Serfdom in Modern America:
Forging Our Own Chains
On Feminism: From Equal to Angel to Workhorse
Equity Feminism is
rooted in classic liberal Enlightenment doctrines and aims for full civil and
legal (sociopolitical) equality for women. Equity Feminism is a moral doctrine about equal
treatment with no reference to biology, and most efforts by first wave
feminists can be safely included under the equity umbrella, rather than the more
contemporary gender feminism umbrella. (Great quick read on Equity v. Gender Feminism for quick contextualization here.)
First Wave equity feminists were responsible for most of the reforms to working conditions that affected poor women and children who had no legal protections from abuses by employers. Unfortunately, suffrage had barely been won when a new and radical form of feminism, Gender feminism, would change the nature of feminism (which had evolved to be a flourishing and protective union of women demanding sociopolitical equality) to the forebearer of what we see today.
First Wave equity feminists were responsible for most of the reforms to working conditions that affected poor women and children who had no legal protections from abuses by employers. Unfortunately, suffrage had barely been won when a new and radical form of feminism, Gender feminism, would change the nature of feminism (which had evolved to be a flourishing and protective union of women demanding sociopolitical equality) to the forebearer of what we see today.
Gender
feminism, the darling of the second wave feminist movement, by contrast, is the
“genocentric and misandric branch of feminism,” according to Christine Sommers,
a contemporary equity feminist who believes that “most American women subscribe
philosophically to the older first wave feminism whose main goal was equity for
women, especially in politics and education.” Sommers faults contemporary (gender) feminism for ‘its irrational hostility to men, its recklessness with facts and
its inability to accept that the sexes are equal but different.” Sommers, of course, is viciously attacked by the majority of gender feminists who currently monopolize the academic field on this subject.
By the time women had
won suffrage, Alice Paul (a radical early gender feminist), leading the Women’s Party engineered the first
version of the ERA in 1926 and suffrage leaders were outraged. Carrie Chapman
Catt, a key coordinator of the suffrage movement, claimed it would strike down much of the needed protective
legislation which protected women and children from working conditions in
factories. Obtaining this much-needed legislation had been a life-long struggle
for many of these women, who believed women needed special consideration
because of their role as mothers. The ideal of women’s rights recognizes and
promotes the role of motherhood and family in the lives of women; "equal rights" do not.
Until women take the reins and use the suffrage that their equity feminist fore-mothers fought for, they are doomed to earn 'female' wages. Until and unless that happens, and I do not believe it will, we need to honestly appraise the landscape of biology, personal choice and family necessities and arrive at strategies that will give women and children, and families, a better cultural model which embraces the necessity and rewards of a culture which supports homekeepers.
Fifty years later, inspired by the
rhetoric of civil rights, and encouraged by a market-place that courts them,
the great majority of feminists now believe that women should be treated as
individuals, not as a sex, and that free and open competition with men in the
market place is the goal. Gender feminism is a competitive model which asks for
no special favors. Unfortunately for the majority of women and their children,
the fact is that women cannot, ever, earn as much as men do in a market place
where male wages are the standard unit of currency - ie - it takes $1000 'male'
dollars to rent an apartment, but takes $1300 'female' dollars (courtesy of the
wage gap and how much more time it takes her to earn an equal amount of
spending power).
No comments:
Post a Comment