|
When the extended PrepCom ended in April, the draft was still heavily bracketed, and the key word gender had not been defined. A contact group was scheduled to meet on 15 May to discuss a definition. The break gave the Gender Establishment time to pressure the poor profamily countries not to accept the profamily definition of gender as referring to two sexes.
The Coalition for Women and the Family tried to influence the delegates to the contact group, with flyers and information about the radical feminist agenda, such as the one shown below:
|
GENDER
DEFINE IT OR DO NOT USE IT
The word "Gender" has become politicized. If it is going to be used in the text, it must be defined so everyone can agree on what is meant.
Some Radical feminists use "Gender" in contrast to "sex." "Sex" means the biological reality of male and female. "Gender" means the social conditioning and cultural practices associated with masculinity and femininity.
Those who push this definition do so because they believe that all the obvious differences between men and women are not natural, but caused by "oppressive gender socialization" and women will be free only when they are no longer forced by their cultures to be feminine.
They further believe that whereas "sex" is fixed, people can choose their "gender." This interpretation is particularly popular among homosexuals and lesbians.
This definition declares war on femininity and natural womanhood.
The "gender perspective" is essentially a Neo-Marxist interpretation of world history, under which "gender," not class or race is viewed as the fundamental category of repression, because gender transcends all categories.
Under the "Gender Perspective" everything is viewed as part of the power struggle between men and women. The "Gender Perspective" in this context means a "sexclass revolution" of women against men.
Before the nations of the world give their consent to any Platform for Action which includes the word "Gender" they should demand a dear definition of the term or replace the term "Gender" with unambiguous language.
Coalition for Women and the Family
|
|
Profamily flyers and lobbying proved no match for the behind-thescenes arm-twisting carried on by the U.S., European powers, U.N. agencies, and other interested parties. An African government official remarked that he had never experienced such pressure. To countries facing severe economic realities, taking a position which would put at risk their relationship with powerful aid donors and those who approve loan applications wasn't an option.
Profamily delegates, mainly from the developing nations, wanted a definition that would include references to two sexes. Their concerns were practical rather than philosophical. They wanted to be sure there was no hidden acceptance of homosexuality in the definition. The EU, Canada, and other advocates of the Gender Agenda wanted a definition which referred to socially constructed roles. The U.S. representative had told the press that the U.S. was hoping for "creative fuzziness."
At the first meeting, the debate immediately bogged down. The delegates from Honduras, Guatemala, Benin, Malta, and the Holy See had all expressed concern about the definition of gender as socially constructed roles. Mercedes Wilson, the delegate from Guatemala, made a passionate plea for a definition of gender which specifically mentioned two sexes and did not include any reference to "socially constructed, determined or ascribed roles." She suggested that the words sex, male and female, feminine and woman could be substituted for gender following the pattern of the French translation.
The chairman, Mrs. Selma Ashipala of Namibia decided to take upon herself the task of writing a definition, which was presented at the next meeting. Her definition read as follows:
|
During the last Preparatory committee meeting for the Fourth World Conference on Women, an issue arose concerning the meaning of the word gender in the conference's draft Platform for Action. In order to examine this matter, the Preparatory committee decided to form a contact group in New York, with the Conference's Rapporteur, Mrs. Selma Ashipala of Namibia, as Chair. The Preparatory Committee mandated the Contact Group to seek agreement on the commonly understood meaning of gender in the context of the Platform for Action and to report directly to the Conference in Beijing.
Having considered the issue thoroughly the Contact Group noted that: 1) the word gender has been commonly used and understood in its ordinary, generally accepted usage in numerous other UN fora and conferences; 2) there was no indication that any new meaning or connotation of the term, different from accepted prior usage is intended in the draft Platform for Action; 3) in the context of the Platform for Action the commonly understood meaning of the word gender refers to the socially constructed roles played and expected of men and women in society, as well as the responsibilities and opportunities of men and women arising from these roles.
Accordingly, the Contact Group agreed to reaffirm that the word gender as used in the Platform for Action of the Fourth World Conference on Women is intended to be interpreted and understood as it is in ordinary, generally accepted usage. The Contact Group also agreed that this report be read by the Chair of the Conference as a Chairperson's Statement and that the statement should form part of the documentation of the final report of the Conference.
|
|
The strange thing about this statement is that it did not reflect facts. The statement claims that "the word gender has been commonly used and understood in its ordinary, generally accepted usage in numerous other UN fora and conferences." For the majority of the delegates participating in these conferences, English is not their first language, and, therefore, they rely on dictionary definitions. Searching a number of dictionaries, one finds that the first and primary definition of gender refers to grammar and describes words. Nouns, pronouns, and adjectives in some languages have a gender, usually masculine, feminine or neuter. Gender in grammar refers to classes or groups of things. The secondary definition is as an equivalent to sex, meaning masculine or feminine. "Socially constructed roles" that can change was not listed in any English or foreign-language dictionary as a definition.
The definition of gender as "socially constructed roles that can be changed" was not "its ordinary, generally accepted usage." The usage might be generally accepted among feminists, but they are hardly ordinary. Bella Abzug, in her speech to the delegates on the subject, had admitted that "the meaning of the word gender has evolved." In fact, a totally new meaning had been created.
The second statement, "There is no indication that any new meaning or connotation of the term, different from accepted prior usage, is intended in the draft Platform for Action," also did not reflect the facts. A substantial difference existed between the way gender was used in the Beijing draft and its use at other conferences.
There is no evidence that this change in the meaning of gender had been discussed or agreed to by delegates in the general assembly or in any of the major conferences. The Gender Establishment had simply pushed it through and were clearly determined to protect what amounted to a coup.
The definition offered in the third section of the statement, "gender refers to the socially constructed roles played and expected of men and women in society, as well as the responsibilities and opportunities of men and women arising from these roles," represented a total capitulation to gender feminist ideology. Some progender delegates tried to argue that this only referred to situations where women were arbitrarily denied employment, for example as airline pilots. This contention was contradicted by the text of the platform, where the use of the word gender appears in almost every paragraph. The insistence on the necessity of "mainstreaming a gender perspective" in every program, and the references to "gender analysis," "gender sensitivity training," "gender issues," "gender aspects," etc., made it clear that what was at stake was much more than whether or not women can be airline pilots.
The impasse was resolved in a way comprehensible only to those accustomed to the Byzantine world of U.N. diplomacy. The delegates at the contact group, over the vigorous objections of Sra. Wilson, deleted the third section and accepted the rest of the statement. Thus, gender is now defined "as it has been commonly used and understood," but no definition is given. Since the contact group was formed because there was no common understanding, .this was, to say the least, disingenuous.
It is true that the profamily delegates were not forced to accept a definition that included "socially constructed roles." On the other hand, the promoters of the gender perspective were not forced to admit that there are only two sexes. The nondefinition allowed the U.N. bureaucracy to proceed with their project of imposing a gender perspective on the world and to define gender as socially constructed roles.
The promoters of the Gender Agenda considered the nondefinition a victory because they had already inserted the concept of socially constructed gender roles into the Beijing document in two paragraphs. Paragraph 50 [48] refers to "the rigidity of socially ascribed gender roles." Paragraph 28 [27] reads in part:
|
The boundaries of the gender division of labour between productive and reproductive roles are gradually being crossed as women have started to enter formerly maledominated areas of work and men have started to accept greater responsibility for domestic tasks, including child care. However, changes in women's roles have been greater and much more rapid than changes in men's roles. In many countries, the differences between women's and men's achievements and activities are still not recognized as the consequences of socially constructed gender roles rather than immutable biological differences.
|
|
It is dear in this context that the reproductive role involving "responsibility for domestic tasks, including child care" under discussion is motherhood.
Later, a number of delegates remarked that they did not understand how this paragraph could have been accepted at the PrepCom. Given the chaos of the debates and the number of contentious issues during the PrepCom, it is, however, not surprising that a great deal of nonsense slipped by the overstressed profamily delegates. Some believe that the size and complexity of the draft were part of a carefully planned strategy. The profamily forces had scored an unexpected victory in Cairo. Their opposition was determined not to be taken unprepared again. With so many controversial sections in the draftmany of which were bound to be controversial-the promoters of the Gender Agenda could be relatively confident that the profamily alliance would concentrate on the sexual and reproductive health sections, and be unable to mount effective opposition to the other aspects of the Gender Agenda.
DENYING THE DIFFERENCES
The last sentence of paragraph 28 [27], which says, "In many countries, the differences between women's and men's achievements and activities are still not recognized as the consequences of socially constructed gender roles rather than immutable biological differences," is the heart of the Gender Agenda. It is also demonstrably false.
Many, although not all, of the differences between men's and women's activities and achievements are caused by immutable biological differences. Men run faster, are physically stronger, are better at higher mathematics and chess, are more aggressive, and don't become pregnant or nurse. Ample evidence exists to prove that men's brains, bodies, and hormone levels differ from women's. Delegates from Third World countries regarded the mere suggestion that there were no differences between men and women as absurd.
The Gender Agenda begins with a false premise the differences between men and women are social constructsand then goes on to demand that this premise be "mainstreamed" in every program and policy. According to the "gender perspective," since all the differences between men's and women's activities and achievements are artificial, they can and should be eliminated.
While the profamily advocates rejected the idea that all the differences between men and women are social constructions, they did not embrace the opposite point of view, namely that all the social and cultural differences between men and women are caused by immutable biological differences and, therefore, unchangeable. Most believed that many factors, including biology, the experience of living as a man or woman, culture, tradition, and free will decisions work together to create the differences between men and women.
Society, it is true, transmits certain expectations to children, but these expectations are hardly arbitrary, nor can they be arbitrarily removed and other expectations substituted for them. Little girls will grow up into women who can become pregnant. Little boys will grow up into men who are, in general, physically stronger. Encouraging little girls to want to excel in activities requiring upper body strength or little boys to want to be pregnant and nurse children would be foolish, and, therefore, societies have not done it. Associating infant care with women can hardly be considered arbitrary when the cry of the newborn causes the mother's milk to be released.
Societies have always divided the labor of the family between men and women. Women have been assigned work which allows them to be with the children. It would be impractical to transfer this care to the fathers when the babies have stopped nursing. It would be far wiser to assign to men the tasks which require prolonged absence from the home, and, in fact, that is what most societies have done. This division of labor between men and women in the family affects the work of men and women outside the family. While not all men and women become parents, the majority will and should be prepared to fulfill those responsibilities.
Educating young people to believe that men and women are the same, or that motherhood is the same as fatherhood, is lying to children. The children will soon find out that they have been deceived. Like the woman who complained to me that she had been brought up to believe that men and women were the same, but was now married and had a baby and realized she had been lied to, today's children will not be pleased when they grow up and realize that they have been deceived about such an important issue.
The profamily position supports what can best be described as "integral complementary," affirming that men and women are completely equal in humanity, dignity and rights, but different and complementary by nature. Any sexual chauvinism, either male or female, is absolutely rejected. Neither sex has a right to claim superiority. Integral complementary is a rejection of the idea that the biological differences between men and women are irrelevant or obstacles to be overcome and that men and women should therefore be treated the same or be the same. Also rejected is a fractional view of complementarity in which human traits are divided between men and women in a stereotyped manner. Integral complementarity insists on the complete humanity of each person. Man and woman are viewed not as opposites, but rather, like two eyes which are separated by a few centimeters giving the human person depth perception. The human race exists only as male and female, and the differences between the sexes give humanity a depth and insight that it would otherwise lack.
The profamily position is not a rigid defense of the past, but a reasoned attempt to remove those things which artificially restrict women, while protecting women's right to be different. Profamily advocates were willing to enter into debate about what was artificial and what was natural, but the feminists were not open to debate on the subject. For gender feminists, different is unequal, unequal is unjust.
Whatever real injustices may have been inflicted upon women in the past, they will not be rectified by denying women's specific originality or unique feminine nature. Ignoring the differences between the sexes or, worse, seeing them as obstacles, declares war on human nature-woman's nature as well as man's.
|
|