Impact Talks at UTS

Impact Talks at UTS brings you ideas and research from leading thinkers, every two weeks. Get fresh insights and dive deep into what matters. Based on Gadigal Country in the heart of Sydney’s creative and digital precinct, the University of Technology Sydney is Australia’s top university for research impact.

PLAY ON CASTBOX

Wifedom: Exposing the workings of patriarchy

Anna Funder, award-winning writer and author of Wifedom: Mrs Orwell's Invisible Life, unpacks how the patriarchy continues to maintain the status quo – using the extraordinary lives of Eileen O’Shaughnessy and George Orwell, and her thoughts on the 2023 hit movie Barbie. In a patriarchal system, women’s relationships transform into a role – Mother. Wife. – that erases their individuality and signs them up to a motherload of unpaid labour. In Australia, women do more than nine hours more unpaid work and care each week than men, and do more unpaid housework than men even when they are the primary breadwinner. Nowhere in the world is this trend reversed. Women’s domestic labour upholds households and economies but is too often devalued and unacknowledged.  It’s a bargain few people, including men, want to be part of. Yet it stubbornly persists. The event will also feature panel discussion with A/Prof Ramona Vijeyarasa and Prof Peter Siminski, where our speakers will share insights and expertise on how we can move towards more equitable models. This event is co-hosted by the UTS Centre for Social Justice & Inclusion and the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Keynote speaker Dr Anna Funder is one of Australia’s most acclaimed and awarded writers. Her books Stasiland and All That I Am are prize-winning international bestsellers and translated into many languages. Her book, Wifedom, is hailed as a ‘masterpiece’ and was chosen as a Notable Book of 2023 by the New York Times and a Book of the Year by The Times, The Economist, the Financial Times, the Daily Telegraph (UK) and The Telegraph (UK). Anna’s signature works tell stories of courage, resistance, conscience and love, illuminating the human condition in times of tyranny and surveillance. Anna is a University of Technology Sydney Luminary and Ambassador. Panellists Associate Professor Ramona Vijeyarasa is a legal academic and women’s rights activist. She is the Chief Investigator behind the Gender Legislative Index, a tool designed to promote the enactment of legislation that works more effectively to improve women’s lives. Ramona’s academic career as a scholar of gender and the law follows ten years in international human rights activism, which has informed her impact-driven approach to research. Professor Peter Siminski is an applied microeconomist. He has over 20 years of policy-oriented research experience and is the Head of the Economics Department at UTS. Peter’s work applies modern impact evaluation techniques to estimate the effects of Australian Government policies and programs on people’s lives. The measurement of inequality and intergenerational economic mobility is a key theme of his work. Amy Persson (MC and moderator) is the interim Pro Vice-Chancellor (Social Justice and Inclusion) at UTS. Amy is a public policy specialist who has worked across the private, public and not for profit sectors and was Head of Government Affairs and External Engagement at UTS. Previously, she held Senior Executive roles in the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet and also ran the Behavioural Insights Unit and Office of Social Impact. Sound engineering by Alison Zhuang. Impact Talks at UTS is produced by Impact Studios. Keynote Speech Transcript It is a great honour for me to be standing here today with my colleagues, friends, and all of you at this great university. I thank Vice-Chancellor Andrew Parfitt, Interim Pro Vice-Chancellor Amy Persson and her predecessor, Professor Verity Firth, for this opportunity, and I am very much looking forward to the discussion with Associate Professor Vijeyarasa and Professor Siminski. I am part of a generation before pointy, painted nails and false eyelashes were standard glamour. I have a wardrobe of fairly androgynous suits in different colours – blue, red, white, green – my husband says I dress like a Wiggle. But today, I stand before you in this extremely uncharacteristic bubblegum pink dress doing something I never imagined I’d do in my life: channelling Barbie. Less the doll, more the movie. Let me tell you how this happened. Last year, my UK tour for WIFEDOM started with a publishing team lunch. I was extremely jetlagged but had to stay awake for an evening event, I took myself off to see BARBIE. Afterwards, I walked straight out of the cinema and, in an act of mad, sleep-deprived solidarity, bought this shiny pink number. I’ve been looking for an opportunity to wear it ever since. Today’s the day. Barbie is a work of genius. Part of its cleverness is that the movie posits two worlds. One, in which Barbies (women) can be anything they choose to be. They are supreme court judges and park rangers, doctors and barristers and presidents, dentists and pilots and plumbers. And another, the real world, represented by contemporary LA, where men are central and women are peripheral. In the real world men run the corporations and the country; they have most of the power and most of the money and most of the leisure time. When Ken, who comes to the real world with Barbie, quietly asks a businessman if patriarchy is still working as well as it did here before #MeToo, the man leans in and whispers, ‘We’re doing it well, just hiding it better.’ Men working on a building site feel entitled to humiliate Barbie as she passes by, just for fun and to make sure she knows her place in this world. This is the kind of frontline, basic abuse that is the most obvious way that patriarchy tells us, loud and clear, on the street or in the boardroom that men are central and powerful, and women are to be defined by them, in their interest. In our world, Barbie comes to feel ‘ill at ease, conscious … but it’s my self that I’m conscious of’, she says. She feels ‘a definite undertone of violence’ and ‘a sense of fear … though without any specific object’. A school mum explains this that this is the normal feeling of anxiety being a woman involves, as we are overloaded and responsible for so much, though relatively powerless in the wider world. Ken says, ‘I feel amazing.’ One of the reasons I never had a Barbie doll was that my mother was a feminist. In our household, we thought that things were getting better for women and girls. Indeed, my mother’s work as a research psychologist contributed to changes in Australia’s taxation system so that divorced fathers would contribute to the financial support of their children. We assumed that the Barbie world, where women would be central to themselves and able to do anything, was coming, at least to our progressive, rich, post-Whitlam corner of the planet, pretty soon. A full house in the Great Hall for International Women's Day 2024. But it has not come. Yet. People at this great university and many others, in think tanks and governments all around the world are occupied with this question. We know that the world needs the talents and time of women to be a just place, as well as to improve our nations’ economies, while looking after the planet. We see progress in women’s equality going forward by some measures, though stalling or going backward in others. When I was a little girl in the 1970s and a teen and then a student in the 1980s, it would never have occurred to me that the male idea of the world would express itself in tsunamis of anonymous, horrifying and pathetic misogyny online, expressing the terror that being male will cease to mean being superior to a woman. Or that pornography would become about choking and doing other things to women that cannot be about pleasure or love, but plainly about pain and submission. Or that poverty, globally, would be predominantly female. Or that Chanel Contos, who was not a gleam in her parents’ eye, would have her work cut out for her calling out a culture of sexual assault among the most privileged gilded youth of the nation. Or that there would be such a thing as a gender pay gap in the 2020s, let alone in many industries, one of nearly a quarter of pay difference, double if you include bonuses. Or that women would continue, by powerful, unspoken social expectation, backed by punitive tax measures and a privatised childcare system, to bear the burden of being both unsung CEO and labour force in the home: generally doing double the work of life and love and care that keeps families going. And all this, right here, in what is by many measures the richest but at the same time one of the fairest countries on the planet. In WIFEDOM, I also examined another world, the one of the marriage of Eileen O’Shaughnessy and George Orwell 80 years ago. It was fascinating to me how the work of a brilliant, highly educated woman could be, apparently, invisible to her husband at the same time as it was, intellectually and practically, indispensable. Eileen kept George going domestically, supported him financially, saved his life in the Spanish Civil War, had the idea for Animal Farm as a novel, which she worked on with him each day, making it, he thought, the best of his books. But he never felt the need to acknowledge her in any way, and nor, really, did his biographers after him. As a writer, the unseen work of a great writer’s wife fascinates me. But as a woman and a wife, her life terrifies me. I recognise in it a life-and-death struggle between maintaining herself and the self-sacrifice and self-effacement so lauded of women in patriarchy, which are among the base mechanisms by which our work and time, which are indispensable, are made invisible. Time is valuable, because it is finite. So, as with all other finite commodities, there is an economy of time. Time can be traded, bargained for, snuck and stolen. A weekend is finite – as any parent trying to juggle space and a portion of time within it with a spouse will tell you. A life is finite. Access to time, as to any other valuable good, is gendered. One person’s time to work is created by another person’s work in time: the more time he has to work, the more she is working to make it for him. To examine a marriage

03-04