The Tracks of Winifred Holtby
Following in the tracks of Winifred Holtby
On a trail over the flowing hills,
A hare gallops through the rising corn,
A kestrel hangs on the edge of the wind,
Wings fluttering.
Nothing changes.
The ghost of Vera Brittain
Strides alongside us
Informing us of injustice and inequality,
As we traverse the Dales.
The rolling hills of England,
Falling away towards the pastel, misty trees in the distance.
The sun sends slanting beams
Striking the church
Of Rudston, nestling in the valley,
As time stands still
In a scene that has never changed
And we are transported.
Only the monolith stands the test of time.
The socialist dream consumed by the conflagration of lies.
As Winifred and Vera become lauded brief flickers
Shedding light on life from a niche in history
From where equality, tolerance and fairness
Were worth fighting for.
Opher – 28.4.2024
Socialist writers and friends, pacifists, feminists and activists, these two colossi strode these hills, shared their vision for a better world and wrote their dreams.
They fought for a better world, a socialist vision in which intolerance and elitism, misogyny and greed were replaced by a fairer system, a meritocracy blind to race or gender, social class and status. They wrote honestly to bring a better world into reality.
Their vision was consumed in the fires of capitalist greed. People made money out of their work. Their dreams were never realised.
Yesterday we walked those hills, following in their footsteps, basking in nature. It was as if we had gone back in time. The fields, trees and village were arrested in some unholy time-warp. No signs of modernity were visible. Our eyes saw the same as theirs.
Yet the world of their day was unrecognisable.
Their dreams incinerated on the altar of profit.
We visited her grave.
Could it be men’s size, strength, aggression and forcefulness that women find intimidating?
Could it really be that women have a tendency to be more emotional and less rational in times of stress?
Or is it just that having children and subsequent childcare takes women out of the game at a crucial time in the development of a career?
It would seem to me that until we find a way of sharing the responsibility for childcare or making adequate quality provision women will always be at a disadvantage.
Could this be the crucial problem that requires solving? In order to create a fair meritocracy we require first-rate childcare and social facilities for sharing the responsibility!
Ever since the Agricultural Revolution the world has been dominated by Patriarchal societies. With few exceptions (Cleopatra, Wu Zetian and Elizabeth 1st being rare examples) the world has been dominated by men. Women were considered inferior, given few, if any, opportunities to receive an education or develop skills. Their roles were limited and peripheral. Their duty was to serve their men, look after the house and raise children. Men ran the country and did the important work. All the politicians, lawyers, military chiefs, religious leaders, scientists, theologians, artists, writers, musicians, architects, poets, judges and philosophers were men. Even in the courts of the rare female leaders all the other roles were masculine.
Strangely this mindset is one that has been perpetuated by women as well as men. They are often the ones who create the loudest clamor if a female steps out of line – they can be the cruelest in terms of abuse for promiscuous girls, the strongest advocates for FGM and, as leaders, least likely to give a helping hand to fellow women. Thatcher’s cabinet was a good example. She only appointed one woman to her twenty plus cabinet during the whole of her term.
It is only in recent times, in many societies, that this is beginning to change. People such as Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel have taken leading roles. We have women as successful CEOs, Bishops, Lawyers, Artists, Police Chiefs, Scientists and Politicians. As more women take on these roles, and demonstrate that they are not hysterical or incapable, they are setting examples for other women to aspire to and gradually changing the mindset of society.
It is a very gradual business. They have to overturn the preconceptions that have been built up for thousands of years. But it is happening. Things are changing.
Perhaps this is the dawn of a new era for women? Perhaps the dawn of a fairer society built on meritocracy and not gender, race, class, caste or affluence?
There are things worth fighting for!
Oman – we’d seen a bit of Oman – in his dashing white Dishdash, brimming with eloquence and confidence – but where was Owoman? Out in this more rural setting she was nowhere to be seen. Locked up in the home? Behind the high walls of the compounds? Locked within the prison of long black heat absorbing robes and veils? We were told that women had been afforded permission to drive and were educated and could achieve the top posts and careers – though it was not seen as strange to our guide, in this segregated misogynistic society, that they were confined to the back of the class and the periphery at mosques and very few of the posts of responsibility were held by women. We were told that 74% of those achieving the examination pass rate were female – so they simply changed the rules to favour males. It seems to me that Oman was still locked in a strictly medieval mindset and that Owoman still had a long way to go. It is a road we are a little further down in the West. Maybe one day?
It seems that ISIS is selling the wearing of the complete female body veil known as a Burqa as a liberating, feminist experience. Women wearing this all-covering shapeless body garment are no longer sex objects so this is feminism in action.
Except it isn’t is it?
They might not be sexual objects per se as all of them of whatever age, degree of feminine perfection or shape are made equally nondescript. Though it doesn’t stop the single males in a sexually repressed society imagining what lurks underneath that shapeless mass of cloth. But is it feminism?
Obviously not. The sheer fact that there is no choice in the matter is sufficient to remove all of that notion. The fact that this is imposed on all women regardless of their wishes is not, under any guise, freedom. Some may prefer to remain ‘safe’ behind their masks, hidden from view, but that is no excuse for imposition.
The Burqa is a pre-Islamic uniform imposed on women by a repressive, misogynistic middle-eastern culture. It isn’t even Islamic. To claim that it is liberating is merely spin.
We will see feminism when women are afforded the same rights and freedoms as men. When they can drive, go out without escorts or permission, vote, participate fully in commerce, politics and religion as equals, and are not separated off as chattels of the men.
There may well be a reaction to the decadence of many Western females with their scanty attire, promiscuity and intoxicants but at least they are free to do what they choose; even if what they choose is crass.
The women being enticed over to Syria as ‘brides’ of the Islamists are taking a reckless risk. They are being ‘sold’ the idea of being married to a fearless, butch Jihadi warrior, but in actual fact are much more likely to end up as a sex slave of a bunch of ignorant savages.
What do you think?
Suffrage is the right to vote. The use of the term suffragette was introduced to be derogatory to women supporters of the right for females to vote and be equal to men.
A novel idea only a hundred years ago.
Many women wanted to have the vote. And they fought for it.
If anyone is in any doubt as to the strength, resolve, intelligence, bravery and resilience of women they only have to look at the history and actions of the British suffragettes. They were no dainty feminine flowers to be pushed around. They stood their ground and fought for their rights with all the fierceness and strength of mountain lions. There was no way they were going to back down or lose. Strangely the suffragettes were largely from the middle-classes and upper classes. The grinding poverty of the working classes was probably a factor in deterring them from becoming involved in the struggle. But the suffragettes knew how to organise.
They wanted the vote and they got it.
The tactics were active and sometimes violent. They used hunger strikes, chaining themselves to railings, arson and destroying mailboxes. Whatever it took to raise awareness. Emily Davidson threw herself under the King’s horse at the Epsom Derby and was killed.
Women were arrested and force-fed.
Emmeline Pankhurst was responsible for developing these militant tactics and refused to back down.
The supposed case against giving women the vote was that they were too emotional. Prime Minister Asquith changed his mind about supporting the vote for women because he thought they might vote against him. The establishment did not want democracy. It threatened their wealth and power.
The First World War intervened and the involvement of women on the home-front doing the work of their absent men forced the issue. In 1918 men over the age of twenty one were given the vote and women over the age of thirty (with caveats about owning property).
It was not until as late as 1928 that women over the age of twenty one were given the vote.
Every concession has been hard fought for and equality was a long time coming – it hasn’t even arrived yet!
