CHAPTER TWO: Domestic violence in feminism and policy: 1900 to 1970 Climbing Walls and Beating on Doors: but where had the knowledge gone? Late nineteenth century Australian feminists unambiguously placed domestic violence as a feminist issue, and one which informed the initiatives they pursued through policy activism. Differences in their practical and representational context, including the nature and possibilities of public policy as they knew it, shaped key differences in analysis, emphasis and strategy between their responses to domestic violence and those of feminists a century later. But this does not explain why those later feminists began their response to domestic violence with a conviction that they were not just re- framing but actually discovering the feminist significance of partner violence. I begin this chapter by establishing the impact of that experience of discovery, and the circumstances which shaped it. This is an opportunity to study the moment, and then the subsequent stages, of the experience of recognition which becomes the ‘creation’ of an issue. I then return to the exploration of the representational history of domestic violence in Australian feminism and policy, focusing on the period between the winning of women’s suffrage and the early 1970s. This is the period which both sets the immediate context for the new feminist engagement, and holds the clues to the disjuncture between feminist knowledge at the beginning of the century and the initial apparent ignorance of the new generation of feminists about the significance of male violence to women with whom they share intimate relationships. As in the previous chapter, this exploration continues to address the main themes of the thesis. In addition to the continuing investigation of the ‘discovery’ context and its contribution to analysis of the implications of contextual constructions for policy, this chapter traces the analytical emphases and policy strategies of feminists in the intervening period, and looks for the place within them of domestic violence. It also continues analysis of the representational implications of relevant policy instruments, and, through them, of the circumstances of and resources available to women 59 suffering partner violence. Finally, it considers the validity of ‘policy activism’ as a model for feminist policy related activism in this period. With the exception of the opening section, much of the source material for this study is again taken from secondary historical accounts. Judith Allen’s work on women and crimes of violence in NSW continues to be a valuable source, as are the broad ranging histories of Australian women and feminism provided by Anne Summers (1975a; 1994a), Patricia Grimshaw et al (1994) and Marilyn Lake (1998, 1999), and the analyses of Australian social policy in this period of Deborah Brennan (1998a), Lois Bryson (1988, 1992, 1995), Bettina Cass (1985; 1988; 1995), Brian Dickey (1980), T. H. Kewley (1973, 1980), Jill Roe (1976, 1988), Sheila Shaver (1988; 1990; 1995) and others. As in the previous chapter, I reposition this material so as to identify the constructions of domestic violence implied by relevant policy instruments and by feminist analyses and directions. A significant aspect of that re-positioning is the establishment of links between accounts of the development of social and justice system policy and of feminism in Australia in this period, with particular attention to the placing of domestic violence. It is particularly remarkable that, with the exception of Allen’s work, historical analysis of Australian feminism in this period has barely addressed the framings of domestic violence developed by feminism and policy after 1970. As will be observed below, Anne Summers has explained this absence from her pioneering tour-de-force history of Australian women, Damned Whores and God’s Police (1975), in terms of the concurrent ‘discovery’ (Summers 1994a: 1; 1999: 315-6). In a more recent example, Marilyn Lake, in her history of Australian feminism, neither identifies nor discusses the apparent absence of domestic violence among feminist concerns prior to 1970 (Lake 1999). Nor does she explore these issues in her ‘A history of feminism in Australia’ in The Australian Feminist Companion, while the section on ‘Violence’ in that volume does not explore the historical dimensions of either the feminist or the policy response to domestic violence, apart from policy directed education campaigns (Caine 1998; Lake 1998; Mason 1998). Meanwhile, Pat Grimshaw and her colleagues in their re-positioning of women in Australian history, Creating a Nation. 1788-1990 (1994), mention domestic violence only twice: the first mention is made in the context of late nineteenth century divorce reform and the second with regard to the funding of 60 women’s refuges by the Whitlam government (Grimshaw et al 1994: 172-3, 304). As in Chapter One, and once again in order to explore the context for the feminist policy process which is the central focus of the thesis, the discussion which follows initiates a neglected aspect of Australian feminist history. Following the examination of the circumstances of the feminist recognition of domestic violence in the early 1970s, the chapter investigates the construction of domestic violence by the Australian justice system and social policy between 1900 and 1970 and its implications for women suffering such violence, followed by the framing and directions of Australian feminism in the same period. In a final section, the contextual circumstances of the new phase of Australian feminism from the end of the 1960s, and of the recognition of domestic violence it involved, are considered. THE ‘DISCOVERY’: CLIMBING WALLS AND BEATING ON DOORS Feminist scholars in Australia and North America have argued that the re-invigorated women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s was necessary for the feminist recognition of domestic violence, because the analysis it provided enabled women suffering violence to politicise what was happening to them, and so to speak out (Hopkins and McGregor 1991: 8; Walker 1999: 17; Schechter 1982: 33). Hopkins and McGregor also explain the delay in Australian feminist response to domestic violence at this time by claiming that the earliest feminist demands ‘[did] not focus on the behaviour of men, but rather on the activities of the state. … [T]he demands of the early women’s liberationists were aimed very much at public life (Hopkins and McGregor 1991: 5). The circumstances in which the feminists of this period made their identification of domestic violence bear out the significance of this phase of the women’s movement as the context for that recognition and reframing. But the story I am about to relate demonstrates that the way in which it happened, and the directions of influence involved, were the exact reverse of those claimed in the opinions referred to above. To begin with, the claim of Hopkins and McGregor that the emphasis of the new phase of Australian feminism was on public life rather than male behaviour is not borne out by the ‘personal is political’ emphases or the consciousness-raising 61 methodology of the early women’s liberation movement (Dowse 1984: 140-1; Summers 1994a: 514-5; 1999: 270-5). Further, the first encounters between the new feminists and women suffering violence make it clear that the decisive effect of the feminist context was not its analysis, but rather that it provided those women with a new strategic location for their enduring survival efforts. The other crucial significance of the new phase of the women’s movement was that having provided a forum, in Sydney this happened to be the 1973 Women’s Commission, which the violence sufferers could put to strategic use, the listening feminists had been prepared by their encounter with feminism to be able to respond to what those women had to say. The first public encounter of this kind was the Women’s Commission organised by Sydney Women’s Liberation groups and WEL in the Teachers’ Federation Auditorium in Sussex Street on 17 and 18 March 1973, in connection with International Women’s Day (IWD) (Mejane 10, March 1973:5; 2/1, July 1973:4-5; Refactory Girl 6 June 1974:5; Wills 1983:323; Summers 1999: 324). Joyce Stevens, one of the participants, has described what happened as ‘a watershed for the Sydney movement (Stevens 1985: 41). The drama of this precise moment of ‘discovery’ is foreshadowed in the themes advertised for the 1973 Commission: rape is mentioned under the heading ‘Women as Sex Objects’, and the theme ‘Women and Marriage’ is included, along with ‘Women as Mothers’, ‘Women as Workers’ and ‘Other Forms of Discrimination’, but partner violence is not mentioned (Mejane 10, March 1973:5). What happened instead is described by Stevens: ‘It was an exercise in mass consciousness-raising about areas of women’s lives which had hitherto been ignored and closeted. One hundred and thirty-eight women, many of whom had been unable to reveal physical and sexual assaults to their closest friends or family, rose to talk, some making their debut in public speaking as well. Women sat taut, breathlessly silent as speakers struggled to overcome grief and pain’ (Stevens 1985: 41). It is clear that the context of a well-publicised women’s movement and the venue provided by the Women’s Commission gave the women suffering violence permission and an opportunity to speak of their suffering. But the planned gathering did not invite or expect them to speak, or open the way with a ready framed analysis. The women’s movement context, one shaped by a commitment to listening to other women’s experiences, provided an audience ready to hear and respond. But the women who 62 spoke were continuing the age-old tradition of primary activism for survival which took beaten women into magistrates’ courts and the State Children’s Board at the end of the nineteenth century and which would produce surprise interventions in a sequence of government sponsored consultation venues, including several which I will refer to later in the thesis.