The Real Matilda is a 1976 non-fiction book of feminist history by Miriam Dixson. The book argues that Australian women have a significantly lower social standing than women in other Western nations, and attributes this to Australia's early colonial history. Dixson argues that the lower-class men who made up Australia's early convict population had a particularly low regard for women, and that their subjugation of women in the colony's early years has "imprinted" itself on contemporary Australian culture.
While the book received critical reviews from some feminists upon its release, it has since come to be regarded as a landmark work in Australian feminist history. New editions of the book were published in 1984, 1994, and 1999. The Real Matilda has been described as one of the catalysts for a new wave of feminist historiographies of Australia published in the years that followed its publication.
Summary
The central argument of The Real Matilda is that Australian women "come pretty close to top rating as the 'doormats of the Western world'" in comparison to their peers in comparable nations.[1]:5[2]:412 The book supports this argument through an analysis of Australian culture and the ways in which it excludes women, while also examining women's history and the ways in which women has been marginalised within Australian society.[1]:5 The work has been described as "an essay in psychohistory",[3]:170 and draws heavily on the theories of the political scientist Louis Hartz.[2]:413[4]:103[3]:170
Dixson argues that the central reason for Australian women's comparatively low social standing lies in the nation's early colonial history. She notes that the majority of early arrivals in Australia were lower-class, many of them Irish, and says that these groups had a particularly low regard for women.[2]:413[5]:142 She then argues that the social structures of early Australian history, including the sexual exploitation that was common during the era of convict transportation and the masculinised culture of the Australian frontier in the years that followed, led to deeply embedded gender inequalities.[2]:413[3]:171 Dixson uses psychoanalytical techniques to examine the Australian "national character", arguing that it is rooted in male chauvinism.[4]:103 She also says that women have internalised this subjugated position, and that patriarchy is "imprinted" on Australia in the same way as a individual's formative childhood experiences.[6]:105
Background and publication history
The Real Matilda was written in the 1970s amidst the emergence of an increasingly vocal women's liberation movement in Australia.[1]:2 At the time the book was published, Miriam Dixson was a senior lecturer in history at the University of New England, with a background as a historian of the labour movement.[1]:2[4]:102 The book was published by Penguin Books in 1976.[3]:169
New editions of the book were published in 1984 and 1994, with a new chapter added in each.[7] A fourth edition of the book was published in 1999 with an added preface.[8]
Reception
The Real Matilda was criticised by some feminists upon its release for painting an overly pessimistic picture of the status of Australian women.[4]:102Jill Conway wrote that the book saw women in a singular light as victims, and that Dixson gave little explanation of how women could overcome their psychological subjugation.[3]:171Patricia Grimshaw argued that the book exaggerated the degree of Australian women's oppression.[2]:412Ann Curthoys critiqued the book's overly simplistic linear argument about the development of Australian culture from the early colonial era to the modern day, and for its pessimistic view of women as permanent victims.[1]:5
Some reviewers were also unpersuaded by Dixson's analysis. Grimshaw proposed a counterargument, suggesting that Australian women's subjugation was instead the result of the emergence of family structures in the 20th century that pushed Australian women out of public life.[2]:414,421 Jan DeAmicis wrote that the book was an enjoyable read and that Dixson's argument was plausible, but that the book did not make a particularly persuasive case for her central thesis.[6]:108Martha Macintyre critiqued Dixson's argument by positing that her mixing of psychological, sociological, and historical analysis failed to properly distinguish between the individual and the societal level.[4]:104 She suggested that relying on the application of techniques of individual psychoanalysis to the development of Australian society as a whole resulted in "grotesque oversimplification" of the processes of social change.[4]:104,106 However, despite her criticisms, she concluded that the work was a landmark achievement and marked a "daring and inspiring beginning" for Australian feminism.[4]:110
Later reception
The Real Matilda has come to be widely regarded as a landmark text in Australian feminist history, and is frequently compared to Anne Summers's 1975 book Damned Whores and God's Police.[1]:1 In comparing the two works, Ann McGrath wrote that while Summers argued for activism, Dixson "prescribed a kind of national psychoanalysis".[7]Ann Curthoys has identified The Real Matilda as one of four books published in 1975 and 1976 that marked a "turning point" in the study of Australian women's history.[9] The book was described as one of the field's three founding texts by Rosemary Hunter.[10]:37
Reviewers of later editions of the book have suggested that it remains a product of the era in which it was written. In 1997 Bonnie G. Smith wrote that the book served as a useful historical snapshot of the analytical techniques that were employed by the 1970s women's liberation movement, but that new theoretical developments—such as the emergence of post-colonial scholarship—made its insights less robust.[5]:142 Reviewing the book's 3rd edition in 1994, Ann McGrath wrote that Dixson had not been successful in updating and refreshing the book to reflect scholarly advances since the book's initial publication.[7] In 2000, Anne Summers wrote in a review of the book's fourth edition that the work had a staying power, but that Dixson had done little to update the premise of her original argument.[8]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
