Reevaluating feminism
Greg Collins, Collegian columnist
Issue date: 10/9/07 Section: Editorial / Opinion
Almost a week has passed since conservative intellectual Phyllis Schlafly spoke here at the University of Massachusetts. Judging by the reactions from protestors and members of the College Democrats, Schlafly's remarks about the dignity of housewives and the counterproductive effects of feminism were dismissed as conservative banter. Her points deserve to be reiterated to clarify that the policies she cautions against implementing lead to the true subjugation of women.
First, there is a stark difference between the aspiration of the original efforts of women to be treated equally under the rule of law and that of contemporary feminists. This principle created the foundation for the women's suffrage movement, which culminated in the ratification of the 19th Amendment in the early 20th century.
While conservatives are typically skeptical of any supposed social gains produced by "movements," the right to vote was one substantive benefit attained by the efforts of this movement's organizers. Whether one could accurately label this achievement as the first sign of feminism is up for debate. What is not up for debate, however, is that this result was based on the notion that men and women should be treated equally under the law regardless of gender. It must be stressed that most critics of modern feminism do not disagree with this principle.
Yet the modern conception of feminism - starting in the 1960s - bears little resemblance to the push advocating for policies promoting equality under the law. Rather than advancing this belief, contemporary feminism calls for different rights based on gender.
A large part of modern feminism, Schlafly noted, endorses increased government intervention to offset the patriarchal subjugation of women in American society. For instance, it calls for the government to ensure that women are paid just as much as men for equal work, since feminists frequently note that women are paid 'x' number of cents for every dollar a man makes.
First, there is a stark difference between the aspiration of the original efforts of women to be treated equally under the rule of law and that of contemporary feminists. This principle created the foundation for the women's suffrage movement, which culminated in the ratification of the 19th Amendment in the early 20th century.
While conservatives are typically skeptical of any supposed social gains produced by "movements," the right to vote was one substantive benefit attained by the efforts of this movement's organizers. Whether one could accurately label this achievement as the first sign of feminism is up for debate. What is not up for debate, however, is that this result was based on the notion that men and women should be treated equally under the law regardless of gender. It must be stressed that most critics of modern feminism do not disagree with this principle.
Yet the modern conception of feminism - starting in the 1960s - bears little resemblance to the push advocating for policies promoting equality under the law. Rather than advancing this belief, contemporary feminism calls for different rights based on gender.
A large part of modern feminism, Schlafly noted, endorses increased government intervention to offset the patriarchal subjugation of women in American society. For instance, it calls for the government to ensure that women are paid just as much as men for equal work, since feminists frequently note that women are paid 'x' number of cents for every dollar a man makes.
Be the first to comment on this story