I’ll define two kinds of gender equality.
1) Balanced Equality: In Balanced equality each sex holds some measure of primacy within its roles and realms and the result comes out even. I believe that Balanced equality is and has always been so. Man more respected but less loved/Woman more loved but less respected—if that’s how humanity wants to play it, who am I to object?
I only object when female-ism seeks to eliminate all female disadvantage while male disadvantage keeps right on going. I object to feminist efforts to make all OTHER things equal, which is female-ONLY “equality,” which is women often more-than, but NEVER less-than, which is not equality at all.
Balanced equality is equal opportunity on an even playing field—let the results be what they are. Balanced equality works best when each sex is generous enough to allow the other its various powers and privileges, knowing that one’s own sex possesses powers and privileges in equal measure.
2) Unisex Equality: Here, equality is rendered self-evident by the sexes being rendered identical. This is 4 = 4 equality (because E = Mc2 equality is too complex?).
I’m suspicious of Unisex equality, largely because we’re not a unisex species. And efforts to render humanity into a unisex species strike me as a massive social engineering project, and I suspect that humans may not be wise enough to take control of such a thing. It may not be wise to circumvent biology to serve a gender-political agenda. Who’s in charge of this social engineering? I didn’t vote for them. What authorizes them to completely change our human world? What holds them accountable? Accepting people who don’t conform to The Binary is a fine thing. I’m all for acceptance. Seeking to destroy The Binary is something else entirely. Boys force-fed the most negative interpretation of masculine, girls force-fed the most negative interpretation of feminine; the feminine approved of only when displayed by boys, the masculine only approved of when displayed by girls—given these pressures, of course boys will tend to purge themselves of their masculine and girls will tend to purge themselves of their feminine. But we don’t know what the consequences of this new “genderless society” might be, and those leading the way toward eliminating The Binary do not appear to be at all concerned with the consequences.
We do know that societies like Japan can reach a point where heterosexual love, marriage, and parenting are so diminished that the population is cut in half and will be cut in half again. Perhaps this should give us pause?
As an equalist, I believe we need to see equality as something that already is and has always been. Unisex equality is better than feminism’s cherry-picked “equality,” but it is a very poor substitute for Balanced equality. Essentially, “unisex equality” is so poor a substitute because unisex equality is, I believe, quite simply unachievable.
Consider just one issue from a purely practical standpoint. Given that there are more women than men, how can vote power be equalized? Even if we gave each man 1.1 votes, that may equalize vote power between Woman and Man, but the vote power between a woman and a man has been rendered unequal. So, what are you going to do?
But unisex equality is not just impracticable; it is untenable. In the real world as it truly is, efforts to achieve unisex equality can only result in further incursions down the road toward female-only “equality.” “Women in the military” provides a prime example of what actually happens when you reach for unisex equality.
In principle, including women in the military achieves sameness of power and sameness of victimization. In practice, however, you end up expanding female-only power and male-only victimization. In the military, any given man’s risk of dying is three times greater than any given woman’s.[1] Women receive special options, exemptions, and coddling while men work harder just to endure the lion’s share of the worst of it. Whatever the intentions of unisex equality may be, whatever the androgynous utopian aims may be, this is what actually happens. (And I believe this is exactly why feminism is so obsessed with Unisex equality; it favors women.)
Within the objective, numeric, measurable world of men, laws can dictate that there must be an equal number of female senators as male senators (quotas of this type have already become commonplace in the world[2]). Men may work longer, harder hours, but laws can dictate that men and women must be paid the same number of dollars, regardless. Quotas can dictate that an equal number of Pulitzer and Nobel Prizes must be accorded each sex.
As the example of the military makes clear, laws and policies, quotas and affirmative actions can Glass Escalator women to equal or better status at one-third the risk and half the effort. In this way, men’s extra risks and extra efforts may all be neutralized. Even in the world of sports we’re seeing female athletes gifted with head starts and other advantages that allow women to “win” the race.[1]
Within the more objective public world of men, extra efforts men make out of their need to compensate for being male can be undone by public laws and policies. But it would seem that the more private, subjective, interpersonal world of women and women’s innate powers are out of reach of the law. No laws and policies, no quotas or affirmative actions imaginable could ever force men’s equality to women.
I could be wrong but it seems to me that biological males will never give birth and breast feed. Fathers will never imprint themselves upon infants in a manner equal to mothers. Motherhood power will not bow to any conceivable laws. The hand that rocks the cradle will continue to rule the world. No law could ever force women to be as addicted to the bodies of men as men are addicted to the bodies of women. Men will never leverage sexual power to a degree anywhere close to equality with women. The law cannot transfer this power away from women and give it to men. The basic biology of female sexuality guarantees that Man’s sex appeal will always be dependent upon his success appeal. No policy could ever bring about women’s equal willingness to pay for sex and/or pay men’s mortgages. Female sexual power is innate and inalienable. Men will never be beneficiaries of chivalry. The instinct to extra protect women is exclusive to women and cannot be undone. It is beyond the reach of the law. Women en masse will never lay down their lives to protect the lives of men. Women will never be subject to punitive, harsh, and hazardous conditions equal to what men are subject to. Women will never be shot dead for “cowardice.”
But what about inconceivable laws? What if men will, under the law, be granted equal access to abortions? Will pregnant mothers then be forced to have an abortion because it is the father’s legal right to demand it? How Draconian will we become in our obsession with achieving 4 = 4 equality? Rather than tear up the U.S. Constitution (along with tearing up the entire social fabric), maybe the sexes could forgo rage and rancor and each allow its opposite sex a few deferences? Maybe the feminine will one day be magnanimous enough to allow men to perform, achieve, and succeed their way into having what women are empowered to demand of them without spitting bitter acids of resentment over it? Perhaps someday Balanced equality will be regarded as equal enough.
Tim Goldich, author of – Loving Men, Respecting Women: The Future of Gender Politics
[1] See, for example, Paula Radcliffe, 2008 New York City Marathon. She ranked 28th in terms of clock time, but, because she (like the other elite women runners) was given a 35-minute head start, Radcliffe crossed the finish line first. Thus the then current media declared her the “winner” and she was awarded the full $130,000 first prize. This scenario has since become the norm.
[1] Farrell, Warren, Ph.D., The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex (New York: Berkley Books, 1993) pp.129-30.
[2] Dychtwald, Maddy with Larson, Christine, Influence: How Women’s Soaring Economic Power Will Transform Our World for the Better (New York: Voice/Hyperion, 2010) pp.5, 24, 187-188.
Equality Leapfrog: quotas requiring that women win a specific number of seats are a stunning example of how quickly change can happen. . . . “Quotas are one way to leapfrog ahead, but there are other mechanisms and systems that are friendlier to people who aren’t historically in power,” says Laura Liswood, secretary general of the Council of Women World Leaders. For instance, the prime minister of Spain promised that half his cabinet would be women.
