Feminism misconceived

Feminism and the call for gender equality are often misunderstood. Gender equality, it is argued, is wrongly premised on the idea of ‘sameness’ of men and women, and glosses over the varied intrinsic differences between the two. Feminism, as the most vociferous advocate of equality of the genders, represents no more than a host of illogical, embittered misandrists opposed to the institution of marriage and motherhood.

In a controversial speech delivered at the Women and Justice Summit in Istanbul last week, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan articulated these very misgivings.

While his assertion that “women and men are not equal” was received with shock in Western media, for many of us feminists here it was no more than an oft-encountered retort. How often have colleagues, mothers, friends and family reminded us, in words not very different from President Erdogan’s, of the absurdity and futility of the ‘equality debate’?

Gender equality, for its detractors, is a misplaced ideal. Women, defined by their biological distinctness to men, are born into difference. Each gender represents a different species with a specific set of needs, capacities and life purposes. In the words of Catherine MacKinnon, to then argue that two “unlikes be treated alike” is wholly illogical. As a consequence, President Erdogan’s call for “equality among women” and “equality among men” only seems more correct. To demand otherwise would unfairly subject women to arduous standards of behaviour expected of men.

A protectionist state, cognisant of such ‘difference’ and the ‘delicate nature’ of the female species, for instance must exempt women from compulsory manual labour or military service. However, the difference argument can very easily be turned on its head. Women are weaker, more vulnerable and bereft of the capabilities with which nature has endowed men. Not only must they be ‘protected’ from the rigours of manual work, but also from any other task unfit for their ‘nature’ — governance, medicine, legal practice, the police or even engineering. But who is to decide the appropriate scope of such protectionism? Who determines the question of ‘fit’?

Difference can then become the justification for the exclusion of, and denial to women of the right to self-determination, education, and access to the workforce. When defined in terms of their physical inferiority to men, the oppression and subjugation of women in familial relations, at times even expressed through violence, may also appear unexceptional.

The feminist claim of gender equality seeks to resist this very tendency to conceive of women and the hierarchy of gender relations as biologically determined. Feminists do not necessarily argue that men and women are the ‘same’. Neither do they renounce or denigrate the natural differences that exist between the two genders. Instead, the demand for equality entreats only that women ought not to be prejudiced or penalised by reason of their biological difference.

Feminism calls for an end to the worldwide differential in women’s access to health, education, economic opportunities, freedom of choice and security of life. To deny the widespread prevalence of these injustices would be sheer naivete. To categorise those who have struggled against these as fanatics is bigoted.

Yet the demonisation of feminists as a sacrilegious, aggressive, man-hating cult opposed to the valuable experience of maternity and matrimony is not uncommon. Such assertion is, yet again, essentialist. Is a mother, of necessity, precluded from adherence to a belief system that one may categorise as feminist? Can a man and wife wedded in a marriage not ascribe to the principles of gender equality?

Examples to the contrary, however, abound. To believe in the divine, to love and to raise a family are not antithetical to the feminist agenda. What feminism opposes, in my view, is the pre-determination by society (or men) of women’s life choices. When motherhood and marriage are termed the only true calling of a woman, she is denied the prerogative to decide the trajectory of her life, which may not necessarily conform to the expected paradigm. The freedom to make such choices is critical to feminism. Is such demand really that irrational?

Feminism as misconstrued would definitely suggest so.

The vilification of feminism and the ascription of sole explanatory force to the argument of biological difference are an exercise in ignorance and carry the potential to inflict great detriment to the cause of gender equality, which is otherwise just and warranted.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 2^nd, 2014.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.