Feminism Gone Toxic: Vagina-Counting As "Equality"

By Amy Alkon


donkeyrock
shared this story
from Advice Goddess Blog.

Feminism Gone Toxic: Vagina-Counting As “Equality”
Wendy McElroy writes at Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada that the OSC, the Ontario Securities Commission, edged closer to requiring companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange to impose gender quotas on their boards of directors and in their executive offices.

McElroy points out:

Privately-owned companies are personal property as much as privately-owned dwellings are. Homeowners have a basic right to use their own property, including to determine who can have access. Business owners have a similar right to use their property, including who is hired or promoted. A government agency may use the law to usurp a business owner’s property rights just as it may use the law similarly to strip a homeowner of control. In both cases, the agency would be violating the individual’s right of private property. If the injustice seems more blatant vis-a-vis the homeowner, that is because a double standard is applied in terms of the law’s approach and society’s attitude toward personal as opposed to commercial property. Both are private property and they do not belong to the government.

She also takes on the argument that it is a sign that women are oppressed and unequal that they don’t constitute 50 percent of the directors and officers (since they are 50 percent of the population):

This argument is false and reflects nothing so much as a political and dangerous shift in the definition of “equality.”

Equality used to mean equal access to opportunity: women wanted their persons and property fully and equally protected under the law. They wanted to have the same access as men did to public institutions, such as universities and the courts. One of the proudest accomplishments of the 20th century was to erase gender distinctions from the law. But, then, those distinctions were gradually reinserted.

Why? Because politically-correct feminism faced a problem several decades ago. In the 60s and 70s, most legal barriers to women entering all aspects of society had been swept away. Yet “imbalances” continued. There were far fewer female CEOs of corporations, for example. The imbalance was viewed as proof positive that women were still oppressed because a true equality of opportunity would have rendered an equality of results. Thus law needed to favor women through programs such as affirmative action and quota systems. Equality ceased to be about equal treatment under the law and became a cry for privilege backed by government force or threat thereof. This was the first …read more

Source: Donkeyrock_BlurBlog

This entry was posted in Donkeyrock and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply