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. When the Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution was proposed in 1923, it created a rift among suffragists. A nice, succinct summary of this conflict can be found here, ironically, at a library at the University of Michigan: Ne 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. In Rumblings On An Old Fault Line In The Struggle For Women’s Rights, for example, I noted that Moreover, as I have argued a number of times, there is something quite odd about modern feminists reverting to the “difference feminism” that they had long rejected. Schwarzenegger famously called “ girlie men”? Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine.īut insofar as that distinction is to be honored, shouldn’t affirmative action preferences for mannish women be eliminated, but extended to what Gov.
Sex refers to biological differences chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs. What is the difference between sex and gender? Feminists are generally quick to insist that the proper term to use in discussing women and men is “gender,” not “sex,” because, they also insist, the distinctions and differences are “socially constructed.” There is one more vexing question about sex-based affirmative action that I’ve never understood. Since feminist groups base a good deal of their support for affirmative action on their belief that it benefits women, it should not be surprising that enthusiasm for preferential treatment for men, based on their same thin “diversity” rationale, has been, er, considerably mild (to the point of inaudibility). Would these groups continue to support affirmative action so fervently if men were the primary beneficiaries, as indeed they seem to be in college admissions according to this report in USA Today.
Our future leaders must be educated in a classroom as diverse as the challenges we face.” Our country cannot afford to ignore equal opportunity and access for women in education. “We will continue to support policies that increase the diversity of Michigan’s educational institutions and workplaces.”įern Ettinger of the National Council of Jewish Women emphasized the importance of diversity, stating, “The case for diversity in higher education is indeed compelling. “We stand in opposition to Ward Connerly’s deceptively titled “Michigan Civil Rights Initiative,” said Diane Neth Covel, Director of Public Policy, Michigan AAUW. “In fact, women are the most frequent beneficiaries of and will lose most if affirmative action is lost.” However, it is important to remember that affirmative action benefits women as well - regardless of race or color,” concluded Anita Bowden of the Michigan Council of the YWCA. “Oftentimes, affirmative action is viewed as a tool that solely benefits people of color. I have discussed this too many times to cite, but here is a good example from the MCRI campaign, quoting a statement issued by eleven Michigan women’s organizations:
209 in California and the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative being prime examples), they have argued vociferously (I’m tempted to say “shrilly,” which is both accurate and politically incorrect) that official gender blindness would work to the detriment of women. In the campaigns to require states to treat their citizens “without regard” to race or sex (Prop. Feminists almost uniformly support affirmative action, arguing that women benefit from preferential treatment.
0 kommentar(er)
