The position of women in the new colony was a mirror image of the suffering and oppression that existed in England. The same kinds of hardships that had forced families to flee from England were duplicated in New Zealand. Both working class and middle class women were placed under individual and collective suppression, both groups had a great deal to gain from fighting against their conditions.

A report from the Otago Daily Times in 1888 shows the typical conditions which the majority of working women suffered under. One example was of women who received 2d a pair for moleskin trousers which they sewed, and in a twelve hour day could earn from 2s to 2s 6d. Girl apprentices worked for 12 months without pay, supposedly learning a trade and when the time came for them to receive wages, they were sacked. Often even the low wages that women earned were lowered further as manufacturers vied with each other to produce the cheapest goods.

In the next year, the Premier of New Zealand said that it would be impossible to provide a minimum wage of 6s a week for women. Impossible because the demands of capital for cheap and uncomplaining labour were more important than the demands of women for just and adequate living standards. While the wages of women were not always as low as those discussed above, they were not substantially better anywhere in New Zealand.

By and large women were not protected by trade unions. The conditions of middle class women, while not as dire in terms of actual survival, were both inhibiting and unfullfilling. There was little outlet for these women to produce anything useful apart from children, and those brave souls who ventured out of established family discipline met with the undisguised violence of male society. At the Otago Medical School male students in the dissecting rooms threw human flesh at one of the first women medical students in an effort to discourage her.

The laws governing marriage and divorce were of equal bondage to both working class and middle class women. Divorce was only available through having a private Act of Parliament passed to dissolve the marriage. It was therefore available only to the very rich and determined. If a husband deserted his wife, which was very prevalent among the working class, then he could periodically return and legally assume all the property and money that the women may have managed to accumulate during the time he was away. A woman when she married, gave up all rights to own property in her own right and any property or money she may have had before she married became the property of her husband. Maori women who were allowed to hold property in their names were apparently very unwilling to marry Europeans as this meant that they gave up some of the rights in regard to the ownership of property.

The Movement for Women's Sufferage.

The Womens Christian Temperance Union was the principle organisation through which women organised to gain the vote. The 'Christian' part of their title was very widely interpreted, as was the 'Temperance'. The main words were Women and Union. As the first national organisation of women, the WCTU was in the for front of the fight for womens rights. Quite correctly the WCTU saw that much of the suffering that women endured was related to high level of alcoholism and drunkeness that existed in New Zealand. The sale of liquor was almost completely uncontrolled, and this of course meant that the breweries and liquor retailers were making huge profits out of the misery of men and women.

The liquor lobby was most antagonistic towards the sufferage movement as they realised that the power of the vote, once it was given to women, would be turned against them. And when it was turned against them, their profits would dramatically decline.

The liquor lobby was well financed, and entrenched in the political system by having representatives in the Legislative Council which was the Upper House and had the right of veto over the laws of New Zealand.

Seddon, in his continuing battle against women's sufferage used the liquor lobby extensively to destroy and derail measures coming into the house that would have given women the vote.

In 1878, 1879, 1880 and 1881 the question of women's sufferage was introduced into the house, but each time it failed. However the heavy voting in favour of each motion showed the influence of the women's movement in the country as a whole.

Katherine W. Sheppard was given the task by the WCTU of organising public pressure for women's sufferage. She campaigned for women's suffrage with all literary and debating societies, the synods, the assemblies and unions of the churches and with the public generally. She organised the WCTU so that each branch had one person responsible for fighting for suffrage.

In 1887 Sir Julius Vogel introduced into the house a Female Franchise Bill which passed its second reading by 41 to 22. However Seddon managed to get the bill defeated in the committee stages.

In 1889 the women of New Zealand were offered a compromise. One of their supporters in Parliament thought that it would be possible to get through a motion of Suffrage if it was linked to property qualifications. He told Kate Sheppard this, and her response was that the compromise was unacceptable but that as it gave a chance of a vote to some women she would put it to the whole WCTU. Overwhelmingly the majority of branches dismissed the compromise out of hand. Humans were more important than property, they said, and they based their right to vote on their humanity not on wealth.

In 1891 a Bill was brought before the house supported by a petition organised by the WCTU of 10,000 signatures. But the Legislative Council vetoed the bill.

Kate Shepard went back to work after this set-back and produced a petition in 1892 with 20,074 signatures on it. This petition was used to support an Electoral Bill which included women's franchise. After some objections from the liquor lobby the bill passed the house. The Legislative Council put in a few minor admendments but they did not change the substance of the bill. Unfortunately Seddon was now in charge of the Lower House and he refused to accept the bill with the changes that the Legislative Council had made, therefore it could not proceed.

Kate Sheppard again went back to the people and held enthusiastic mass meetings in all main centres. She increased the number of signatures on her petition to 31,872, the largest petition ever to be presented to any Australasian parliament.

In 1893 yet another bill was presented to the House for women's sufferage. It passed through the house and Seddon fully expected the Legislative Council with its strong liquor lobby to kill the bill. But 12 new members had been appointed to the Council and the bill was passed.

One might have thought that having finally succeed in overcoming the undemocratic gerrymandering of the Legislative Council, that women would have been at long last given the vote. However a minority of the House petitioned the Governor not to sign the bill because it would "seriously embarrass the finances of the colony, thereby injuriously affecting the public credit".

Once again the women of New Zealand appeared to have reached the brink of triumph only to find another disaster. Yet Kate Sheppard organised a long memorandum to the Governor proving that the matter of women's suffrage had been a long debated subject and that it had the support of the majority of the people of New Zealand. The liquor lobby organised a counter petition to the Governor asking him not to sign the bill, often using free drinks to induce people to sign their petition.

On 19 September 1893 the Governor signed the bill and women in New Zealand won the right to vote.

The Same System

New Zealand is facing an economic crisis, the magnitude of which I believe is not yet imagined by most people As a result of this, women are again being placed in a position where they are being brutally utilised by the powers of page break big-business in this country to "assist" New Zealand to "tighten it's belt".

Women are the unpaid and unnoticed unemployed. They are the people who don't show up on the statistics. Solo mothers are being presented to the public of New Zealand as the real reason for the recession. They are being hounded back into unsatisfactory relationships. The call is going out from all the conservative elements in the country for women to get back to the home.

The Royal Commission's report and the efforts of those who wish to deny women the control of their own bodies are part of this same scenario.

In New Zealand women have been fighting in an organised way for the right to control their lives since the late

1960's. Already the majority of New Zealanders support their position, and the position of women has been improved. Ranged against them, they have a pressure group as well financed and politically entreched as the liquor lobby.

When we celebrate Suffer age day, we remind ourselves of the women who gave so much of themselves for our rights. We can feel confident that the eventual outcome of out campaign will be successful. We can say to ourselves, we have only just begun.

-Lisa Sacksen.

The struggle for equality is turning out as a long and hard one. There are urgent issues facing the women's movement today. The fight for the democratic right to have abortions; the fight for decent childcare; the fight against the blatant sexism of the mass media; the fight for the right of women to work and to be eligible for unemployment benefit if this right is denied them; the list goes on and on. In too many areas we in the movement have seen past gains stolen from us, or distorted beyond recognition. The Royal Commission gives us a report which sounds like an abridged version of a SPUC manifesto; the Domestic Purposes Benefit is cut back with the intention of forcing women into Bert Walker's private moral code; the right to vote which women were imprisoned for has been a poor weapon against the financial and political power of big business as it takes our rights with one hand and forces down our living standards with the other.

In order to fight against these moves, we must formulate a strategy based on our position in society now, However, to fully understand our present situation, it is necessary to look at women's position throughout the different stages of society.

The History of Woman's Oppression

In primitive society, before the advent of civilisation as we know it, people lived together in tribes. There was no such thing as monogamy but a form of group marriage instead in which it was impossible to identify the fathers of children. Ancestry was therefore traced through the women and thus gave them a prized position in their society. Men and women were considered as equal though this is not to deny that they performed different tasks. It was the man that went out hunting; the women stayed around the camp engaged in primitive agriculture and breeding domestic animals as well as bearing children. It was the last occupation that (inked the scope of women as far as hunting went—they were frequently pregnant and the children were often sick.

Development of Monogamy

As time passed there were limits placed on the form of group marriage that predominated. Marriages between cousine, between parents and children, between brothers and sisters were gradually prohibited as they produced a poorer stock. A form of pairing family slowly evolved. At the same time techniques of production developed. There was the introduction of cattle breeding, the use and adaption of metals, weaving and field cultivation. The tribe passed from the stage of complete subsistence production, gradually making more then was needed to just survive. There was the beginning of division in order to specialise some people or groups concentrating on one area, some on another. Most significantly the concept of private property developed; no longer did the tribe own everything communually As some men became more powerful and influential because they were more skilful in hunting or farming or were better warriors they began to make private claims. With improved production techniques and more property some men became comparatively richer—and other did not. There were now substantial divisions between men based on their relation to the means of production.

Where were the women while all this went on? The very important role that women played in providing a stable food supply while men went out hunting in search of game was overtaken by more advanced methods of production which the men controlled. Their loss of equality in the economic field was soon matched socially. Because of the type of group marriage that prevailed those men who had property could not pass it down to their own children. Instead it was passed on to members of his group—his brothers and sisters and to his sisters children and descendants. To stop the tracing of lineage through the mother monogamy was developed. In a monogamous relationship a woman could only have intercourse with her husband and therefore the children she bore would assuredly be his. In this way the central role women had in society was completely changed. This singled the emergence of the family as we know it.

Chaining of Women to the Home

From then until now the man has been the breadwinner and as such the head of the household. The woman's primary role has been to have his children although at times, especially in families that are less well off, she too has had to work to get the basic necessities. As women have entered social production they have realised their particular exploitation. To free men for their role in social production, women have served as unpaid housekeepers—providing the meals, keeping the home clean, doing the washing and so on. This is seen as inferior work, lowering the dignity of man if he is called upon to do it. Her work is socially necessary, but is unpaid and has no value in capitalism.

The children understand the power relationship in the family, the supremacy of male over female, and thus these attitudes are handed down across the generations. The womans role, with all its contradictions, is reflected in the general culture and beliefs of society. For example in the 13th century the same society that sanctified motherhood also disputed whether women had a soul. Similarly today, the Catholic church which has recently reaffirmed their opposition to women entering the priesthood nevertheless thinks that even women who have been raped or are poor can heroically overcome their problems and give an unplanned baby the care it needs.

It is obvious that this state of affairs benefits certain people. The employers in this country have not used the power and wealth they possess to help create the conditions that would increase the equality of women. Instead they have exploited womens traditionally inferior role to their own advantage. The fact that women have to take on the job of childrearing within their private houses means that the community does not have to spend the money to provide quality child care centres. It is the employers, the capitalists, who benefit most from this since they have provided themselves with a future generation of workers at the smallest possible cost. Similarly the role women take on as a housewife leads to isolation from society and from social production. This often leads to a lack of confidence on the part of the women which employers can later exploit when she reenters the workforce. Women are often scared to approach the supervisor, make a complaint, or go to the union—ideal employees!!

There is also a certain proportion of men who benefit from the status quo. Although it appears that more men are doing an equal share of the housework when both partners are working, there are still many who don't. Unfortunately there are still plenty of men who believe that a woman's place is in the home rather than out working with some financial independence.

The Rise of Class-Fall of Woman

However in raising democratic demands on these issues mentioned as well as re-educating men to adjust to womans new and equal role, the womans movement must never forget the origins of their oppression it was when private property developed and society became divided into classes that women became oppressed not only sexually but as part of a class. The concubine was not only female and exploited as such, she was also a slave. Even if we are able to see all our demands realised within the existing economic system the great majority of women would still be exploited. Is our aim to have women managers ordering the very lives of their workers, men and women? Women bosses, who exploit other peoples labour to benefit themselves? Women Prime Ministers, forcing down the standards of living of working people in order to make more profit for the employer Or do we agree with one of the speakers at the 1977 United Womens Convention who said "We are not interested in half the pie. The pie is rotten and we want to make a new one"? If the womens movement is not just interested in achieving equal oppression of all, regardless of sex, this question will have to be considered urgently and the strategy of our different organisations changed accordingly.

A United Fight Against Oppression

In the short term we face considerable difficulties. Because of the economic crisis NZ is in, the employers and the National Government are attempting to force down the standard of the majority of people. For women this means high prices, low wages, possible redundancy, a crisis in childcare faculties and benefits being cut. There is also a disturbing trend towards Fascism we must face up to—the intimidation of solo mothers and the industrial laws passed last year are just two examples of this. As well, the Government seems determined to blame all the ills of the present day scene on the breakdown of the modern family. This is aimed at getting women to leave the work force voluntarily and by doing so lessening the redundancy and childcare problem, at least in the Governments eyes.

It is important that the movement unite as many women as possible to take up these issues in the short term, and in the long term to work towards a society where there is no exploitation if any person, man or woman, whether it be on the grounds of class, or race, or sex.

—Dale Steele