John
No matter how you square it, men have power, and women have less because of their childbearing function. That doesn't mean it's wrong. It's just the way it is. Men and women will never have equal power. But God was never really big on insisting on equal power. God tends to love those who are less powerful (emphasis added).
That got me thinking. I don't disagree that in our current cultural climate that childbearing and child-rearing can have an impact on a person's ability to influence certain kinds of events. But I hadn't equated rights and power. While they are related, the measure of one isn't necessarily dependent upon the exercise of the other.
What do I mean? First of all, some definitions. Here's a common one for human rights: "The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law" (West's Encyclopedia of American Law).
Finally, from that magnificent document the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, this excerpt pertaining to motherhood:
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Whether based on religious convictions or some other moral basis, such rights are seen as ours simply on the basis that we are humans (Jews and Christians might add "...humans made in the image of God").
Obviously, having such inalienable rights should carry with it access to certain kinds of power. But first of all, let me define power.
Power takes several forms. First is position power, which has nothing to do with competence and everything to do with an office or position one holds. One has access to position power by virtue of being, as it were, the boss. Whether this person can actually wield any meaningful influence in the long run, however, depends upon other kinds of power.
Another high form of influence is personality power. People are attracted to others with certain traits or behaviours. People of character often have influence far beyond any formal position they might hold.
Thirdly, and this is a long-time management professor and consultant talking here, one's influence (or ability to wield power effectively) is greatly enhanced if one learns to delegate appropriate amounts of authority and responsibility to people closest to the situation with which the organization is dealing. Empowering others increases one's own power in terms of the results gained by the unit, department, team, etc. that one is in charge of.
One can't ignore three final sources of power: brute strength, the willingness to flout the law and hope to get away with it, and societal sanction.
Now, how would I relate human rights and power as challenged by Suzanne?
First of all, one can decide to forgo the power associated with a human right by not exercising it. I have been a municipal politician since 1983 and have seldom seen the participation of eligible voters in city elections rise above 30%. As another example, I have spoken to more than one young woman who quit their jobs, rather than lodge a complaint, because of sexual harassment. They just didn't want to go through the ordeal of appearing before a human rights tribunal to prove their case.
Secondly, one can can have the power that adheres to a right taken away illegally. People face all kinds of discrimination that are illegal but often very difficult to prove; e.g. discrimination based on age, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and motherhood. When such are uncovered, the ramifications can be significant. Just ask Denny's and Shoney's, two restaurant chains that paid heavily for racial discrimination in the 1990s.
Thirdly, one can be denied access to position power for a number of good reasons (e.g., not willing to move, track record, lack of necessary education or expertise) or bad reasons (e.g., assumptions about women--too emotional; race--too lazy; age--too old or too young). The first are quite legal and defensible; the latter are not.
Then there is the interpretation of the extent or scope of the right. For instance, I noted the statement on motherhood and childhood in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Some would argue (I among them) that this would include the provision of generous maternity leaves and so-called "mommy tracks" (Wikipedia: Women are discriminated against for choosing to have children and society should force private enterprises to make allowances for childbearing. These typically include job protection, wage protection, child care, time off for birthing and pregnancy, and increased medical coverage). Life-giving should be honoured and protected, not treated like a disease.
But society allows for another (highly regrettable in my view) understanding of this issue that up till now has been deemed acceptable in law: Having children is a lifestyle choice as birth control and family planning are fully controllable by individuals. Nor should businesses be forced to pay wages and salaries to those that haven't earned them by putting forth the time and effort that others have done. Also, such desired benefits are an undue burden on companies with insufficient revenue to fully implement them, nor is it prudent for gender politics to be legislated to benefit the whims of a small, but vocal, lobbying group (Wikipedia).
Alright, to summarize, women (pregnant, child-rearing or otherwise), can have every bit as much power of competence and power of personality as anyone else. And as we know, these are highly effective forms of influence. Their access to position power continues to improve, although social sanction does permit pregnancies and child-rearing to be a major stumbling block to moving ahead in one's career. See this excerpt from The Washington Post as an example:
Why unpaid maternity leave isn't enough
By Sharon Lerner
Sunday, June 13, 2010
When it comes to paid maternity leave, the United States is in the postpartum dark ages.
One hundred and seventy-seven nations -- including Djibouti, Haiti and Afghanistan -- have laws on the books requiring that all women, and in some cases men, receive both income and job-protected time off after the birth of a child. But here, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 provides only unpaid leave, and most working mothers don't get to stay home with their newborns for the 12 weeks allowed by the law. Many aren't covered by the FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act); others can't afford to take unpaid time off. Some go back to work a few weeks after giving birth, and some go back after mere days.So social sanction still limits women, and many women's groups are taking full aim at this, as they should. Illegal activities still play a role as well.
Suzanne is right in one sense when she says that men have more power than women. Is this a comment on their rights, however, or on the perverseness of some men, and some societies, to engage in unsavoury and illegal means of taking the power inherent in their rights from them? I say the latter. There is nothing in the theory of moral rights that suggests that women have fewer rights, even when they are bearing or raising children. It is the barriers to women's full exercise of their equal rights that we should be eliminating, not the unborn babies. Until the feminists get this, women will not progress as they should.
2 comments:
I suppose my comment on power was a bit of a digression, an attempt to discuss the issue of equality. I don't know if women have more rights than men. There's no set number, so to speak. It's all irrelevant, because it's a matter of what is needed by human beings, not "what's fair" according to some kind of moral or political calculus.
Societies are obviously run by men. But it cannot and will not be any other way, unless a society decides to completely sacrifice its reproductive function. The Soviet Union is an example of a society that tried to "make" men and women more equal. That didn't work too well. It was predicated on virtual abortion on demand. Now it is reaping the demographic consequences of that mentality.
The work of raising a sufficient number of children cannot be done by substitutes-- if it is to be done right. That means women will always be the childbearers and nurturers. That role makes them more vulnerable. Feminine make-up makes a woman more vulnerable, on average. It's the way women are wired-- psychologically and physiologically.
That doesn't mean should not be exploited of course, or that women's participation in society should not be welcome. It just means that women, as women, will not be as powerful as men. It's not unfair, it's just reality.
I think that you are arbitrarily constraining yourself and other women with some of your comments, Suzanne. But it would take too long to discuss it here. Perhaps a future post will be necessary.
Post a Comment