Thursday, October 17, 1996
RIGHTS:
Proposition 209 will give women equality long denied by
‘feminists’It is a common misconception that the California Civil
Rights Initiative (CCRI) would have a detrimental impact on the
women of California. Despite the rhetoric of modern "feminists,"
the truth is that the passage of Proposition 209, which seeks to
eliminate gender and racial preferences in the public sector, would
do more to elevate the status of Californian women than any ballot
initiative in recent memory.
The explanation for this is simple. Women across the state have
been induced to believe that they are victims of a vast male
conspiracy whose far-reaching effects can only be countered by
special treatment under the law. While it is true that women have
suffered from discrimination in the past, attempts to remedy the
situation by applying a separate set of legal standards to the
gender as a whole contradicts the basic principles that feminism
was founded upon. Moreover, they undermine the tremendous progress
that women have made during the last century and a half.
It is obvious that those who began the feminist movement would
have vehemently supported Proposition 209. Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
in her 1854 address to the New York legislature, outlined a fair
and rational feminist creed: "We ask no better laws than those you
have made for yourselves. We need no other protection than that
which your present laws secure to you." It is ironic that although
women are clearly better off today than they were 150 years ago, it
is the modern "feminists" who staunchly advocate gender-based
entitlement programs.
But do women really need these programs? An objective evaluation
of the available data disputes the widespread belief that women are
victimized by a misogynist culture. According to Christina Hoff
Sommers’ book "Who Stole Feminism?" more than half of all college
students are female. In addition, they reap more benefits from
their education by becoming far more involved in extracurricular
activities than their male counterparts in every area except
athletics, and even their participation in that area is climbing.
In 1993, it was reported by the UCLA Higher Education Research
Institute that a higher percentage of women than men plan to
continue their education past the level of a bachelor’s degree.
Because economic status is largely determined by education
level, it is not difficult to see that women are well-positioned
for the future. Although women currently earn only 79 cents to a
man’s dollar, many economists believe that this is not because of
discrimination but a result of women working less hours due to
childbearing and child-rearing responsibilities and therefore
acquiring less experience. This is supported by the fact that in
surveys taken of childless workers, the wage proportion is nearly
even. As men continue to assume more household responsibilities and
women receive more education, the disparity will decrease even
more.
These professional gains will occur as a natural consequence of
the increase in qualified women, and without the "help" of
affirmative action. The unfortunate fact is that gender preferences
do women far more harm than good. Establishing a separate set of
female standards promotes the insidious notion that women are
incapable of performing at the same level as men. How can women
expect to earn the respect of their male counterparts if they
insist upon having unfair advantages conferred upon them? It is
often asserted that without affirmative action there will be no
mechanism in place to prevent gender discrimination. However, this
claim entirely overlooks the judicial system which provides
recourse for women who have been denied a job because of their
gender.
The most devastating effect of affirmative action is that in
order to justify their call for unequal treatment, women label
themselves as victims, and men as oppressors. Unfortunately, it is
difficult to reconcile their ostensible goal of empowerment with
their desire to be classified as pathetic and downtrodden. If women
truly want to advance their status, they should, instead of
embracing a negative image, present themselves as capable and
self-sufficient. To do otherwise is to ratify the stereotypes upon
which gender discrimination is based. It is obvious that women
cannot assert their independence as long as they rely on men to
condescendingly provide them the crutch of affirmative action.
This is not to say that the injustice of past discrimination
should be forgotten. We are all aware that there was a time when
women went deprived of basic rights. But, as we have seen, the
suggestion that we continue to exist in such an era challenges a
mountain of evidence to the contrary.
Because the so-called "feminists" realize they cannot defeat
this ballot initiative on merit, they have resigned themselves to
distorting one entirely innocuous portion of the proposition. The
now infamous Clause C, though touted as "sexist" states exactly
what was previously dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Â
that when "reasonably necessary," gender can be used as a
consideration for employment. The reason for its inclusion is
grounded in common sense, and is for the protection of both sexes.
Imagine the discomfort of being strip-searched or having your
restroom attended by someone of the opposite sex. The idea that
this clause would trespass on the rights of women is completely
unfounded.
The most significant infringement upon women’s rights within the
last few years has occurred at the hands of feminists. They have
betrayed women by convincing them that they are hapless and
unwitting victims, wholly dependent upon the graciousness of men
for their survival. As a woman, I am insulted by what our state’ s
system of gender preferences implies about my capabilities, and
look forward to the passage of Proposition 209 as a constructive
step toward true empowerment of my gender.
Jennifer Nelson’s column appears on alternate Thursdays.