Almost a week has passed since conservative intellectual Phyllis Schlafly spoke here at the University of Massachusetts. Judging by the reactions from protestors and members of the College Democrats, Schlafly's remarks about the dignity of housewives and the counterproductive effects of feminism were dismissed as conservative banter. Her points deserve to be reiterated to clarify that the policies she cautions against implementing lead to the true subjugation of women.
First, there is a stark difference between the aspiration of the original efforts of women to be treated equally under the rule of law and that of contemporary feminists. This principle created the foundation for the women's suffrage movement, which culminated in the ratification of the 19th Amendment in the early 20th century.
While conservatives are typically skeptical of any supposed social gains produced by "movements," the right to vote was one substantive benefit attained by the efforts of this movement's organizers. Whether one could accurately label this achievement as the first sign of feminism is up for debate. What is not up for debate, however, is that this result was based on the notion that men and women should be treated equally under the law regardless of gender. It must be stressed that most critics of modern feminism do not disagree with this principle.
Yet the modern conception of feminism - starting in the 1960s - bears little resemblance to the push advocating for policies promoting equality under the law. Rather than advancing this belief, contemporary feminism calls for different rights based on gender.
A large part of modern feminism, Schlafly noted, endorses increased government intervention to offset the patriarchal subjugation of women in American society. For instance, it calls for the government to ensure that women are paid just as much as men for equal work, since feminists frequently note that women are paid 'x' number of cents for every dollar a man makes.
The "equal pay for equal work" mantra does not take into account other variables which create conditions for different wage earnings.
For instance, say a leader of a contemporary feminist movement wanted to hire two secretaries for the entire year. The two candidates considered include an older woman who has been a secretary before and has two grown children. The other is a young woman who has not been a secretary before and is pregnant. The logical choice would be for the leader to pay the older woman a higher wage, since she is more familiar with a secretary's responsibilities and is less likely to ask for paid leave because of pregnancy.
In this case, additional variables like experience and the likelihood of future labor illustrate why "equal pay for equal work" is simplistic by overlooking other important factors.
Contrary to what women's studies professors and feminists claim, government intervention in the economy does not lead to the empowerment of women. Rather, it explicitly expresses that women cannot make economic decisions on their own without input from a third party. For a movement that supposedly claims to liberate women from external forces, the policies it supports subjugate them to the very same second-class standards it hopes to overcome.
And, as Schlafly emphasized, raising a family and performing household chores are not indicative of second-class social status. Instead, they are more dignified and productive endeavors than many other professions considered to be high-skilled jobs. Women's studies professors may be idolized by modern-day feminists, but theorizing has had virtually no impact on nurturing children nor has it empowered women to make the individual economic and social decisions they are fully capable of making.
Yet the most important point is not that housewifery is a dignified position. The central message is that women have more freedom in America than in any other place in the world to choose whichever life path to pursue, whether this entails raising children and/or becoming a full-time professional.
As Schlafly noted, these two aspirations are not mutually exclusive; rather, different circumstances in a woman's life demand effort to be devoted to these priorities at different points in their lives.
For instance, Schlafly raised her six children at home while her husband was the family's primary wage earner. This division in responsibilities had little to do with the supposed patriarchal structure in American society. Instead, it had everything to do with the mutual decision between Schlafly and her husband to divide these household tasks based on their knowledge concerning who was in the best position to raise the children and who was in the best position to make money at that particular time. No centralized government could possibly possess this knowledge. (Evidently, Schlafly pursued a law degree after her children were fully grown).
It is not hyperbole to say the policies supported by the modern-day feminist movement dehumanize women by suggesting that they are unable to make informed decisions without assistance from a third party.
Fortunately, as Schlafly made abundantly clear, the incentives created through free markets and equality under the law provide the greatest opportunity for women to pursue a life goal that is in accordance with their individual preferences and not those of professors, activists or government.
Greg Collins writes on Tuesdays. He can be reached at gcollins@student.umass.edu.
Be the first to comment on this article!