I’ve been reading Catharine MacKinnon’s work lately, which inspired me to think further on feminism and the pursuit of equality among the sexes. MacKinnon wrote that sexuality is socially constructed. The male and female sexes are created through the eroticization of dominance and submission where the man-woman difference is defined directly by the dominance-submission dynamic. She laments that we live in a male-privileged legal system and “man has become the measure of all things.” Sexual dominance, then, is the reason why women are subordinated.
To achieve sex equality, Justice Ruth Ginsburg seems to advocate gender-blindness, treating similarly situated men and women equally, literally. This is currently our Supreme Court’s interpretation of sex equality. However, critics of this formal equity approach say that when you ignore sex when sex is often a critical factor in how an individual interacts with society, you end up with cases that show limited compassion toward pregnant women or working mothers. This liberal approach seeks objective equality, but the result is a subjective equality through the perspective of the men who still control our society.
Others, such as Carol Gilligan, say that men have certain assets to bring to the table, such as the ability to think abstractly, while women have different but equally important assets, such as an ethic of care and nurturing. Men live in a “world rationalized through logic” and women live in a “world of relationships.” The reason for sex inequality is the overvaluing of male characteristics and the undervaluing of the female. Thus, sex equality may be achieved after we equally value both and integrate both masculine and feminine traits into our laws. Critics immediately see that this is the overt embrace of stereotypes where women are valuing in themselves what men have traditionally valued in women.
Still other approaches, such as pragmatic feminism, critical race feminism, or lesbian feminism, see sex as being inextricably tied to race, class, sexual orientation, and even life experiences. Thus, sex equality can only be achieved on a personal case by case evaluative basis. Right away we note that legal enforcement of sex equality under these models would be an administrative nightmare. (Note: Lesbian feminism is different from the other approaches by its scrutiny of heterosexuality as an institution. It doesn’t necessarily promote case by case inquiry.)
Ruminating on these varying ideas led me to post this question: What is your vision of sex equality? How does this vision address the deficiencies of existing theories and also, since utopias do not exist, what obstacles do you think will perpetually hinder sex equality as a reachable goal?
January 25, 2007 at 1:08 pm |
I think the concept of sexual equality is fundamentally flawed. Men and women are not built the same. Women are based on a different gene sequence as men are. Men are genetically built to be more physically robust. They have thinner hips which allow for faster running, and higher testosterone which generate more muscle growth. It’s why in the Olympics you have to divide up the genders. It’s not a sexist thing, it’s simply that both sexes are in different classes due to the way they are genetically constructed.
I’m not sure if this analogy fits, but can there be equality between a hammer and a screw driver? Both are tools, but both function better doing different things. Sure you can use both to hammer in nails but a hammer would work better than the butt of a screw driver.
The only playing field I can conceive of for equality is in terms of rights. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This much must be equal.
January 25, 2007 at 2:07 pm |
Shouldn’t that be a screwdriver and a bolt? Or something like that? Bah, what do I know…
January 25, 2007 at 2:16 pm |
The current thinking is that biological difference inevitably leads to difference in the brain, which in turn, leads to differences in how the two sexes receive, process, and react to stimuli. So there will always be differences. The question then is, must Equality=NO Difference? Why can we not be equal AND different?
January 25, 2007 at 7:44 pm |
Posteriori’s “conceive of for equality is in terms of rights” —
I agree. At present, men and women both have the equal right to apply for an associate position at a law firm. When a law firm blatantly discriminates against one sex in its hiring, we have laws in place to take care of that, like Equal Protection. Both a male and female associate are hired, let’s say. Why do partners and clients take the male associate more seriously than they do the female? Don’t try to tell me that doesn’t happen on an alarmingly frequent basis. As a female, I would experience an obstacle to my pursuit of happiness in my career that a male would not for pretty much no other reason but for I’m female. How do we reconcile that?
Buddhista’s “The current thinking is that biological difference inevitably leads to difference in the brain, which in turn, leads to differences in how the two sexes receive, process, and react to stimuli.” —
No one can deny there are biological differences between men and women. Science now shows that there are actually a whole spectrum of sexes between what we perceive as “male” and what we perceive as “female.” 1 in 4 people are in fact transgendered or intergendered to some degree, without even knowing it. How do these new scientific realizations play into our conceptions of “male” and “female,” which more and more we’re understanding to be social constructions, not entirely biological. Our understanding of sex and gender have gone beyond merely the X- and Y- chromosome distinctions.
Equality doesn’t have to mean no difference. In fact, saying there are no differences in sex is like saying there are no differences between the races. Being gender-blind has the same ramifications as being color-blind. Sure we can be equal AND different…but how? Therein lies the debate: Recognizing that there are undeniable differences that exist between people who consider themselves male and people who consider themselves female, how do we form a sex-equal society?
January 25, 2007 at 10:09 pm |
I was under the impression that the post concerns specifically sex equality and not gender equality. Because sex denotes a biological difference, whereas gender is merely a social construct. The two words are not interchangeable. Wait…so are we talking about gender equality here or sex equality? I’m confused…
January 25, 2007 at 11:22 pm |
In this post, I used sex and gender interchangeably. Some argue there’s a definitional difference between sex and gender. Others say that’s rubbish and don’t distinguish the two. MacKinnon actually argues that sex is a social construct.
For future references, limited to this specific post only, let’s just use sex and gender interchangeably. If doing so really offends someone, then we can debate it in a new post. =)
March 9, 2007 at 4:54 am |
I am really interested in knowing how male dominance and female submission affects male- female sexual relationships. Can women express what they feel about their sexual encounters the same way that men do?