story continues
This space included reader responses. Another dedicated column, “So They Say,” provided a space for readers to discuss past articles, current events, and social issues.
politics and family
The weekly magazine’s coverage of current events and reader submissions created a platform for women to analyze political topics. However, it balanced the tension between conservative and progressive perspectives on women’s involvement in politics to cater to commercial audiences.
In a March 1934 editorial, Warnecke declared that “this newspaper knows nothing about politics” and that “most women have no particular political interest.” He argued that a woman’s sphere of influence was in the home.
But Warnecke hinted that women can still influence society and culture. Although they were outside formal institutions, they could politically shape the state in other ways. “Public opinion begins as a personal opinion and is formed within the family.”
The editorial suggested that the weekly’s reporting was not “apolitical” as interpreted by one of its readers, Miss Clark. Rather, by claiming to separate the social from the political, the paper succeeded in establishing a forum for both conservative and progressive ideological perspectives.
An example of this can be seen in the editorial “Women and Democracy” published on July 14, 1934, which showcases the political influence women had over their families.
The fact is, [women] Although they may not participate publicly in politics, Australian women wield strong influence during elections. The reason for this is not only her right to vote, but also because her opinion is highly valued by the men in her family.
Ms Warnecke also defended women’s right to vote, insisting: “There has never been a serious issue of Australian women being in an ‘inferior’ position because of their gender.”
Read more: What Australian Women’s Weekly told 50-something housewives about the Cold War
Australian women’s political interests
Although the weekly magazines often framed political debate through social and cultural perspectives, early editions were still rich in traditional political reportage. This is evident in feature articles, occasional columns, and reader contributions that advocate the importance of women’s involvement in political institutions.
Mrs. V. Cantwell’s October 1933 contribution put her at odds with a fellow reader, identified by the initials AS, who declared that women were not interested in politics. Mr. Cantwell retorted:
The improved situation of women and children today in terms of social services, general health, etc. is directly attributable to the fact that women are taking an increasingly reliable interest in public affairs.
Cantwell’s contribution presents a progressive view of contemporary Australian women. Her article, written in response to another reader, demonstrates the weekly’s willingness to foster dialogue and discussion.
Historian Hannah Viney developed the concept of “feminized politics” to explain the way in which “the domestic and political threads were intertwined” in weekly magazine reporting in the 1950s. Here, she makes clear that even in the 1930s, the weekly allowed readers who were “politically inclined, politically ambivalent, or somewhere in between” a forum to participate in political reporting. I understand.
Towards the end of the decade, as war in Europe began to seem inevitable, Weekly readers were keen to understand the extremist ideologies that threatened world peace. This is evident in Miss M. Muir’s reader contribution, published on August 12, 1939, under the heading “Knowledge of Foreign Politics Required.”
Ms Muir believed that fewer than one in 50 Australian women understood the meaning of the Nazi, fascist and communist movements. She proposed that the Department of Education provide a paper lecture to Australian women “on the potential for political danger”.
“Knowledge of modern foreign policy should not be left solely to men,” she argued.
The publication of Mr. Muir’s article in the highlighted box in the “So They Say” column signifies the paper’s consent.
This article is republished from The Conversation. The Conversation is the world’s leading publisher of research-based news and analysis. A unique collaboration between academics and journalists.Author: Zara Saunders Australian Catholic University.
read more:
Zara Saunders does not work for, consult, own stock in, or receive funding from any company or organization that might benefit from this article, and does not have any relevant affiliations other than academic appointments. He has not disclosed his affiliation.