Putting aside her tendency to namedrop personalities and organisations that the Australian left loathe the most, such as Sarah Palin, Elizabeth Humphrys has revealed just what it is about feminism that receives so much public scorn and disrespect these days.
Notwithstanding our clear ideological differences Humphrys and I at least seem to be in agreement that the term ''feminism'' has transitioned into what is now largely a dirty word, albeit for different reasons.
According to the third-wave feminist strictures of Humphrys, feminism as conventionally understood in academic circles today is inexorably tied up with patriarchy theory. While this is an abstract, and rather contentious, basis for rejecting the feminism label, it is surely her right in a society that upholds freedom of conscience to adopt such a stance.
Earlier conceptions of feminism are also not to Humphrys' tastes since, it is claimed, they fail to adequately consider how race, religion, ethnicity and socio-economic status might serve to conflate the experiences of oppression still being felt by women.
The third, and final, key objection by Humphrys to the term feminism is that some women who subscribe to non-socialist thought have described themselves, in some form or another, as feminists. Indeed, there seems to be no greater source of revulsion for leftists than to see classical liberals or even conservatives labelling themselves as a feminist.
So in response to all of these issues, what does Humphrys do? She consigns feminism to the dustbin since it is tainted in her mind, embraces the possibly equally tainted second-wave feminist label of ''women's lib'' as her own, and then asks ''who is up for a fight for real emancipation from gender discrimination'' as any self-respecting third-wave feminist probably would.
No wonder why a number of commenters to her original piece expressed confusion!
By contrast she should be trying to restore that now-tarnished word to its former glory, because of what many women's libbers, second- or third-wavers today refuse to acknowledge: feminism, properly so called, is inextricably linked with the great liberal aspiration of extending the bounds of human freedom more generally.
The early feminists from 19th and early 20th centuries, inspired by figures such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Voltairine de Cleyre and Suzanne La Follette, saw their primary objective as being to break down legal and other barriers preventing women from realising equality of opportunities alongside men in economic and social realms.
These and many other first-wave feminists saw governments as obstacles to the realisation of greater freedoms for women. Accordingly, a number of influential feminists of earlier generations tended to be, although not exclusively, of classical liberal persuasion with a corresponding disposition against large, intrusive governments that restricted individual and group rights and freedoms.
Despite long and sometimes bitter campaigns the early feminists eventually earned hard-fought wins for freedom; the legacy of which immeasurably benefits all women in advanced countries today.
Without diminishing the achievements of the early feminists, these pro-liberty gains were secured in part with the support of men sympathetic to the feminist cause. I am not only referring to those important male philosophers and activists siding with the principles of feminism, such as John Stuart Mill in the 1800s and even John Locke as early as the 1600s.
In fact, women could not have won significant gains in equality of opportunities in education, marriage, property rights and work, for example, without the acquiescence of male legislators in often limited-franchise parliaments, who found the basic argument that ''women's rights are people's rights'' impossible to ignore any longer.
However, not satisfied with the freedoms already gained for women to work, attain a worthwhile education, own property, set up a business, and vote, the second- and third-wave feminists of the late 20th and early 21st centuries fundamentally changed their strategic focus regarding their relationship with their historical enemy — the coercive, misogynist state.
Armed with new campaign slogans such as ''the personal is political'', feminists since the 1960s have increasingly moved away from advocating the abolition of old legislative obstacles to equality of opportunity to the imposition of new legislative obstacles on business, non-government organisations and other bodies to enshrine specific gender policy objectives.
This has been reflected across the OECD in the form of workplace gender composition quotas, gendered hiring discrimination, pay equity ratios, and the like, combined with affirmative action bureaucracies to monitor existing policies and devise new ones.
These initiatives have tended to operate against the best economic interests of women, for example by raising effective costs of their employment.
Government legislative edicts also exhaust opportunities for competitive, free markets to discover new and innovative ways of satisfying the economic and social needs of women, and insidiously perpetuate the false idea that women cannot thrive without the visible hand of government preferment.
As a result, feminism has become a shadow of its former self. The movement diminished from being a liberatory, emancipationist cause into just another lobby group attempting to squeeze discriminatory favours out of government.
Contrary to the view of Humphrys the great deregulatory moments in modern history have shown conclusively that a transition to laissez-faire economic policy, typified by more private enterprise and less government control over employment and other market conditions, has worked to improve the circumstances of women and men at large.
It is for these reasons that I'll continue to argue for social and economic policy that does good for women, and all people, rather than call for larger government that hurts more than it helps.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment