The dilemma of campaigning for others
Posted
Do any of us have a legitimate voice in a debate about inequalities that face others? Do we have the right to push forward when some of the very people we are seeking to help are resistant to our efforts? Juliet Bourke says this is the very dilemma that faces the Chief of the Australian Army.
When I was at Law School, a long time ago, a friend asked me if I could edit the Aboriginal Law Bulletin. She was going overseas, at short notice, and they didn't have anyone to manage the next edition until a formal replacement was appointed. It was just an interim measure, a favour for a friend, but of course something of value for me too. I was already developing an interest in human rights law as well as writing.
My heart was in the right place and I thought I could do a good job. I even thought I might be applauded for spending my time and energy on a worthy cause - helping to promote discussion about Indigenous issues in Australia.
So it came as a shock when a stranger dropped by the office, looking for my friend, saw me and spat, "What are you doing here? Who do you think you are? What gives you the right to do this job? This should be done by my people". Far from the praise I thought was my due, I was faced with anger and moral indignation.
My first reaction was to say, "If you know of someone else who would like this job, just let me know. I am more than happy to step aside for someone who's Aboriginal." But I didn't argue. In fact, I implicitly accepted her right to question me, and the "authority" of her point of view, but that left me with anxiety and doubt about my role in the Aboriginal push for equality.
Was participation and a legitimate voice dependent on the colour of my skin?
I was reminded of this when listening to the Chief of the Australian Army, Lt Gen Morrison, speak to 100 young professionals at a Development Forum hosted by Deloitte about how cultural change comes about, and how he became a champion for women's advancement in the Army.
The Chief's advocacy for the advancement for women is well known. In June 2013, the Chief voiced his strong support for gender equality in a video which went viral (it has now been watched nearly 1.5 million times.) He condemned the sexist and inappropriate behaviour of some Army soldiers and officers who had been involved in the infamous "Jedi Council" scandal. More than that, the Chief communicated his view that being a bystander to bad practice is the same as condoning it. Powerful stuff.
Nearly one year on, in his presentation to the Development Forum on May 1, the Chief talked about how his views on women in the Army developed and how some of his views have been challenged. He described his journey as having a 'Road to Damascus' aspect to it; three critical events preceding the 2013 video enabled the Chief to "see" the Army's gender inequality issue for what it was:
Leaders, if they are lucky enough, have points of revelation when they are still leaders. And if they are lucky enough they recognise them (for what they are).
For the Chief, those points of revelation comprised: (i) conversations with people he respected that led him to question whether equal opportunity was built into the fabric of the Army as a workplace; (ii) listening to the heartfelt stories of three capable women about how they had been treated by officers who should have protected, not damaged, them; and (iii) recognising that the lack of women in Australia's Army was hurting Army's ability to execute its mission in Afghanistan efficiently.
This latter point needs a bit of explanation, as it wasn't about having enough soldiers to deploy to Afghanistan. Rather, it was "all about capability", according to the Chief. Afghanistan is a counter-insurgency war and success depends on influencing the local people and taking away the insurgents' support networks. The Australian Army was doing a great job connecting with the Afghani men, but its ability to connect with the other 50 per cent of the local population, Afghani women, was compromised by its gender composition.
Those events changed the Chief's understanding about diversity.
The Chief says he now faces the challenge of taking more of his organisation with him on that journey. He might have expected resistance from men in the Army, but what has surprised him is that some Army women are asking him to turn down the spotlight. They fear that by making life easier for them, he is somehow devaluing their achievements, and undermining their desire to "fit in".
They are, in effect, asking him to stop his advocacy and efforts on women's behalf.
It's a fear rooted in real experiences, where some soldiers and officers have snidely suggested that the promotion of a woman was not earned on merit but given to meet a "diversity target". It might also be the case that some women, like some of their male colleagues, just don't see the need for a focus on diversity: "If it's not broken, don't fix it." These challenges have given him pause as a leader, and have also created a level of personal doubt about the legitimacy of his "voice", as a man, to speak on gender.
That self-doubt triggered my memory of the dilemma I had faced all those years ago with the Aboriginal Law Bulletin. It's a dilemma which raises bigger questions about cultural change: Do any of us have a legitimate voice in a debate about inequalities that face others? Do we have the right to push forward when some of the very people we are seeking to help are resistant to our efforts? And what should we do when we think they are wrong?
If this is about all of us, then I think there's a place of equal value for men and women to have a voice on gender equality.
Of course, the resistance is giving the Chief pause: he's a very thoughtful person. He knows he's probably hearing the view of a minority of women, but still - what weight should he give their point of view? Is his opinion on how to tackle change on gender equity of less value just because he's a man?
I wonder if the dilemma the Chief is facing is one experienced by many men when trying to get involved with the gender equality agenda. They might expect attack from other men opposed to "the cause", but come unprepared to be attacked by women themselves. That point of view catches men off guard and can only be demotivating and disenfranchising.
I was certainly demotivated after my experience with the Aboriginal Law Bulletin. I know the damage a gatekeeper can do, and I don't want to be one. If my opinion counts for anything, I want men like Lt Gen Morrison to know that I welcome them to the table. I certainly don't have all the answers, and I don't think being a woman gives me a monopoly on good ideas about gender equality. We've all got skin in the game, the Chief as much as anyone, and we all have a right to speak up. If this is about all of us, then I think there's a place of equal value for men and women to have a voice on gender equality. That means that the resistant voice of women should be given the same weight as the resistant voice of men.
I still don't quite know what I should have told the stranger who entered my office all those years ago, but I have a feeling that the message should have been along the lines of joint responsibility for change. I want to see how the Chief comes out of his thinking. He's smart, committed and perceptive. For anyone who has also faced this dilemma: we could learn a lot.
Juliet Bourke leads the Australian Diversity, Inclusion and Leadership service at Deloitte. View her full profile here.
Topics: army
Comments (17)
Add your comment
Brief Comment:
02 Jun 2014 8:38:14am
Like the author, I too was struck by the contradictions of political correctness when at university. At what point does affirmative action become racism?
I was left with the view that to eliminate discrimination or racism, it should actually be eliminated, not replaced with another form of bias.
This has clear implications for the current discussions around Section 18C and potential changes to the constitution to promote Aboriginal reconciliation.
Reply Alert moderator
EvilPundit:
02 Jun 2014 9:35:51am
@Brief Comment - That is exactly what put me off about feminism and other so-called 'equality movements'.
They sound great in principle, and I was on board as an activist for fifteen years.
But gradually I came to realise that these movements weren't trying to gain equality at all. They were trying to reverse the directyion of the discrimination.
Thus disillusioned, I turned from an active supporter into an active opponent.
Reply Alert moderator
ex-servicewoman:
02 Jun 2014 8:49:23am
Yes, pushing for "equality" can give way to results in the workplace that seem anything but "equal". I have a personal example - years ago whilst serving in a "male dominated" field within the ADF I was given a position I neither sought out nor wanted. In fact, I requested quite the opposite. Many of my male counterparts wanted this role, many requested it. However, due to the role needing to be "filled by a female" and due to the fact I was the only female qualified member available, I was deemed the perfect fit, regardless of my male counterparts (or my own) requests. So in effect, this so called "equality" and freedom of "choice" push from the brass above created a workplace situation quite the opposite. It also did nothing for workplace relations. I became an even bigger target through no fault of my own. While my male counterparts could request positions in any number of bases/deployments and had a chance of gaining any one of those requested, I was pushed into a position I didn't even contemplate because of my gender. Ironic? I tell myself now it was all worth it because I know it paved the way for all those women after me (I was one of a handful in the first female intake many years ago). It is the initial implementation that is the problem, when there simply aren't enough women from the start-up. Those who are bold enough (or silly enough) to put their hands up first wear the brunt of the inevitable problems that arise when management push ever onwards blind to the problems they are actually causing. Yes, sometimes those pushing need to take a step sideways & listen to those who are living/working it.
Reply Alert moderator
Desert Woman:
02 Jun 2014 9:44:25am
Ex-, what your comments makes clear is that a system based on rank and therefore, inequality, can never be fair despite every effort to equalize it. That is why every problem we have, from sexism to discrimination against the disabled will never go away until we change the very system itself, from one based on rank to one based on equality. Fortunately, this is not hard to do but convincing the bosses to do might take a while.
Reply Alert moderator
sleepykarly:
02 Jun 2014 8:49:26am
I think I understand Juliet's point.
It occurs to me that the 'resistant Aboriginal' and the 'resistant female' might have their own agendas quite apart from the nominal cause.
I suspect that some of them are quite happy to be part of 'the oppressed minority', because within that minority they have the opportunity to become little dictators within that niche. They proclaim themselves to be the 'protectors' of their little clientele against those 'nasties out there'. And painting everyone in the 'oppressors' as a nasty is an important part of this process.
And an actual end to this perceived oppression is the last thing they want! It would take away their own pretence of legitimacy. Do we not see this same fomenting of 'us v. them' among all sorts of rabble-rousers, exaggerating and exploiting whatever perceived divisions there might be, rather than genuinely trying to overcome them? Jesus might have said 'blessed are the peacemakers', but that would be only in the best of all possible worlds!
Her response, that 'It is about all of us', nominal oppressors as well as nominal oppressed, is an excellent paradigm for a more creative and integrative approach. More strength to her arm!
Reply Alert moderator
Steve_C:
02 Jun 2014 9:37:06am
"I think I understand Juliet's point."
I definitely understand Juliet's point; however, the obligation that one human being has towards another human being is ALWAYS going to trump any self-deprecating desire an individual may have to "go it alone" - regardless of whatever "right/s" they may claim for themselves or have others claim for them.
Bottom line; if as an individual you see 'wrong' being done; you should have the overwhelming compulsion to do something to prevent any further wrong being done.
No "ifs" no "buts".
Call it whatever you want; but common decency just means you won't ever accept nasty individuals being nasty for whatever reason to another human being; regardless of their gender, their looks, their faith (as if you'd even flamin ask?!!!) size or any other quality.
And that applies to "nominal oppressors" as much as it does any "nominally oppressed" - let alone actual oppressors and actual oppressed. It applies to everyone - regardless!
The fact that some get it and act accordingly ought to be a pretty clear indicator... Sadly; it appears that's not the case.
And instead of sitting around whimpering about how the 'nice' people are outnumbered by the 'nasties' like "a gazzillion to one" every time a situation arises where some obnoxious toe rag of a bully should be put back in their box, it'd be reassuring that there's at least some youngsters who comprehend that it does only take one to stand up and have a go at the toe rag bully to convince others to do so as well...
Humans are like sheep after all. Sometimes they just need to be led a little bit... Come to think of it; I'm sure there'd be sheep that'd reckon "they've got control of things" as they're being led into the abattoir and as a consequence would reject the efforts of any sheep that'd got free and was trying to give them aid.
Sometimes you can't help those who won't even help themselves - but it sure doesn't mean you stop trying until the point where you realise there is no further point.
Reply Alert moderator
Cheryl Lush:
02 Jun 2014 8:57:05am
Great to read an article which discusses the issue instead of pushing an opinion. Enjoyed the read.
Reply Alert moderator
EvilPundit:
02 Jun 2014 9:03:01am
In my experience, men's voices are almost unheard in gender equality debates - unless they explicitly toe the feminist line.
All the mainstream media and academic departments are dominated by feminist voices. The only exceptions are Internet forums and small spaces in comments.
It's not possible to have a debate about gender equality when ony one gender is allowed to speak.
Reply Alert moderator
Jay Somasundaram:
02 Jun 2014 9:08:33am
The question is not whether we have a voice but how strong a voice, and how well we listen and balance competing interests and rights.
If one has power and influence and make changes for the better, then the power needs to be exercised, and in doing so, there may be failures.
The key question is ethics and that power slowly corrupts what starts with good intentions.
Reply Alert moderator
Ives:
02 Jun 2014 9:11:25am
Efforts to campaign on another's behalf is valuable for the power to influence when the campaigner comes from a position of power. All campaigns benefit from having depth in the campaigners involved - campaigners who benefit directly from the campaign as well as those seeking to correct an imbalance or an injustice.
Informed, well considered efforts such as General Morrison's are very valuable.
Similar efforts by leaders in the mining industry to improve gender diversity in the workforce have produced good results. This effort is now being extended to diversity in the top echelons, as well as on boards. It takes effort from all involved- for good competent women to fight for these roles and take them, and for those at the top to recognise and value the different perspectives the newcomers bring.
If some of these efforts are perceived as tokenism, it may be a failing on the part of those spectators, not the active participants.
Reply Alert moderator
James:
02 Jun 2014 9:18:05am
I see similar things quite a lot whenever we discuss things like gender inequiality at work (my industry is heavily Male-dominated). Some people say "you're not a woman, you can't understand what we go though" which, while it may be true, I think is quite damaging to the process of making things better. I can't see how you can work towards equality if you exclude the dominant groups from the discussion and changes.
re Brief Comment: I think that "affirmative action" definitely is racism/sexism/whatever. It can be argued that it is "positive racism" (and I think in most cases it's a good thing) but it is discrimanatory none the less.
Reply Alert moderator
Bullfrog:
02 Jun 2014 9:32:42am
As much as the women being promoted may be accused of being there simply as a diversity requirement, the previous system was not working. A short term push (say 20 years) of diversity targets will have an effect of adjusting the entire culture (normalising women in senior ranks). Once the culture has adjusted to the fact that women are part of the system, and will be part of the senior ranks, and will be involved in operational roles (how else do you engage with Afghani women?), the requirement for a diversity target could drop away - the culture could be to a point where people will be promoted purely on merit.
Having said that, the system as it stood didn't promote merit - you only have to look at the stories of the women who were attacked when they should have been supported.
Reply Alert moderator
EvilPundit:
02 Jun 2014 9:48:17am
The problem with a "short term push" of affirmative action is that it creates a new class of those in power - the people who were helped by that discrimination.
They will naturally be reluctant to dismantle the apparatus that put them in place, so they will hang on to their advantage.
The "short term push" then becomes the new dominant hierarchy. We can see this pretty clearly in the example of the academic world, where the former outsiders are now the oppresssors.
Reply Alert moderator
dragstar:
02 Jun 2014 9:35:29am
Is it necessary to be a woman before you can speak in favour of women's issues?
Do you have to be an indigenous Australian before you can work to promote indigenous rights?
Do you have to be gay or lesbian before you can fight against homophobia?
Remember Martin Niem?ller's oft quoted comment which starts, 'First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist'.
Reply Alert moderator
Merlin 23:
02 Jun 2014 9:37:04am
Great article. I find positive discrimination very interesting. About fifteen year ago my wife and I went into an Oxford St cafe around Mardi Gra time. The waiter was openly hostile and when I asked why I was told "You breeders shouldn't be in here - this cafe is for us". The irony was compelling.
Years later I have come to the conclusion that there is always someone who believes they have the right to tell another person 'how it is' or what to do.
When this occurs my standard response is "........whatever"
Reply Alert moderator
Rabbithole:
02 Jun 2014 9:42:28am
"The dilemma of campaigning for others"
I couldn't tell if you where talking about Afganistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, WW2 or WW1.
As for women joining the army to get paid for killing, what do you expect if you choose to join the army. You have got to kill who you are told to, not to think about it or question the order.
If our PM says that country did this or that and we are going to invade them, rewrite there constituion and take ownership of there central bank etc, without even a court case or any evidence, you got to go in and kill whoever they want. A bit like a Nazi, they had to do what Hitler said, even if it illegal under International law but a direct order from the government.
Our Public servants are in a similar position, asking our Navy to smuggle people back out of the country into Indonesia or the bureaucrats of the APVMA registering known carcinogens and illegal chemicals and failing to undertake proper Risk assessments after 20 years of 'investigation' and killing thousands of Australias, they have to do what the ALP/LNP corporations and there donors want.
Murder can be justified under Australian Law even if illegal under International Law, that doesn't stop our bureaucrats though. So that is the message for anyone in the public service, you have to do what the ALPLNP want or you better not become a fat cat bureaucrat in the first place.
Reply Alert moderator
Ash:
02 Jun 2014 9:46:52am
It's a good point, to remember to respect the point of view of groups on whose behalf we claim to speak. 'Affirmative Action' and 'empowerment' from external sources are tricky issues, no matter how well-intended.
But I don't think this is a good example of the problem. LTGEN Morrison isn't speaking out about gender inequality in Australian society as a whole; he's speaking about issues affecting people under his command, who are his responsibility in a very real way. The three examples he gave related to: the nature of the workplace he runs; the behaviour of Officers under his command; and the capability of his organization to fulfil its mission. To me, that obviously makes these issues his business. This makes it quite a bit different to a student Aboriginal law journal - though I can respect the good intentions of such an endeavour, too.
But lastly, any issue of 'inequality' necessarily means there are two groups involved. Yes, one group is worse off, fighting for empowerment, equality and justice. But the beliefs and behaviour of the 'dominant' group - be they men, whites, the rich, whoever - are no less a part of the issue. Denying men (for example) the ability to speak out and take responsibility for their own gender, their own side of the inequality issue, pretty much dooms the whole endeavour to failure. Whatever the inequality issue - there are two parties in the problem: there have to be two parties in the solution.
Reply Alert moderator
Add your comment