Yet still Queensland resists women in so many key areas. Particularly those that are male dominated. This male domination is fighting very hard to retain its supremacy but this is at the expense of services.
Very recently the National Party candidate in Leichhardt - a man named Ian Crossland - stated that the Liberal Party candidate - a woman named Charlie McKillop - would not be able carry out electoral duties in the electorate, based on nothing more than the fact she was a woman. He failed to state any reasons why Ms McKillop could not carry out her duties due to being a woman, so one can be forgiven for thinking it was simply his own prejudices on show.
This follows on from a long list of discriminatory comments in the past, one of which, Bill Heffernan’s, is just another case in point. Talkback radio, which asked for opinions on Crossland’s and Heffernan’s comments, displayed an astonishing lack of outrage, many even suggesting merely that while true, should not have been aired publicly! This seems to be typical of the conservative attitude still endemic in Queensland.
Advertisement
Women, it has been shown anecdotally in the Queensland Rural Fire Service, receive fewer call-outs than men. That is, the boy’s club kicks in and “mates” are called out when fires threaten. Women are often ignored. Even when they are called they will in all probability be asked to make the sandwiches and the coffee. Even women with more training and better-equipped backgrounds in rural occupations and services are ignored in favour of less capable men. Even women who have trained as officers will as often as not, be directed to the “load the rifles” positions rather than the front-line for which they were trained.
Misogyny borne of self-righteous ignorance is not recognised by men who practice it, even when pointed out. And some of the men practicing it the most are in the positions that determine women’s involvement. Their behaviour is not seen by themselves as inappropriate or aberrant so they will defend it to the maximum, often aggressively, as, paradoxically, so do their wives. It appears there are vested interests in maintaining the status quo.
There are too few policies in place in the Rural Fire Service in Queensland to address these problems. Their heads are still in the sand, hoping against hope the problem will simply “go away”. Questions posed to them on what is being done to address this problem take too long to address, if ever.
Anecdotal research is tending to show that while more women join up in an active capacity, the attrition rate is high once women realise they are not going to be given anything that amounts to equal status or opportunities. Women drift away from disappointment more so than from any other reason. It seems misogyny is alive, well and flourishing in Queensland. The powers-that-be in the Rural Fire Service, that could if it wanted to make the changes necessary, seem to be sitting on their hands.
There are no policies in place to attract or keep more women in Queensland Rural Fire Fighting Services. They are certainly not in the public arena. The Service will accept women but not encourage them. All uniforms and boots are made in men’s sizes and often found to be out of proportion for women’s physiques. They are made to fit men’s proportions, i.e. taller, with longer legs, bigger shoulders, smaller hips, longer crotches. Boots are only manufactured in men’s sizes. The smallest men’s size is often still too big for some women.
If women want to take part they have to accept these limitations, despite the fact that the ill-fitting personal protection uniforms can, at best offer little protection, and at worst, be dangerous, and can be used against women to prevent any compensation being paid to them in the event of a mishap. For example, if the boots are far too big and the woman has to resort to supplying her own non-standard boots, she will receive no compensation in the event of an accident, despite the fact that the service failed in its duty of care in providing them.
Advertisement
Headquarters have issued no memos to the brigades on how to recognise and address these anomalies. There are no training sessions taking place where people may be encouraged to think through these issues and to address them reasonably. When questions are asked of the Occupation Health and Safety “experts”, the issue of women being specifically catered for is ignored.
Again the male hierarchy will be found wanting in limiting the type of attitudes that comes through. Inappropriate remarks, deliberately crude “jokes” or comments, or a number of other ways that men can utilise to demean women, are still only too apparent. These are designed to try to make women feel inferior or inadequate to the task. If complaints are made, measures will be taken to sidestep it by making claims that the women are just disgruntled “wannabee men”, or they’re prudes, etc ad infinitum. Really, any excuse will do.
Even when women take their courage in their hands and front up to fire-sheds to offer their services, often the welcome they receive leaves a lot to be desired. The “welcomes” range from dismissive to downright rude. Or they can be simply ignored. Seldom will all, or even most, or even some, of the male fire-fighters in a shed extend a cordial welcome, showing the women around, making them feel a part of the activity, offering tips on how to best do a task and so on. If married to a fire-fighter, a woman may be accepted, but if single, she will be ignored. It may in time come to her attention that the men claim she has only joined in order to find a man!