A couple of recent threads have me thinking. Do we really want true equality of the sexes?
Let’s use a fictional example to debate with:
Welcome to Acidia, a socialist democracy based loosely on the United States. In Acidia, citizens are guaranteed the US bill of rights, and enjoy a few other benefits such as basic healthcare, and housing. One key difference is the High Court. Once every 20 years, the High Court hears any argument on any law that has gained enough support to make it though the screening process. It is assumed that during this period, Non human rights related items that may have a constitutional challenge may also be reviewed. (so for example, you can’t challenge women’s right to vote, but you could challenge a provision that establishes anti-trust laws)
As Sitting members of the High court, you have been given the task of reviewing the implications of the Gender Equality Act of 2011.
It states: "Congress shall pass no law discriminating between genders except in those matters in which biological differences are profound. Henceforth, all citizens shall be held to an equal standard in all matters legal and those pertaining to the social welfare system. Neither congress nor local municipalities may pass a law advocating or enforcing gender segregation, or discrimination except in those matters of biological necessity. Any and all laws that advocate or enforce segregatory or discriminatory practices will be stricken from the record.
Exceptions:
Prison populations will remain segregated by gender as the people recognize the difficulty in policing inmate behaviour.
The people find it reasonable to extend different standards of medical care to the genders as dictated by biology.
What would be the consequences of such an act? Should we pass it?
Could you give an example or two of a law currently on the books that would be struck down under such an act? I’m having a hard time picturing what in our current system counts as federally-legislated gender discrimination/segregation. Are single gendered restrooms mandated by law?
Currently, single gendered restrooms are not mandated federally except in federal buildings. Municipalities have the right the make their own laws regarding this matter. Some do some do not. It is social custom to have segregated restrooms, and most businesses do this as a courtesy regardless of law.
Acidia currently has battered womens laws on the books that would be affected.
Certain premises in divorce and custody law will likewise be affected. Currently, mothers are given preferential treatment by custom but not by legal statute.
Hiring standards would no longer have gender requirements as all citizens would be viewed as equal.
I’m sure there are others. Acidia is pretty much like the US is currently legally other than it’s social system which provides a greater safety net.
The biggest effect would be in federal contracting. Currently women owned companies get affirmative action in contracting for the first eight years of the company’s existence. Also soldiers would have to have the same uniforms and be held to the same fitness standards. Likewise for cops and firefighters, though I understand current practice is to get rid of seperate standards for men and women and just lower the standard for men.
I am absolutely a proponent of gender equality, but I think passing such a law would not be prudent. Equality is something that is very difficult to really figure out, not just because of biology, but also because of social differences.
For instance, is it discriminatory if a business or industry that typically attracts one gender rejects the other one? Take for example Hooters, there’s absolutely no biological reason at all why a man cannot be a server at their restaurant, would such a law forbid their business model? What about bars and clubs that have ladies’ nights? There’s no biological reason why women should get cheaper drinks. What about selective service requiring men to register but not women? What about other things that seem to make sense, like bathrooms? Sure, there’s a biological difference, but does that necessitate different facilities?
Ultimately, I think these sorts of things are best handled socially unless it’s in a situation like civil rights where it really is unbearably bad. Yes, gender equality isn’t perfect yet, but it’s better than it’s ever been and it continues to get better, and I certainly don’t think it’s bad enough that the government needs to get involved. By legislating it, you lessen individual responsibility and potentially block some things that really don’t need to be (like, IMO, a business like Hooters), and don’t block things that very well may need to be.
I’m not certain that the proposed measure does those things. As written it would prohibit the government from passing laws that create a protected class based on gender. I’m not certain it would prohibit private businesses from lopsided hiring. It seems that by making all citizens equal such practices would fall under private jurisdiction. Let the market dictate if such a model is successful or not I suppose.
No law can make the genders equal. This law would most likely work the other way. The main factors causing inequality are physical and cultural. Most gender specific laws are attempts to compensate for that. In my opinion, equality, if it comes, will come through technology. Here is what I see as necessary:
Universally available, foolproof, and effortless birth control. Something like an implant given at puberty that would require a doctor intentionally disabling it for conception. Speaking of which:
An universally available artificial uterus that works as good as the original and can except zygote/embryo/fetus at any stage of development.
Artificial enhancements that negate sex based strength difference somehow. Artificial muscles that make anyone really strong would be one way, but there could be many others.
These would eliminate the biological imbalance and put the genders on a more even footing. Culture should change to accept that. But as long as women operate on a biologically uneven footing, equality will be superficial at best.
Universaly available childcarewould have a much bigger affect on women’s earning potential than artificial wombs. Artificial wombs would find a nice niche with women who can’t safely bear a child (& the odd actress), gay male couples, and single men who wish to be fathers. Surrogate mothers currently fill that niche, but artificial wombs should, eventually, be much cheaper and allow more couples to use them. Of coure they’d also allow abortion to be prohibited without effecting a woman’s right to control her own body.
Male ambition and risk taking is highly linked to sex drive. That is why male animals are castrated to make them docile and put on weight. Lower sex drive = less energy wasted jockeying for social position.
Lowering of male libido would very likely result in a marked reduction in productivity, economic growth and innovation
This is by far the biggest expense any parent has to deal with. For most people insurance (or welfare) take care of the child’s health. A job flipping burgers (or welfare) is enough to buy formula and diapers (about $5/day). Clothes are almost laughably cheap as long as you don’t care about the name on the label (its all made in the same Chinese factories). Baby toys are the same.
Day care for a newborn is at leasts $1000/month in places like NY, DC, LA.
Analogy: I was arguing with some marxists (Revolutionary Communist Party if you must know) once upon a time and my position was not that oppression no longer existed but that the current state of equality and of freedom of political expression was such that it could not be improved on by violent revolution. Because violent revolution by its very modality created more of what you’re trying to get rid of than is present in the system you’re desiring to overthrow.
THIS IS NOT A GENDER NEUTRAL SOCIETY. THIS IS NOT A GENDER EQUAL SOCIETY. But more harm is likely to be done to opportunity and freedom through the action of any complex additional law than would be made up for by increased opportunity and freedom from the action of the law. A sufficiently simple law (the ERA wording is crisp and clean) maybe, but the real action isn’t legal action; it’s attitudinal.
In attitudes, (desires for which cannot be enforced, just expressed), I would like to see a world where people, in their interaction with the sexes, suspend their generalized conclusions about differences between the sexes and deal with each individual as a person, not as a man or woman.