WHEN IT COMES TO WOMEN'S RIGHTS, WHO GETS TO DECIDE?

 

WHEN IT COMES TO WOMEN’S RIGHTS, WHO GETS TO DECIDE?

 

In an enlightened world that brags about inclusivity and equality the answer should be a no-brainer.  Women of course.  Not so fast.  In the world’s first, real democracy, the United States of America, we witness the tenure of a president who has gone out of his way to dismantle women’s rights and deny access to all kinds of services women have come to rely upon.  Which begs the question that inspired this article: Why do women constantly have to fight for rights that men take for granted?

Trump’s claim to being color blind was his reasoning for abandoning diversity legislation.  According to the master of confusion, division and distraction, no legislation meant that people will be hired based on their qualifications only: not color, not race, not gender or creed.  The reason why diversity legislation was introduced in the first place was because of the glaring discrimination and exclusion prevalent in predominantly male and white sectors of society.  Diversity and inclusion legislation broke a persistent cycle of discrimination to introduce instead a much broader workforce that would properly reflect society as a whole.

The Trump cabal is hell-bent on transforming American society once more into a bastion of a white, male dominated, hierarchy.  Nothing is off limits.  The strategy is simple; divide, confuse, distract.  Cleansing Washington DC of homeless people and other undesirables is the latest gaffe in giving the MAGA following the illusion that the president is cleaning house, starting in his own backyard.  What kind of president puts the boots to people who have lost everything?  Who have nothing!  When it comes to overstepping the boundaries of common decency and respect this man eats the cake.  Nothing is off limits it seems.  This should be a heads up to every American harboring anti-Trump feelings and sentiments.  None will be safe from the unwashed and ignorant Trump supporters.  And where will these hapless souls be deported to?  Across state lines?  Into Democrat held states?  To impoverished mid-western American states that will receive a one-time cash bonus for every reject received!  In typical over-the-top Trump fashion and throwing his inappropriate presidential weight around he is bypassing and ignoring local authorities by inviting the National Guard to help with what?  Deportation!  A roundup!  A people drive instead of a cattle drive?  The insanity of the Trump White House spectacle introduces a political landscape the world has never witnessed before, a new kind of reality TV show involving the descent of America as we know it, disappearing into a huge man-made Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole.  The process is so bizarre and distractive that barely unnoticed a whole raft of legislation has been passed that dismantles the democratic rock America has been built upon.  His evangelical inspired attacks on women, especially on reproductive rights and access to abortion, took place within weeks of taking office.

America, under Trump’s leadership, is being transformed into an autocratic nation where law and order have become meaningless as judicial enforcement and the rule of law have become indiscriminate tools abused at the discretion of the nation’s president.  His law is whatever he wants it to be.  How do you neuter a nation?  You take control of the security forces, the judiciary and the media.  You achieve your goals by dismantling any kind of opposition, by taking away hard-fought rights, by driving a wedge between people and divide them into factions, by silencing any kind of opposition.

Divide.  Distract.  Distort.  Confuse.

We’re not talking about people here who have the best interests of the nation in mind.  This is about power and control.  This is about men having it their way once more and everybody else be damned and move out of the way.  Male chauvinism, misogyny, male bias.  The pursuit of fairness and equality would entail the kind of dialogue that would include diversity across the spectrum.  It means democracy in its truest form and purpose.  The opposite includes victimizing people and you do it by pouncing on the most vulnerable groups in society, those who have the most to lose, those who have fought the hardest for their rights and recognition.

Bash women, public institutions, minorities, the vulnerable.

In a nation where true equality exists, where there is no blurring between the roles of men and women and equal rights are enshrined in law, it would be near impossible for a man like Trump to emerge.  Trump supporters are not the brightest lights, but they do consist of the most ignorant people in society, people who will not hesitate to hate, scream and bash in heads if asked to.  Insanity has taken hold of America and it won’t be stopped by sane people and a pretty please.

And America is not alone.  The world at large is in turmoil.  In many nations around the world women’s right have taken a backseat or worse, they see their rights eroded or erased all together.  In most cases women’s rights are the victim of political, economic, religious and social turmoil.

Cater to the ignorant, the screamers and the head bashers and you don’t even need a majority to kowtow the meek and the mild, the usual silent majority into submission.  The Trump circus has taken hypocrisy to stratospheric new levels and they are not too picky as to whom to turn to for support.  His sanctimonious courting of the evangelical right is a no-brainer as it guaranteed his support for rolling back women’s rights.  In almost all major world religions women play a secondary role.  They are bastions of male dominated hierarchies and they are determined to keep it that way.

“The devil’s best work was being able to convince evangelicals that a vulgar, greedy, racist man who has 5 children with 3 wives, pays porn stars for sex, gropes women, incites violence, and never tells the truth, was sent here by God.”

You can’t discuss women’s rights without acknowledging the obstacles put in place to prevent true gender equality.  Male bias is number one followed by male dominated power and control.  Men like it that way.  True gender equality, right across the board, would dramatically change the political and social landscape as we know it and it would probably lead to societies that are automatically run along democratic lines.  Women wouldn’t put up with half the nonsense men engage in on a daily basis.  Women would insist on fairness, inclusion, tolerance, respect.  Just to name a few.  Women are placed in a vulnerable position from the time they are of child bearing age.  What men contribute is rather miniscule when compared to the consequences women face and men are well aware of this.  Change has been demanded in the past, but even the most inspiring efforts have fallen on deaf ears.

The dark roots of male subconscious and conscious bias.

There is a dark, but sinister reason why men have always harbored a resentment towards women.  Women are the only ones in our species capable of conception and delivering a fully formed child.  And the added caveat that infuriates most males—any male will do.  There is no male exclusivity here.  Hence the proprietary attitudes that have developed over time that treat women as property, through legislation that favors males or male dominance and rights.  Embedded in most religions, some even portray women as a necessary evil, women are tolerated but never a man’s equal.  In many societies women are brought up to perceive themselves as submissive to the male and their role is limited to being mothers and wives.  By reducing half of the world’s population—women—into a secondary position, limiting their rights, the playing field is automatically dominated by males.  And in the so-called enlightened part of the world—of which America is a part—males are using arguments such as a father’s right, defending the rights of the unborn, the sanctity of life, to reduce a woman’s rights to choose.  When we witness the ease with which predominantly male armies and security forces kill, bomb and destroy human life, it appears that once more men use rather sanctimonious arguments to further their influence and power.

I want to take you back to one of the leading figures in the Enlightenment movement and one of its leading philosophers: John Stuart Mill, born in 1806, died in 1873.  Here are some of his observations and writings in regards to women’s rights and the missed opportunities.

Here are some extracts from his work pertaining to his view on women’s rights and how and why we have failed consistently on living up to creating better societies.

John Stuart Mill strongly advocated for the social, economic, and political equality of women.  He argued that society’s current limitations on women were not based on natural differences but rather societal norms and customs that needed to be challenged.  Mill believed that granting women equal rights, including access to education, employment, and the right to vote, would not only benefit women themselves but also lead to a more just and prosperous society overall.

Mill attacks the argument that women are naturally worse at some things than men and should, therefore, be discouraged or forbidden from doing them. He says that we simply don't know what women are capable of, because we have never let them try – one cannot make an authoritative statement without evidence. We can't stop women from trying things because they might not be able to do them. An argument based on speculative physiology is just that, speculation.

The anxiety of mankind to intervene on behalf of nature...is an altogether unnecessary solicitude. What women by nature cannot do, it is quite superfluous to forbid them from doing.

In this, men are contradicting themselves because they say women cannot do an activity and want to stop them from doing it. Here Mill suggests that men are admitting that women are capable of doing the activity, but that men do not want them to do so.

Whether women can do them or not must be found out in practice. In reality, we don't know what women's nature is, because it is so wrapped up in how they have been raised. Mill suggests we should test out what women can and can't do – experiment.

“I deny that any one knows or can know, the nature of the two sexes, as long as they have only been seen in their present relation to one another. Until conditions of equality exist, no one can possibly assess the natural differences between women and men, distorted as they have been. What is natural to the two sexes can only be found out by allowing both to develop and use their faculties freely.”

 

“Women are brought up to act as if they were weak, emotional, docile – a traditional prejudice. If we tried equality, we would see that there were benefits for individual women. They would be free of the unhappiness of being told what to do by men. And there would be benefits for society at large – it would double the mass of mental faculties available for the higher service of humanity. The ideas and potential of half the population would be liberated, producing a great effect on human development.”

If society really wanted to discover what is truly natural in gender relations, Mill argued, it should establish a free market for all of the services women perform, ensuring a fair economic return for their contributions to the general welfare. Only then would their practical choices be likely to reflect their genuine interests and abilities.

Mill felt that the emancipation and education of women would have positive benefits for men also. The stimulus of female competition and companionship of equally educated persons would result in the greater intellectual development of all. He stressed the insidious effects of the constant companionship of an uneducated wife or husband. Mill felt that men and women married to follow customs and that the relation between them was a purely domestic one. By emancipating women, Mill believed, they would be better able to connect on an intellectual level with their husbands, thereby improving relationships.

Mill attacks marriage laws, which he likens to the slavery of women, "there remain no legal slaves, save the mistress of every house." He alludes to the subjection of women becoming redundant as slavery did before it. He also argues for the need for reforms of marriage legislation whereby it is reduced to a business agreement, placing no restrictions on either party. Among these proposals are the changing of inheritance laws to allow women to keep their own property, and allowing women to work outside the home, gaining independent financial stability.

Again the issue of women's suffrage is raised. Women make up half of the population, thus they also have a right to a vote since political policies affect women too. He postulates that most men will vote for those MPs who will subordinate women, therefore women must be allowed to vote to protect their own interests.

Under whatever conditions, and within whatever limits, men are admitted to the suffrage, there is not a shadow of justification for not admitting women under the same.

Mill felt that even in societies as unequal as England and Europe that one could already find evidence that when given a chance women could excel. He pointed to such English queens as Elizabeth I or Victoria. If given the chance women would excel in other arenas and they should be given the opportunity to try.

Mill was not just a theorist; he actively campaigned for women's rights as an MP and was the president of the National Society for Women’s Suffrage.

John Stuart Mill died in 1873.  Isn’t it sad that so much of what he advocated is still a dream, a goal far off for most women?  Women make up half of the world’s population.  In most countries children under the age of 18 don’t have the right to vote.  There are voting restrictions galore.  As a result a male dominated powerbase is almost a given in every nation on the planet.  When you apply double standards discrimination between the two sexes will persist because it benefits the male.

Here is another observation that was made by John Stuart Mill and I have included it in my novel—We, the Masses.

‘Women have been coaxed, cajoled, shoved and squashed into a series of feminine contortions for so many centuries, that it is now quite impossible to define their natural abilities and aspirations.’

We still engage in role play in which men and women subject themselves to a certain role because it is convenient, both sexes giving in to expected or accepted stereotypes.  From toys to clothing, education and jobs; there are certain activities and roles we designate to either men or women.  And the demands we continue to make and how confusing it must be.  We expect girls to be pretty, sexy, alluring, motherly, nurturing, loving, modest, dressed up and dressed down, the center of attention or in the background.  It is never enough it seems.  Who is pulling the strings?  Are we doing this to ourselves and on purpose or is it all part of the manipulation process?  Keeping the status quo alive and males continue to rule and make the laws.

Men are told to be providers, strong, macho, defenders, warriors, protectors, yet sensitive to a woman’s needs, fathers, role models.  And to quote John Stuart Mill and going back to some of his observations; wouldn’t it be a blessing if we lived in a truly emancipated society and most of this role playing nonsense would disappear.  We could all be ourselves and breathe a sigh of relief.

To illustrate that we’re faced with a long road ahead when it comes to full emancipation and gender equality I would like to illustrate it with a recent incident.  A friend of ours, a white female, married with grownup children, advertised an estate sale of furniture and various household items.  An Indian family responded and offered to buy everything to furnish an apartment they had recently purchased.  Furniture loaded up and the sale completed she wanted to shake the gentleman’s hand.  He refused.  She was white, not of his faith and above all, she was a woman.  In his faith women are property and they do as they are told (by men).  Shaking her hand would be an act considered unclean and forbidden.  This is a prime example of male dominance.  Whether inspired by religion, culture, customs or plain discrimination to keep influence and power away from women, we have a long road ahead of us when it comes to gender equality and fairness in general.

Feel free to comment or share.