CNN: "Time for women to give up on equality"

It's impossible, they say, on the occasion of another failure of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA):
Equality isn’t impossible simply because the people in power won’t give it to us. It is impossible because it cannot be faithfully implemented in supremacist and capitalist institutions created by men, for men. 

That's weird, because I thought women were actually doing pretty well. They're getting more college degrees, more graduate degrees, and are increasingly dominating well-paid office work (as opposed to the physical trades, where their participation lags but not apparently in a manner out of line with their preferences). 

Many feminists and proponents of the ERA cite abortion as central to their fight for the amendment’s passage. But abortion and issues pertaining to bodily autonomy, self-determination and human dignity of historically oppressed and marginalized people are not equality issues. Rather, these are matters of freedom.

Well, they're definitely not matters of equality. Nobody's even proposing giving men an equal opportunity to opt out of the duties of parenthood if they want to do so. Neither feminists nor conservatives are interested in that; I'm not interested in it either, to be sure. Freedom does not mean liberation from one's moral duty to one's parents or children; and if it entails a legal liberation from those duties, nevertheless one ought to do them. It's only scoundrels who seek to avoid such things.

[Better would be] respecting people’s human dignity, allowing them to fashion and become, for example, the woman of their dreams, rather than policing their gender identity and expression. Whereas an equality mindset reinforces the gender binary and limits women to a small box in opposition to men, a freedom mindset understands that the inclusion of trans athletes, for instance, elevates the competitive level of all women, and celebrates self-creation as the pinnacle of freedom....

From a freedom mindset grounded in accountability and care, abortion becomes part of reproductive health care. It isn’t oversimplified as an equal right to make a single “choice.” Abortion is never based on one choice but rather determined by a person’s circumstances, personal and financial supports, age, aspirations and dreams for how they want to build their own family.

All of this necessitates letting go of equality and an equality politics, built upon the patriarchal gender binary, of complicity and reliance on governments institutions to create a freer and more just world.  It requires asking new questions. How might our politics change if we, finally, relinquish equality?

So, ok, let's ask the question. Give up on equality and in return you get...? An absence of gender binary, I guess, so all the good things for women entailed by that. An end, I suppose, to all-female spaces like changing rooms; perhaps an end to female-only promotional institutions like scholarships and mentoring leagues for girls becoming young women. (Actually, the conservative feminist case against the ERA was that it would endanger such things, and affirmative action for women in general: this one wasn't a conservatives-versus-liberals fissure in plain terms. There were arguments on both sides against the amendment.) 

I guess it's not up to me, but if I were a woman I think I'd be a little miffed at the suggestion that I should give up my quest for 'equality' in order to make more room for others. I guess it's the time in the musical-chairs contest that somebody has to give up a seat, though. More than one somebody, it could be.

The only argument in favor of that awful capitalism is that it somehow finds ways to add chairs instead. I guess that's not as attractive a prospect.

4 comments:

  1. Equality isn’t impossible simply because the people in power won’t give it to us.

    That's pretty much a quitter's attitude, and as such, Bianco doesn't deserve equality. She's also an affront to feminism (real feminism, I mean, not the professional victimhood of modern pseudo-feminism). Power must always be seized; it can never be granted, since the grantor can take back his largesse on whim.

    It is impossible because it cannot be faithfully implemented in supremacist and capitalist institutions created by men, for men.

    Perhaps she could be more vocal against males participating in women's sports. Oh, wait--she can't. She is no more able to understand what a woman (or a man) is than is a sitting Supreme Court Justice.

    Eric Hines

    ReplyDelete
  2. It keeps going back to abortion "and other stuff that's like, important to women's freedom, like, uh, you know, stuff...I mean, if we don't have that, we don't have ANYTHING, amiright?"

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's a weird argument because she doesn't just want to do away with equality, she wants to do away with the categories that were intended to become equals. Just as doing away with capitalism will end inequality because no one will own anything, doing away with 'the gender binary' will eliminate inequality because there won't any longer conceptually be men or women to equalize.

    The fact that reality won't support this notion about sex is probably not any more important to her than is its failure to support communism.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is tiresome and tiring. As far as I can tell, she started with her beliefs - abortion is good, men claiming to be women should be included in women's sports and spaces - and then came up with a "feminist" "argument" to support those beliefs. She can't even get to the logical end of the second belief, which is to do away with women's sport and spaces entirely. That's what it really means to eliminate the gender binary (sounds like some newly discovered double star).

    I don't see how women can support the idea that men belong in women's sports and spaces. I know Institutional Feminism lost its way long ago but I would have said that this would be a bridge too far even for them. Clearly I was wrong.

    ReplyDelete