrote at the time. Feminists bates about relationships and how they related produced many magazines, newsletters, and to feminist practices. submissions to government committees be- The New Zealand feminists I write about tween 1970 and 1984, but New Zealand is a include a broad range of women who were small country (the population was around 2 struggling to represent women in new and bet- million in 1970) and I was able to read almost ter ways. Many identified as Women’s Libera- all of them. The small population also meant tionists, a more radical label than ‘feminist’ that many feminists knew each other, or got to (Curthoys, 1997), but one I avoid because it know each other as the movement progressed. may exclude some of those important in the Feminist political action was also varied be- political struggles. The struggles constituting cause in New Zealand political power was dif- second-wave1 feminism are usually seen as fuse (see Gelb, 1990, p. 146). This diffusion of gaining force around 1968 (Whelehan, 1995, power2 emerged from factors such as the resi- p. 4). In New Zealand 1970 is more commonly due of regional government and the long-term the date given (Dann, 1985, p. v; Poulter cited interest of women in local(ised) politics (Ait- in Ranstead, 1977, p. 11). The slightly later ken, 1980). New Zealand feminists of the date in New Zealand may have been due to its 1970s and early 1980s therefore made use of a distance from the American and European po- variety of models of political action found else- litical uprisings of 1968. However, ideas, where, employing interest group feminism

235

236 Mary Holmes

(), Ideological/left-wing femi- and complained about media stereotyping of nism (Britain) and State equality (Sweden) women, campaigned for child care, and gener- (Gelb, 1990). The emphasis (before 1984) was ally acted around issues familiar to feminists in on interest group and ideological styles. I focus other western liberal democracies. on ‘Ideological’ feminism, which emphasised As elsewhere in the democratic west New the purity of ideas and was decentralised and Zealand feminists politicised relationships, but locally based (Gelb, 1990, p. 138). State equal- the impact was perhaps amplified by the small- ity arguably became the dominant model of ness of their feminist community. Although feminism after 1984 when a Ministry of they emphasised the political nature of rela- Women’s Affairs was established in New tionships with men, relations with other Zealand (see Holmes, 1998). Prior to this, the women became increasingly scrutinised. I ex- compactness and yet variety of the movement plore the effects of this politicisation of rela- can make it difficult to discuss New Zealand tionships on New Zealand feminist debates feminism in terms of the groups referred to and practices by interpreting changes in how elsewhere. Yes there were ‘black’ feminists, they represented themselves through their socialist feminists, Marxist feminists, liberal feminist writings. feminists, and feminists, but in New My conclusions about the politicisation of Zealand they were notable for the extent to relationships are broadly applicable to second- which they interacted. wave feminism in western liberal democracies. Some of the major publications reflect the These conclusions are comparable with Stevi interaction between diverse types of feminists Jackson’s (1993, pp. 39–42) brief description of in New Zealand. The Auckland-based Broad- second-wave feminist criticisms of love as they sheet magazine (which ran from 1972 to the emerged from a wider consideration of sexual- 1990s) was aimed at a general feminist audi- ity; and with Jackson and Scott’s (1996a) dis- ence, published a fairly wide range of views, cussion of feminist debates about sexuality, and was produced by diverse collectives, usu- which introduces many classic pieces (Jackson ally including lesbian feminists3 and feminists & Scott, 1996b). Other more general accounts of colour. Bitches, Witches, and Dykes was a of second-wave theory (e.g., Beasley, 1999; more radical, if more short lived, newspaper Evans, 1995) and of feminist political action put out by a mixture of marxists and lesbians (e.g., Rowe, 1982; Tanner, 1970) also indicate and with an affiliated ‘Black Forum’ section that the New Zealand examples are fairly rep- produced by Maori feminists. The Dunedin resentative. Collective for was a broad umbrella New Zealand feminist debates on relation- organisation under which the eclectic maga- ships were recorded in reports of gatherings, in zine Woman was published. However, more submissions to parliamentary select commit- specific groups existed, for example, specific tees (particularly the Select Committee on lesbian organisation obviously took place early Women’s Rights 1975 (Papers on the Select on, as the lesbian feminist magazine Circle be- Committee on Women’s Rights, 1975), and in gan appearing in 1972. The Socialist Action feminist magazines and newsletters. It is these League (1973) also quickly showed involve- writings that have been my major sources and ment with feminist ideas by producing a pro- they are analysed as texts (see Holmes, 1998). gramme for women’s liberation. A ’s movement, also emerged, but largely REPRESENTATION AND THE operated within an oral, rather than a written, FEMINIST POLITICISATION tradition. OF RELATIONSHIPS On four exciting occasions (1973, 1975, 1977, 1979), large numbers of feminists of all I have interpreted feminist texts as representa- varieties gathered to discuss issues and share tions because what feminists wrote gives only a information in the United Women’s Conven- partial idea of how feminists lived, thought, tions. Each was attended by around 1,500 to and acted. These texts do not transparently tell 2,000 women, and in between were many the ‘Truth’ about feminism or feminists’ lives. smaller, but often equally diverse gatherings. Those who wrote them were representatives Feminists also organised against attempts to striving to give a better picture, not just of restrict , discussed , resisted themselves, but of women as a group and their

The Politics of Relationships 237

needs. In order to interpret feminist texts, I de- terpreted as critical of men as individuals (cf. veloped an understanding of representation as Spender, 1994, pp. 1–6). Many feminists were a process of communicating and contesting unapologetic in criticising men and accepted both meanings and needs/interests. This focus the unpopularity this brought. Others thought on all feminist writings as both cultural repre- it politically necessary to try and emphasise sentations of women and political representa- the faults of a patriarchal system rather than tions for women means that I make little dis- individual men. The latter strategy sought to tinction between primary and secondary avoid suggesting individual change as the solu- sources. Feminists challenged stereotypical tion to women’s . Similarly, sex-role meanings (representations) associated with stereotypes could be blamed for relations of women and also challenged political processes subordination. This explanation was related to by which the interests of individuals or groups ideas about liberation voiced by a variety of are represented (Pollock, 1992, p. 166). It has new social movements in the 1960s and ‘70s been argued that this dual aim has caused diffi- (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985; Melucci, 1989; culties for feminism because it not only seeks Seidman, 1994). These ideas could imply that to dispute, but relies upon notions of ‘woman’ everyone needed to be liberated from repres- (Alcoff, 1988; Riley, 1988). Feminists struggled sive roles. For instance, one New Zealand fem- to contradict sexist portrayals of women, pick- inist suggested that women no longer wanted ing apart facile generalisations. At the same to play a role ‘assigned by men’, but that time there was a sense of some coherent iden- ‘wider horizons for women will enrich male- tity as women as necessary for feminist politi- female relationships’ (Rotherham, 1973, p. cal action (Mouffe, 1992, p. 371). 19). Raewyn Stone (1974, p. 7) took a similar In politicising relationships feminists high- view, arguing that the myth of men as ‘impec- lighted the dubious nature of objectified and cable breadwinners, bedmates, slaves to the sexualised representations of women. Femi- naturaaly (sic) grasping, demanding and ex- nists protested against male-dominated por- ploitative female’ was designed to ‘extract la- trayals of women as sex objects, but expressing bour from and sell motor mowers, insurance disgust at stereotypes alone would not bring and after-shave to the deluded male’. Women change. Strategies for change also involved a who were liberated, she suggested, would not self-conscious production of knowledge along- expect men to conform to these stereotypes. side political activity (Kuhn, 1985, p. 2). I con- This would liberate them and make fuller, centrate on how efforts to better represent more honest relationships possible. women and their interests produced new per- Most feminists recognised the difficulties of spectives on relationships with men and be- both personal and working relationships with tween women. These perspectives in turn im- those they were identifying as their oppressors. pacted on how feminists represented themselves Feminists stressed the need to set their own and their lives. agendas and that this was more easily done in- dependently of men (Church, 1971, p. 7; Goodger, 1972, p. 1; Woman 1972, p. 1). But THE POLITICAL NATURE OF some feminists wanted to ‘step beyond the anti- FEMALE–MALE RELATIONS male rhetoric’ and the belief that the more dis- Feminists challenged liberal democratic defini- tant from men the stronger a feminist is (Cass- tions of politics and claimed that full citizen- well, 1975, pp. 28–29). One feminist group bla- ship and equality for women, were bound up tantly stated that feminists were not all hostile with the supposedly personal lives of women. to men and cited the fact that all members of These personal lives were structured in large their group were married. They felt that men part around relationships, sexual and other- could never be ‘emotionally committed’ to fem- wise. Therefore, challenging the idea that inism; but there was no reason why ‘women male/female relations were ‘natural’ was cru- only’ and mixed groups could not support each cial to representing women and their interests other (Woman Collective, 1972, p. 1). (Mouffe, 1992, p. 372; Pateman, 1989, p. 131). Other feminists argued that if men op- In order to establish that female/male rela- pressed women, feminists should personally tions were political feminists attempted to fo- and politically detach themselves from men. In cus on power relationships, but were often in- New Zealand as elsewhere, an initially low tol-

238 Mary Holmes

erance of male involvement in feminist politics To fully explore their supposed commonali- appeared to decline (cf. Beasley, 1999, pp. 32– ties as women, feminists attempted to create 35; Tanner, 1970, pp. 313–315; Whelehan, spaces (including bodies) which were free 1995, p. 177). At the beginning, some feminist from the male-dominated gaze (cf. Mulvey, groups or events included men (Broadsheet 1989; Tseëlon, 1995) and from male access (see collective, 1982c, p. 12; Brownlie, 1970; see also Beasley, 1999, p. 54; Echols, 1989; Evans, 1995, Whelehan, 1995, p. 177), but feminists became p. 79). In such struggles over territory men were frustrated by their tendency to monopolise represented as the enemy, but usually strategi- meetings or groups (cf. Phillips, 1991, p. 98). In cally. For example, there was criticism of a few these cases feminists removed either themselves men who ‘trespassed’ into the 1979 United or the men from mixed groups. For instance, Women’s Convention (UWC). Yet men’s ser- disagreements apparently led to the formation vices had not been totally dispensed with and of Auckland Women’s Liberation—for women the male custodians were praised for their help- only (Poulter cited in Ranstead, 1977, p. 11). fulness and discretion (United Women’s Con- However, men remained involved with this vention Committee, 1979, p. 118). group when it produced the first few issues of There was also resistance to male symbolic Broadsheet. This and other examples (e.g., Dann, access to women, clearly seen in debates over 1979, p. 8) indicate that there was not neces- media reporting of feminist events (see sarily a linear progression towards excluding Baynes, 1994, pp. 12–13; Browne et al., 1978, men. In particular, more conservative or re- pp. 64–71; Coney, 1973, pp. 3, 7; Meikle, 1976, formist women continued to believe in includ- p. 153; United Women’s Convention Commit- ing men (see Women ‘74, 1975). Nevertheless, tee, 1979, pp. 94, 97–99). Male (and sometimes most feminists disengaged from working with female) reporters usually trivialised, sexual- men, sometimes even when they shared other ised and distorted feminists and their gather- political goals. This was the case with the women ings. To refuse media access was part of the who re-formed an anti-racist group called Nga battle to control the representation of them- Tamatoa. They found they were still doing the selves and their political action. The immedi- work and the three male members taking the ate concern was to be in a position to move glory. They held sessions on women’s issues forward rather than constantly having to re- and expelled two men who persisted in attack- fute male-dominated misrepresentations. ing the group. One woman had left, but re- Struggles to represent themselves occurred turned when the men went and apparently not only with men but between feminists. Les- subsequently blossomed (Dann, 1976, p. 7). bian feminists, for example, had to fight for It was easier for women to be taken seri- space and time to express themselves and their ously as political actors if they were not in di- politics. A lesbian spokeswoman made a rect juxtaposition to men. If civil/public society speech to the 1977 convention only after les- is constituted ‘in opposition to the private bian feminists had demanded time from the sphere of natural subjection and womanly ca- convenors—which was given up by the guest pacities’ (Pateman, 1988, p. 113), then women speaker (Browne et al., 1978, p. 81). According will be ‘naturally subversive of men’s political to Michele Dominy (1986), these lesbians ar- order’ (Pateman, 1988, p. 96). By acting politi- gued that ‘to reclaim femaleness one must re- cally women have subverted the political or- ject behaviour’. This meant der, but to go beyond mere negation has been adopting anger, confrontation, and violence as difficult, because women and their interests are female (p. 35). So lesbian separatists were not not easily represented within the present polit- behaving like men, but rather ‘rejecting mark- ical system (Melucci, 1989). Awareness of this ers of femaleness defined by men’ (p. 37) and is partly what stimulates women to act together attempting to reorganise the world ‘around as feminists and to spark debates about different conceptions of femaleness and male- whether they should do so in isolation from ness’ (p. 29). This illustrates that feminism was men. Feminists strove to affirm their indepen- a struggle to find representative space (Evans, dence and partly did so by rejecting constant 1995, p. 79), and to consider how to act to- comparison with men and insisting that ‘women gether within it. have far more in common with women than It was recognised that to make political ac- with men’ (Browne et al., 1978, p. 80). tion effective alliances between different groups

The Politics of Relationships 239

of women were necessary. These alliances were feminist conceptualisations of power as some- possible if it was acknowledged that unity did thing men have and women do not (cf. not, ‘naturally’ pre-exist on the basis of specific Curthoys, 1997; Yeatman, 1994). As Yeatman identities but was created strategically in acting (1994) argues, feminism is fundamentally con- politically (cf. Laclau & Mouffe, 1985). For fem- cerned with how power should be understood inist alliances to be workable other ‘naturalised’ and as a movement its vision for change de- relations of power had to be questioned. Race pends on the adequacy of its conceptions of relations were a priority in New Zealand, par- power. Principally, feminism has understood ticularly relations between Maori and Pakeha women as subject to patriarchal ‘power over’ (white New Zealanders). The Treaty of Wait- them. Women are seen as excluded from angi signed between Maori and Pakeha in 1840, ‘power to’ because only male heads of house- established a partnership between the indige- holds can enjoy power as a capacity within the nous people and the white (mostly British) col- terms of the social/sexual contract. As Shields onisers. New Zealand has focussed on bicultur- and Milne (1975, p. 15) argued: ‘If men under- alism because it has been argued that this stand how to use power, women understand partnership between Maori and Pakeha must what it is to be without it’. This view tended to be properly attended to before Aotearoa/New emphasise a unity of oppression between Zealand can embark on multiculturalism (see women. Thinking of power as a thing men ex- Orange, 1987). ercised over women was useful in creating a For second-wave feminists the most sophisti- basis for feminist solidarity, but discouraged cated and influential critique of Maori-Pakeha the exploration of power differences between relations was Donna Awatere’s, Maori Sover- women and focused on women’s identity as eignty (1984), originally published as a series of other to men. articles in Broadsheet (Awatere 1982a, 1982b, The emphasis on men’s power over women 1983). Some feminists took up this analysis, al- led to considerable soul searching for those though a black women’s movement had already feminists who had intimate relationships with emerged from anti-racist groups that had devel- men. As Sue Kedgley (1971) noted: ‘women oped in New Zealand during the mid-70s. This live on far more intimate terms with their op- movement involved Maori, Pacific Island, and pressors than any other group in ’ (p. 4). Indian women. Some pakeha (white) women This produced ambivalent attitudes to men in were also involved in anti-racist groups, notably many women. But recognising that personal those in a group called ‘Women for Aotearoa’, intimacy may make it difficult for many femi- which specifically met to discuss Awatere’s nists to represent men as oppressors does not ideas (Simpkin, 1994). The focus on racism in- really help analyse the ambivalence and the tensified around the anti-Springbok rugby tour range of interpretations of female–male rela- movement in 1981, in which many feminists tions (Spender, 1994, p. 35–36). were involved. This was ‘fraught with personal There were efforts to interpret women and political conflict’, arising from the lack of more as they related to each other and to see acknowledgement of racism in New Zealand women’s identities as multiple. But these ef- and the women’s movement and the domina- forts tended to use a rather stagnant hierarchy tion of the anti-tour movement by men (Sim- of based on oppositions such as pkin, 1994). white/black, heterosexual/lesbian, / Race relations debates were prominent in community-based (Jones & Guy, 1992) which New Zealand, but analysis of class relations reflected self/other distinctions. It is important did also occur—most obviously through so- to recognise that ‘other’ feminists (black, les- cialist feminism (see e.g., Socialist Action bian, working class, and so on) were part of the League, 1973). Jill Hannah, for instance, con- feminist struggle from the beginning (Curtain tested the idea that feminists were middle & Devere, 1993). This is something often dis- class, instead reinforcing that the movement regarded by accounts of the second wave that was middle class dominated and ignored work- describe it as a path from sisterhood to frag- ing class women and their experiences (Han- mentation (e.g., Mitchell & Oakley, 1997). nah, 1982, p. 21). Such ideas maintain dominant strands of femi- Generally attempts to consider the com- nism (usually white and middle class) as cen- plexity of power relations were hampered by tral and ‘other’ as added later,

240 Mary Holmes

rather than being parallel and equally impor- bates were about more than whether or not tant, if less dominant. feminists slept with men. Yet arguments over Emphasis on power as ‘power over’ meant were most prominent and re- that dominant feminist groups were chastised lated to the place of lesbians within the femi- for operating in ‘male’ ways, seen as contrary nist movement. to ideals of feminist sisterhood. Interrogation Like elsewhere, lesbians felt they were of power as a capacity to produce relation- forced to justify their place in the movement ships, rather than only be produced by them, (cf. Cartledge & Hemmings, 1982), while het- offered a better basis for considering differ- erosexual feminists automatically belonged ences between women. This alternative per- (Cole, 1976, pp. 12–13). This was explained as spective on power was implied within the les- related to the general institutionalisation bian feminist analysis of heterosexism. within society of heterosexuality as the norm. (1997) is most famous for this argument, but I recall no specific mention of THE POLITICS OF SEX Rich in New Zealand lesbian feminist writings. AND SEXUALITY However, similar points were made in earlier The politicisation of sex and sexuality was part works such as ’s (1970) The of feminist claims that ‘the personal is politi- Female Eunuch, which many New Zealand cal’ (see Jackson & Scott, 1996a). That slogan feminists did read (see Cahill & Dann, 1991). could be interpreted in different ways (Pate- Lesbians also came to these conclusions from , 1989, p. 131; Phillips, 1991, pp. 96–101). It examining their own experiences, including could mean bringing things previously consid- their experiences within the feminist move- ered personal into political debate. As one ment. New Zealand lesbian feminists wanted feminist put it, politics was brought ‘out of par- their own voice, not just to assume that lesbi- liament and into the double-bed and the ans elsewhere spoke for them (Dominy, 1986, kitchen’ (Woman Collective, 1977, p. 5). On pp. 31–32). At first lesbians offered to ‘edu- the other hand, the slogan could mean ‘that in cate’ women about lesbianism and seemed to your personal life you must live your political be trying to ‘reassure’ rather than challenge, principles’ (Dann, 1976, p. 7). Both interpreta- asserting similarities between lesbians and tions were evident in feminist thinking about non-lesbians. Circle reports on the early con- heterosexism. ventions and gatherings confirm this, as do The lesbian feminist development of the comments about the black dykes workshop at concept of heterosexism was an important part the first national black women’s hui (meeting) of the politicisation of relationships (see (Awatere, 1980, p. 12). At the 1979 UWC, les- Evans, 1995, p. 16; Jackson & Scott, 1996a, pp. bian visibility was still important and a lesbian 12–17). Nancy Pederson defined heterosexism nation banner and purple armbands were as the failure to see sexuality as political, in adopted (see Mulrennan, 1979, p. 6). However, that ‘heterosexuality is promoted as ‘natural’ now they represented themselves not as femi- and homosexuality sanctioned. Thus women nist political actors who happened to have a derive all their status from men, which results different sexual preference, but asserted that in the economic and emotional commitment of lesbian sexuality was a threat to men and to women to men. . . .’ (Pederson, 1979, p. 21). male power (Dominy, 1986, p. 28) and was Relationships not only with men, but with therefore political. They wanted to subvert anyone defined as an oppressor came under norms of politeness (Dominy, 1986, p. 27) and criticism. Awatere, for instance, criticised believed in ‘the power of change and growth Maori men for preferring relationships with through personal confrontation’ (Eagle & Ar- pakeha (white) women, seeing these not as gent, 1978, p. 11). Lesbians wanted to have personal relationships, but political units (cited heterosexual feminists take account of their in Dann, 1976, p. 7). Similarly, at the first na- politics. tional black women’s hui (meeting) it was sug- Heterosexual feminists were not always gested that black-white personal relationships sympathetic towards their lesbian sisters. Val were ‘destructive to the black people’s move- Cole argued that ‘lesbian’ had been used as an ment and to black women especially’ (Awa- insult at the beginning of the second wave, as a tere, 1980, pp. 11–12). Therefore, sexuality de- way of silencing feminists. This led to lesbians

The Politics of Relationships 241

being ‘oppressed’ by the movement’ (Cole, posedly necessary because they rejected het- 1976, pp. 12–13). Certainly many heterosexual erosexual models for relationships (Juno, feminists seemed uncomfortable with some 1978, p. 5). In this case, criticisms that lesbian lesbian ideas. As Vera McShane (1979, p. 8) feminists were pursuing personal solutions said about UWC 1979 (see also Coney, 1979): were conceded to, and justified by the need ‘. . . [t]he separatism and behaviour of the Les- ‘to survive emotionally as doubly oppressed bian Separatists disturbed many and was the women, not because it was a conscious attempt cause of tension’ (p. 7). But why, and what was to pursue political principles’ (Juno, 1976, p. 5). it that disturbed? An answer requires an un- Sometimes such strategies resulted in closed derstanding of lesbian politics. groups that experienced considerable conflict, Classified as ‘deviant’, lesbians seem to demanded strict conformity, and had ‘well de- have taken on the idea that their sexuality was fined codes of behaviour and a pecking order an indication of their person as a whole, it was dependent on group values’. Groups could the truth about themselves. The American become ‘trapped’ at a personal level (Juno, writer Dolores Klaich (1974)4 made such an 1976, p. 6). argument at the time and her work may have An emphasis on the personal meant that influenced New Zealand lesbians either di- there were those who saw lesbian or radical rectly, or through their contact with overseas feminists as saying that all women must adopt lesbians. For example, prominent American lesbian relationships ‘or be regarded as suspect lesbian feminist Charlotte Bunch spoke at ’ if they remained heterosexual. This 1979 UWC (United Women’s Convention argument represented lesbians as ‘embryonic Committee, 1979). Lesbians were also aware feminists because they have already decided to from what was happening around them that live outside the structure of ’ heterosexual feminists did (and do) not tend to (Pederson, 1979, p. 22). To avoid contact or re- identify themselves in terms of their sexuality lationships with men was to deny them power (see Kitzinger & Wilkinson, 1993). Although (Circle collective, 1980, p. 52). This still saw Anne Else did suggest later that some women women as only capable of assenting to or dis- were being called ‘closet heterosexuals’ be- senting from power (which was male). Daphne cause they were too scared to admit to les- Terpestra (1976, p. 5) challenged such views in bian sisters that they enjoyed sex with men a letter to Broadsheet . She asked: what about (Else, 1979, p. 2). Nevertheless, lesbian femi- those who chose to channel their sexuality into nists were more likely to recognise sexuality as other creative or practical channels, and how being about more than sex and increasingly would the movement progress if those who represented lesbianism as a politics rather than were not ‘ “high frequency” feminists’ were as a preference. Thus lesbians ‘developed a alienated? She saw unity as crucial, and was political stance out of personal experiences’ concerned by what she saw as a lack of it in the (Cole, 1976, p. 13; cf. Cartledge & Hemmings, movement because ‘a very vocal group tries to 1982, Rainone et al. cited in Tanner, 1970, p. assert superiority by, what appears to be, sex- 349–361). ual preference’ (p. 5). This ignored or failed to The lesbian arguments about heterosexism understand lesbian attempts to define sexual- implied that power relations were productive. ity as politics rather than preference. Their experiences of being oppressed had pro- Radicalism did not mean dictating how duced them as lesbian feminists. However, women expressed their sexuality, as Karen there was a fine line between this view and Butterworth (1976, p. 3–4) argued in a reply to seeing lesbianism as automatically opposing Terpestra. Butterworth said she was in a het- patriarchal power. Some lesbian feminists spe- erosexual relationship, ‘(but also enjoying cifically argued that their political stance put auto-erotic and homosexual feelings not con- them outside . There were lesbians summated in the same degree)’. Butterworth preferring to exist on irregular or low incomes noted that her choice involved ‘a degree of rather than working at jobs which might ‘prop daily, loving political vigilance in the home up institutions which oppress women etc.’ This with husband and son’ and that a relatively lib- potentially left lesbian feminists with more erated male partner was necessary. Given the available energy for political action and more lack of liberated men she felt lesbianism re- time to put into personal relationships—sup- mained ‘the only practical course’ for many

242 Mary Holmes

radical feminists. She thought, however, that discuss women’s experiences (see Tanner, lesbians went ‘too far’ if they suggested their 1970, pp. 238, 253). Different experiences were way was right for all. Butterworth saw it as thought to lead lesbians to a different politics possible to have any sexual orientation and be from heterosexual feminists (United Women’s a radical feminist, as long as it was not a ‘domi- Convention Committee, 1979, p. 69; Livestre, nant-submissive perversion’, which she ac- 1979, p. 7). Most lesbians saw sexuality as far knowledged most marriages involved (cf. Jack- more complex than the sexual act, involving son, 1993). Val Cole (1976, pp. 12–13) also psychological, emotional, and political factors thought that Terpestra had wrongly equated as well as physical (Wellington Women’s Work- radicalism with lesbian separatism. (Broad- shop Newsletter, 1985, p. 1; see also Crawley, street 1976b, pp. 12–13, also see Beasley, 1999, 1974, p. 7; Johnson, 1979, p. 7, 14; Browne et pp. 53–58). al., 1978, p. 81). Heterosexual feminists were Separatism was much misunderstood. Most therefore often criticised for continuing to re- lesbian feminists interpreted practices of sexu- fer to sexuality as merely a preference. The ality as central to male supremacy. This inter- 1979 UWC organisers’ statement of feminist pretation was evident in Firestone (1972) and position, for instance, was censured for recog- Greer’s (1970) widely read polemics. Such an nition of lesbians only in terms of sexual pref- interpretation led some lesbian feminists to ar- erence, which negated lesbian politics (Johnson, gue that women should withdraw their sexual 1979, p. 7; United Women’s Convention Com- attention from men and focus it on women mittee, 1979, p. 196). The “what you do in your (Poulter cited in Ranstead, 1977, p. 11). This own bedroom is your business” attitude made could suggest that heterosexuality and libera- many lesbians feel like non-persons, (Alston, tion were opposed (see e.g., Eagle & Argent, 1973, p. 6; Cole, 1976, pp. 12–13; cf. Cartledge & 1978, p. 8; cf. Jackson & Scott, 1996a, pp. 12– Hemmings, 1982, p. 333). Sharon Alston argued 17). Lesbian separatists making a statement in that lesbians needed to be ‘internalized into the a magazine article, saw ‘all men and (institu- movement’ and other women needed to know tionalised) heterosexuality as the block to their more about lesbianism and to recognise that gay growth as free, strong women [who] take their women were not oppressed in exactly the same separateness into their personal everyday ac- way as straight women (Alston, 1973, p. 6). tivities’ (Ray & Lloyd, 1979, p. 19). Nancy Ped- Differences between lesbian and heterosex- erson also doubted that heterosexual women ual women were sometimes obscured because could really be liberated in choosing men as embodied experience became the privileged sexual partners (Pederson, 1979, p. 32). In the basis of feminist knowledge (Beasley, 1999, pp. same vein, Phillida Bunkle (1980) explained that: 32–35). Some feminists suggested that women needed to be liberated from their reproductive The rest of the women’s movement has seen bodies if equality was to be achieved. This ap- sexual preferences as a personal issue, but proach resisted familial constructions of lesbians have extended the idea of the per- women and came from ’s sonal as political to a unique analysis of sexu- (1949) work, and was also expressed in Shu- ality that is central to their view of politics. lamith Firestone’s (1972) . Lesbian separatists see sexual dependence as This supports Grosz’s (1994) idea that femi- the tie that binds the sexist system together. nists have been wary of the body. However, The central dynamic of male supremacy is other feminists saw the body as the key to lib- sex itself because the main motive for the eration. They embraced the idea of women’s suppression of women is to obtain her sexual bodies as expressing their essential difference services. from men and stressed they should be reval- ued as the basis of women’s more peace loving, This suggests that lesbianism was a ‘per- nurturing nature (see Gatens, 1992, p. 129). sonal political strategy’ for being as indepen- This did not mean focussing either on equality dent as possible of the patriarchal system (Cir- or difference. Feminist representations could cle collective, 1980, p. 53). involve both disassociating themselves from Notions of experience were crucial in trying familial-based representations of women and to establish a ‘personal political strategy’. Con- simultaneously appropriating those represen- sciousness raising groups were established to tations to show feminists as powerful because

The Politics of Relationships 243

in touch with their bodies as ‘natural’5 and and ‘an ethos of natural purity’. This kind of ar- having life giving potential. gument has faults—mainly it assumes some uni- The privileging of experience also fostered versal womanly essence (Grosz, 1994). How- conceptions of women as individuals who ever, lesbian views of sexuality as a political knew themselves. Their own interpretation of choice did challenge conceptions of sexuality as their experiences was considered superior to ‘natural’, or a matter of personal preference. others (see Scott, 1991).6 Although ‘the femi- nist movement campaigned around issues that HAPPY? ENDINGS? CONCLUSIONS ON could easily be formulated in the language of THE IMPACT OF ownership of the person, the predominant POLITICISING RELATIONSHIPS feminist argument was that women required civil freedom as women, not as pale reflections Feminists politicised relationships in complex of men. This argument rested on an implicit re- ways. They were critical of men, but most fem- jection of the individual as a masculine owner’ inists denied that they were man-haters and (Pateman, 1988, pp. 13–14). The ability to dis- early groups sometimes included men. There pose of the property of your person as you was also feminist reference, particularly near wish, is one way of defining agency, but the beginning of the movement, to a discourse whether we ‘own’ our bodies is debatable. Be- of liberation for all. But women’s liberation sides which, no form of ownership ensures was centrally for women and they rapidly dis- complete control over property. Control is al- covered that progress was more easily made ways partial, limited by the organisation of so- without male involvement. In some cases this cial institutions and relations (Brown & Ad- translated into a belief that feminists should be ams, 1979). Similarly, conceptions of women as independent from men in all ways. Certainly possessors/controllers of their bodies are prob- women could better represent themselves and lematic. A view of bodies as things or posses- their interests if not continually juxtaposed sions to be controlled was behind male claims with men. It remained difficult for women to of their rights over women’s bodies. be taken seriously in political action because Feminists did recognise that power pro- the model of a political actor was male. duced/constructed types of bodies and sexuali- Creating women-only spaces made it possi- ties (cf. Jackson & Scott, 1996a, pp. 6–12, 17– ble for women to more clearly define them- 20). Assumptions that the ‘true’ sexuality for selves, their needs and interests. Creation of feminists was a lesbian one (repressed by patri- such spaces attempted to resist patriarchal as- archy) implied such recognition. Yet, suggesting sumptions of male rights of physical and sym- that simply ‘choosing’ to ‘return’ to this ‘true’ bolic access to women. However, having ex- sexuality would empower women failed to ac- cluded men, women struggled with each other knowledge the complexity of the ways in which for representative space. Criticisms of natura- power is inscribed upon bodies and constructs lised explanations of relationships were ex- sexuality. Seeing sexuality as central to identity tended to relations between other groups, in- formed an important part of the challenge to cluding different groups of women. Differences the apolitical categorisation of sexual relation- had to be acknowledged and alliances worked ships, but it could easily be subsumed into the on, rather than it being assumed that women discourse emerging from Western science would act on the basis of shared experiences as which suggests that sex will tell us the truth women. Feminist notions of power as ‘power about ourselves (Foucault, 1990, pp. 69–70). over’ limited this process. These views led, for The difficulties of feminists representing instance, to the use of a hierarchy of oppres- themselves as ‘personal’ and sexual political ac- sion that made constructive discussion of dif- tors are summarised by Michelle Dominy (1986, ferences difficult. p. 37). She argues that lesbian separatists were Heterosexism was a concept that involved a expanding the concept of sexuality: ‘redefining vision of power as more productive. It en- it as an aspect of all interpersonal relationships’ abled, for instance, the recognition that a per- and urging women to ‘use their sexuality as a son’s political stance might arise from their model to structure their behaviour’. This was personal (including sexual) experiences. There based on a belief that women have ‘natural ca- was considerable feminist debate about whether, pacities’ which are related to ‘sexual powers’ or to what extent, sexuality was central to

244 Mary Holmes

identity and what this implied about how to 2. The extent to which political power could be described as challenge male dominance. The institutiona- diffuse in 1970s’ New Zealand is debatable. However, I would argue that political power was sufficiently decen- lised nature of heterosexuality made many les- tralised to produce a variety in modes of resistance. bian feminists feel that their sexual experi- 3. A split between heterosexual and lesbian members of ences were an integral factor in their politics. the Broadsheet collective occurred in 1978 as a result of Positions in debates about heterosexism re- disagreements over the issue of whether to share rooms lated to whether particular feminists saw with the financially precarious (and primarily lesbian) Women’s Art Collective (WAC) (Circle Collective, women’s bodies as the basis of their oppres- 1978, p. 74; see also Broadsheet collective, 1978). This sion or the basis for . In order to and disputes over Christine Dann’s recent editorials achieve freedom for women as women, femi- (which were critical of lesbian politics), led to four les- nists had to carefully consider when to avoid bian collective members resigning. Lesbian energy was withdrawn from the magazine, to be reinvested when liberal patriarchal ideas that bodies are pos- Broadsheet acknowledged the political significance of sessed and under control. These ideas underlie lesbianism and its importance within women’s libera- liberal conceptions of the individual as mascu- tion, and reflected this in what was published (Circle line owner. In resisting these ideas it was diffi- Collective, 1978, p. 76-80). After discussions a working cult for feminists to represent themselves as relationship with lesbian feminists was finally re-estab- lished in 1980 (Broadsheet collective, 1980, p. 2). personal, sexual, and political beings without 4. Thank you to the anonymous referee who alerted me to relying on essentialist notions of women and this work. women’s bodies. Seeing lesbianism as a more 5. This usually meant ‘freed’ from male imposed standards liberated form of sexuality did acknowledge of beauty, so with bodily hair, and without make-up or other ‘repressive’ paraphernalia. bodies and sexuality as operated on by power. 6. This was an idea not unique to feminists. Scott mainly But interpretations of power as productive discusses its pre-eminence in History as a discipline. were overshadowed by the focus on men’s Feminists, however, put particular emphasis on it power over women. That focus made it diffi- because of their belief in the importance of women rep- cult to account for more complex operations of resenting themselves rather than being represented by others (men). power between women. Feminist struggles to politicise ‘personal’ re- lationships could result in personal conflicts be- REFERENCES tween women committed to liberation. This Aitken, Judith. (1980). Women in the political life of New could be painful, but feminism was never really Zealand. In Phillida Bunkle & Beryl Hughes (Eds.), a happy united sisterhood, it was always an on- Women in New Zealand Society (pp. 11–33). Auckland: going negotiation about how to better represent George Allen and Unwin. women and their needs and interests. Acknowl- Alcoff, Linda. (1988). versus post structur- alism: The identity crisis in feminism. Signs, 13, 405–436. edging that personal relationships were part of Alston, Sharon. (1973). Gay pride. Broadsheet, 10, 4–6. politics was an important factor in mounting a Awatere, Donna. (1980). Korero-tia wahine ma: Women serious challenge to liberal democracy, which speak out, the first national black women’s hui, Ngati had excluded women’s interests partly by pre- Otara marae, Auckland, Sept. 5-7. Broadsheet, 84, 10–13. Awatere, Donna. (1982a). Maori sovereignty part 1. tending to cater for the common good of ab- Broadsheet, 100, 38–42. stract citizens. Politicising relationships may Awatere, Donna. (1982b). Maori sovereignty part 2. have contributed to the loss of a feeling of sis- Broadsheet, 103, 24–29. terly solidarity, but for many marginalised Awatere, Donna. (1983). Beyond the noble savage. Broad- groups of feminists, that solidarity had always sheet, 106, 7–13. Baynes, Sylvia. (1994). Coming of age 1973–1994: The been a mirage. To destroy that mirage had its United Women’s Conventions and their influence on costs, but also allowed feminists to begin to con- the Women’s Movement in Aotearoa/New Zealand. ceive of how to represent themselves and their Women’s Studies Association Conference Papers, needs in more complex ways. Feminists con- August 1993, Wellington. Wellington: Women’s Studies Association. tinue to try and engage in political struggle as Beasley, Chris. (1999). What is feminism? An introduction particular but inter-related human beings. to . London: Sage Beauvoir, Simone de. (1949). . London: Pan Books. ENDNOTES Broadsheet collective. (1978). Broadsheet supplement. Broadsheet, 62, 1–5. 1. Second-wave feminism is not meant to imply that that Broadsheet collective. (1980) Statement. Broadsheet, 79, 1–2. there was no feminist activity between the 19th century Broadsheet collective. (1982). Broadsheet 10 years on. and the 1960s. Broadsheet, 101, 12–19.

The Politics of Relationships 245

Brown, Beverley, & Adams, Parveen. (1979). The feminine the political order: New social and political movements body and feminist politics. m/f, 3, 35–50. in western democracies (pp137-155). Cambridge: Polity Browne, Joy, et al. (Eds.). (1978). Changes, chances, Press. choices: A report on the United Women’s Convention Goodger, Kay. (1972). Hundreds attend Women’s Libera- 1977. Christchurch. tion Conference. Socialist Action, 4(6), 1. Brownlie, Carol. (1970). Are you going to burn your ? Greer, Germaine. (1970). The Female Enuch. London: Pal- Thursday, (1 October), 4–6. adin Bunkle, Phillida. (1980). A history of the women’s move- Grosz, Elizabeth. (1994). Volatile bodies: Towards a cor- ment—part 5. Broadsheet, 76, 32–33. poreal feminism. Bloomington: Indiana University Butterworth, Karen. (1976). The place of the “un-radical”. Press. Broadsheet, 44, 3–4. Hannah, Jill. (1982). More than a touch of classism. Cahill, Maud, & Dann, Christine, (Eds.). (1991). Changing Bitches, Witches and Dykes, (August), 21. our lives. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books. Holmes, Mary. (1998). The representation of feminists as Cartledge, Sue, & Hemmings, Susan. (1982). How did we political actors. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of get this way? In Marsha Rowe (Ed.), reader Auckland, New Zealand. (pp. 326–335). Harmondsworth: Penguin. Jackson, Stevi. (1993). Love and romance as objects of Casswell, Sally. (1975). Separatism revisited. Broadsheet, feminist knowledge. In Mary Kennedy, Cathy Lubel- 34, 28–29. ska, & Val Walsh (Eds.), Making connections: Women’s Church, Toni. (1971). First National Women’s Liberation studies, women’s movements, women’s lives (pp. 39-50). Conference. Craccum, 46(7), 5–7. London: Taylor and Francis. Circle Collective. (1978). Broadsheet bust-up. Circle, (win- Jackson, Stevi, & Scott, Sue. (1996a). Sexual skirmishes ter), 74–81. and feminist factions: Twenty-five years of debate on Circle Collective. (1980). Politics, action, strategies. Circle, women and sexuality. In Stevi Jackson & Sue Scott 35, 52–56. (Eds.), Feminism and sexuality: A reader (pp. 1–31). Cole, Val. (1976). Editorial. Broadsheet, 44, 12–13. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Coney, Sandra (Ed.). (1973). United Women’s Convention. Jackson, Stevi, & Scott, Sue, (Eds). (1996b). Feminism and Auckland: WEA. sexuality: A reader. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Coney, Sandra. (1979). The joy of feminism room is can- Press celled. Broadsheet, 69, 6-7. Johnson, Marilynn. (1979). United women’s convention: A Crawley, Jo. (1974). Report on lesbian conference, 1–3 . Circle, 32, 3–9. March. Circle, 4, 7-11. Jones, Alison, & Guy, Camille. (1992). in Curtain, Jennifer, & Devere, Heather. (1993). A Plurality New Zealand: From Piha to Newton. In Rosemary Du of feminisms. In H. Catt & E. McLeay (Eds.), Women Plessis (Ed.), Feminist voices: Women’s studies texts for and politics in New Zealand (pp. 6–16). Wellington: Aotearoa/New Zealand (pp. 300–316). Auckland: Political Science and University Press. Oxford University Press. Curthoys, Jean. (1997). Feminist amnesia: The wake of Juno Collective. (1976). Lesbian feminist lifestyles in Palm- women’s liberation. London: Routledge. erston North. Juno, 2, 5–7. Dann, Christine. (1976). Behind the news: Maori Women Kedgley, Sue. (1971). Brother, it’s not your penis we’ve on the move. Broadsheet, 44, 6-9. been envying all these years, but your freedom. Crac- Dann, Christine. (1979). Editorial: “Feminists are made not cum, 45(21), 1, 4-5. born”, a feminist tells her story. Broadsheet, 66, 6-8. Kitzinger, Celia, & Wilkinson, Sue. (1993). The precarious- Dann, Christine. (1985). Up From under: Women and lib- ness of heterosexual feminist identities. In M. Kennedy, eration in New Zealand 1970–1985. Wellington: Allen C. Lubelska, & V. Walsh (Eds)., Making connections: and Unwin. Women’s studies, women’s movements, women’s lives Dominy, Michelle. (1986). 1979 Convention: A Cultural (pp. 24–36). London: Taylor and Francis. Analysis. New Zealand Women’s Studies Journal, 2(2), Klaich, Dolores. (1974). Woman plus woman. New York: 25-39. Simon and Schuster. Eagle, Allie, & Argent. (1978). Herstory: Kuhn, Annette. (1985). The power of the image: Essays on in action. Circle, (summer), 8-11. representation and sexuality. London: Routledge Echols, Alice. (1989). Daring to be Bad: Radical feminism Kegan Paul. in America 1967–1975. Minneapolis: University of Min- Laclau, Ernesto, & Mouffe, Chantal. (1985). Hegemony nesota Press. and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic Else, Anne. (1979). Needing an open movement. Broad- politics. London: Verso. sheet, 66, 2-3. Livestre, J. H. (1979). Dear woman. Woman, 117, 6–7. Evans, Judith. (1995). Feminist theory today: An introduc- McShane, Vera. (1979). Wanted, a more political conven- tion to second-wave feminism. London: Sage. tion. New Zealand Monthly Review, 20(211), 7–9. Firestone, Shulamith. (1972). The Dialectic of sex: The case Meikle, Phoebe, (Ed.). (1976). United Women’s Conven- for feminist revolution. London: Granada. tion 1975, June. Wellington. Foucault, Michel. (1990). The history of sexuality: Volume Melucci, Alberto. (1989). Nomads of the present: Social one. An introduction. London: Penguin. movements and individual needs in contemporary soci- Gatens, Moira. (1992). Power, Bodies and Difference. In ety. London: Hutchinson Radius. Michele Barrett & Anne Phillips (Eds.), Destabilizing Mitchell, Julie, & Oakley, Ann (Eds.) (1997). Who’s afraid theory: Contemporary feminist debates (pp. 123-132). of feminism: Seeing through the backlash. London: Cambridge: Polity Press. Hamish Hamilton. Gelb, Joyce. (1990). Feminism and political action. In Rus- Mouffe, Chantal. (1992). Feminism, citizenship and radical sell J. Dalton & Manfred Kuechler (Eds.), Challenging democratic politics. In & Joan Scott 246 Mary Holmes

(Eds.), Feminists theorize the political (pp. 369–384). Seidman, Steven. (1994). The new social movements and New York: Routledge. the making of new social knowledges. In Steven Mulrennan, Brigid. (1979). United Women’s Convention: Seidman (Ed.), Contested knowledge: Social theory in feminist sentiment growing. Socialist Action, 11(8), 6. the postmodern era (pp. 234–279). Oxford: Blackwell. Mulvey, Laura. (1989). Visual pleasure and narrative cin- Shields, Margaret, & Milne, Deidre. (1975). Women in pol- ema. In Laura Mulvey (Ed.), Visual and other pleasures itics. Listener, 79(1855), 14–15. (pp. 14–26). London: MacMillan. Simpkin, Gay. (1994). Women for Aotearoa: Feminism and Orange, Claudia (1987). The treaty of Waitangi. Welling- Maori sovereignty. Women’s Studies Association (NZ) ton: Allen and Unwin/Port Nicholson. Conference Papers (pp. 41–48). Wellington: Women’s Papers on the Select Committee on Women’s Rights. Studies Association (1975). New Zealand National Archives, ABGX Acc Socialist Action League. (1973). The new rise of feminism: W3706, Box 85. Parts one to three. a socialist programme for women’s liberation. Socialist Pateman, Carole. (1988). The sexual contract. Stanford: Action, 5(5), 3–6. Stanford University Press. Spender, Dale. (1994). For the record: The making and Pateman, Carol. (1989). Feminist critiques of the public/ meaning of feminist knowledge. London: Women’s Press. private dichotomy. In Carol Pateman (Ed.), The Disor- Stone, Raewyn. (1974). Some thoughts on the impending der of Women: Democracy, Feminism and Political ‘revolution’. Craccum, 48(7), 7. Theory (pp. 118–140). Cambridge: Polity Press. Tanner, Leslie B. (Ed.). (1970). Voices from women’s liber- Pederson, Nancy. (1979). Lesbian feminist politics. ation. New York: Signet Books. Women’s Learning Web Newsletter, 2, 20–21. Terpestra, Daphne. (1976). Unradical feminists. Broad- Phillips, Anne. (1991). Engendering democracy. Philadel- sheet, 42, 5. phia: Pennsylvania University Press. Tseëlon, Effrat. (1995). The of the spectacle. In Pollock, Grisellda. (1992). Painting, feminism, history. In Effrat Tseëlon (Ed.), The masque of : The Michelle Barrett & Anne Phillips (Eds.), Destabilizing presentation of woman in everyday life (pp. 54–76). theory: Contemporary feminist debates (pp. 138–176). London: Sage. Stanford: Stanford University Press. United Women’s Convention Committee. (1979). United Ranstead, Jill. (1977). The herstory of the second wave. Women’s Convention: Easter 1979; University of Craccum, 51(10), 11. Waikato, Hamilton. Hamilton: University of Waikato. Ray, Pauline, & Lloyd, Ann. (1979). Ten Tough Years. Lis- Wellington Women’s Workshop. (1985). Action. Welling- tener, 91(2049), 18–20. ton Women’s Workshop Newsletter, 9, 1. Rich, Adrienne. (1997). Compulsory heterosexuality and Whelehan, Imelda. (1995). Modern feminist thought: From lesbian existence. In Sandra Kemp & Judith Squires the second-wave to ‘post-feminism’. Edinburgh: Edin- (Eds.) Feminisms (pp. 320–325). Oxford: Oxford Uni- burgh University Press. versity Press. Woman Collective. (1972). A movement for women. Riley, Denise. (1988). Am I that name? Feminism and the Woman, 1, 1–2. category of ‘women’ in history. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Woman Collective. (1977). The personal is political. Rotherham, Joan. (1973). Women and the . Woman, 100, 5–6. New Zealand Monthly Review, 14(145), 18–19. Women ’74. (1975). Proceedings of the University Exten- Rowe, Marsha (Ed.). (1982). Spare rib reader. Harmond- sion Seminar; 14–15 September 1974, University of sworth: Penguin. Waikato, Hamilton. Hamilton: University of Waikato. Scott, Joan. (1991). The evidence of experience. Critical Yeatman, Anna. (1994). Feminism and Power. Women’s Inquiry, 17, 773–797. Studies Journal (NZ), 10(1), 70–100.