Do Women Want Equality?

I ask whether or not women want equality because the shrill opposition to the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative by women leaders there suggests that, at least for women leaders, the answer is no.

First, let me reprise a bit of history from this post several months ago:

One of the oldest, and most interesting, conflicts among supporters of civil rights is the struggle between feminists who sought “protective legislation” for women (limiting hours, working conditions, etc., for women) and feminists who sought gender-blind equality. A nice, succinct summary of this conflict can be found here, ironically, at a library at the University of Michigan:

When the Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution was proposed in 1923, it created a rift among suffragists. Women who had fought for protective labor legislation feared that the ERA would undo their efforts to protect women in the workplace, while feminists believed the amendment was necessary to bring about equality for women in American society. The opposition to the amendment by women who otherwise supported women’s rights persisted through mid-century, as is illustrated in the records of organizations such as the National Consumers League. In the 1960s and 1970s the women’s liberation movement began to produce new views of the ERA and renewed support for the amendment.

Alas, this paragraph is now dated. The equal rights feminists of NOW, etc., who by this and virtually all other accounts had won this debate and banished the “protective legislation” feminists to a quaint footnote in histories of feminism, have now (or NOW) abandoned their victory, backtracked, picked up the tattered principles of their vanquished former foes, and are now giving full-throated, often shrill, voice to the notion that women, poor little shrinking violets, must have special privileges to protect them from competition on equal terms with men.

Indeed, in Michigan it appears that the leaders of the fight to preserve special preferences for minorities and women have all but forgotten minorities, and the shibboleth of “diversity” that is supposed to justify giving them special privileges in admission and hiring, and turned all their energies to predicting that the sky will fall on women if preferential treatment is barred. (I have discussed this phenomenon quite often, such as here, here, and here.)

Those three posts just cited show Michigan women asserting that the passage of MCRI would mean:

1)

women can forget about programs such as breast and cervical cancer screening, breast-feeding promotion, domestic violence treatment and prevention programs, and summer and after-school programs such as technology camps for girls

2)

the state’s Department of Natural Resources might have to abandon a program to train women in hunting and other outdoor sports if the initiative is approved

3) MCRI would eliminate such programs as

local school efforts to encourage high school girls to consider careers in science and engineering, outreach to ensure that qualified women are considered for state and local government jobs and contracts, help overcome discrimination women face in obtaining equal pay for equal work.

All of this, of course, is hysterical nonsense, but even so it is not as appalling as some other statements in opposition to MCRI by Michigan women in leadership positions. For example, a report from Center for the Education of Women at the University of Michigan argues, as I noted here (exaggerating, but not by much), that

if MCRI passes women in Michigan will all become battered victims — scientific illiterates with breast cancer — and besides, none of them will ever again be telephone linemen.

Indeed, Mary Sue Coleman, the president of the University of Michigan has actually defended gender-exclusive hiring (not “diversity,” not “gender as one issue among many” etc.), claiming, as I pointed out here, quoting a report of a talk she made,

that gender-specific policies in academia are necessary for the health of the American public. She noted that medical research conducted at the University must address the health concerns of both men and women. She held that women’s health issues could only be adequately addressed if women were actually conducting the research.

You can see why it appears that the women of Michigan — or I should say, women leaders in Michigan — are in a full-fledged, full-throated flight from equality.

Let me now return to the reprise of history with which I began, after which I’ll pose a question to the fearful Michigan feminists. The operative text of the Equal Rights Amendment, first introduced in 1923 and I’m sure supported by all those feminist worthies in Michigan now opposing MCRI, reads:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Now to my question for the fearful feminists arguing that MCRI’s ban on race or gender preferences would be bad for women: Did you oppose the Equal Rights Amendment as well? If not, do you now regret your past support for a Constitutional amendment that would have demanded equal treatment for men and women?

Say What? (3)

  1. staghounds September 26, 2006 at 11:46 am | | Reply

    It’s simple!

    Everybody knows that “women and minorities” are EXACTLY THE SAME as white men, except where they are better, or need special protection.

  2. Agog September 26, 2006 at 8:14 pm | | Reply

    John,

    With all due respect you are missing the point.

    The focus that MCRI opponents place on gender affirmative action has nothing to do with the merits of those preferences or actually protecting them. Instead, it has everything to do with bare knuckle politics.

    The MCRI opponents know well that the only hope they have of defeating the MCRI at the polls is to rally white female voters against it.

  3. Cobra September 30, 2006 at 4:59 pm | | Reply

    Agog writes:

    >>>”It’s simple!

    Everybody knows that “women and minorities” are EXACTLY THE SAME as white men, except where they are better, or need special protection.”

    Who is “everybody”, and if your statement is true, justify the American history and current societal realities that suggest otherwise.

    –Cobra

Say What?