Gender: The
Deconstruction of Women
Analysis of the Gender Perspective in Preparation for the Fourth
World Conference on Women
Beijing, China
September, 1995
Dale O’Leary
Prepared with the assistance ofGenevieve S. Kineke, Abigail T ardifÇ and
the staff of hearth Magazine. Correspondence may be sent to Dale ОЪеагу, P.O.Box 41294, Providence, RI USA 02940. $4 (US
Funds) per copy Bulk rates available upon request. Add'l shipping charges for
overseas orders, e-mail: hearthmag@aol.com. or CompuServe 74747,2241
The Debate Over Gender
On March 15,1995 the Preparatory Committee Meeting or ‘PrepCcm’ for the
Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing convened at the UN in New York. The
purpose of UN-sponsored conferences is to prepare a Platform for Action which
will serve as a guide for national and international programs and priorities in
the area under discussion for the next decade. As is the pattern for these UN
conferences, the draft had already gone through several revisions and this
meeting was intended to be the last chance for nations to have input before the
text was debated at the actual conference scheduled for September, 1995 in
Beijing, China.
The delegates from the various nations and repre sentatives of
Non-Government Organizations or ‘NGOs’ ac credited by the UN to lobby the
delegates were supposed to receive copies of the draft on February ],buttbe
unofficial text was not made available until the middle of February. On
February 27, less than three weeks before the PrepCom was scheduled to begin,
those planning to participate received the official 70 page, 246 paragraph text
Almost no one was pleased with the draft text and various groups began immedi ately
to prepare amendments.
Influential NGO's at the UN
Over the last few years, NGOs have increased their influence within the
UN. The most active NGO at the Beijing PrepCom was WEDO, the Women’s
Environment and Devel opment Organization Headed by Former US Congresswoman
Bella Abzug WEDO has dominated the NGOs movement with a dedicated team of
activists working through various NGO caucuses to prepare amendments and to
lobby for their agenda. WEDO was instrumental in organizing the Women’s Global
Strategies Meeting, held in Glen Cove, NY at the end of November and beginning
of December, 1994. At this meeting activists from around the world and UN staff
gathered to plan for the Copenhagen Social Summit and the Conference on Women.
WEDO and its allies were determined to win in Copenhagen and Beijing what they
had not been able to achieve in Cairo, the acceptance of the ‘gender
perspective’ including reproductive and sexual rights.
The Lesbian Caucus was also very active at the PrepCcm. At their
informal caucus they bragged that 10% of the NGOs were lesbians and that their
representative had chaired як of the daily
NGO caucus meetings. For several days before the PrepCom began, NGOs met in a
forum to prepare a single lobbying document. The document produced claimed to
represent the cooccms of all NGOs, but in fact, pro- lifc and pro-family NGOs
were effectively excluded from participation, just as they had been at the
regional meetings which preceded the PrepCom. The lobbying document re flected
the goals agreed to at the Women’s Global Strategy Meeting.
Contention from the Start
The PrepCom for Beijing was confrontational from the beginning. At one
point two paragraphs of text had generated 31 pages of amendments. Although the
PrepCom was extended three days, when it was finally over more than one third
of the text remained bracketed (that is enclosed in square brackets [ ]). Only
bracketed text can be debated in Beijing. In addition to the bracketed text,
the word ‘gender’ had been remanded to a contact group for definition.
At the end of the PrepCom, Earth Negotiations Bulletin, a newsletter
circulated at the UN, published a report, reviewing the proceedings and
offering the following analysis of the debate over ‘gender’ which dominated the
last few days of the PrepCom:
The debate over the word ‘gender’ re vealed some of the fundamental
differences and positions of delegations regarding the Beijing objec tives.
Indeed the debate could become a textbook case study on the state of global
feminism and feminist epistemology. The issue raised central debates cm the
relation between language, knowl-edge and power, the political contest over
‘natural’ and socially negotiated identity, and ideas informing the current
“backlash” against some of the feminist advances made in the US. Several
countries ex pressed discomfort with the term ‘gender’ and asked to bracket the
word throughout the text Others felt that this would impede the process, and
pointed to years of use of the term in the UN (and in contempo rary academic
literature) and the lack of any ques tioning until this point. Those who wanted
to bracket the term suspected that there was a hiddeuAmac- ceptable agenda
behind its use, for example, toler ance of non-heterosexual identities and
orientation.. The Bureau circulated and retracted a definition of gender as the
socially constructed roles adopted by men and women. Some of those who objected
to the brackets suggested that the obstruction had senous implication. During
one of the floor debates on the term the delegate from the EU suggested that
those
who had asked for brackets might have a greater motive than the one
staled and that perhaps they wanted to bracket ‘women’ throughout the text The
clash between those who thought the draft Platform was taking the role of women
too far and those who believed that others were trying to derail the process
slowed down negotiations and frustrated the partici pants. The definitive
question should have been aired and addressed earlier in the preparatory pro cess.
Some of the most interested parties in the debate are now represented in the
Contact group set up to arrive at an agreed understanding of the word ‘gender.’
As one senior US delegate put it, the likely outcome will be the introduction
of some “positive fuzziness” to the text. It is to be hoped that the exercise
will provide an important forum for those with differing conceptions to learn
more about each others’ approach to the Conference and issues at hand1
Awakening to the Epistomological Threat
The majority of delegates were looking for practical ways to help women,
and hadn’t come to New York to debate “feminist epistemology” (feminists’
philosophical theories of bow we know things). The reason why the term gender
hart not been challenged earlier in the process was that both sides thought
their understanding of the definition of gender was accepted by the other. The
majority of the delegates had assumed that the word ‘gender’ was simply a
polite way ol saying “sex” to avoid the secondary meaning which sex has in
Pngliah rmd that ‘gender’ referred to male and female human beings. On the
other hand as the debate progressed it became obvious that the supporters of
the “gender perspective believed that their understanding of the meaning of '
gender as referring to “socially constructed roles” was understood and accepted
A number of Spanish speaking delegates and NGOs, who were aware of the
discussions of gender during the regional conference held in Mar del Plata,
Argentina, were therefore extremely concerned about the definition of gen der.’
A report from regional meeting at Mar del Plata by pro family women who had
attended the meeting, contained numerous quotes from ‘gender feminists’ such as
the two below:
Knowing the variety of ways gender is symbolized, interpreted, and
organized leads to a position ‘ ‘ anti-essential” - that is that there exists
no natural man or natural woman, that there is no conjunction of char acteristics
or conduct exclusive to one sex, even in the psychic life.2
and:
These comments and many mere like Лет raised concern that the use of‘gender’in the text was a coven means to
introduce acceptance of homosexuality as equal to hetero sexuality into the
text.
Those who were familiar with the takeover of women studies programs in
US universities by ‘gender feminists’ were also very concerned about the
‘gender perspective’ in the draft They too saw the possibility of a covert
promotion of homosexuality and abortion in same of the gender lan guage.
Opposition to the use of ‘gender’ increased when some NGOs began to
compare the official English text wiA the Spanish and French translations.
Although ‘gender’ ap peared over 60 tunes in the Feb. 27 draft the equivalent
words ‘ gencro ’ and ‘ genre ’ were never used in the Spanish ст French versions. Instead ‘gender’ was translated as
‘sexo’ (sex) or ‘bombres у mujers’ (men and women) or with some other phrase. In
some cases the English French and Spanish each had a different meaning.
Questions About ‘Gender’ Bring About Attempts at Definitions
In several places in the text, the use of Ле word ‘gender’ leaves coofusioa about exaetk what is meant and what kind
of programs are to be unci .‘аксп. This is of
particular concern since the word is used frequently in Ле Action sections. In some places ‘gender’ seemed to
refer to male and female persons, in others places ‘gender’ appeared to be a
substitute for ‘women,’ and in still others the word had DO clear meanmg. Those
concerned about the definition of ‘gender’ circulated flyers among the
delegates questioning why the conference had a ‘gender perspective’ rather than
a ‘woman’s perspective’ and warning that the emphasis on ‘gender’ was fad that
would pass, rendering the Platform for Action dated and irrelevant
To respond to the various questions about the definition of ‘gender,’
the conference leadership floeted the following definition:
Gender refers to the relationships between women and men based on
socially-defined roles that are assigned *o one sex or Ле other.
This definition only served to raise the concerns of delegates who
believed that ‘gender’ meant ‘male and female’. The lawyers among the delegates
were particularly concerned because laws can not be written about relationships
based on socially-defined roles, but have to refer to male and female persons.
Even those who had not been concerned about the definition of ‘gender’
were surprised when Former US Con-gresswoman Bella Abzug was given a special
opportunity to address the delegates on April 3. In an angry speech, she
condemned attempts to bracket the word ‘gender’ until a definition could be
agreed on:
We will not be forced back into the ‘biology is destiny’ concept that
seeks to define, confine and reduce women to their physical sexual characteris tics.-
The meaning afthe word‘gender’has evolved as differentiated from toe word ‘sex’
to express toe reality that women’s and men’s rotes and status are socially
constructed and subject to change.
Ms. Abzug’s speech revealed that toe believed that the ‘gender feminist’
definition of gender was universally understood and accepted:
The concept of ‘gender’ is embedded in contemporary social, political,
and legal discourse. It has been integrated into toe conceptual planning,
language, documents, and programmes of the UN systems. The infusion of gender
perspectives into all aspects of UN activities is a major commitment approved
at past conferences and it must be reaf firmed and strengthened at the Fourth
World confer ence on Women.
Ms. Abzug was equally insistent that her definition of ‘gender’ was
non-negotiable:
... the current attempt by several Member States to expunge the word
‘gender’ from the Platform for Action and to replace it with the word ‘sex’ is
an insulting and demeaning attempt to reverse the gains made by women, to
intimidate us and to block further progress.
We urge toe small number of male and female delegates seeking to
sidetrack and sabotage the empowerment of women to cease this diversion ary
tactic. They will not succeed. They will only waste precious time. We will not
go back to subor dinate, inferior roles.
The vehemence of Ms. Abzug’s response only served to increase the
concerns of toe delegates.
Radical Feminism Entrenched in Many Educational Institutions
To add to the turmoil one of the participants who had considered the
debate about toe definition of ‘gender’ an overreaction, mentioned the debate
to his family’s baby sitter. She gave him copies toe required reading for a
course she was taking at Hunter College entitled “Re-imaging Gender. ” In cluded
among these were: ‘ ‘Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” by
Adrienne Rich, “The Dangers of
Femininity” by Lucy Gilbert and Paula Webster, and articles by
transsexuals, quoted below. To understand the material quoted from course
materials and other materials circulated at the PrepCom the following
definitions of terms used by Gender Feminists may be helpful:
Hegemonic or Hegemony - ideas or concepts which are universally accepted
as natural but which Gender Feminists believe are actually socially
constructed.
Deconstruction - the work of exposing hegemonic ideas and language so
that people will recognise that their percep tions of reality are socially
constructed.
Patriarchy, Patriarchal - the institutionalisation of male control over
women, children, and society which perpetu ates women's subordinate position.
Polymorphous perversity, sexually polymorphous - the be lief that men
and women are not naturally attracted to persons of the opposite sex, but that
sexual desire can be directed to any other person and people are conditioned by
society to feel attraction to persons of the opposite sex
Compulsory heterosexuality - the belief that people are forced to see
the world as divided into two sexes who are sexually attracted to one another.
Sexual preference or sexual orientation - no discrimination on the basis
of- acceptance ofallforms of sexuality including homosexuality, lesbianism,
bisexuality, transsexuals, and transvestites as equivalent to heterosexuality.
Homophobia - fear of same sex relationships; people who are prejudiced
against homosexuals. (The term is based on the belief that prejudice against
homosexual persons is rooted in the sublimation of homosexual tendencies.)
The following arc some quotes from the course materials for “Re-imaging
Gender”:
Feminist theory can no long afford merely to voice a toleration of
‘lesbianism’ as an ‘alternative life style’ or make token allusions to
lesbians. A feminist critique of compulsory heterosexual orien tation for women
is long overdue.3
I am suggesting that heterosexuality, like motherhood, needs to be
recognized as studied as a political institution.6
An appropriate workable abortion-rights strategy is to inform all women
that heterosexual penetration is rape, whatever their subjective expe rience to
the contrary.7
Heterosexuality has been both forcibly and subluninally imposed on
women... ‘ ‘ Compulsory het-erosexuality” was named as one of the ‘‘cranes
against women” by the Brussels International Tri bunal on Crimes Against Women
in 1976.*
Each infant is assigned to one or the other category on the basis of the
shape and size of its genitals. Once this assignment is nutde we become what
the culture believes each of us to be — feminine or masculine. Although many
people think that men and women arc the natural expression of a genetic
blueprint, gender is a product of human thought and culture, a social
construction that creates the ‘true nature’ of all individuals.9
The current gender system relies heavily on everyone’s agreement that
it's inflexible. Key to the doing away with gender is the ability to freely
move into and out of existing genders and gender
roles.10
Gender implies class, and class presup poses inequality. Fight rather
for the deconstruction of gender — it would get to the same place much faster.
Well, it’s a patriarchal culture and gender seems to be basic to the
patriarchy. After all, men couldn’t have male privilege if there were no males.
And women couldn’t be oppressed if there was no such thing as ‘women ’ Doing
away with gender is key to the doing away with the patriarchy, as well as
ending the many injustices perpetrated in the name of gender inequality. There
is no gender inequity that doesn’t first assume there is gender - and only two
genders at that. Gender inequities include sexism, homophobia, and misogyny.11
Two Sexes ... or Five? ^re
When these materials were circulated among the participants at the
PrepCom, concern about the definition of Gender increased. Of particular
concern was an article by Anne Fausto Sterling, ‘‘The Five Sexes: Why Male and
Female are Not Enough” which claimed their were actually five sexes - hams,
mams, and ferms being added to the traditional two. Hams are hermaphrodites:
mcrms - male pseudo-hamaphro- dites; ferms - female hermaphrodites. The issue
of genital abnormalities was raised by Gender Feminists not because they were
concerned about the ejected individuals, but to challenge the assumption
‘‘tfaal heterosexuality alone is nor mal.”13
Delegates wanted assurance that only two sexes would be recognized.
To furtha muddy the waters, an accredited NGO circulated a flyer to the
delegates which demanded accep tance of sexual orientation (homosexuality and
lesbianism) as a human right:
Gender F eminism
In order to understand the debate over the definition of gender, it is
helpful to understand gender feminism and how it differs from the common
perception of feminism. The term
‘genderfcminists'waspopularizedbyCbristinaHoffSommers in her book Who Stole
Feminism? to distinguish the ideologi cal strain of feminism which developed in
the late 1960’s from the previous feminist movement which Ms. Sommers calls
‘equity feminism.’ Ms. Sommers offers the following explana tion of the
difference between equity feminism and gender feminism:
Equity feminism is simply the belief in the moral and legal equality of
the sexes. An equity feminist wants for women what she wants for every one —
fair treatment, no discrimination.
Gender feminism on the other hand is an all encompassing ideology that
says American women are trapped in a patriarchal oppressive system An equity
feminist thinks things have gotten much better for women: gender feminist often
think it is getting worse. They see marks of patriarchy every where and expect
it to get worse. But there is no basis for this in American reality. Things
have never been better for women — they are now 55% of college enrollment, the
pay gap is closing.14
Others use the terms ‘radical feminists' and ‘liberal feminists' to
distinguish between the two forms of feminism. Radical feminist want a
sex/gen^er class revolution; liberal feminists want women to have equal rights
and equal oppor tunity. It should be noted that the majority of women, although
they fully support equality of rights and opportunity for women, do not
consider themselves feminists at all because they see feminism as too
ideological and out of touch with the real needs of women. In a survey
conducted for Time magazine only a few years ago, only 27% of US women labeled
them-selves as feminists, and from the other answers in the survey it was clear
that the majority of these would be classed as equity or liberal feminists.
In the context of the Beijing conference the term ‘gender feminism’
seems particularly appropriate, since those who have identified themselves as
feminists are pushing for the ‘gender perspective’ in the text, the definition
of‘gender’ as'socially constructed roles,’ and the substitution of ‘gen der’
for woman or male and female.
I hope that the leader will forgive the large number of lengthy quotes
contained in this text. The ideology behind the public statements made by
Gender Feminists has not been reported by the media and most people, even those
who are otherwise well informed, when confronted with the true nature of the
Gender Feminists agenda are frankly incredulous. They simply cannot believe
that anyone would seriously support or defend some of the things which the
Gender Feminists advo cate. Therefore, the quotes serve to show the precise
nature of Gender Feminist agenda in their own words and to demon-strate that
these positions are not held by a single person, but held by Gender Feminists
in general.
The second reason for the large number of quotes is to show the links
between the February 27 draft Platform For Action and the Gender Feminist
ideology. Those familiar with the Gender Feminist agenda immediately recognized
the hid den objectives behind seemingly innocent proposals and certain
ambiguous terms in the draft. However, when con cerns were raised about certain
passages, delegates, unfamil iar with the Gender Feminist agenda, felt that
some of the objections were unfounded. However, when delegates sought to add
clarifying language or asked for definition of terms, the immediate rejection
of such clarifying language and the insis tence on extreme interpretations by
supporters of the Gender Feminist agenda served as warning to delegates that
perhaps they had Dot understood the true intent of the proposals. In spite of
this, many delegates and NGOs remain unaware of the real objectives of the
Gender Feminist agenda.
Philosophical Roots of Gender Feminism
Gender Feminist theory is based on a Neo-Marxist interpretation of
history. It begins with Marx’s assertion that all history is the history of
class struggle, oppressor against oppressed, locked in a battle that can be
resolved only when the oppressed have their consciousness raised and realize
their oppression, rise up in revolution, and impose a dictator ship of the
oppressed. Then society will be totally recon structed and the strife-free
classless society will emerge insuring utopian peace and prosperity for
everyone.
The book The Origin of the Family, Property, and the State, by Marx’s
partner Fredrick Engels laid the founda tion for the union of Marxist theory
with feminist theory. In that book Engels wrote:
In an old unpublished manuscript, the work ofMarx and myself in
1&46,1 find the following: “The first division of labor is between man and
woman for child breeding.” And today I can add: The first class antagonism in
history coincides with the develop-
These demands severely distort the Universal Dec laration of Human
Rights which guarantees the right to marry and form a family. There is no
“right” to determine one’s sexual identity, and while people have a right to
control their bodies this does not include, as abortion advocates have claimed,
a right to abortion of an unborn human being who also has a right to control
its body. The Lesbians want the right to have children expanded to protect
artificial insemination of lesbian women and the legal rights of the lesbians
to be the parent of a child their partner has conceived by artificial
insemination
Listed among the directors of the IGLHRC, Judith Butler, author of
Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subver sion of Identity. Gender Trouble is a
textbook used in many women’s studies programs in US universities. Tbe
following quote from Ms. Butler's bock was circulated to concerned delegates:
Originally intended to dispute the biology-is-des- tiny formulation, tbe
distinction between sex and gender serves the argument that whatever biological
intractability sex appears to have, gender is cultur ally constructed: hence
gender is neither the causal result ofsex nor as seemingly fixed as sex... When
the constructed «rtams of gender is theorized as radically independent of sex,
gender itself becomes a free floating artifice, with the consequence that man
and masculine might just as easily signify a female body as a male one, and
woman and feminine a male body as easily as a female one.13
Recognition of Ulterior Motives
Since Ms. Abzng had specifically denounced the ‘biology-is-destiny’
concept, those concerned about gender were becoming convinced that Ms. Abzng’s
definition of gender as socially constructed was designed to forward the
Homosexualflesbian/bisexual/transsexual agenda and not to further the interests
of ordinary women.
And as if this wasn’t enough, Valerie Raymond, delegate from Canada had
made a statement to the conference where six: insisted that Beijing be
approached “not as a Vomen’s conference’” but that the “issues must be viewed
through a ‘gender lens.’” According to Ms. Raymond:
Through this gender lens, our challenge is
to recognize and value tbe diversity of women (in cluding) ...sexual
orientation.
The representative from Honduras, Marta Casco, who continually fought
for positive language in the text, asked that ‘gender’ be bracketed until these
questions were re solved SLe was challenged by a US delegate who asked “How
anyone could possibly think of bracketing gender^’’ To which Mrs. Casco replied
“How can anyone think for bracketing human beings or mother?” (The US had
supported the bracketing of both)
Although delegates’ requests for the bracketing of text are usually
accepted in an unprecedented move, Mrs. Casco’s request was denied but since
this did not settle the controversy a contact or working group was set up on
the final afternoon of the PrepCom to discuss the issue. At first the group
appeared to be making progress; tbe definition first proposed was:
The word “gender” in this document acknowl edges male andfemale, the two
sexes of human beings.
Tbe delegates from the US, Canada, and Germany complained that this
definition failed to take into consider ation the “social construct,” so the
following phrase was added:
... the roles of women and men in society are not necessarily linked
with their sex.
The fact that this definition still failed to satisfy the US, Canada,
and Germany only increased the concern of those nations interested in a clear
definition of gender. Tbe subject was left unresolved with the contact group
planning to meet on several occasions from May 15 to June 15 and to report
their conclusions in Beijing.
meat of the antagonism between men and women in monogamous marriage, and
the first class oppres sion with that of the female sex by the male.13
Engels argues that oppression and the class system began when men
realized that they were fathers, and m order to insure that they knew who their
children were, enslaved women in marriage. The classic Marxists believed that
if private property were ^«minted and if divorce were made easy, illegitimacy
were accepted, women were forced into the workforce, children were placed in
daycare and religion were eliminated, the class system would disappear. Ibe
Radical Feminists charged that the Marxists failed because they concentrated on
economic solutions and foiled to directly to attack the family which was the
real cause of the classes.
In 1970 Shulamith Firestone published The Dialect of Sex, the first
unequivocal statement of the Radical feminist ideology. Firestone used Marxist
analysis to attack the family:
... to assure foe elimination of sexual classes requires the revolt of
the underclass (women) arid seizure of control of reproduction; restoration to
women of ownership of their own bodies, as well as feminine control of human
fertility, including both the new technology and all the social institutions of
childbearing and childrearing And just as the end goal of socialist revolution
was not only the elimina-tions of the economic class privilege but of the
economic class distinction itself, so the end goal of feminist revolution must
be, unlike that of the first feminist movement. Dot just the elimination of
male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human
beings would no longer matter culturally.. .M
Ms. Firestone directly attacked motherhood as the cause of the sex class
system:
The heart of women’s oppression is her childbearing and child rearing
roles.17
If this appears to be an attack on nature, Ms. Firestone admits that if
Nature stands in the way of the revolution, then Nature will have to go:
The ‘natural’ is not necessarily a ‘human* value. Humanity has begun to
outgrown nature, we can no longer justify the maintenance of a discrimi natory
sex class system on the grounds of its origins in Nature. Indeed for pragmatic
reasons alooe it begins to look as if we must get rid of it1*
Feminist Heidi Hartman sums up the 'dialect of sex’:
‘ ‘The personal is political” means for radi cal feminists, that the
original and basic class divi sion is between the sexes, and the motive force
of history is the striving of men for power and domina tion over women, the
dialect of sex.15
Radical feminism’s primary concern has never been about directly
improving the position of women or increasing the liberty of women. Committed
Radical Feminists believe that small improvements can stand in the way of the
sex/ gender class revolution. In a book entitled Women and Revo lution, Heidi
Hartman writes:
The woman question has never been ‘the feminist question.’ The feminist
question is directed at the ean«e« of sexual inequality between women and men,
of male dominance over women.70
If the Radical feminists’ goal is a sex-classless soci ety, how could
they deal with the biological differences and particularly reproductive
differences betweenmen and women? How do you create a classless society if the
differences between the class are biological? The Radical Feminists Deed to
separate biological ‘sex’ from socially constructed ‘gen der,’ as Heidi Hartman
admits:
What we need to understand is how sex (a biological fact) becomes gender
(a social phenomenon).21
Nature or Nuture?
This effort to separate gender from sex earned them the label Gender
Feminists. Gender Feminists insist that everything must be viewed through a
'gender lens' of with a 'gender perspective.’ The gender perspective, to which
Gen der Feminists often refer but rarely define, is a comprehensive world view
which sees every relationship or activity in which human beings engage as
socially constructed in such a way that men are given a superior position m
society and women an inferior one. According to the gender perspective, the
advancement of women requires that all of society be freed from this social
construction so that men and women will be the same. The list of things Gender
Feminists are interested in deconstructing includes, but certainly is not
limited to, language, family relationships, reproduction, sexuality work,
religion, government, and culture.
There are, of course, many things in every society which unfairly impact
women and should be changed, but the gender perspective views even the
slightest differences in treatment or statistical difference between men and
women with a suspicion which borders on paranoia. > This is one reason why
Gender Feminists are so preoccupied with the collection of gender disaggregated
statistics. All statistical differences are proof of unjust discrimination
against women.
The problem with the gender perspective is that in seeing everything
from a single very narrow perspective, one is unable to make distinctions. A
statistical difference in participation in a particular activity betwen men and
women may be a sign of discrimination, or it may be a reflection of natural
differences between men and women. Differences could be a sign of respect for
women's reproductive respon sibilities or might be caused by the free choices
of women.
The danger of the gender perspective is obvious, by labeling every
difference between men and women socially constructed and therefore in need of
change, the Gender Feminists have declared war oo women's natures and women’s
choices. The Gender Feminists often target respect for women with as much vehemence
as they target disrespect, because difference is the enemy.
Evidence that the differences between men and women are natural provokes
not a reconsideration of the validity of the gender perspecive but an attack on
the concept of nature. Proof that women have freely chosen to be different
generates an attack on free will Every difference is suspect Some Gender
Feminists go so far as to insist that men's greater physical strength and
ability to run faster than women are actually caused by diffrences in
socialization and not basic biological differences. Several years ago a study
came out insisting that women would soon be able to equal men's records in
running. A project is currently underway to discover what kind of training is
necessary to make women as physically strong as men Heidi Hartman argues that
repro duction is socially determined:
How people propagate the species is so cially determined.
Ifbiologically, people are sexually polymorphous, and society were organized in
such a way that all forms of sexual expression were equally permissible,
reproduction would result only from some sexual encounters, the heterosexual
ones. The strict division of labor by sex, a social invention common to all
known societies, creates two very separate genders and a need for men and women
to get together for ecooomic reasons. It thus helps to direct their sexual
needs toward heterosexual fulfill ment, and helps to ensure biological
reproduction. In more imaginative societies, biological reproduction might be
ensured by other techniques. . P
Gender feminists believe that gender is created by patriarchal
institutions:
The crucial elements of patriarchy as we currently experience them are:
heterosexual marriage (and consequently homophobia), female childrearing and
housework, women's economic dependence on men (enforced by arrangements in the
labor market), the and numerous institutions based on social relations among
men - clubs, sports, unions, profes sions, universities, churches,
corporations, and armies.13
Gender Feminists further believe-that socially con structed gender
differences force women to be dependent on men Freedom for women, defined by
Gender Feminists, is not the ability to act without undue restraint, but
women’s free dom from socially constructed gender roles. Ann Ferguson and Nancy
Folbre outline the ways in which women can be liberated from their dependence
on men and socially con structed gender roles:
... feminists must find ways of providing support for women to identify
their interests with women rather than with their personal duties to men within
the family context. This requires the establishment of a self-defined
revolutionary feminist women’s culture which can ideologically and materially
support women “outside the patriarchy.’’ Counter hegemonic cultural and
material support networks cm provide women-identified substitutes for patri archal
sex-affective production to give women in creased control over their bodes,
their labor time, and their sense of self.
There are four key areas around which to organize a strong feminist
movement:
1 ) demands for publicly supported childcare and reproductive rights,
2) demands for sexual freedom, which in-cludes the right to sexual
preference (lesbian/gay rights)
3) feminist controlled cultural and ideologi cal production (important
because cultural produc tive affects ends, sense of self, social networks and
the production of nurturance and affection, friend ship and social kin
networks).
4) the establishment of mutual aid: eco nomic support systems for women,
from alternative household and women-identified family networks to women's
caucuses in trade unions to support femi nist concerns in wage labor.34
It is important to note that the purpose of each item on the feminist
agenda is not to imTove the position of women, but to separate women from men
and destroy women ’ s identification of their interests with the interests of
their families.
From Ferguson and Folbre's list and from other Gender Feminists’
writings, it is absolutely clear that support for abortion and homosexual
rights are integral to the Gender Feminist agenda. Those who arc concerned that
adoption of the gender perspective will open the door to both have cause for
their concern. Gender Feminist have used every opportu nity to promote these
aspects of their agenda.
Even seemingly innocent aspects of the Gender Feminist agenda are
designed to attack the relationships within the family. Gender Feminism’s
hostility to the family is based on their belief that the family creates and
supports the sex/gender class system, as Christine Riddiough, who was on the
list of NGOs in Cairo and who is a contributor to the magazine published by
Catholics for a Free Choice (also an accredited UN NGO), explains:
The family teacnes us our first lessons in ruling class ideology and it
also lends legitimacy to other institutions of civil society. It is through our
families that we first learn religion, that we are taught to be good citizens
... so thorough is the hegemony of the ruling class within the family, that we
are taught that the family is the embodiment of the natural order of things. It
is based in particular on a relationship between men and women which represses
sexuality, especially women’s sexuality.15
Gay/lesbian culture can also be looked on as a subversive force that can
challenge the hegemonic nature of the idea of the family... In order for the
subversive nature of gay culture to be used effec tively, we have to be able to
present alternative ways of looking at human relationships.... The New Ameri can
Movement Bill of Reproductive Rights describes an agenda for reproductive
rights that includes abortion, sterilization abuse, the right to parent (in cluding
specific support for lesbian mothers), the right to a safe workplace, and
several other de mands.24
Feminist Alison Jagger, in a textbook used in Women’s Studies programs,
explains bow Gender Feminists’ sexual agenda is related to the destruction of
the family:
The end of the biological family will also eliminate the need for sexual
repression. Male homosexuality, lesbianism, and extramarital sexual intercourse
will no longer be viewed in the liberal way as alternative options, outside the
range of state regulation... in stead, even the categories of homosexuality and
heterosexuality will be abandoned: the very 'institu tion of sexual
intercourse’ where male and female each play a well-denned role will disappear.
“Hu-manity could finally revert to its natural polymor phously perverse
sexuality.”17 ... the radical feminist equality means not just equality under
the law nor even equality in satisfac-tion of basic needs: rather it means that
women, like men, should not have to bear children . . . The destruction of the
biological family, never envi sioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new
women and men, different from any people who have previously e dsted. . . 3
The Gender Feminists are aware that the majority of women do not support
their agenda, but they have an expla nation for this and a solution for the
failure of women to support their revolution, as Alison Jagger explains:
If individual desires and interests are so cially constituted ... the
ultimate authority of indi vidual interests comes into question. Perhaps people
may be mistaken about truth, morality or even their own interests; they may be
systematically self-de ceived. . . Certain historical circumstances allow
specific groups of women to transcend at least partially the perceptions and
theoretical constructs of male dominance.19
In other words since everything, including the fam ily, manhood and
womanhood, is 'socially constructed,’ Gender Feminists, who believe that they
alone are free from socially constructed ideas, have the right to liberate
women from their families and their womanhood, even if women don ’ t want to be
liberated
Gender Feminism is a doaed lyitem. There is no way to argue against
Gender Femfiiiim. You can’t appeal to nature or reason or experience or the
opinions and desires of real women, because all these are, according to Gender
Feminists, “socially constructed,” No matter how much evidence you pOe up
against Gender Feminism, the Gender Feminists will insist that it is ail simply
more proof of the massive patriarchal conspiracy against women.
Socially Constructed Roles
In her speech to the delegates Bella Abzug defined gender as:
...expressing the reality that women’s and men’s roles and status arc
socially constructed and subject to change.
A flyer circulated at the PrcpCom by advocates of the Gender Perspective
offered a similar definition:
Gender: This refers to women’s and men’s roles and responsibilities that
are socially determined. Gender is related to how we are perceived and expected
to think and act as women and men because of the way society is orga nized, not
because of our biological differences.
In order to understand why these definitions do not forward the real
interests of women, it is necessary to explore the meaning behind the words.
What Do Gender Feminists Mean By ‘Roles?’
Alison Jagger, wbo contributed to a textbook on feminism, explains
feminist concern with roles:
... the radical feminist does not claim that women should be free to
determine their own social roles; she believes instead that the whole “role
system” must be abolished even in its biological aspects.30
Tbe use of the word ‘role’ skews the discussion The primary definition
of‘role’ is: a part of in a theatrical production in which a person plays in
costume and make-up, following a written script The use of the word ‘role’ or
phrase ‘roles played’ necessarily conveys the impression of something
artificial which is imposed on the person
Substituting another word for ‘role’ such as ‘voca tion’ shows bow the
word ‘role’ affects our perception of identity. Vocation implies something
authentic not artificial, tbe call to be what we are. We follow our vocation to
fulfill our nature or develop our innate talents and capabilities. We speak of
the choice of a particular profession as a ‘ ‘vocation’ ’ or ofthe vocation
of‘‘motherhood.” Motherhood is not a role. A mother, when she conceives a
child, enters in to a lifetime relationship with another human being. This
relationship defines the woman presents her with certain responsibilities, and
affects almost every aspect of her life. She is Dot playing the part of a
mother, she is a mother. Culture and tradition certainly influence the way
women carry out the responsibili ties of motherhood, but they do not create
mothers.
Should the UN Try to Settle the ‘Nature Verses Nurture’ Argument?
The insistence of tbe substitute of ‘gender’ for ‘sex and the
redefinition of ‘gender’ as ‘socially constructed roles’ is an attempt to win a
philosophical argument and to impose
a single narrow and discredited point of view on the world. The
latest scientific evidence shows that the old nature versus nurture
argument is out of date. Men and women are different, not only in reproductive
structure and hormones but also in the structure of their brains. Exposure of
the brain to sex hormones before birth produces real differences between male
and female babies.
Culture HTVI tradition are influenced by people’s observations of the
differences between boys and girls. Studies of brain chemistry reveal that
Nature (the biological differences) and Nurture (social conditioning) are so
interre lated that it is impossible to separate them. Even before socialization
boy and girl babies are attracted to different activities. Participating in a
particular activity increases the brain’s ability to process the particular
kind of information the
activity requires. Tbebrain’sstructureispermanentlychanged.
Having lost the scientific argument, the Gender
feminists are determined to impose their ideology by sup pressing tbe
evidence against than. An article in Newsweek, fWimvmting the new evidence of
differences between the way mim and women think, the article also reported
efforts to stop these studies:
Tbe brain-imaging studies are the latest, and highest tech, periscope
into sex differences in the brain. Yet no mailer how scientific” it gets, this
research serves as ammunition in society’s endless gender wars. When Raquel Gur
gave a talk to MD- Ph.p. students in Illinois about sex differences in brains,
a group of women asked ha to stop publiciz ing the work; they were afraid women
would lose 20 years of gains if the word got out that the sexes area ’ t the
same.31
When Gender Feminists are confronted with evi dence against their
position, they don’t try to refute it - they react with outrage, as evidenced
by excerpts from a TV special which also documented differences between men and
women:
John Stossel: All this science suggests that men arid women are just
innately different, that it’s not just <JUI sexist culture at work, it’s
biology. Gloria Steinem doesn’t believe it In fact, she says this research
shouldn’t even be done.
Gloria Steinem: It’s really the remnant of anti-American crazy thinking
to do this kind of research. It’s what’s keeping us down, not what’s helping
us.
John Stossel: And feminist lawyer Gloria Allred says we shouldn’t cvai be
doing this program about it
Gloria Allred: We take attacks from the media on our skills and our
abilities and our talents and our dreams very seriously. This is not just
entertainment This is harmful and damaging to our daughters’ lives, and to our
mothers’ fives, and 1 am very angry about it.
John Stossel: Attitudes like that led col leagues to advise Dr. Allen,
‘‘Don't do this kind of research.’’35
What Kind of ‘Roles’ Do the Gender Feminists Believe Are Socially
Con-structed?
There are three categories of ‘socially constructed roles’ under attack
by the Gender Feminists. The first category is masculinity and femininity.
Gender feminists befieve that manhood and womanhood are socially constructed,
that we -are actually born sex neutral beings and socialized to be men and
women and that this socialization negatively and unjustly affects women. Gender
Feminists insist that education and the media should be purged of all
stereotypes and all gender
specific images so tfial babies can grow up without being exposed to any
sex specific tasks.
The second category of 'socially constructed roles’ Gender Feminists
want deconstructed is family relationships, particularly the ‘role’ of mother,
father, hnsband, wife. Gender feminists not only want these gender specific
words replaced with the gender neutral words such as parent and spouse, they
want there to be no differences in behavior and responsibility between men and
women in the family. Gender feminists regard tiiis as particularly important
since they believe that the experience of scx-spccific relationships in the
family is the major cause of the sex/gender class system.
The third kind of ‘socially constructed roles’ under attack are
occupational categories which are »ssigrvd within a society to one sex or the
other.
However, in none of these three categories arc the ‘roles’ created
solely by social conditioning. In each of category biological differences,
personal experiences, cul ture, and individual free decisions combine to create
the individuals’ perception of who they are and what they should do in a given
situation. The evidence is mounting that human beings are not blank slates on
which culture can write any thing, but hard-wired to respond to certain kinds
of informa tion. More important, cultures respond to experiences of sex
difference.
Take the most obvious ‘cultural’ difference: dress. In every culture the
accepted dress of men and women is differ ent. These differences may appear to
be totally arbitrary, but they are not. Males are biologically hard-wired to
respond sexually to visual stimuli; therefore women’s choice of dress reflects
cultural awareness of men’s reactions. Furthermore, human beings, not unlike
other mammals, appear to have an instinctive need to determine the sex of
another person before they can comfortably interact with that person. Dress
allows clothed human beings to determine the sex of other people.
In the second case, to imply that motherhood and fatherhood are
arbitrarily socially constructed and that they can be reconstructed into a
gender neutral parenthood or transferred to social service facilities is to
ignore overwhelm ing scientific evidence, substantial social research and com mon
sense. Nothing proves the point more than abortive attempts of the Gender
Feminists to reprogram young women to believe thht they could have children and
not engage in mothering or that having children was simply one option among
many. Many of these reprogrammed young women hit their thirties with their
biological clocks ticking and willing to submit to dangerous and painful
reproductive technology to have the babies they had been told they didn’t need.
There is no question that societies have, often rigidly, divided
occupations between the two sexes. This division oflabor has restricted the
ability ofbotfa sexes to make occupational choices, but women have been far
more nega tively affected than men. During the last few decades many of these
restrictions have been removed and now in most countries occupational choices
are open to persons of both sexes. This change has been supported by Pope John
Paul n, Evangelical Christians, and Muslims.
Equality of Opportunity or Equality of Result?
However, men and women are still different. Given the freedom to decide
for themselves without restrictions or discrimination, men and women enter
various fields in differ ent percentages. Gender feminists are not satisfied
with equality of opportunity or laws against discriminations; they are
demanding equality of result. Ifi as the Gender Feminists assert, all the
differences between men and women were socially constructed, it could be
expected that given equality of opportunity and the absence of discrimination,
men and women would choose to participate in each occupation in equal numbers and
equally to succeed in the professions of their choice. But men and women are
different and therefore do not so choose and do not succeed in every field or
even in most fields in statistically equal percentages.
The only way to achieve equal percentages of men and women in all fields
is by imposing government control. Since the goal of gender feminism is not
freedom for women, but a gender classless society, the Gender Feminists support
the imposition of artificial statistical equality in every sector of society
from elected office to housework through quotas, affirmative action, legally
mandated parity, balance, and re sults.
Women who want to devote themselves to the work of the borne or the care
of their children will not be allowed to, since such privileged women would
serve as a constant reminder of the sex class society. Feminist writer, Simone
de Beauvoir admitted this in an interview with Betty Fried an No, we don’t
believe that any women should have this choice. No woman should be authorized
to stay at home to raise hex children. Society should be totally different
Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice,
too many women will make that one.1*
Furthermore, imposing quotas and instituting affir mative actioQ programs
has been shown to have a negative effect OQ the perceptions of competency of
the favored class When quotas for women are imposed, people assume that the
woman was hired or received the promotion not because she was the best person
for the job, even if she was, but because she was a woman. At a time when
without quotas or affirmative action women are proving their competency, such
programs would be a step backwards. Even worse, promoting women who are not
qualified into jobs they can’t perform simply to fill quotas would only serve
to lcsuncct negative stereotypes.
As part of a TV special on the differences between men and women,
repeater John Stossel asked Bella Abzug what should be done about women
applying for jobs in the fire department who lacked sufficient upper body
strength to pass the tests:
John Stossel: The men in the fire depart- meet say the women aren't
strong enough.
Bella Abzug: That's true.
John Stosjel: They’ve had to change the
test.
Bello Abzug-. Well, that’s all right. Institu tions have to adjust. If
there are still physical prob lems which prevent certain activities, those
activities should be assisted, so that it — in a way, with technology, so that
it’s possible.
John Stossel: They should give them an electric axe?
Bella Abzug: Whatever is required. 34
No one is suggesting, as Ms. Abzug charged, that ‘biology is destiny’ or
that women should be forced bade into subordinate roles. What they are pointing
out is that biology is reality. If the real differences between men and women
are not taken into account in planning programs, it is women who will suffer.
Trying to pretend that all the obvious differences are socially constructed and
can therefore be changed or that men and women can and should be the same,
makes maleness the standard for women, because while women can enter the world
of work, men cannot give birth. If the real differences between the sexes are
ignored in a vain attempt to achieve a sex/gender classless society, those
things which are unique to women are devalued and women are forced into
competition with men in those areas which men are biologically better equipped
to succeed.
The Gender Feminists are willing to do ‘ ‘whatever is required” to force
men and women to participate in statisti cally equal numbers in every activity
of society. Their goal is the deconstruction of society and a sex class
revolution. This needs to be fully understood and debated before the Gender
Feminist agenda is approved by a UN conference.
How Do Gender Feminists Want to Change “Social Constructed Roles?’’
Gender Feminists believe that the ‘ ‘social construc tion ” of gender
takes place mainly in the family where girls and boys have different
experiences. For those who begin with Marxist analysis of class differences as
the cause of problems, different is always unequal and unequal is always
oppressive.
While paragraph 32 of the February 27 draft for Beijing seems innocent
enough at first reading, the motive behind its creation is frightening:
At every stage and in all aspects of life the principle of equality of
women and men must be integral to the socialization process. The home is where
girls and boys first learn of their rights and their responsibilities to each
other and society. When men and women are not equal partners in private life,
it is all the more difficult to positively effect change in public life.
and her husband are “equal partners in private life,” but for the Gender
Feminists their responsibilities are different and therefore not equal.
This‘inequality’in the home is viewed by Gender Feminists as the cause of
‘inequality’ in public life since women whose primary concern is for the home,
do not always have time or energy to devote to public life. However, for Gender
Feminists - women’s choice to make the work of the home their primary concern
has fin- more serious conse quences. If children grow up seeing women mother
and men work outside the home, they will be socialized to view men and women
differently. Gender socialization will be transferred to the next generation.
Little boys and girls will grow up to thinking men and women are different
Nancy Chodorow in her book The Reproduction of Mothering lays out the
case against mothering She argues that the fact that women mother is the cause
of inequality:
All sex-gender systems organize sex, gen der, and babies. A sexual
division of labor in which women mother organizes babies and separates the
domestic and public spheres. Heterosexual marriage, which usually gives men
rights in women’s sexual and reproductive capacities and formal rights in
children, organizes sex. Both together organize and reproduce pender as an
unequal social relation.35
Ms. Chodorow wants women and men to:
.. .recognize that their interests lie in transforming the social
organization of gender and eliminating sexual inequality.36
For the Gender Feminists “inequality” (meaning any differences between
men and women) can be overcome only by forcing all women into the workforce and
forcing men to accept responsibility for half the housework and half the
childcare. Furthermore, if the children are placed in daycare, half the daycare
workers should be men.
There is nothing wrong with couples deciding for themselves that they
will both work outside the borne and share equally in the work of the home; the
question is: Should all couples be forced into this arrangements or should they
be free to decide for themselves? Gender Feminists believe the eliminations of
“inequality” must take precedence over the decisions of women, particularly
since these decision were really they insist “socially constructed.”
Susan MoLler Okin in an article entitled ‘ ‘ Change the Family Change
the World” argues along the same lines, calling for
... a future without gender. No assumptions would be made about male and
female roles, childbearing would be so conceptually separated from child rear ing
that it would be a cause fix surprise if men and women were not equally
responsibility fix domestic duties (X if children were to spend much more tune
with one parent than the other. It would be a future in which rpen women
participate in more or less
equal numbers ia every sphere oflife from mfant care to different VrTvFt
a£ paid work to high-level politics.
If we are to be at all true to our democratic moving away from gender is
essential... It seems undeniable that the promotion of justice throughout our
society would be axled through dissolution of gender roles, hence making the
family
a much better place for children to develop a sense of justice.31
When we read through the February 27 draft Platform For Action fix
Beijing, it becomes dear that the writers share Ms. Chodorow and Ms. Okm’s
gender perspective. Women who want to mother, women who want to make the work
of the hrnrv^ their first priority, women who believe that men and
women are different will find nothing in the text to defend them
interests or recognize their way of life.
Paragraph 9 includes the following sentence:
Nothing short of a radical transformation of the relationships between
men and women will en able the world to meet the challenges of new millen nium.
Is the gender feminist “radical transformation" of their lives what
the women of the world really want?
Supporters of the Gender Perspective
While the WEDO and its allies in the NGOs movement at the UN claim to
speak fix all women, in fact the majority of the world’s women are totally unaware
of the gender perspective. There are, however, a number of grassroots women's
organi zations which oppose the gender perspective and who have become involved
in the NGO movement At the Cairo Confer ence on Population and Development,
Bella Abzug and other members of the Women's Caucus tried to prevent the anti-
Gcnder Feminist women from speaking. Durmg the regional conferences in
preparation fix Beijing, efforts were again mndf to rnargirmlhre the
anti-Gender Feminist groups who tried to attend. The pro-family women from
Latin America were particularly offended by the treatment they received at the
regional conference in Mar del Plata, Argentina.
WEDO and its allies do have substantial support from wealthy
foundations, which allows them to publish fancy brochures and develop extensive
networks. In some cases the leadership of grassroots women’s organizations and
religious groups has been taken overby Gender Feminists who use the
contributions of members to support the Gender Feminist agenda.
The Gender Feminists also have powerful allies within the bureaucracy of
the UN. The Women's Global
Strategies Meeting if Glen Cove, NY was attended by Gertrude
Mongella and many other high level employees of the UN. It was at this
meeting that the WEEK) and its allies planned their strategy for Beijing.
The Gender Feminists at the UN have also formed strong alliances with
the Environmentalists and Populationists. Even though the three ideologies do
not agree on all points, their coalition is rooted in a common support for
abortion. Populationists and Environmentalists sec control of fertility as
essential fix the success of their agendas and are willing to use the gender
perspective to further their goals. The following quote from “Gender
Perspective in Family Planning Pro-grams” prepared by the Division fix the
Advancement of Women for a meeting organized in consultation with the UN
Population Fund, demonstrates bow those whose primary interest is that fewer
people see gender
In order to be effective in the long run, family planning programmes
should not only focus on attempting to reduce fertility within existing gender
roles, but rather on changing gender roles in order to reduce fertil ity...3*
Obviously more homosexuality, more women work ing outside the home, and
less women seeing motherhood as natural would decrease the population.
Foundations, such as the Ford Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, and
the Compton Foundation, who are concerned with population control, are major
contributors to Gender Feminist organizations.
-Gender Feminists have also been able to establish themselves within
academia as is documented in Christina Hoff Sommers’ book Who Stole Feminism ?
and to use women ’ s
studies programs to indoctrinate students.
Gender Feminists have also been able to win posi tions within government
bureaucracies, where they use their power to forward the Gender Feminist
perspective. The del egations at the UN from the Nordic nations, several other
European nations, the US, and Canada are dominated by people committed to the
gender perspective. Many other countries, even those whose governments have
laws which support the family and protect life, sent delegates to the PrepCom
from departments which are controlled by Gender Feminists, who were more interested
in forwarding the gender perspective that in promoting the ideals of their own
nations.
The power of the Gender Feminists to affect public policy can most
clearly be seen in a report from a conference organized by the Council of
Europe as a contribution to the preparatory process for the Beijing Conference.
Held in the Palaisdel’Europe, Strasbourg, Feb. 9-11,1995, the conference was
co-charred by Ms. Mona Sahlin, Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden. Mr. Janez
Dooovsek, Prime Minister of Slovenia. Ms. Mary Robinson, President of Ireland,
and Ms. Vigdis Finn bog ado tur, President of Iceland, gave speeches during the
conferences. Listed among the presenters were people from Portugal, Finland,
France, Spain, Hungry, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Australia, Austria, Canada,
UK, Poland, Norway, and Belgium. A report from the Conference entitled *
‘Equality and Democracy: Utopia or Challenge?' ’ was distrib uted at the
PrepCom for Beijing.
These reports reveal the way in which the Gender Feminist perspective
has been adopted by national govern ments, and the thinking behind the various
sections of the draft Platform for Action. For example, the several sections of
the draft call for the elimination of stereotypes. If this refers to inaccurate
characterizations of women as inferior, less intelligent or less capable,
everyone would agree that such stereotypes should be eliminated. But the
Council of Europe report has other “stereotypes” in mind:
It is high time to make it clear that gender stereotypes are outdated: men
are no longer only macho bread winners and women not only wives and mothers.
The negative psychological influences of showing stereotypies of women should
not be underesti mated. 39
Women, of course, should not be shown only as wives and mothers, but women
art wives and mothers and there is nothing wrong with pxisiti ve images of
women who do not work outside the home. The goal, of the gender perspec tive is
not a true representation of women’s lives, but reverse stereotyping, where
women who are “only” wives and moth ers are never shown in a pxisitivc light.
The President of Iceland, Vigdis Fiimbogadottir, gave the final speech
where she summed up the gender pierspective of the meeting insisting that:
...the enjoyment of sexual and reproductive rights is a prerequisite for
women to have genuine self-deter
mination.40
Education is an important strategy to alter prejudice about women’s and
men's roles in society. The gender pierspective should be integrated in the cur
ricula. Stereotypies must be eliminated in school books and teachers trained to
raise their awareness of this question, so as to ensure that girls and boys
make informed career choices which are not based on gender biased traditions.4'
As kxig as the pjrivate sphere remains largely women’s concern, they
will be much less available than men for pxisitions of responsibility in
economic and political life. . . Women must be relieved of the burden of having
two jobs, which can adversely affect their career prospect, disrupt their
private and family life and prevent them from taking part in political and
public life.43
The Council of Europe report also attacked religion:
The rise of all forms of religious fundamentalism was seen as posing a
piarticular threat to the enjoyment by women of their human rights and to the
full participation of women in decision-making at all levels of society.43
Another section of the report called for “quotas or parity” to assure
that women participate in equal numbers with men in elective office. The text
did Dole that not everyone supported quotas and parity, but parity and other
forms of affirmative action are promoted in the February 27 draft for Beijing.
Reading through the report from the Council of Europo, other materials
distributed during the PrepCom, and the draft Platform for Action, one sees a
single perspective - the Gender Perspective - being promoted. Anyone who is
opposed to the Gender Perspective is portrayed as being oprposed to women's
human rights and equality. There is however, another point of view - one which
is supports the rights women but opposes the Gender Perspective - the Women’s
Perspective.
Perspectives
The Gender Feminists have been extremely skillful in manipulating (be
debate over women’s rights. They have portrayed themselves as the defenders of
women and their opposition as the enemies of women by creating a Straw Man -
the proto-typical male chauvinist, patriarchal sexist oppres sor who believes
that biology b destiny and wants women confined to the house, barefoot and
pregnant, inferior, subor dinate, second-class citizens.
Gender Feminists scare young women with images of evil men who use their
power to oppress women. Kathleen Gough in an essay entitled “The Origin of the
Family” listed the supposed characteristics of this male power in contempo rary
society:
... men’s ability to deny women sexuality or to force it upon them; to
command or exploit their labor to control their produce; to control or rob them
of their children; to confine them physically and prevent their movement; to
use them as objects in male transactions; to cramp their crcadvcness; or to
with hold from them large areas of society’s knowledge and cultural
attainments.“
Adrienne Rich added to Ms. Gough’s list: rape, including marital rape,
incest, idealization of heterosexual romance, pornographic depictions of women
responding pleasurably to sexual violence or humiliation, marriage and
motherhood as unpaid production, the decoy of the upwardly mobile token women,
male ccotrol of abortion, legal kidnap ping, systematized infanticide, rape as
terrorism, cocktail waitresses, secretaries, sex-role tracking which deflects
women from science, etc, etc.0
No one denies that there arc terrible abuses of women, and that in the
past the equality, dignity, and rights have been denied There arc still places in
the world where women arc not respected, but the mistreatment of women and the
denial of their rights b no longer accepted by civilized people or the
intemadonal community. The Gender Femimsb arc not however interested in this
kind of progress; they persist in dredging up stories of past abuses to
frighten young women. Furthermore, the include among the abuses of women many
thing«; which are not abusive, but protective of women ’ s rights and special
status.
Straw Man Critical To Their Strategy
The Gender Feminists would be extremely hard pressed to produce an
actual man who fits their stereotype without digging through a 19th century
oemctcry. A man who actually espoused the sentiments attributed by the Gender
Feminists to their Straw man would probably be confined to a maximum security
facility is sociopath. Certainly, there b no NGO at the UN defending their
Straw Man’s Perspective.
The Gender Feminists want the attention focused on the terrible Straw
Man so that people will not realize that the opposition to their agenda comes
not from unrepentant male chauvinists but from women and men who fully support
the equality, human rights, and dignity of women.
The groups whom the Gender Feminist accuse of supporting these positions
- Fundamentalists, meaning Catho lic and Evangelical Christians and Moslems -
absolutely and categorically reject the attitudes attributed to than. More
importantly women delegates and NGO representatives at the UN who arc members
of these religions are living proof that these religions do support the full
participation of women in decision-making. These women deeply resent the false
char acterization of their religioos by Gender Feminists.
A Real Alternative: the Authentic Women's Perspective
The opponents of the Gender Feminists’ Perspective consider themselves
to be defenders of the authentic Women’s Perspective. They want to see a
Platform for Action which will reflect the concerns of real women and the
reality of women’s lives. They believe that the world’s women do not want a sex/
gender class revolution, but equal rights, equal education, equal opportunity,
respect for motherhood, marriage, family, and religious faith. They are
convinced that ordinary women aren’t interested in declaring war on their own
natures and do not appreciate being told that their desires are socially con structed.
The differences between the Gender Feminists’ Per-spective, the Straw
Man’s Perspective and the authentic Woman’s perspective ere laid out in the
chart below. The differences between the three Perspectives are rooted in the
way which each deals with the differences between men and women.
Gender Feminists believe that the apparent differ ences between men and
women arc socially constructed and the world will be liberated only wfaai men
and women are the same. Gender Feminists are willing to destroy everything
which makes them different, including the family, mam age, mothering, and
womanhood itself.
The Straw Man, as created by the Gender Feminists, b portrayed as a male
chauvinist who believes that men are superior, women are inferior, and wants to
keep it that way.
The authentic Women’s Perspective is rooted is the belief that men and
women are different and completely equal, complementary in nature, but each a
complete person, morally responsible for their behavior and decisions
GENDER
PERSPECTIVE
STRAW MAN’S PERSPECTIVE
WOMEN’S
PERSPECTIVE
1. Family - The family, motherhood, and marriage arc the cause of
women’* oppres- sico; housework and childcare should be shared 50/50 by men and
women
2. Sexuality - Women of any age have the absolute right to sexual
self-determination, including the right to engage in sexual rcla-
tkmsoutrideafmarriage, with men orwomen, and to change their sexual identity
3. Reproduction-Women have the right to abortion on demand in order to
control their lives and be the amra* as men
4. Violeace-Allmenarccapableofviolence. All women live in fear. A
complete sex/ gender class revolution is the only way to stop violence.
5. Sexual Exploitation-All sex not female controlled is the equivalent
of rape. Prosti-tution is wrong only if women arc forced to participate
6. Education - Girls should be educated to enter non-traditioctal fields
and not exposed to pictures of women as wives and mothers or in traditional
women's activities
7. Media - The media should eliminate all positive images of women in
traditional roles and portrayals of women as sex objects
8. Economy-Women dxmld be economically autonomous and nvif-prrrk-nt frnm
theirhns- bands; all women should work outside the home; the government should
support daycare; men should be forced to take childcare leave
9. Poverty - Poverty is caused by the capitalist system
10. Dedsioo-malting - Equality means 50/50 male/female division of all
decisionmaking positions in government and the private sector, governments
should impose quotas, parity, or affirmative action programs to achieve this
11. Human Rights - The concept ofbuman rights should evolve to include
the right to change one's sexual identity 12. Religion-Fundamentallyreligion
isthe cause of women oppression; religious teach ings should be reinterpreted
by feminist theologians
1. Marriage and the family are a means by winch men own women and
children; men have a right to the services of women within the home; women are
responsible for all childcare and housework
2. Men have the right to control women’s »groaiity and suppress women’s
sexual plea sure
3. Men have a right to control women’s reproduction; women should be
barefoot
4. Violence against women and rape by some men help all men control
women
5. The sexual exploitation of women is socially acceptable
6. Women'serhrational opportunities should be limited arid inferior to
those of men
7. Women should be portrayed as sex objects and as inferior and
incapable of performing in the workplace
8. Women should be economically depen-dent on men and forbidden to own
property or control their own property
9. Poor women provide a good source of easily exploitable cheap labor
10. Women should be excluded from all decision-making positions
11. Women do not have the same human rights as men
12. Religion, tradition, and culture prove that women arc inferior
1. The family, founded on marriage between
a mm n wnrrum is the firrvbrrrvntal unit
of society and the most important protection for women and children
2. Men and women should engage in sexual relations only within marriage
and with the consent and for the enjoyment of both part-ners
3. Respect for human life, motherhood and women’s reproductive potential
requires that reproductive choices should be made before conception
4. All farms of violence are wrong; stable marriages and strong
relationships between men and women are the best protection of the safety of
women and children
5. All prostitution, pornography, sex traf-ficking, and sexual
exploitation of women and children are wrong
6. Women should have equal educational opportunities and the freedom to
choose training which would prepare them for the work of their choice
7. Women should not be portrayed as sex objects; the media should
realistically por tray the lives of women as wives, mothers, and career women
8. The family is an economic partnership m which the husband and wife
share in deci-sion-making, every woman should be able to decide whether to work
inside or outside the home, without undue pressure
9. Father-absent families are the main cause of poverty for women and
children
10. Equality means equal opportunity for women and the elimination of
all forms of discrimination against women
11. Humanrightsarenotgranted by govern-ments, but inalienable to the
person; the Umversal Declaration ofHuman Rights should be defended, including
the right to life, the rights of parents, and the rights of the family
12. Religion supports women’s equality and dignity as persons by rooting
women's rights in divine law
Sexual and Reproductive Rights and Health: Prescription For Tragedy
Sexual and Reproductive Rights sod Health are the very heart of the
Gender Feminist agenda as the following quote firm the Council of Europe
meeting in preparation for Beijing made clear
The rightto free choice in matters of repro duction and lifestyle was
considered [by the partici pants at the meeting] fundamental for women. The
enjoyment of sexual and reproductive rights is a prerequisite for women to have
genuine self-determi nation. **
‘Free choice in reproduction’ is code for abortion on demand; ‘lifestyle,’
a code word for homosexuality, lesbian ism, and all other forms of Don-marital
sexuality. The Council of Europe participants want this
‘self-determination’exiended to adolescents, unmarried women, and lesbians:
The voices of young women should be beard since sexual life is not
solely attached to married life. This leads to the p>oint of the right to be
different whether in terms of lifestyle - the choice to live in a family or to
live alone, with or without children - or sexual preferences. The reproductive
rights of lesbian women should be recognized.17
This recognition of the rights of lesbian women would include the right
of lesbian couples to conceive children through artificial insemination and the
right oflesbians to legally adopt tbeir partners’ children
In demanding sexual and reproductive rights, the Gender Feminists arc
demanding legal and social sanction for behaviors which legal codes, religious
teachings, and cultural norms throughout history and around the world have con demned.
The Gender Feminists insist that the condemnation of these behaviors was the
results of men’s desire to control women;
It is overwhelmingly men who control the process of interpreting and
defining the relevant religious, cultural, or traditional practices, and as a
consequence these norms arc defined in pratnarchal ways which limit women’s
human rights, especially in asserting control over women’s sexuality and in
confining women in roles that reinforce and p>erp>etu- ale their
subordination.“
Societies condemn sexual relations outside mar riage, particularly
sexual relations with adolescent girls, be cause these behaviors result in the
conception of children outside marriage. The social norms are sustained by
experi ence erf the social costs of such behaviors and not by men’s desire to
control women. Indeed, it is the mothers who are often the most concerned about
the enforcement erf these norms because they want to protect their daughters
from sexual exploitation and their potential grandchildren from the tragedy of
father! essn ess.
Every child has a biological father and mother. No matter the
circumstances of their birth, children feel a need to establish a relationship
with their biological piarcnts. The power of blood ties is not an invention but
a reality, as the experience of many adopted children verifies. When tragedy'
prevents a child from growing up in a borne where his biologi cal mother and
father are present, people can react heroically by providing the child with as
near a normal a family life as pxjssible, but there is no denying that a
tragedy has occurred. To purpxiscfully or carelessly make a tragedy by
cooceiving a child outside a stable marriage constitutes the most devas tating
form of child abuse. Women do not have the right to abuse children.
Every human being has a right to life which, accord ing the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights, article 25, includes “the right to a standard of
living adequate for the health and well-being ofhimself and his family.” The
Gender Feminists want this right restated as an absolute ‘right to health,’ and
they insist that this be extended to a right to sexual and reproductive health
as an amendment proposed by the WEDO led Women’s Linkage Caucus to the Beijing
document quoted below demonstrates:
Affirm health as a fundamental human right, protect and promote the
reproductive health and rights of individuals and couples. These rights should
be incorporated into national legislation. (para.80e.bis)
Health naturally includes health of all organs includ ing the sex organs
and reproductive organs, but the Gender Feminists have manipulated the UN into
A-finmg reproduc tive health to include abortion. Thus, the right to life would
include the right to health, which would include reproductive health, which
would include abortion and death to unborn human beings.
Gender Feminists attempt further to confuse the issue by linking sexual
and reproductive rights with sexual and reproductive health. The term sexual
and reproductive rights as used by Gender Feminists refers to the right to
engage in various behaviors. Health does not include the right to engage
in behaviors some of which are unhealthy, others of which are dangerous
to society and particularly to children Neither women or men can be said to
have absolute sexual and reproductive rights. Human beings do have the right to
marry and form a family. On the other hand, government and society have a duty
to discourage behaviors which endanger the health and safety of citizens and
particularly behaviors which put children at risk. To claim abortion as a
reproductive right denies the prior and primary right of the unborn human being
to life.
A booklet prepared for series of workshops held during the Cairo
Conference on Population entitled Sexual and Reproductive Rights and Health as
Human Rights: Concepts and Strategies; An Introduction for Activists, by Rhonda
Copeloc of Internationa] Women’s Human Rights Law Clinic at CUNY and Berta
Esperanza Hernandez of Inter national Women’s Human Rights Project of the
Center for Law and Public Policy, St John’s University (NY) spelled out how the
Gender Feminists intend to use the concept of human rights to push for abortion
and lesbianism.
The strategy outlined in the booklet is very simple: Push the evolution
of human rights protected by the UN to include “sexual and reproductive rights
and health” and use the mechanism of the U.N. to enforce these rights
worldwide. In effect, they hope to create new “rights” which arc based not on
natural law and common consensus, but rooted in radical ideologies, and to use
these rights to overthrow traditional cultures and religious values, as the
following quotes demonstrate:
Women have put the issue of acknowledg ing reproductive and sexual
rights and health as human rights within the framework of economic and social
justice and international solidarity...
By insisting that our basic needs in the areas of reproductive and
sexual health are human rights...49
Having abortion and sexual rights for lesbians and adolescents declared
fundamental human rights would give the Gender Feminists a powerful weapon to
enforce their agenda, as the authors state:
Human rights constitute limitations on the sovereignty of states; they
constitute principles to which states, donors, providers, intergovernmental
organizations and ultimately, the private economic sector must be held
accountable.50
Human rights do not depend on whether state has acknowledged them, for
example, by ratify ing a particular treaty. Widely endorsed human rights norms
are relevant regardless of whether a smic has ratified a particular treaty.51
Sexual and reproductive rights are broadly defined in the booklet.’
... sexual and reproductive rights means respect for women’s bodily
integrity and decision-making as well as their right to express their sexuality
with pleasure and without fear of abuse, disease or dis crimination. It
requires access to voluntary, qual ity reproductive and sexual health
information, edu cation and services.52
‘Bodily integrity and decision-making’ are code words for abortion, as
is reproductive health services. The authors recognize that there is opposition
to their agenda, which they claim is opposition to elemental human rights:
At the 1CPD, and in our countries, this demand for elemental human
rights is being met with opposition by religious fundamentalists of all kinds,
with the Vatican playing the leading role in organiz ing religious opposition
to reproductive rights and health including even family planning services.53
The Gender Feminists claim that religion, tradition and cultural
practices are being used to oppose women's human rights; in fact it is the
Gender Feminists themselves who are weakening support for real human rights by
hying to manipulate the concept ofhuman rights to serve their ideologi cal
agenda.
Archbishop Rena to Martino, delegate of the Holy See to the UN, in a
Nov. 1994 statement unequivocally restated the Catholic commitment to
inalienable human rights for all persons and expressed concern over the misuse
of the con cept ofhuman rights:
Currently, there is a tendency to believe that society itself has
formulated what is known as human rights. However, human rights are such pre cisely
because they are inherent to the dignity of the human person. A society may
acknowledge or vio late human rights, but it cannot manipulate the existence
ofhuman rights, since these rights precede even the state.
Gender Feminists have used other strategies besides sexual and
reproductive rights and health to push abortion and lesbian rights into the
text of UN documents. Pro-life and pro-family activists at the UN have been
diligent in informing delegates about the true intentions behind the
introduction of terms like ‘safe motherhood’ (which would include the de criminalization
of abortion), ‘diversity’ (which would include acceptance of lesbianism) and
‘other unions’ (which would protect homosexual relationships). Pro-life,
pro-family activ ists maintain constant vigilance since no sooner is one term
exposed and discredited than another surfaces.
While the Gender Feminists insist that abort] on-on- demand is essential
to women’s self-determination, women who have had abortions talk of having no
choice or being forced by others. There is nothing pro-woman about abortion.
It always represents a failure: a failure of society to provide for the
needs of women and their children; a failure of men to accept their
responsibilities; or a failure of women to recognize their ability to cope with
a crisis.
The authentic women’s perspective recognizes hu man rights are truly
inalienable and indivisible and extend to every human being, even those still
nestled in their mothers’ wombs.
Gender Feminists Attack the Family
Gender Feminists have admitted their hostility to wards the family. The
February 27 draft Platform for Action reflects the gender perspective when it
refers to the family negatively as the cause of women’s problems in paragraph
89:
Most of the violence against women and girls occurs in the family, where
violence is often tolerated and encouraged
ElknHcnnan in an article published in 1990, explains Gender Feminists
attitude towards the family:
In the late ‘60’s, the radical young women wbo reclaimed the derisive
term “feminist" and made it central to their own developing political
identities pinpointed the family - specifically, the Western, patriarchal,
bourgeois, child-centered, nuclear fam ily - as the most important source of
women’s oppres sion. They criticized the legal a»tract by winch women were
categorically assigned to economic dependence and lifetimes of domestic labor
in ex-change for promises of male support; the gender socialization process
conducted within tbe family, which trained girls and boys to expect separate
and unequal experiences in life; the sexual double stan dard for repressing women’s
sexuality. . . Feminist radicals, in sum, criticized the family for being rigid
and obligatory and women’s functions within it for being obstacles between them
and full human sta tus.^
A few years later, when compulsory hetero-sexuality was called into
question, an important element of lesbianism’s appeal was that it defied the
sexual prescriptions of family life. If anything, the erotic pleasures of
coming out were secondary ben efits. .
These young women, many of whom had not yet made their own reproductive
decisions, wanted the freedom to design their present and future families in
myriad ways, without penalty to love women or men, to have sex with one person
at a time or several, to live with or without children, to participate in
parenting without necessarily partici pating in reproduction, to experiment
with different household forms. Only when they could invent families of all
lands—without fear of ridicule or self-loathing — could women hope to attain
genuine individuality, rather than categorization as captive members of a
sex/gender class. *
For Gender Feminists the family not oaly enslaves women, it socially
conditions children to accept family, mar riage, and mothering as natural.
Nancy Chodorow in her book The Reproduction of Mothering attacks mothering by
women as the cause of the sex/gender class system:
If our goal is to overcome the sexual divi sion of labor in which women
mother, we need to understand the mechanisms which reproduce it in the first
place. My account points precisely to where intervention should take place. Any
strategy for change whose goal includes liberation from the constraints of an
unequal social organization of gender must take account of the need for a funda
mental reorganization of parenting, so that primary parenting is shared between
men and women.57
Tbe discussion during tbe Council of Europe meet ing in preparation for
the Beijing Conference focused on “A gender perspective on the function of
democratic institu tions.” According to the report from tbe meeting:
The group reviewed tbe various factors explaining tbe low level of
female participation in public life. Among these, particular stress was laid on
the issue of maternity (freedom of choice and child care) and differences in
the social conditioning of women. *
Vigdis Finnbogadottir, the President of Iceland made a lengthy speech
during tbe Council of Europe meeting, where, among other things, she stated:
As long as the private sphere remains largely women’s concern, they will
be much less available than men for positions of responsibility in economic and
political life. Among the strategies, mention
might be made of the generalization of parental leave, shared between
mothers and fathers, greater avail ability of childcare facilities, care for
the old and encouragement for men to participate in housework. Women must be
relieved of the burden ofhaving two jobs, which can adversely affect their
career pros pects, disrupt their private and family life and prevent them from
taking part in political and public life.39
Notice how women’s parddpahoo in tbe equal num bers in work outside the
home is the motivating reason for changes in the home, not the desires or
decisions of the women themselves. The private sphere is viewed as a secondary
and less important The family and the work of tbe family becomes a ‘burden’
which adversely effects women’s ‘career pros pects.’ The responsibilities
ofwotnen within tbe family are the enemy of Gender Feminists agenda.
Tbe Gender Feminist agenda stands in sharp con trast with The Universal
Declaration ofHuman Rights promul gated by the United Nations in 1948. Art 16
strongly defended the family and marriage:
1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race,
nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family, they
are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at
its dissolution.
2) Marriage shall be entered into only with tbe free and full consent of
tbe intending spouses.
3) Tbe family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and
entitled to protection by society and the state.
Speaking of the family as fundamental to society is not a platitude but
an inexorable truth. Without strong families based on stable marriages between
men and women, the society will deteriorate into anarchy. Gender Feminists talk
about other forms of families as though a father-absent family was equal to a
family where tbe father of the children is present and accepting his
responsibilities - laying down his life for his wife and his children.
If tbe Gender Feminists’ sex/gender class revolution succeeds in
destroying the father-present families, the world will not be utopia where
women would have equal power. It will resemble the devastated inner city of the
US where 80% of the children are bom into father-absent families. These
matriarchal families are overwhelmingly poor, and more likely to remain poor
and pass that poverty on to the next generation. The children in these families
are more likely to never fmish their education, become involved in violence,
crime, or drugs, have children outside marriage, and die at an early age. One
has only to listen to the violent anti-woman music produced by tbe children
from these communities to understand that it is women who are the targets when
the patriarchal family disappears.
Families create civilization because they tie men to thefuture. When a
man commits himsclfio a particular woman and through her to their children, he
becomes willing to put away his adolescent selfishness and take up the hard
work of building society.
The Gender Feminists complain that tbe work of civilizing men shouldn’t
be tbe responsibility of women, that men should civilize themselves; but if men
don’t have faith that their relationship with their children is permanent,
their major reason for self-sacrifice and struggle vanishes. Fami lies, whether
the Gender Feminists like h or not, are the foundation of society.
Violence: Exploiting the Suffering of Women
Gender Feminists use tbe tragedy of violence against women to build
support for their agenda. Typical of the Gender Feminists’ focus on violence is
the following letter which was recaved by Gertrude Mongella and published in
the bulletin from the Secretariat for the Beijing Conference, Women on the
Move:
My name is Miranda Worthen. I am 14 years old. My mother and I were
talking the other night and realized that neither of us has ever felt safe in
tbe world as women. We were wondering whether there is a place anywhere in tbe
world were women are safe from violence, both in their own homes and in public?
Wc realized we couldn’t imagine living in a world without fear. If you know of
any place, we would appreciate your getting back to us.“
Miss Worthen gave her address as Newton Center, MA_ My daughter lived in
Newton Center, MA for several years and I visited her there on many occasions,
walked unmolested through its neighborhoods, shopped in its stores, and parked
on its streets. I found Miss Worthen’s comments extremely puzzling, since as a
woman I have always felt safe in my home and in public and particularly in
Newton Center. There are unfortunately high crime areas in major cities which
both men and women should avoid, but Gender Feminists propagandize young women
into believing that they are constantly at risk of being attacked and raped.
Whik men are more likely to victims of violence than women Paragraph 89
of the February 27 draft reflects the Gender Feminist perspective on violence,
blaming men in general and the family, rather than recognizing the real causes
of sociopathic and criminal behavior
Acts or threat of violence instill fear and insecurity in women's lives
rendering their aspira tions for equality futile. Violence against women
throughout the life cycle derives essentially from the lower status accorded to
women in the family and in society. Physical, psychological, or sexual
violence, whether occurring in the home or in society, is linked to male power
privilege and control. Most of the violence against women and girls occurs in
the family, where violence is often tolerated and encour aged.
• 9
Christina Hoff Sommers, a vocal critic of Gender Feminism, documented in
her book Who Stole Feminism ? bow Gender Feminists have distorted the
statistics ou violence against women. According to Ms. Sommers, Gender
Feminists teach young women that:
1 m4giriswiUbevictimofrapeor attempted rape...They tell young girls that
violence against women increases 40 percent on Super Bowl Sunday, that banery
is the major cause of birth defects. This is the sacred catechism of women’s
smdies. None of this is true.61
At the same time Gender Feminists refuse to con demn all prostitution as
an abuse of women and want protec tion for ‘ ‘commercial sex workers. ’ ^
Gender Feminists believe that men support and condone violence against
women. Even when men react violently against rape, Gender Feminists insist that
they aren’t really outraged at the abuse of women, but are only angry that
their “property rights” have been violated. Typical of the Gender Feminists’
creation of the Straw Man’s perspective is the following quote from Marilyn
French’s book The War against Women:
As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men
need not The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. Bcyood
that, it is not necessary to beat up a woman to beat her down. A man can simply
refuse to hire a woman in a wdl-paid job, extract as much onnore work from
women than men but pay them less, or treat women disrespectfully at work or at
home. Hecanfail to support a child he has engendered, drmmvt the woman he lives
with wait on him like a servant He can beat or loll the woman be claims to
love; he can rape women, whether male, acquaintance or stranger, he can rape or
sexually molest his daughters, nieces, stepchildren or the children of a woman
he claims to love. The vast majority of men in the world do cue or more of the
above 43
The authentic women’s perspective condemns all violence against all
human beings, including the violence of abortion, prostitution, and sexual
exploitation of women and children. Anti-woman policies include forced abortion
and one child policies, genocide and by sterilization, the denial of religious
freedom, rape of women during war, the expansion of sex tourism and trafficking
of children for sexual purposes, the exploitation ofhousehold workers, female
feticide, and female infanticide.
The Beijing document should condemn all prostitu tion and not just
‘forced prostitution.’ Prostitutes do not simply choose prostitution as a
career opportunity. Most were either victims of childhood sexual or physical
abuse or forced into prostitution by extreme poverty. Furthermore, prostitu tion
spreads STD’s including HI V/AIDS to the innocent spouse and unborn children.
The media’s exploitation of the violence against women and the treatment of
women as sex objects lowers respect for all women.
Strong families, stable marriages and good relation ships between men
and women are the best protection for women.
Quotas - The Dictatorship of Women
In preparation for the Beijing Conference, a Woman USA Fund published a
lengthy study entitled Woman and Government: New Ways to Political Power edited
by Mim Kcibcr with an introduction co-authored by Bella Abzug Women USA Fund is
the sponsoring organization for WEDO and Mss. Kdber and Abzug are both leaders
of the Gender Feminist movement within the UN. The book advocated gender quotas
for all elective offices.
The ideological justification for universal quotas, 50/50 malc/female,
for elected offices comes firm a speech given by Professor Elisabeth
Sledziewski, University Robert Schuman of Strasbourg, at a 1989 Council
ofEuropc seminar.
Dr. Sledziewski argues that no real democracy is possible without
quotas:
Only the introduction of participation quo tas imposing equal
representation of the sexes in all decision-making authorities can make women’s
par-ticipation in the polls effective and irreversible.w
Dr. Sledziewski docs Dot see quotas as a temporary measure:
Measures put forward to foster the involve ment of women m the political
life must not be prc-
senled as they too often are, as conjuncture! arrange ments 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 suspi cions
voiced in connection with quotas and suggest that the involvement of women in
politics can only be enforced by unlawful means. On tb: contrary, it is
Deccssary to affirm that these provision are envis aged in the very name of the
principle of equality...
The advent of democracy based on equal representation will mean not oily
a turning point in relations between men and women and consequent!}’ in the
social being of the human race, but also a turning point in the democratic
construction pro cess. Equal participation by female citizens in the affairs of
the polls will henceforth be considered a sine qua non of the completion of
democracy. A democracy without women will no longer be seen as an imperfect
democracy, but as no democracy at all.“
Dr. Sledziewski recognizes that this is a rejection of the modem idea]
of European democracy and the rights of the individual. Interestingly she bases
this demand not on the Gender Feminist vision of a society where genital
differences between human beings would no longer matter socially, but on the
differences between men arid women:
. .. the definition of the human subject cannot omit the difference
between the sexes inasmuch as it is as a man or as a woman that the subject
lives out his or her humanity.“
Basing the demand for universal quotas on the differences between the
sexes seems like a denial of Ms. Abzug’s insistence that biology is not destiny
and all the differences between men and women arc only socially con structed
roles. The call for universal participation quotas for men and women when read
in the light of the Marxist vision of the dictatorship of the proletariate
<~jm however, be seen as necessary step to the classless society. Those
pushing for a complete sex/gender class revolution have always had a problem:
how does the class “women” take power from the class “men?” They cannot erase
men from existence, they can’t line them up against a wall and shoot them or
ship them off to Siberia. Nor is it likely the women as a class would be able
to wrest political power from men either through the election process or armed
revolution How then is the class women going to establish the * ‘dictatorship
of the proletariate.’ ’ which is a necessary step toward the final goal of a
sex/gender classless society? The redefinition pf democracy to include quotas
based on sex differences solves the problem. Women would be able to control the
government
In the section of the book on bow to impose quotas in the United States
Ms. Kclber recommends changing the Constitution to increase from two to four
the number of senators from each stale - two male and two female - and
instituting multi-member districts and proportional represen tation within the
House. This according to Ms. Kclber would solve the problem of those who say
“I’m not going to vote for a woman just because she’s a woman.”*7 Under her
system voters would have no choice, they would have to vote for a woman.
And this, of course, is precisely what these reforms are designed to do:
take choice sway from the voters. Right now in most countries women make up
over 50% of the voters If women wanted to represented by women, they could fore
women’s parties and elect women. If women all voted for the woman candidates,
all elected offices would be held by women.
The number of women running for office has in creased substantially.
There is nothing unusual today about a woman being elected to high office. The
question is, should the number of women in office be based on the decisions of
voters and the decisions of qualified women to seek office, or should the
percentage be mandated through a quota system?
There are a number of reasons why the number of women running for high
office may always be less than the number of men. First, in every country a
significant p>ercentage of women choose never to work outside the hone or
not to work outside the home for a substantial portion of what would be their
prime working years. Therefore, the number of women potentially interested in
full time work of any kind, let alone the demanding work of running for public
office, will always be less than the number of men. Furthermore, many women see
themselves as a part of a family unit and prefer to devote themselves to
advancing the careers of their husbands, rather than advancing their own
careers. In addition, in two career families many women who are as qualified
for office as their husbands choose to put their energies into supporting their
husbands’ political ambitions. In the US Elizabeth Dole, wife of Senate
Majority leader Bob Dole, Marilyn Quaylc, wife of former VP Dan Quayle, and
Hillary Clinton, wife of President Clinton, arc prime examples of women who
have made this decision.
The problem is, of course, that although the Gender Feminists talk may
about women as decision-makers, they don’t really respect the decision^ that
women as voters, or as potential candidates make. Mandating 50/50 quotas for
women/men would result in giving potential women candi dates an unfair
advantage • the dictatorship of the proletariate • since women did not seek
office in equal numbers to men.
The Gender Feminists expect of course that quotas would assure the
adoption of the rest of their agenda. At the Women’s Global Strategies meetings
they stressed the impor tance of assuring that the women elected and
appointment because of their activism be held accountable to the Gender
Feminist agenda.
While the idea of50/50male/fanale quotas may seem far-fetched,
particularly in the US where there is already a strong grassroots movement
against affirmative action pro- erams, the idea has substantial support At the
Council of
Europe meeting to prepare for Beijing, quotas were clearly at
the lop of the agenda as these quotes from the meeting's report
demonstrate:
The Council of Europe has played a pioneering role in the area of parity
democracy and should now set itself the task of remedying the shortcomings of
Article 14 of the European Conven tion on Human Rights which only lays down a
negative right - the prohibition of discrimination. To thi<: end an
additional protocol to the convention should be adopted. This protocol should
dearly and formally include the basic principle of equality be tween women and
men as a source of positive law.*8
Parity democracy is a means of rethinking democ racy...
... the adoption, as a means for the acuve pursuit of equality and
towards achieving more representative democracy for all citizens - both men and
women - of: cither quotas or parity. 69
The working group noted that genuine democracy is passible only if women
participate actively and in sufficient proportions in public life.
... the notion of quotas in the public service and that of a quota for
bodies elected by universal suffrage70
... the preponderance of male power in all organiza tion and
institutions.- continues to be a source of dityrimingtim against women, in
terms of both their civil and political Bid their social, cultural and eco nomic
rights.71
Several Nordic countries have already instituted various forms of quotas
and are actively involved in trying to sell the idea to the rest of the world.
The Nordic countries are held up as a model in the February 27 draft and while
the word quota is never used, parity, balance, affirmative action, and other
phrases which would mandated statistical equality are frequently used.
True democracy requires the rejection of quotas in any form and the
redefinition of democracy.
Freedom of Religion Under Attack
Gender Feminists view religion as a major cause of the oppression of
women. Gender Feminists among UN NGOs have demonized “fundamentalists” as the
enemy of the aspirations of women. A video, promoting the NGO forum of the
Beijing Conference made, by independent producer Judith Lasch, attacked
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism, stating among
other things:
Nothing has done more to constrict women than religious beliefs and
teachings.
According to Ms. Lasch, the video was shown at the UN to key people including
Gertrude Mongclla, chair of the Conference, and “Everybody loves it.”
The Women’s Global Strategics meeting report con tained numerous
references to fundamentalist and to the necessity of countering their supposed
attacks on women s rights. The NGO lobbying document contained the following
recommendation for an addition to paragraph 93:
All forms of fundamentalism, be they political, reli gious or cultural,
exclude women from internationally ac cepted norms of human rights and make
women targets of extreme violence. It is the concern of the international commu
nity that these practices be eliminated.
It was made clear throughout the PrepCom that the term fundamentalists
included “Catholic, Evangelical, and Orthodox Christians, Orthodox Jews, and
Muslims” and referred to any person who refuses to alter the teachings of their
religion to conform with the Gender Feminist’s agenda Pro-life Evangelical
Christian NGOs were repeatedly accused of being lackeys of the Holy Sec.
Catholics were accused of being fundamentalists.
One of the most publicized and well attended NGO sponsored events during
the PrepCom for Beijing was a panel discussion entitled “Counter-Attack: Women
Stand Up to Fundamentalism.” To no one’s surprise Frances Kissling, the \y~aA
of Catholics for a Free Choice, attacked the Catholic Church Rev. Meg Riley,
Director of the Unitarian Universalist Association’s Office of Lesbian
Bisexual‘and Gay Concerns, whose work involves helping “local groups across the
US deconstruct the conservative right’s propaganda on civil rights issues,”
attacked the Religious Right. She accused Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the
Family of wanting to control women. Indira Kajoscvtc, a woman from the former
Yugosla via, seemed more concerned about the pro-life, pro-family statements
made by her country’s religious leaders than the rna<^ rape of her
countrywomen.
The report from the Council of Europe meeting to prepare for Beijing,
contained numerous attacks on religion, including the following:
The rise of all forms of religious fundamen talism was seen as posing a
particular threat to the enjoyment by women of their human rights and to the
full participation of women in decision-making at all levels of society.72
- women themselves must be empowered and provided with the opportunity
to determine what their cultures, religions, and customary backgrounds mean for
themselves.15
...governments, religious institutions, and all sectors of society
should recognize the legitimate claims of women to have a significant role in
the definition and interpretation of religious, cultural, and customary norms
and should take active steps to encourage women’s involvement in these pro cesses.74
...the Council ofEurope should initiate com-parative studies into the
influences that different cultures, religions arid traditions play in enhancing
and impeding the full realization of women’s human rights within the member
States of the Council of Europe.73
In order to understand the threat these statements pose to freedom of
religion it is necessary to understand the Gender Feminist view religion as
something people have made up and that the maj or reli gions were made up by
men to oppress women.
Women should have and do have the right to partici pate fully in the
religion of their choice. Women trained and believing in their faith can and
have made important contribu tions; however this is not what the Gender
Feminists have in mind Gender Feminist theologians want the right to remake
religion so that it conforms to the Gender Feminist agenda. These women
“theologians” are not in any real sense “be-lievers” in the religions they
demand the right to rewrite nor even in a real God.
For example, feminist theologian Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza denies the
central teaching of the Christian faith - the possibility of revelation:
Biblical texts are not verbally inspired rev elation nor doctrinal
principles but historical formu lations... Similarly, feminist theory insists
that all texts are products of an androcentric patriarchal cultural and
history.7*
Gender Feminists want the Christian God “re-tm-- aged’ ’ the Christian
God as Sophia - female wisdom. Gender Feminist theologian Mary E. Hunt of WATER
(Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual) who is active in the
movement to re-image God contributed to the PrepCom for Beijing. Along with
Frances Kissling, she sponsored a “Catho lic Feminist” report attar-long the
Catholic church Mary Hunt’s theology could hardly be considered Christian, let
alone Catholic, as this quote from her own newsletter demon strates:
I believe that life, pleasure and justice are to be valued equally, that
the God of creation is at the same time the Goddess of pleasure and the spirit
of justice.77
In the same article die quoted with approval the accusation that
Christianity is the cause of child abuse which was made by feminist theologians
Joanne Carlson Brown and Carole R. Bohn’s:
Christianity is an abusive theology that glorifies suffering. Is it any
wonder that there is much abuse in modem society when the dominant image of
theology of the culture is ‘divine child abuse” — God the Father demanding and
carrying out the suffering and death of his own son? If Christianity is to be
liberating for the oppressed, it must itself be liberated from this theology.7*
Carol Christ, another Gender Feminist theologian, in an essay entitled
“Why Women Need the Goddess” writes:
A woman who echoes Ntosake Shange’s dramatic statement. “I found God in
myself and loved her fiercely” is saying, “Female power is strong and
creative.” She is saying that the chvme principle, the saving and sustaining
power, is in herself that she will no longer look at men or male figures as
saviors.79
No religion is obliged to grant non-believers the right to define the
tenets of its faith. Religious leaders arc not supposed to make up religion;
their duty is to hand on what they have received.
Gender Feminists accuse' patriarchal ’ religious lead ers of imaging God
in male terms to keep women oppressed, control their sexuality, and deny their
rights.
Women who are faithful Catholic, Evangelical and Orthodox Christians.
Orthodox Jews, and Muslims defend their religious traditions as the best
protection of women’s rights and dignity. In particular, they support their
religions’ teachings on marriage, family, sexuality, and respect for hu man
life.
Gender Feminist theologians want to pretend that it is men and
particularly celibate males who oppose their theological innovations, but it is
faithful religious women who have been the most outspoken opponents of Gender
Feminist theology. Donna Steichen wrote a devastating book against Feminist
theology. Mother Angelica of the Eternal Word Television Network has repeatedly
attacked Feminist theol ogy and lobbied against them in Rome, pushing church
leaders to take a stronger stand against feminists in the Catholic
Church. Helen Hull Hitchcock has lead the battle against changes in liturgical
languages. These are just of few of the thousands of women activists around the
world who are committed to defending their faith against Gender Feminist
theology.
Women believers support freedom of religion as defined by the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, for all persons including those inaccurately labeled
as “fundamen talists:”
Everyone has the right to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change
his religion or belief and freedom, cither alone or in community with others
and in public or private to manifest his religion or belief in teaching,
practice, worship and observance. [Article 18, the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, 1948.]
The use of the UN by Gender Feminists as a platform from which to lobby
against freedom of religion is a violation of the spirit of the UN and should
be condemned as such.
From Nonsense to Tragedy
To the average person the Gender Feminist agenda appears as pure
nonsense. How could anyone sincerely believe thai society could do away with
family, impose 50/50 quotas on all activities, eliminate motherhood, and
institute polymorphous perversity? Five years ago people laughed at the
suggestion, but those who have been exposed to the influence of the Gender
Feminist agenda aren’t laughing anymore
Many mothers, who sent their lovely daughters off to college to prepare
for careers, are weeping, because their daughters have come heme with lesbian
lovers. Am April 26, 1995 article, entitled “Daring Game Today Bieaks
Traditional Gender Roies,” which appeared in The Wall Street Journal, reported
on a growing number of young women coming out of US universities where they
have been indoctrinated in women's studies programs who are engaging in sexual
rela tions with women and men. Included is a report on Ms. Anji Dickson who
can’t decide whether to marry her boyfriend or grow old with a woman:
. . in Ms. Dickson s generation young women
openly enter into intimate relationships with both
genders that are more than just experiments. They resist being described
as straight <x gay - or even bisexual, which some think suggests promiscuity
and coe-night stands. Instead, they use words like “fluid“ and “cmmscxual”.*)
The deconstruction of gender is mainstream America. Many of US
television series have included episodes pro moted the gender feminist agenda,
homosexuality and choos ing one’s own sexual identity. These include the
popular “Roseanne,” “Northern Exposure,” “Star Trek: the Next Generation” and
“Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.” The message that sexual identity can be
deconstructed and the vocations of manhood and woomnhood arc nothing but
socially con structed gender roles can be found in children’s books and on the
popular children’s television series “Sesame Street.”
Unfortunately, there has been no effective voice to challenge the Gender
Feminists within academia or within the mainstream media. The power of the US
entertainment indus try and the US universities. Dot only at borne but around
the world, means that the nonsense of Gender Feminism may soon become an
international tragedy.
Resisting Gender Feminists’ Deconstruction
The Gender Feminists had hoped that the Beijing Conference would be the
occasion of the triumph of their ideology. It still may be, but in their
enthusiasm, they may have overplayed their hand by revealing the true nature of
this ideology.
The success or failure of the Beijing conference depends on the
delegates firm developing countries. Talking with the delegates from Africa, T
artn America, and Asia, one senses their frustration with the Gender
Perspective. Most are pro-family, pro-religion, and basically pro-life. They
know mstmcdvcly that Gender Perspective is not the perspective of women in their
countries. On the other hand, they strongly support the advancement of women.
Many of them have been working diligently in their own countries to improve the
position of women and eliminate real abuses. They are grateful for Gender
Feminists’ willingness to join with them m the banle against economic
neo-colonialism. They do not want to appear to be opposing the equality of
women.
This is why it is so important that the true objectives of the Gender
Feminist agenda be exposed.
Representatives from developing countries look with horror at the moral
decay in the developed countries. They are shocked at the high rale of births
to unmarried women, die pervasive pornography, the public promotion of homosexu
ality, and the high abortion rale in the developed world While they fear that
these evils will spread to their countries, many believe that the nonsense of
Gender Feminism is so extreme that it will Dcver affect their cultures.
However, even if the ideology of Gender Feminism is initially rejected
by women in the developing world, the deconstructioQ of the family and the
attack on religion, tradi tion, and cultural values promoted by Gender
Feminists in developing countries affects the whole world Unless a coun try is
willing to shut down its borders, disconnect its tele phones and turn off the
electricity, because of the technologi cal communication revolution, the
morally degrading media created in the developed world will reach into the
homes of its citizens and affect its children. Many leaders in the developing
world send their children to study in the US. The people of developing
countries who hope to modernize their nations may be seduced into believing
that, because the moral decay comes packaged in advanced technology, it is a
necessary part of the advancement of society.
Moral decay drains the resources of developing countries which were once
available for aid to countries in . need. Donor fatigue is caused in part by
rising welfare cost, crime control, and health care for those afflicted by
sexually transmitted diseases, violence, and substance abuse in devel oped
countries. Countries whose moral health is deteriorating turn inward, unable to
bear the burden erf world leadership.
Furthermore, Gender Feminism is an imperialistic ideology. Gender
Feminists are determined to use whatever means available to them to force every
nation and every institution to accept their agenda. Poor nations arc pressured
by doner nations, where Gender Feminists are in power, to support or at least
not oppose the Gender Feminist agenda in the UN and at international
conferences. Aid programs are often explicitly designed by supporters of the
Gender Feminist agenda to undermine the families, religion, and cultural tradi tion.
The report from the Council of Europe meeting reveals how completely
insensitive the Gender Feminists within the European community are to world
views other than their own and bow determined they are to force tbeir agenda on
the entire world.
While the developed countries have assumed that their economic resources
entitle them to the mantle of world leadership, they are so weakened from
within that they are not only unable to provide leadership for the world, they
arc unable to defend themselves against the rising tide of moral decay and need
to be rescued from tbeir own self-desrructivc behavior. Those people around the
world who have not abandoned the high ground of strong family values, religious
commitment, and basic common sense cannot allow the waters of moral decay to
rise until the whole world is flooded They must join together to stop the flood
Gender Feminists claim to be supporters of the liberation of women, but
the Gender Feminist agenda is liberating for women in the same way a bomb is
liberating for a building. When a bomb blows up a building the bricks are free.
They are no longer bound to one another by mortar, but the rubble is not longer
a shelter from the elements or a home. A synonym for deconstruction is
destruction.
And this is what the Gender Feminist wish to create. Their war against ‘socially
constructed roles’ is a war agarnst the natural relationships between women and
their children, between women and men, and between women and their own feminine
nature. Gender Feminists want to deconstruct the world
b b not enough to carefuly define gender or rep bee the word genderwith
other term* and leave the underlying gender penpective of the text intact. If
the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing is to benefit the women of tbe
work!, the genderper»pectfvek»elfmu5t be rejected The Platform for Action
should reflect the need, desires, and perspective of real women.
Footnotes:
1. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, April 1995
2. CnstmeDelgado, RcporteSobrcReunioneaMarDelPlata (translated from the
Spanish)
3. Ibid
4. Ibid
5. Adrienne Rich, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,’ ’
Blood, Bread, and Poetry, p_27
6. Ibid, p.35
7. Ibid, p.70
8. Ibid, p.57
9. Lacy Gilbcx and Paula Wcsbster,’ ‘The Dangers ofTcminin- ity,” Gender
Differences: Sociology or Biology?, p.41
10. Gender Outlaw, p. 121
11. Ibid, p.l 15
12. Anne Fausto Staling, “The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female are not
enough,” 77ie Sciences, March/ApriL, 1993
13. Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion
of Identity, Routledge, NY, 1990,p.6
14. Christina HofT Sommers, intcmisv in Faith and Freedom, Fall, 1994,
p.2
15. Frederick Engels, The Origin of the Family, Property and the Slate,
New York, International Publishers, 1972, pp.65-66
16. Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex, Bantam Books, New York,
1970, p.12
17. Ibid, p.72
18. Ibid, p. 10
19. Heidi Hartman, “The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism,” Women
and Revolution, South End Press, Boston, 1981, p.13
20. Ibid, p. 5 21 Ibid,pA2
22. Ibid, p. 16
23. Ibid, p. 19
24. Ann Ferguson & Nancy Folbre, “The Unhappy Marriage of Patriarch
and Capitalism,” Women and Revolution, p.8Q
Liberation,” Women and Revolution, p.80
26. Ibid, p.87
27. Alison Jagger, “Political Philosophies ofWomen’s Libera tion,”
Feminism and Philosophy, Littlefield, Adams & Co., Totowa,NJ, 1977, p.l3
28. Ibid, p. 14
29. Christina HoffSommers, Who Stole Feminism? Simon & Schuster, NY,
1994, p.258
30. Jagger, p. 14
31. Sharon Begley, “Gray Matters,” Newsweek, March 27,
1995, p.51
32. “Boys and Giris arc Different,” ABC News Special with John StosscL
Feb. 1,1995
33. Sommers, p_257
34. Stossel special
35. Nancy Cbodorow, The Reproduction of Mothering, U.of CA Press,
Berkeley, 1978, p.10
36. Ibid, p.219
37. Susan MollaOkin, “Change the Family, Change the World,” Utne'Reader,
March/April, 1990, p.75.
38. “Gender Perspective in Family Planning Program^”
Division for the Advancement of Women
39. Council ofEurope, “Equality and Democracy: Utopia or ChallengeT”
Palais dcrEuiope.Strausbourg, Feb. 9-11,1995
40. Ibid, p.37
41. Ibid,p.2>&
42. Ibid, p.38
43. Th«/, p.38
44. Kathleen Gough, “The Origin of the Family,” Toward and Anthropology
of Women, Monthly Review Press, NY, 1975, pp.69-70
45. Rich, p.38
46. Council of Europe, p.25
47. Ibid, pJ25
48. Ibid, p.l5
49. Rhondc Copelcm and Berta Esperanza Hernandez, Sexual and
Reproductive Rights and Health as Human Rights: Concepts and Strategies; An
Introduction forActivitists, Human Rights Series, Cairo, 1994, p.l
50. Ibid, p. 1
51. Ibid, p.3
52. Ibid, p.4
53. Ibid, p.3
54. Ellen Hexxnan,”Still Married After All these Years,” Sojourner: The
Women's Forum, Sept 1990, p. 14s
55. Ibid. p,14s
56. Ibid, p.l 4s
57. Cbodorow, p.215
58. Council of Europe, p. 10
59. Ibid, p.36
60 Women on the Move, March, 1994
61. Faith and Freedom, p.2
62. NGO Forum Lobbying Document, paragraph 80e “The NGO lobbying
document is, therefore, the product of a senes of deliberations and
negotiations among NGOs from the national, regional and international levels, h
represents the minimum demands of all NGO’s who have been involved in all the
preparatory activities related to the Fourth World Conference on Women”
63. Marilyn French, The War Against Women, Simon &. Schuster, NY,
1992, p. 182
64. Mim Kelber, Women and Government, Praeger, Westport CT, 1994, p.33
65. Ibid, p.33
66. Ibid, p.32
67. Ibid, p.217
68. Council of Europe, p. 8
69. Ibid, p.9
70. Ibid, p. 11
71. Ibid, p 21
72. Council of Europe, p.l 3
73. Ibid, p.16
74. Ibid, p.l8
75. Ibid, p.l8
76. Elisabeth SchusslerFiorenza,/nAF<r7nor>>q/77er,Crossroad,
NY, 1987, p.xv
77. Mary Hunt, “Where Charity and Love arc Not,” WATERwhed. Spring, 1990
78. Joanne Carlson Brown and Carole R_ Bohn, Christianity, Patriarchy,
and Abuse: A Feminist Critique, p.26, quoted in WATERwheel, Spring, 1990
79. Carol Christ, Womanspirit Rising, p.277
80. Wendy Bounds, “Dating Game Today Breaks Traditional Gender Rules,”
Wall Street Journal, Apnl25,1995
https://digitalcollections.library.gsu.edu/digital/collection/arwg/id/19591
Немає коментарів:
Дописати коментар