word dat ’n “herstory” pleks van ’n “history” geskryf moet word. Maar in koloniale Suid-Afrika, met ’n tekort aan opleidingsinrigtings, en boonop nie ’n nywerheidsland nie, was vroue nie vanselfsprekende studente nie. Die baanbrekerjoernalis M.E.R. was in 1894 maar slegs die vierde vrou wat aan die South African College7 (later die Universiteit Kaapstad) toegelaat is.8
Vroue se bydrae tot die joernalistiek word slegs maar die laaste paar dekades bestudeer en hierdie hoofstuk is ’n oorsigtelike boekstawing van vroue se rol in die ontwikkeling van die joernalistiek en hul “intrepid persistence in the face of professional hostility”.9
Die ignorering van vroue as volwaardige joernaliste blyk duidelik uit verskeie bronne. Een so ’n voorbeeld is ’n “praktiese leerboek”10 vir joernaliste van 1982. Daar word byvoorbeeld slegs na manlike joernaliste verwys en die manlike persoonlike voornaamwoord word deurgaans gebruik. Dit gaan oor die “koerantman”: die manlike norm geld. Dié manlike perspektief op die geskiedenis word onderstreep deur die feit dat boeke oor Piet Cillié en Schalk Pienaar binne een jaar gepubliseer is. Van Reenen, wat beskou word as Afrikaans se voorste joernalis van die twintigste eeu, kry nie dieselfde erkenning nie. Daarom dat die teenwoordigheid van die “ekstra chromosoom”11 uiteindelik ook in die Afrikaanse joernalistiek verreken moet word.
In ’n artikel oor Petronella van Heerden skryf die literator Annemarié van Niekerk hoe belangrik dit vir vroue is om hul verlede as ’n geslag te onthou en te herdefinieer. Sy haal Gordon, Buhle en Dye aan wat sê “the categories and periodisation of traditional historiographers have been masculine by definition”.12 Voorts: “Because most women have lived without access to the means of social definition and have worked outside the spheres of reward and recognition, they have not had a history as historians have defined the term.”
Die historikus June Sochen beskryf die “geskiedenisloosheid” van vroue as volg:
Historians of the Western world have traditionally written about, and thereby preserved in print, the spectacular events, actions, personalities, and thoughts of human history … Their idea of spectacularity has been governed by their cultural views: most especially, their inherent assumption that man, rather than woman, is the maker of history and culture: and that the white man, rather than the black man, is the noteworthy participant in history … [A]ll historians operate within their particular frames of reference, their unique regions, genetic makeup, family upbringing, and social experiences. Thus, the records of history are indeed fragile expressions of white male historians’ limited perspectives.13
Hoewel dié menslike beperkinge op historici nie oorkom kan word nie, kan baie daarvan beheer word: “The liberation movements … during the 1960s and 1970s have made all Westerners more aware of the serious prejudices that have governed society’s treatment of these groups. Historians … have been faced with the need to redress the legitimate grievances suffered by women and blacks in their written records … The history books are slowly being rewritten to include these heretofore forgotten groups,” skryf Sochen.
Volgens Sochen het historici ontdek dat vroue gedink, geskryf en gereageer het op baie van dieselfde onderwerpe as mans. “This is not to suggest that women’s … participation in history has been morally superior or ideologically preferable to … men’s, but simply that women … did participate in history and should be given their rightful place.”
Hoe vroue in die media gereflekteer word, en wie die produseerders van daardie media is, is twee kante van dieselfde probleem. Vir lank het dit vroue “op hul plek” as tweedeklas-burgers in ’n manlik gedomineerde samelewing gehou. Tog kon vroue se deursettingsvermoë nie onderdruk word nie. “One reason that women took to earning their living by the pen was that men found it difficult to stop them, particularly if they descended to such deceitful depths as using a male pseudonym, adopting a male persona, or remaining ‘anonymous’,” skryf die historikus Dale Spender in Women of Ideas. Sy gaan voort:
[B]y the eighteenth century some women perceived a choice of occupation between the ‘oldest profession’ and the ‘newest profession’, and the reason for engaging in either was usually necessity …
Without exception, men have for the last few hundred years resisted women’s attempts to enter paid work which men have reserved for themselves; a fundamental tenet of a male-dominated society has been that women must have no resources of their own but must look to men for support. This is one of the ways male dominance is maintained and one of the reasons that women who earned their living by the pen were more often than not treated as transgressors and punished for their ‘crime’.14
In Extraordinary Women Journalists word genoem dat baanbreker- vroulike joernaliste ’n paar dinge gemeen gehad het: “Many of the women came from educated families and were exposed to books and ideas very early. Several of them came from families where independent thinking and creativity were fostered. As children, they were encouraged to be unafraid to be different from their peers.”15
Ander kenmerke was: “Many of these women lost one or both of their parents at an early age. And of those who grew up with both parents, many seem to have had an exceptionally close relationship with their fathers – rather than their mothers.” Ook: “Some common personality traits also stand out in many of these women. They were challenged instead of frightened or put off by obstacles. They were stubborn, persistent, and refused to take ‘no’ for an answer when they wanted something. They were unwilling to accept limits imposed on them by society or by other people.”
Diegene wat Rykie van Reenen geken het, sal waarskynlik baie van haar kenmerke in dié beskrywing herken, asook die eksterne faktore wat haar persoonlikheid gevorm het om die uiteindelike baanbrekersrol te kon vervul.
Tog staan vroulike joernaliste vandag verstom – indien nie uitgesproke postfeministies krities nie – dat hoegenaamd geskryf moet word oor hoe vroue hul toetrede tot die joernalistieke beroep gedoen het. Dis ou nuus, en eintlik irrelevant vir ’n geslag wat gewaande gelykheid as vanselfsprekend beskou. Maar gedenk hoe ver vroue gekom het.
Een van die vroulike protojoernaliste in die agttiende eeu, die Britse lady Mary Wortley Montagu (1689-1762), het haar geslag gewaarsku dat dit beter is om tog nie “te slim” te lyk nie. Sy het dié raad oor haar kleindogter se opvoeding aan haar dogter gegee: “The … caution to be given her (and which is most absolutely necessary) is to conceal whatever learning she attains with as much solicitude as which would hide crookedness or lameness. Learning in a woman is a deformity as far as men are concerned, and men make up the rules.”16
Teen die middel van die negentiende eeu het al hoe meer vroue ’n rol in die media gespeel. Soortgelyk aan M.E.R ’n eeu later aan die Kaap, was die Britse uitgewerpionier Anna Jameson (1794-1860) ’n mentor vir jonger vroue, en haar “adopted nieces” (ook bekend as die Langham Place Group)17 het vroeg reeds in hul boek Women and Work geagiteer vir betaalde werk vir vroue.18 Soos die meeste baanbrekers het hulle baie kritiek ontlok, veral vanuit manlike joernalistiekkringe: “. . . it would be an excellent thing if all single women would get married as fast as they can, and the rest hold their tongues in a dignified manner.”19 Gelukkig het hulle nie, en hul invloed het uitgekring. Vroulike joernaliste het byvoorbeeld hul “man” gestaan teen ’n Britse publikasie uit 1874 wat vroue as kopers en lesers as ’n redelike deel van die samelewing erken het, maar wat slegs “gentlemen and scholars” se werk gepubliseer het.20 Vroue is dus erken as kopers en lesers, maar nie as joernaliste en skrywers nie.21
Aan die ander kant van die Atlantiese Oseaan het ’n vrou reeds in 1842 as redakteur van ’n Amerikaanse dagblad gewerk. Hoewel sy die blad van haar broer geërf het, was sy gou uit eie reg bekend as die “brilliant lady editor”.22 Enkele jare later is ’n landwye debat uitgelok deur die redakteur van ’n vroueblad wat die langbroek as vrouedrag gedra en verdedig het.23 Vir Afrikaanse vroue is dié debat ’n eeu later in Sarie gevoer.24 Die eerste klub vir vroue in Amerika, die
