CHAPTER ELEVEN. REDEFINING EQUALITY.

The gender feminists, realizing they could not sell a direct attack on mothering and the family or postmodernist deconstructionism to the general public, focused on redefining equality. Everyone believes in equality. It is a great word. It brings to mind that noble statement of human aspiration-the U.S. Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident-that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."

What could be more clever than to take that noble aspiration and twist it to mean something that was never intendedstatistically equal rates of participation, achievement, and rewards-distorting the democratic ideal of equal dignity, equal humanity, and equal rights into a demand for a NeoMarxist classless society?

What is amazing is that this radical change in meaning has gone largely unreported and undebated.

There can be no question that the writers of the draft platform for Beijing intended to redefine equality. An even cursory reading of the platform reveals that the "full and equal participation of women" called for requires participation in statistically equal numbers-fifty/fifty. In paragraph 192 [190] of the section "Women in power and decisionmaking," governments are called on to do the following:

[C]ommit themselves to establishing the goal ofgender balance in governmental bodies and committees, as well as in pubic administrative entities and in the judiciary, including, inter alia setting specific targets and implementing measures to substantially increase the number of women with a view to achieving equal representation of women and men, if necessary through positive action, in all governmental and public administration positions . . . Take measures, including where appropriate, in electoral systems that encourage political parties to integrate women in elective and non-elective public positions in the same proportion and levels as men . . . Review the differential impact of electoral systems on the political representations of women in elected bodies and consider, where appropriate, the adjustment or reform of those systems . . . Monitor and evaluate progress on the representation of women. (emphasis added)

It is amazing how many ways one can call for quotas without using the word.

FIFTY/FIFTY BY 2005

Fifty/fifty by 2005 was one of the goals set by WEDO. The Council of Europe meeting also strongly supported "quotas or parity" for women. The ideological justification for this demand is laid out in a book edited by Mim Kelber, with an introduction coauthored by Bella Abzug, Women and Government New Ways to Political Power. The book contains Professor Elisabeth Sledziewski's argument that real democracy is not possible without "gender" quotas: "Only the introduction of participation quotas imposing equal representation of the sexes in all decision-making authorities can make women's participation in the polis effective and irreversible" [Mim Kelber, Women and Government.- New Ways to Political Power (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994), p. 331.

Dr. Sledziewski does not see quotas as a temporary measure:

Measures put forward to foster the involvement of women in the political life must not be presented, as they too often are, as conjunctural arrangement for the achievement of results on an ad hoc basis and devoid of any doctrinal justification. This approach could not fail to confirm the unfair suspicions voiced in connection with quotas and suggest that the involvement of women in politics can only be enforced by unlawful means. On the contrary, it is necessary to affirm that these provisions are envisaged in the very name of the principle of equality. [Kelber, p. 33]

Democracy would be redefined:

The advent of democracy based on equal representation will mean not only a turning point in relations between men and women and consequently in the social being of the human race, but also a turning point in the democratic construction process: Equal participation by female citizens in the affairs of the polis will henceforth be considered a sine qua non for the completion of democracy. A democracy without women will no longer be seen as an imperfect democracy but as no democracy at all. [Kelber, p. 33]

Dr. Sledziewski admits, however, that this is a rejection of the modern ideal of European democracy and the rights of the individual.

When this book and the WEDO Global Strategies report were reviewed in an article in Catholic World Report, Mim Kelber, in a letter to the editor, expressed her indignation that the article had referred to fifty/fifty by 2005 as a call for quotas and gender police:

Your February 1995 issue contains misrepresentations and-faulty alleged quotations from a book Women and Government New Ways to Political Power of which I was the editor and chief writer. The book also included an introduction that I wrote with Bella Abzug and that sets out our views on "quotas" a term used pejoratively in your article.

In chapter 1 on "What American Woman Can Do to Win Equality" I proposed a constitutional amendment that would double the size of the US Senate to 200 members with two men and two women elected from each state by both male and female voters .... The use of numerical goals is a mechanism recognized in many political parties as a way to work toward achievement of equal participation by women and men in governance.

I strongly support equal opportunity and affirmative action programs to overcome past and continuing employment discrimination against women and minorities, but I have never advocated a strict 50-50 quota for every job category in the private sector. What you call "gender police," I call the staff of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Mim Kelber, Brooklyn NY

To which the editor of Catholic World Report, Phil Lawler, replied, "If a `numerical goal' is not a quota and if a legislature whose seats are open only to members of the appropriate sex is not an example of enforced gender equality, then we stand corrected" [April 1995].

While Kelber has not specifically argued for fifty/fifty in every job category in the private sector, there is discussion of the lack of statistical equality in the private sector. In addition, the WEDO Global Strategies report calls for 50 percent women in key positions by 2005 in "private corporations and financial institutions, trade unions, international financial institutions." This same demand for fifty/fifty was part of the declaration issued by a -conference of parliamentarians held in Tokyo in September 1996. The parliamentarians, many of them on their way to Beijing, called on governments to "assure that, by the year 2005, women constitute at least 50% of the membership of all government bodies, including elected and appointed positions at international, national and local levels" [jack Freeman, "Global Lawmakers, in Tokyo, Say That Population Must Be Concern," Earth Times (5 September 1995)].

Of course, not everyone signed on to fifty/fifty quotas. Mahbub ul Haq, former finance minister of Pakistan and chief architect of UNDP's annual Human Development Reports, questioned the wisdom of such a goal, even though his country has a woman prime minister:

But how can we say that, in every society and every culture, women must have exactly 500/6 of the jobs or 5096 of parliamentary seats, or 50% of heads of multinational-kicking and screaming, whether they like it or not? The most important point is that free and equal choices must exist for societies, but they cannot be dictated for societies .... by some misconceived universal models. ["Let Beijing Develop meaningful gender equality," Earth Times, 14 September 1995, p. 6]

The promoters of fifty/fifty by 2005 want to pretend that they are only trying to achieve the equality promised in the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but this is not the case. In the first article of the declaration, the word equality is used in the classic sense: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

Nowhere does the declaration require governments to enforce statistically equal participation.

GENDER DISAGGREGATED STATISTICS

The Beijing platform repeatedly calls for "gender disaggregated statistics." If equality is measurable, then someone must do the measuring so that the feminists can prove "inequalities." The existence of "inequalities" in participation, achievement, or rewards is then taken as proof of discrimination, not evidence that men and women are different. Those who accept the differences between men and women expect different rates of participation. They see no reason why equal rights and opportunity should result in statistically equal participation.

The immediate goal of gender feminists is to create a climate of opinion where equality is defined not as equal rights and opportunities, but as statistically equal participation, achievement, and rewards. Most people laugh at the idea of a constitutional amendment to make the Senate fifty/fifty; however, they do not recognize that the feminist complaint that only 10 percent of the Congress is made up of women is based on the same false premise.

Feminists routinely use statistical inequalities between men and women as proof of discrimination. They complained that women only made fifty-nine cents for every dollar men made.

When it rose to seventy-two cents for every dollar, they still complained, even though the difference in aggregate wages reflects not discrimination but women's decisions to take time off for their families. The feminist complaint that a "glass ceiling" keeps women from high-level jobs is based on statistical evidence. Their complaint that SATs discriminate against women is based on statistical differences in scores. There may or may not have been actual discrimination, but they don't even try to make that case. For them, quoting the statistics is sufficient proof.

Once the feminists have convinced their audience that equality has been denied, they then demand quotas or affirmative action as remedies.

The promoters of statistical equality do not present evidence that men and women wish to participate in every occupational category in statistically equal numbers because there is none. For the feminists, the lack of desire for statistical equality merely proves that women have been socialized by "gender stereotyping."

Therefore, in addition to quotas, the feminists demand removal of "stereotypes" and "traditional images" from educational materials and media presentations. In order to achieve equality of desire and interest, school textbooks, cartoons, soap operas, advertisements, and dramas would show men and women employed in equal numbers as soldiers, scientists, firemen, and truck drivers, even when this has no relation to reality; activities in which only men participate would be categorized as evil, oppressive, and discriminatory; women would never be shown as full-time mothers and homemakers, unless they were portrayed as victims of battering, sociopathy, or have religious fanatics as husbands.

Thus, the redefinition of equality requires an entire gender enforcement bureaucracy, with gatherers of gender disaggregated statistics, gender analysis experts, gender sensitivity trainers, and equal opportunity commissioners. This would supply permanent employment for graduates of women's studies programs and give feminists virtual control over every institution of society. Much of this is already in the process of being implemented in government, education, and business.

Opponents of affirmative action and quotas charge that these stigmatize the targeted groups as people who lack the ability to compete on an equal playing field. The qualifications of all members of the targeted group, even those who could succeed without quotas, come under suspicion. Once affirmative action and quotas become the rule, there is no way for the targeted groups to prove their ability. Justice Clarence Thomas, who has been accused of not supporting the affirmative action programs from which he benefited, has pointed out that affirmative action steals the satisfaction of achievement.

Real justice involves the elimination of unjust discrimination, not an attack on natural differences and personal preferences. A campaign to eradicate differences attacks personal freedom.

There is no way to judge the percentage of women who should be employed in any particular field because there is no way to judge how many women are interested in such employment. Girls should not be discouraged from pursuing a career in a "nontraditional" field; neither should they be forced to do so. Textbooks and media presentations of occupations should accurately reflect the actual male/female ratio in a particular field. Knowing that a particular field has been predominantly or even exclusively male has not discouraged women from seeking employment in that field. Indeed, experience suggests that some women enjoy the challenge of proving themselves in a male-dominated field. So long as no artificial barriers (qualifications which are not jobrelated) exist, no specific numerical quota should be set and no particular statistical ratio between men and women expected.

When artificial barriers to women's participation in various fields are eliminated, there will be changes in participation rates, as a study in Ms. magazine showed. Comparing the percentage of women eighteen to sixty-five employed in selected professions in 1970 and 1990, Ms. reported that the number of women employed in certain fields had risen substantially.

Women employed as bartenders increased from 26 percent to 52 percent, bus drivers from 32 percent to 50 percent, lawyers and judges from 6 percent to 26 percent. In other fields, however, such as the armed forces, auto mechanics, librarians, nurses, pilots, secretaries, and teachers, the percentage remained the same [Applied Social Research program, Queens College, CUNY, quoted in Ms. (November/December 1995), p. 40].

Equality of opportunity and the elimination of arbitrary discrimination against women will change the distribution of women and men in the workforce, but there is no reason to assume that it will ever result in a fifty/fifty split in every job category, nor given the natural differences between men and women, is there any reason why it should. Indeed, the elimination of artificial barriers may reveal that the so-called stereotypes reflected the real differences in women's and men's interests and talents.

REVERSE DISCRIMINATION

Mandating quotas for women/men in elected office doesn't create instant justice, but a different injustice. It would give potential women candidates an unfair advantage, since women do not seek political office in numbers equal to men. There are a number of reasons for this: 1) In every country a significant portion of the women, including the brightest and most talented choose to make motherhood their primary vocation and do not choose to work outside the home or to run for public office; 2) Many women who are talented and motivated choose to support their husbands' political careers. In the U.S. Elizabeth Dole, Marilyn Quail, and Hillary Clinton are prime examples of women who could have equaled their husbands, but chose not to.

Mandating fifty/fifty denies women the freedom to vote for the candidates of their choice. There is no evidence that all women feel their interests are better represented by women. Today, women make up over 50 percent of the electorate in most countries. They are perfectly free to vote for women, to organize women's parties, and to demand the nomination of women candidates. Women could elect 100 percent women if they wanted to.

The promoters of the Gender Agenda may talk about women as decision makers, but they don't like the decisions that women make.