The stories of these women, highlighting Elizabeth Reid, the first Women's Advisor to Prime Minister Gough Whitlam (a world first), ranged from 'femocrats' like Reid and Sara Dowse, who primarily worked for the cause of the women's movement within government, to women devoted to women's refuges and workplace reform, and to women advocating for sub-sets of the movement, such as lesbian and black women. Some organisations within the movement were more radical and counter-cultural than others. The same was true of the many publications which emerged within the movement.

The message from the 1970s is that many different types of women contributed to what successes were achieved then and since. These women took different paths, though each was guided by the principle that the personal is political. Harsh words were sometimes exchanged between those journeying on different paths towards similar goals.

Such diversity still exists and includes many critics of the mainstream movement. Much remains to be done and the task is still enormous if remaking gender, sexuality and culture is a fair description of the challenge. That is a tall order. Diversity cannot be wished away, but the challenges of diversity need to be managed. Political campaigns can be derailed by people advocating different paths to the same goal.

I was reminded of the downside of diversity by a recent article, "Royal problems won't help republicans", by Amanda Vanstone, the former Howard government minister, which argued for the republican cause in the context of the present problems within the Royal family. Vanstone re-addressed issues such as popular election of an Australian head of state versus appointment by Parliament or even by the Prime Minister alone. She has always advocated a minimalist approach to constitutional change. She took some swipes at direct electionists and mistakenly wrote off former sportspeople as heads of state, neglecting several successful state governors, including the great runner, Marjorie Jackson, in her own state of South Australia.

Vanstone has given sterling service to the republican cause for more than 20 years, though that service was forgotten entirely by several respondents because she was a Howard government minister. She stood up to the anti-republic Howard, but her politics got in the way of relations with the wider republican movement because she also defended Howard's attitude to border protection and refugees. For some of my Australian Republican Movement colleagues that was unforgivable.

Vanstone illustrates the general problem of how politics interacts with social movements. Both the women's and republic movements are community-wide, but weighted to the left. Its opponents are often, though not entirely, to be found among conservatives. The same is true of the climate action movement.

All three movements operate in a political system dominated by two parties: Liberals on the centre-right and Labor on the centre-left. In this situation, how can such social movements be inclusive of a wide range of points of view, knowing that at election time the left side of politics will usually be more supportive and the right side of politics more likely to be opposed? The social movements can strive to convert those on the right of politics and to be open to them. But when elections come, shouldn't the social movements support the side of politics likely to be more supportive? It can be a "no win" situation.

That is the difficult problem the women's movement is facing right now, and it is getting plenty of advice from lobbyists like communications adviser, Parnell Palme McGuinness. In a recent article, "Beware working with Zealots", McGuinness compared women's liberation to climate activism and derided the losing contribution of Get Up!, Bob Brown and the Greens. She urged an open mind towards the new ministerial arrangements introduced by Scott Morrison and towards the new Assistant Minister for Women, Senator Amanda Stoker.

Professor Kim Rubenstein in "Reshuffle falls short on equality", Public Sector Informant, April 6, takes the Morrison ministerial reshuffle seriously, while pointing out its limitations. Rubenstein demonstrates how such government changes are small steps in the broader picture of community-wide social change in the home, the economy and the political system. Such social change is, in the words of Professor Woollacott and Brazen Hussies, about remaking gender, sexuality and culture, which demands revolutionary change. It must occur across the political spectrum if it is to become embedded in the community.

In the short term, however, there will be a federal election. Political parties, voters and social movements all have a role. The political parties lay out alternatives and voters choose between them. The Morrison government hopes that its "women-centred" reshuffle will dampen anti-government feeling among women at that election. The opposition believes the government is merely reshuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.

Social movements must choose between the alternatives. They can work with both sides of politics and highlight the best in the policies on both sides. But then they must choose between them, explicitly or implicitly, and advise their supporters accordingly. Not to do so would be a dereliction of their duty.