The Role of Women in Marguerite Bay – 2021 International Women’s Day
The Changing Role of Women in Marguerite Bay – Richard Barrett
At the start of the 20th century Charcot was divorced by his first wife for desertion while he was down south. When he came south 1908 be bought his new wife Marguerite with him as far as Punta Arenas and named a very large bay for her.
In 1939 Richard Blackburn Black brought his wife Aviza as far as Dunedin en-route to Marguerite Bay via the Ross Sea.
In 1947 Finn Ronne on the RARE decided to take his wife, and the wife of his chief pilot Darlington, as far as Panama, as there was a lot of paper work to catch up on, and then as far as Valparaiso, and then all the way.
Harry Darlington was not pleased, “There are some things women just don’t do, become Pope, become President, or go the the Antarctic” Jenny Darlington thought “Why not?” but said nothing.
Emails and Comments related to the Role of Women in Marguerite Bay, on International Women’s Day, 2021
Dave Rowley (Pilot, Air Unit): Really interesting and enlightening. Not sure about the differences in base life with other countries in the early days but still not convinced that women would have “fitted in”with base life with BAS up until the building of Rothera. No misogyny intended. Cheers, happy International Women’s Day . I love you all. Cheers Dave R .
Felicity Aston: The misogyny may not be intended but it is there nonetheless.
Of course women would have fitted in – to say otherwise is simply a demonstration of how little you have learned about what women are, and always have been, capable of. Women have not suddenly transformed into different beings in the last couple of decades…we were always just as capable of not only surviving but thriving in extreme situations, it’s just that women were denied the opportunity to prove that in Antarctica.
It is a tragedy how many great people BAS/FIDS missed out on in those early years, just because they were female.
Perhaps the point you were trying to make here is that there was still too much prejudice for women to have been accepted…
An illustration of how much work needs to be done towards greater gender equality and the importance of day’s like today (International Women’s Day) and Women’s History Month.
Dave Rowley: Touché
Ian Curphey (Curf) (T): This will probably end up with a Fatwah on me, but the notion of gender equity in Antarctica in the 60’s should be referred to Frosty, skipper of the “Shack.” as indicative or the mores of those times. What is politically correct now, was genuinely unthinkable then. We all lived in the times we lived in, and should not be condemned for being what we WERE. Hindsight is a luxury.
Adrian Almond (E): Having quickly read Richard’s bit reminds me I read Terra Incognita nearly a quarter of a century ago (ugh!) and found that she had negligible sense of humour. This was obviously why she disliked the FIDS attitude to the place and life. For those that haven’t read it: she complained about Fids coming into the base (Rothera) when it was not at its most pleasant outside and saying that it was “Rugged” – she seemed to think that it was in some way bragging about how tough they were (to whom, one wonders, we were at any base all in the same boat) and not just a facetious stating of the bleedin’ obvious. I got the impression that she thought a more sensible reaction would be to discuss whether the risk assessment one had made before going out was appropriate. That, of course, does not by any means meant to imply that I expect all ladies in Antarctica (or anywhere else, come to that) to suffer from the same problem.
Jonathan Walton (KG): I do think that mixed wintering parties at Fossil Bluff would have been a bit too complex for me to cope with. Again, no misogyny intended.
Ian Lovegrove (R): There were of course visits by Mavis Hunt, in her capacity as wife of the Governor – Sir Rex. Would need to trawl my diaries, but on her visit to Rothera in the early 1980’s [on Endurance] she was accompanied by an equerry or ‘secretary’, whose name I think was Sue [will need to check]. Definitely recall that ‘Sue’ was engaged to an officer in the Household Cavalry – Mavis made this quite clear!
Chris Edwards (E): I was at a talk at SPRI given by (I think) Dick Laws, who said in a response to a question from a female audience member why BAS don’t take women south, “We don’t have facilities for women in the Antarctic”. I think the audience gasped. Can’t remember the date but could have been 1980’s.
Allan Wearden (F, R): Having been present when Tommy Thomson [pilot 1947] was interviewed for the BAOHP he was great supporter of Jennie Darlington thought she was lovely and a breath of fresh air and always welcome on the British base for tea! It was easy to sneak over from the US base hidden by contours of the island when at first the visits being banned!
Simon Taylor (Ships): Let’s stop beating about the bush. The problem is sex. At some time or other it makes fools of us all. Many women are very competent and many others are not. Exactly the same can be said of men. The most important problem is that men find women sexually attractive. Inserting a woman into a gang of men immediately raises hopes in most of the men. What had been a co-operative team suddenly becomes a competition. I still wonder whether women understand how dog-like many men are. I can only speak for myself, but I am sure I am not unique in this respect and I might even be normal. If I see a pretty girl in the street with a bare midriff and lovely legs I really want to go and hug her. I know I shall be accused of misogyny, but I don’t dislike women. My problem is that I love them. My life was a lot simpler while I stayed away from them. Antarctica was a wonderful haven, once upon a time. Wherever can a man go now, to catch his balance?
I recall an inspection call by US Navy Chopper to Rothera around 79/80 and included a female. If I recall one or two members of the overwintering party actually hiding from what was sadly a rare visitation… I honesty was more interested in watching what I presume was a co-pilot hitting one the chopper engines (very hard) with what appeared to be a large lump hammer and successfully restarting the engine, The other lady I can vividly remember was the base commander, radio op and VLF program scientist Ginny Fiennes of the Transglobe expedition around 79/80 from her base camp near Borger. She was one tough cookie and I was fortunate to assist her on the Arctic leg and subsequent Polar trips . Sadly missed
I agree with Dave Rowley, women would not have fitted in with base life at somewhere like Adelaide or Stonington or (especially) Fossil bluff as it was in the early ‘70’s, when I was there. Wherever and whenever women are part of a community, that community inevitably changes, usually but not always for the better. My university College went co-ed about a decade after I left. When I went back some years later, on a visit with my daughter, I was amazed at how different the whole atmosphere was. I was looking at the noticeboard with her and reminiscing about how I made my first contact with another first-year (who became a friend for life) while noticing that, while there were still many committees listed on the board, all of them were now exclusively “manned” by females. The College Chaplain passed by at this point (a woman) and I commented on this to her. She didn’t know what it was that I found strange. It is true that, if they had applied, I’m sure males could have been accepted but the culture was now clearly female, the unwritten message clear and understood by the males in the College. In contrast, when my daughter was choosing her residential college, she chose a co-ed one rather than an all-female one, on the basis that they would be quite different and she wouldn’t enjoy life in an all-female environment. I think Adrian’s comment is accurate. Men and women tend to see the world differently. In normal circumstances, this makes for a better place – equal but different means the combination is better than the individual parts. But Antarctica in the early ‘70’s and earlier was very definitely not normal. I do not believe that the work that was done on the Peninsula and King George island with dog teams would have been so successful unless it had been male-only. You cannot compare early’70’s Adelaide or Stonington with today’s Rothera.
Dave ends by saying “no misogyny intended” and is immediately reprimanded by Felicity who, I think, inadvertently is revealing the point that many females often see the world differently from many males. She also needs to accept that women do not “fit in”, they modify by their presence and their approach to life the community they are in. This does not deny that women are “just as capable of not only surviving but thriving in extreme situations” but simply states the obvious, that they alter the community. Whether you think the altering is good or bad is a different matter, but it does not help that these days it seems to be forbidden to say this. I think it was Germaine Greer who said something like you don’t become a woman by just cutting your dick off and was immediately condemned by the twitterati and threatened with cancellation. Luckily, I’m not on facebook or twitter or any of those other social media sites, so can only be cancelled by this webpage. Hopefully, that won’t happen as I think it is important we be able to put our point of view in this non-public arena without feeling guilt and without being judged and reprimanded.
Roger hit on quite a few relevant points on this volatile subject . I seem to have opened a bag of worms , but sod it . Women on the pre Rothera bases would have been desasterous . Tensions were there to see by summer visitors like myself at the end of the winter , let alone the factor of the complication of the natural interaction of male / female base mix .
It’s nothing to do with the capabilities of women . It’s to do with carnal instinct . Why is it that the modern woman cannot grasp and celebrate their modern day life styles without feeling under attack all the time ?. It’s misogyny in reverse . Cheers Dave R
I agree wholeheartedly with yourself Dave, and Roger (above). It is not to suggest that women are in anyway ‘inferior’ it is simply that these were different times with facilities which were lacking at Rothera
“Calling all sledges……”
Jerome & Sally Poncet wintered on their yacht ‘Damien’ iced-in at Avian Island in 1978. They showed up unannounced at Rothera right in the middle of the Midwinter Dinner after following skidoo tracks from the top of the Shambles left by John Jewel & myself returning from Bond Depot the day before. To be honest, their dramatic arrival mid-dinner went down like a lead balloon with most of us twelve winterers. Partly because a female had suddenly appeared on base in the depths of winter but mainly because they seemed happy to avail themselves of the amenities for several days whilst making it clear we were little more than “slipper-wearing flag wavers” in their eyes (Jerome’s words). They then went on a month long man-haul over the sea ice, helping themselves to BAS man-food & fuel depots at Blaiklock, Horseshoe and Stonington along the way.
During my time with ANARE, I wintered with mixed parties; Station Manager, Chef, Doctor, Met Observer, Biologists, all women and I enjoyed my time there. But in 99-01, the ANARE bases were already like 5-star ski resorts with TV, Internet etc. in every room and we all had our own space (I even had my own building !). However, back in the 70’s, BAS base facilities, communications etc. were relatively basic and essentially communal. I really don’t think mixed parties would have coped so well under these conditions, especially over winter. Women were of course well capable of doing the same work as men back then, but living in a small and essentially hermetically sealed environment for months on end would have been far too problematic for all concerned, both emotionally and psychologically. This is not misogyny; it’s stating the bleedin’ obvious because that’s simply how things were back in those days. As Curf says above, hindsight is indeed a luxury and retrospectively applying today’s societal mores and attitudes to past scenarios is perhaps a little bit precious, irrespective of gender.
“This is ZHF45 Rothera on 4067 kHz, Out.”
Book titles like “Of Ice and Men”, “A World of Men” and “of Dogs and Men” and Sir Vivian’s belief that “the inclusion of women would disrupt the harmony and scientific productivity of Antarctic stations” make it pretty clear what BAS’s attitude was.
After leaving Fids I joined a multi-year research project with three rudimentary stations around the head of Baffin Bay in Canada/Greenland in the spring of 1973. The project was headed by glaciology Prof. Fritz Müller of McGill University, Montreal and the technical university, ETH, of Zurich. After that summer of doing research work and aiding in the construction of the third and last base I was required to winter on the base at Coburg Island just south of Ellesmere Is. My wintering companions were to be a Canadian guy and two women, one from Germany and the other from Sweden. Fritz had no compunctions about women and they wintered at all the bases.
Yes, I had initial concerns, mainly about the division of labour. These were small camps not much bigger than a couple of Fossil Bluffs with very basic facilities. Half of camp life is just surviving, digging out after every storm – equipment, Skidoos, and endless 400 lb fuel drums – for the genny, stoves, Skidoos and aircraft. While the ladies never did get the knack of hoisting a full fuel drum between them into the Twotter they certainly did whatever they could to keep the base running. Although the bases were essentially static there was still quite a bit of field work to be done, mainly just daily jaunts but sometimes lasting for several days. My concerns quickly evaporated and my times on the project were every bit as much fun as it was on Fids. In fact, the German lady went on to be awarded one of the most prodigious awards in international glaciology and the Swede went off to become a Prof, and sat on the Nobel prize committee. I like to think we taught them all we knew. Unfortunately, in that transfer of knowledge we left little for ourselves so now we are where we are.
For those interested in more information or details for the roles women played in the Antarctic or glaciology have a look at these two links.
The first: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Antarctica#CITEREFBlackadder2015
I found after hearing an inaccurate radio program spin-off in which it referred to a 1937 British Antarctic Survey expedition. BAS wasn’t in existence then of course, but there was indeed a privately funded proposed British Antarctic Expedition which was cancelled at the onset of the war.
The second is “Women in glaciology, a historical perspective” by Christina L. Hulbe, Weili Wang, Simon Ommanney, in the Journal of Glaciology : https://www.igsoc.org/awards/honorary/j10j211.pdf
Just a curious couple of notes of interest about the co-author Simon Ommanney in that he started his life as a glaciologist at McGill University under Fritz Müller thus he and I shared the same boss but at much different times. He was to become a world renowned glaciologist and for any Polar buffs out there he was also a direct descendant of Admiral Sir Erasmus Ommanney of the search for Franklin fame.
I wrote this piece after hearing Jane Francis speak at the MB Reunion Zoom meeting and thinking what a great Fid, and asking myself “Why didn’t we have Fids like this in my day?”
And I wrote this for International Women’s Day when it is traditional to praise women’s achievements, while I was in the Antarctic my wife was working in Moscow where women will receive cards, flowers and presents and will expect to be waited on for the day, they have a pretty rubbish time for the rest of the year…
I did get a little rushed in my research and apologise for missing out Felicities achievements and probably many others, I wish I had mentioned that Jane Thomson worked for BAS for 13 years before they finally allowed her to come south. I didn’t mention any of Jane Francis’s achievements, it is only March and I notice she has already 2 research papers published this year.
I have it on good authority from a man who’s father spoke to a member of the crew, that Jenny Darlington was in fact Shanghaid in Valparaiso and didn’t wake up until the ship had sailed, Harry was furious wanted the ship to turn around and that was the start of the fall out with the Ronnes.
Thanks to all for your comments and contributions
It is of course true (if not a truism) that women “modify by their presence and their approach to life the community they are in”. But then, humanity is made up of women and men and I would have thought that anyone who sought to deny women’s place alongside men could well be accused of misogyny! That was as true in the 1970s as it is now. FIDS/BAS was run very much on military lines as a hangover from Operation Tabarin etc, creating a cosy male world. For a couple of years, it was fun being a bloke with other blokes doing blokey things in a blokey way but it WAS at the expense of women’s rights to participate.
An excellent article to start a discussion – and it has.
I find many of the comments pertinent to my years at Stonington in the mid 60s.
Base life then was totally different to the current situation at Rothera and Halley (should it ever reopen).
Most bases were small and crowded with quite primitive facities.
While I don’t doubt that a small, crowded base ‘manned’ by women would have operated just as efficiently, or inefficiently, as we did I have little doubt that a mixed base iin the 60s/70s would have posed many problems.
Everyone relates to their own experience in Marguerite Bay, many of us are long in the tooth, but still have fond memories of how 2 years on base, with no going home for a break, fashioned our lifes. Modern Fids, only used to the magnifient facilities of Rothera or Halley, instant links to home by phone or email can have little conception the earlier base life.
Let everyone have their say – please keep this post on – and Well done to Richard for supplying it.
I agree with Neil. I would like to see the Barretts’ article retained but, of course, that is entirely up to the authors. Times and attitudes do change but it seems, at least amongst the respondents, that male chauvinism still thrives. I wonder how many of those expressing negativity have in fact spent any time in the field, worked with, or wintered with our female counterparts. If they had, I think their views would be somewhat different.
Brian
I am saddened – but not surprised – to read the outpouring of sexism in many of the comments above. Particularly because many of those commenting don’t seem to be aware that what they are saying is staggeringly sexist. Adding empty phrases like ‘no misogyny intended’ does not eradicate the damage of the words.
Many of the comments above attempt to justify the exclusion of women from Antarctica with the age-old excuse that ‘times were different’. OK, but what is the excuse for defending that prejudice today? The only way to overcome the prejudice of the past is to be able to look back and say categorically ‘that was wrong’. Someone even said they ‘should not be condemned for being what we WERE’ but isn’t this precisely the point? We should as a society now be looking back and saying ‘it was wrong to exclude women’ – to face up to the mistakes of the past if we are to have any hope of putting them right and moving forward.
This is where we arrive at the fact that it appears from the comments above that many feel that excluding women from Antarctica was not wrong, not a mistake – that including women would have been ‘disastrous’. You are entitled, of course, to this belief – but this means that I am also entitled to explain why I feel you are wrong … and to explain why continuing to express the opinion that women shouldn’t have been in Antarctica continues to have damaging repercussions now – and on future generations:
(I can’t believe that in 2021 I find myself in the position of explaining what gender discrimination is and why it is wrong, but here we are…)
One of the main arguments put forth in the comments above is that conditions in the early bases would have been too basic for women to have been able to cope. This can be refuted not just by pointing at the extreme conditions that women today are tackling but also what women were coping with back then! Other bases in Antarctica included women as far back as the 60s, women were involved in some Arctic expeditions from the turn of the 20th century, Ann Bancroft was dog-sledding as part of an all-male team by the 80s – and then we can go further afield to look at wartime women, women living in turf houses on Icelandic farms, women colonising the wild west and a million other examples from history stretching back to the beginning of time…
But the core of most of the comments above is the belief that the presence of women on Antarctic bases would have been ‘a bit too complex to cope with’, ‘altered the community’ or excited ‘carnal instincts’…!
I hope you can all hear the collective sigh of disbelief and tired eyerolls of all women kind (and thankfully the vast majority of man kind too) at the suggestion that this is believed by anyone alive today as anywhere near sufficient justification for the exclusion of an entire gender. The same tired excuses were used to deny women university education, to deny women the vote, to deny women roles in the military and endless examples ad nauseum…the ‘disastrous’ scenarios believed to be inevitable in each case did not come to pass, so by a process of rational thought we can only conclude that had women been on the early bases it would also have not been ‘disastrous’. But even if it had been – the bottom line is that no-one had the right to deny women access to Antarctica – whatever the outcome of mixed bases might have been – it was wrong to have denied women that opportunity.
If anyone feels that expressing comments such as appear on this page is harmless free speech, they are again mistaken. Defending damaging opinions of the past, refusing to say that the exclusion of women was ‘wrong’ creates an atmosphere of chauvinism that continues to have an impact on the current and next generation of women. Last month I was contacted by a teacher who was concerned by a discussion with her class of 8 year olds which concluded that while women could be scientists, firefighters, ambulance drivers and doctors, the children were adamant that women could not be explorers. I was drafted in to give a talk and show them otherwise. More recently I was contacted by a teacher of 14-year olds who – concerned by the low numbers of girls taking up opportunities to go on school expeditions and outdoor activities – had been told that the girls were scared of being made fun of by the boys. In particular the girls were worried about the ‘jokes’ they would face when inevitably they had their periods which would make the boys feel uncomfortable. This is the reality of 2021.
Can you imagine how this page of comments might impact that group of 14-year-old girls or that class of 8-year-olds? Sexist beliefs about what women might or might not have been able to do or been suitable for in the past have as detrimental effect today as they had half a century ago.
In addition, I can tell you all from experience that spending time on a BAS base in the early 2000s and even attending BAS/FIDS reunion events today remains a bruising and uncomfortable experience for many women precisely because we have to listen to opinions such as those expressed on this page. Relentlessly navigating this sort of low-level misogyny is alienating and eventually uses up too much energy. As a 23-year-old at Rothera I was regularly told ‘they took away the dogs and gave us women’ and then being expected to laugh at that pitiful ‘joke’ or risk being accused of being ‘humourless’ – or a million other examples I could give (I was told this ‘joke’ again at the most recent Marguerite Bay reunion I attended, just in case I hadn’t heard it before).
To refer to calling out prejudice as ‘political correctness’ or being ‘a little bit precious’ (…the only thing needed to complete the cliché is for someone to accuse me of being ‘hysterical’…) …nevermind the patronising remark about moving along to ‘celebrate my modern day lifestyle’ … demonstrates a desperate lack of appreciation of how sexism or any other form of -ism, either current or historical, creates real harm that ultimately damages all society.
Thanks if you have managed to make it this far through my lengthy comment. I felt it all had to be said.
PS No reverse misogyny intended.
Drop mic.
Felicity, I have read the comments carefully and cannot spot anyone who claims that women could not do the job or cope with the conditions. Your idea that the mix may have been disastrous but should still have been proceeded with seems rather strange and not a little dangerous in circumstances where satellite communications were non-existent and any contact with the outside world was fraught – read Steve Vallances record of Rocky Hudson’s evacuation.
Where you start to become more than a little extreme, however, is when you attack free speech. As usual with people who propose this, you clearly believe that only speech you object to should be controlled but that your own opinions should be given free reign. Banning or gagging speech is not the way to overcome prejudice. In fact, the very example you give shows this to be the case. In our politically correct, cancel culture, censorious age, when twitter can ban who it likes and Facebook can decide what news is acceptable, girls can, according to your example, still be put off being an explorer. You say the girls were afraid of being made fun of by the boys. I don’t think the solution to this is to attack old age pensioners in their ‘70’s and ‘80’s. And, again, this reaction has nothing to do with what women can or can’t do but whether they want to do it in a mixed community. Did you ask the girls if they would have happily gone exploring in a female-only expedition? If they had said yes, would you have berated them for being sexist and misandrist? (Yes, you don’t have to use the clumsy “reverse misogyny” term, there is already a suitable word.) I have not met you so can only go on your comments here and your Wikipedia page, but it seems that you did not particularly enjoy at least some of your interactions with male expedition members at Rothera. In addition, your other expeditions seem all to have been either solo events or in women-only expeditions. Was this sexist and misandrist of you? Should you now confess your own sins, express a mea culpa?
I have no idea why you so passionately fight a battle that has already been won but there are millions of women in the world suffering today who could do with some of that passionate advocacy. You cannot change the past, whether you like that past or not, but you can help change the future.
I read the comments shared on this website with interest.
Richard Barrett refers to my speech at a reunion and asks “Why didn’t we have FIDS like this in my day?” Of course, the answer is straightforward – because women were excluded.
Today British Antarctic Survey places equality, diversity and inclusion at its heart. All of our staff, regardless of gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation, are fundamental to our ambition to deliver world class, innovative science. We strive to maintain our national and international reputation for scientific, operational and engineering excellence.
There is much to be proud of about the history of BAS and its predecessor FIDS, as well as the achievements of many of you reading this post – but sexism is offensive and the exclusion of women is shameful. We cannot change history, but we can learn from past mistakes, admit that excluding women was wrong, and ensure that Antarctica is open to all who can contribute to our knowledge of that amazing continent.
Having followed this discussion I do find some of the commentary rather offensive. I suppose it is inevitable there will be a difference of views if we compare societal attitudes and changes over time, especially when people have such fond memories of their time south.
I have experienced wintering both with and without women – working south is about getting a job done and having the right people to do this. To imagine that this could only have been done by men is seriously anachronistic. It is sobering to consider that in the past, half the population was denied this opportunity. Personally I think that life south is richer and more balanced these days and I don’t feel that it would have been any different in the past if women had gone south – people would have just got on with it and made it work in the true south spirit.
It was the First World War that saw the emergence of women as a significant part of the work force in Britain. Since that time their participation has gone from strength to strength although it lagged in certain fields, notably polar exploration. This was because it was seen by men that such activities were the proper preserve of men. This was probably due in part because men saw this as a macho pursuit to be carried out in an atmosphere of male camaraderie and in part because men also liked to consider themselves as the protectors of the ‘gentle sex’. This was despite the fact that Inuit women had been living and surviving in the Arctic for thousands of years.
Jane Francis is absolutely right that we cannot re-write history but it is possible to correct what is now seen as a seriously misguided situation. She is also absolutely right that the British Antarctic Survey now employs the best person for the job to work in Antarctica, regardless of sex, etc. When I joined BAS in 1967 it was a male-only operation in the Antarctic and the only women in the organization were office secretaries and some administrative staff. The reasons given for rejecting any women applicants for Antarctic posts were, frankly, inappropriate and embarrassing. Fortunately all that has now changed and the women in BAS are playing crucial roles, both as scientists and support staff, to achieve the world class science that BAS undertakes.
Life in Antarctica has now moved from the macho monastery to that of a normal community that is comparable to any small community anywhere in modern Britain. This is a situation that we must all applaud, even if it has taken more than 50 years to achieve.
I echo the sentiments of Jane Francis and Felicity Aston. Real and lasting damage is caused
when sexism and misogyny go unchallenged. I encourage all of you to discuss the posts with your daughters and granddaughters, to hear first-hand from women dear to you what detrimental effect the persistence of attitudes displayed in some of the comments has.
At the BAS of today, I am glad to say, we actively embrace diversity, seek to understand and address where we are falling short, and reach out to include communities that are currently still underrepresented. We are grateful to the FCDO, who – to mark the 200th anniversary of the discovery of Antarctica – have provided funding for a thriving Diversity in UK Polar Science Initiative (www.bas.ac.uk/project/diversity-in-uk-polar-science-initiative/) which is actively supported by colleagues in BAS and the wider polar community.
I am blessed to work with colleagues of all genders and backgrounds who respect each other, seek to be inclusive and value diversity – not for the sake of political correctness, but because they understand that tapping into different approaches and lived experiences leads to better results.
This BAS I am proud to work for.
I haven’t wintered, so I can’t claim to understand what it’s like to do that, especially before the Rothera era. Nevertheless, I have completed a lot of summer seasons, and my first season at Rothera was before women were allowed to winter, the Dash-7 air-bridge, at the time when everyone went in at once on the Biscoe, dogs were still on the base – so I do have some sense of bridging between the FIDS era that the comments above hark back to, and the modern BAS.
I have also spent my career immersed in maps, place names and survey reports and have a strong sense of, and immense respect for, the remarkable exploration and survey achievements of the FIDS era, and just maybe a glimpse of what it might have been like working south in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
However, personally; as the male leader of a team including outstanding women colleagues; and as the father of two daughters just making their way in the world, I find some of the comments on this web-page offensive and unacceptable, and I don’t want to believe that they represent the general view of past FIDS.
In well over thirty years at BAS I have seen at first hand the appearance of women in all roles and at all levels in BAS and the progress that BAS has made in this area is a cause for celebration. I worked closely with Janet Thomson for many years, and she was at the sharp end of some of the attitudes in the posts above. On a personal level, my wife is still bitter that she was turned away from the BAS stand and events at her University’s careers fairs in the late 1980s when she wanted to be a terrestrial biologist.
In my experience, the idea that women couldn’t have done any roles, including wintering, in the FIDS era, or at any time, is nonsense. Women just weren’t given the chance, and that was wrong.
I’m proud to work at a BAS where equality, diversity and inclusion are at the forefront and are universally understood to be key to future success, and where the attitudes in some of the other posts have no place.
Antarctica has inspired those of us lucky enough to spend time there. For the chosen few who have had the privilege to winter, summer, sail, sledge, camp, study, dive and fly around this amazing environment it is our duty to inspire others to do the same whatever their sex. It was wrong that more than half the world’s population, their skills, knowledge, passion, innovation and energy were denied access to Antarctica for so long. We can’t change history and we should recognise the achievements of the past but learn the lessons and ensure they are not repeated. We are the lucky few who have experienced the challenge of Antarctica and we have a duty to inspire the next generation of Antarcticans, leaving no one behind. Language is important, for every person that reads a misogynistic comment a future scientist, sailor, pilot or field guide may be turned away from pursuing a career in Antarctica.
I would like to respond to some of the comments on my piece on the Changing Role of Women in Marguerite Bay. I would like to thank all of you except one for the comments supplied and the very interesting and informative points raised.
Simon Taylor’s comments are offensive and wrong on so many levels it is difficult to know where to start, I am surprised none of you doggymen have taken him to task when he describes his attitudes as “dog like”?
Adrian Almond (E); the “jokes” that Sara Wheeler found offensive in the 1990s at Rothera were about menstruation, not difficult to understand the sense of humour failure.
Alan ‘Alf’ Cheshire, Radio Op T, R & F 76 – 79, ANARE 99-01, Heard Island 2016 etc. etc; A month long man-haul around Marguerite Bay in mid-winter, living off the country, by Jerome and Sally Poncet, sounds a rather more adventurous trip than many Fids would have made. I can remember trips to the abandoned San Martín base in 1974, I don’t remember asking permission before helping myself to tins of Dulce de Leche from their stores. Many Fids on this website have described ‘rugged’ trips to the Terra Firma Islands but they left it to Sally Poncet to discover the world’s most southerly flowering plant (at that time).
Brian Hill; I can remember trying to reload a full fuel drum back into a Twotter at a field camp. After unloading a drum we found the fuel pump had failed and the pilot thought he could get back to the Bluff- I think it took four of us to lift the drum with no ramps and soft snow.
Fergy Anckorn; at first I could not think of a single “blokey” thing that you had been involved in at Stonington, but then I remembered the clog dancing. Oscar Wilde said that you should try everything in life at least once, except incest and Morris dancing, so that was I think a line crossed. Regret I can’t find the incriminating photographs.
Many of the apologist for the misogyny and sexism in the early years of FIDS/BAS attributed this to the origin of the organisation in the Royal Navy Operation Tabarin and this was the norm at the time. Not so, said Fram Farrington, Senior Wireless Operator on Tabarin in his Oral History recording in the 1980s. He was at pains to point out that the ethos of Tabarin was not of a naval operation but was imported from the Discovery Investigations via the William Scoresby. This was a Merchant Service research vessel operating to a programme directed by the civilian scientists at home and on board, very similar to BAS today.
http://basclub.org/wp-content/uploads/baohp-transcripts/ad6_24_1_5_2.pdf
This is further evidenced by perhaps the first published report of Tabarin in the Falkland Islands Weekly News of 9th November 1944 being a “What I did my holidays type essay” by 14 year old Dawn Hooley, who had been melting ice to make a constant supply of tea for the men working on the construction of Bransfield House at Port Lockroy,
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.fk/jdownloads/Falkland%20Islands%20Weekly%20News/1944%2011%20November.pdf
Page 22
And this family photograph of the Hooley family at Lockroy in 1944 recently published in the Antarctic Times by UKAHT.
https://issuu.com/sablecreative/docs/aht_antarctctic_times_spring_2019
Page 20
Hi Richard, using just 2 people was a ‘stunt’ we picked up from the bush pilots up north. The two stand either side of the upright drum and with opposite arms linked together the other hands rotate the drum over the arms and lift the whole thing up and slide horizontally into the hatchway. It still takes some brute force but works well and is accomplished in seconds. One also appreciates the difference in density between aviation fuel and diesel. Not sure what occupational healthy and safety would think of it these days but as we’ve noted times change. Brian
There have been howls and threats relating to Simon Taylor’s Comment to this thread – which at the very least had the honesty expected of a seasoned and retired Marine Engineer with 22 years service on BAS Ships – but in my view, Simon’s view really wasn’t the problem fifty years ago. The problem was not sexual, emotional or romantic, but physical. The problem in my view, and I live right in the middle of the worst of this, and definitely as others have already said, is the current trend to re-write history, and that is what some are trying to do in this discussion.
The Cancel Culture is all-pervading and from my point of view, hopefully will be stopped. Clearly BAS is carrying out important scientific work, no doubt about that, as Jane Francis excellently portrayed in her presentation on the MB Zoom Reunion. The current programs appear to enable both men and women to perform equally well – maybe women perform better – I don’t know; that said, none of us can change how it was in 1940, or 1970. At that time, physical capability was at least one of the factors in determining field personnel capabilities, although the methods used to determine this left much to be desired in retrospect. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
An outdoor life was at least a point-scorer in the eyes of HR (who were not called HR – that title was invented years later – “Personnel” was enough). Of course, many women were physically and mentally fit and capable. But in the eyes of “BAS Personnel Department interviewers – (aka one very kind lady and two venerable and experienced gentlemen, often accompanied by Fids who had wintered) – fit and capable at a different level.
Travel by dog sledge was the transport mode for the scientific work of the day – programs equally important to those of today – Topographical survey and Earth Sciences programs. Bunkrooms and Loos etc. could have been created if necessary, with considerable amounts of pre-planning and additional expense, but quite simply, the BAS leadership did not want women to be slotted in to sledge teams and be unable to pull their weight. Literally.
Fuchs, and even Laws, were advocates of “no women” – likely for the same reasons. They knew there were physical differences, but at the time, few papers had been written to define what it was. They were clearly misogynistic – “strongly prejudiced against women” – in an Antarctic context, but that was the way of the world in the early days. Women were meant to be feminine, and even in times of War, their roles were different. That those roles were more or less important is typically not in question.
Women’s fitness and physical capabilities are topics that have their own encyclopedia. There is a reason why, purely for example, UK, European and (go figure) even American football (soccer!) clubs have separate men’s and women’s teams, from amateur to Premier leagues, as do all other sports including track and field. When matched, men to women, it’s a fact – in most cases, no real match. There are many online stories and statistics to back up each side of the argument, here’s one ( http://boysvswomen.com/#/ ) and I’ll leave you to search for others. (The screams are deafening). Coed sports are great fun, been there, done that, but not for serious competition. Pitch a coed team against a men’s team, there is little doubt as to the outcome. The same would have been the case on Fids and later BAS – there has been lots of talk of how women pull their weight at Rothera and on other polar and tropical expeditions, and much revolves around being able to deal with Arctic and Antarctic weather conditions, which factor I don’t doubt. But Rothera today, or even since 2000, is not Stonington, Horseshoe, Adelaide or Detaille of the 1950s – 1970s in terms of physical demands.
America where I live (and maybe UK, I haven’t read too much about it, but coming to a forum near you if not already there), is in the middle of a battle with the Cancel Culture – and also the transgender culture. The push to have transgender men play in women’s sports has resulted in the worst possible outcome here in the US. Feminism has finally shot itself in the mukluk.
Women affected by this, having fought for decades for “equality”, and the benefits of the famous Title IX law in the US (which increased ninefold the funding for women’s High School and College sports), are now being wiped out by transgender men. Some States are fighting back, and have disqualified the practice by law. I’d be curious to know how several of our correspondents feel about that subject. Equality only goes so far.
As a final example: In 2018, the fastest female sprinter in the world was American runner Allyson Felix, a woman with more gold medals than Usain Bolt. Her lifetime best for the 400-meter run is 49.26 seconds. Based on 2018 data, nearly 300 high-school boys in the U.S. alone could beat that.
The Marguerite Bay website was created “For Fids, By Fids” (and their families and friends). It is unapologetically designed to recall and record the “glory days” of Fids and early BAS. Modern-day BAS scientists, who reputedly do not appreciate the title Fids, are welcome to view and read the website, contribute to the website, comment where appropriate, but those who criticise of the way of life and ‘Fids’ alleged mysogonistic structure are unlikely to have a friendly or even an attentive audience from those whose experiences were of a very different time and culture. Most of us couldn’t help how Fids and BAS were structured – we just did a job as we were asked, usually well and without question, and considered ourselves lucky, as all good Fids are inclined to do.
I’m sure there will be howls of protest at all this, but facts are facts.
I will be posting “Fids – An Epilogue” shortly.
Steve Wormald
(Adelaide 1969, Stonington 1970 & 73, Rothera 1974 to 1977)
I didn’t realise sprinting was an important quality for Antarctic expedition in the 70’s. Times have changed.
Necessary attribute as Polar Bears are very fast.
When I started working for BAS in 1975, in the office in Cambridge itself, I remember realising that there were no women who went down South, and so I asked Margaret and Carys why not. All I remember them saying was that it was because there were no facilities for women on any of the bases, and although I thought it unfair I accepted this explanation. I got the feeling that they all thought it was not right, but it was just how it was. I wouldn’t have been eligible to work there anyway, being a mere clerical worker at the time!
But having worked in the Museum at Grytviken for five months in 2010/11, and being closely involved with all the BAS personnel at King Edward Point, I now know that women are just as qualified and suited to the work as are the men. I never thought of them as WOMEN – only as scientists and support staff etc., and they were all very good at their jobs. It was strange to think about the “old days”!
And old days they were. There were many occupations men worked in that were thought of unsuitable for women at that time and even more recently. And I quote from the Army Infantry Careers website:
“Women play a crucial role in the British Army. Since 2018, they have been able to serve in all combat roles alongside male colleagues.”
And the RAF …
“Not just anybody can make it as a fighter pilot. You need to be fitter and more robust than a Formula 1 driver to be able to deal with extreme g-forces. You need to cope wioth doing several things at once. You need to have fast responses. Plus the secret ingredient – natural aptitude. So when pictures emerged this week (April 2012) of Flight Lieutenant Heley Seymour exiting her Typhoon jet with a smile – having just landed in Italy after patrolling the no-fly zone in Libya – there was a flutter of excitement. She is reported to be the first female Typhoon pilot – the most modern of the RAF’s fast jets – involved in a combat mission and one of just 10 women currently flying either Typhoons or Tornados. And, like Flt Lt Julie Gibson who was the RAF’s first operational female pilot in 1990, Flt Lt Kirsty Moore who became the RAF’s first woman on the Red Arrows team in 2009 and Flt Lt Juliette Fleming who is one half of the first all-female Tornado crew with her weapons systems officer, Squadron Leader Nikki Thomas, Seymour’s “first” has made us stand to attention.
And ………. the first woman to conquer Everest did it in May 1075.
So, not quite the same, but it does show that BAS was not unusual in employing only men when women are obviously just as capable as men for all types of work. And here in the UK – the Catholic church has no women priests, and I understand that in the UK oil industry there are currently no women saturation divers. I am not saying that this is right, nor saying that BAS was wrong in not employing women ‘in the old days’! It was just how it was!
All men are by no means the same, which is why Eric Salmon and Bill Sloman had to weed the unsuitable ones out and employ only the guys who were qualified and who would be able to cope with the work and conditions on Antarctic bases for many years, and why it continues now – only employing women too this time!
And BAS now have an amazing woman at the helm in Dame Jane Francis. Not many top organisations are this lucky!
… the first woman to conquer Everest did it in 1975 !