Difference and sameness
Salbiah AhmadPublished: Feb 22, 2001 3:29 AM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 10:21 AM
Dr Mahathir Mohamad feels that there should be justice for women, but not equality, as women and men are different. He advises against wanting to be the same as men. He illustrates his point by saying that not all things done by men are good.
Some women at the meet-the-PM session at Putrajaya on July 24 bristled at this advice, however well-meaning it may have appeared to the women who responded in laughter.
Indeed, we are conditioned to associate "equality" with "sameness". If you are the same, or are similarly situated, you are entitled to equality. There are historical examples of this reasoning. Jews and the Aryan race are different, they are not equal. Blacks and Whites are different, they are not equal.
The difference, whether race or skin colour in these examples, provided the justification for treating people differently. Women and men are different (sex differentiation providing the justification), therefore women are not equal to men.
In answer to this view, there arose the argument that differences between women and men must be ignored and equal treatment be observed. This "sex-blind posture" failed to advance women's position because decision-makers (lawmakers and the courts among them) tend to construct a standard of equality on a male perspective.
As an example, if women want to be like men (and therefore equal to men), they should not seek childbirth benefits. I have been told that one law firm in the Klang valley, exclude the maternity leave of women staff in calculating the bonus they should earn on the basis that they worked less hours than the men.
This result is informed by the "sex-blind" approach. Employers feel justified, these women are not 'productive'. Some women at the 24th July meeting, spoke out against more maternity leave for women. They want to compete equally with men (men do not get pregnant).
Women who heckled the advocates for less maternity leave at the meeting, would probably accept the view that only women (as opposed to men) can be pregnant and therefore should be given special treatment and given childbirth benefits. This special treatment view nevertheless accepts the male standard as the standard of equality.
What are women's choices? Women should not become pregnant? Pregnant women must accept that they can be treated differently from men? Or should they hope for special treatment as an exception to the standard?
Women in the "sex-blind" (sameness) and "women are different" (difference) approaches are expected either to behave like men or are expected to play female roles that are complementary to the dominant male roles. Both these views force decision-makers into risky choices. Either women get benefits or they don't, depending on what a decision-maker decides, women are really like.
But why should women meet a male standard? Why should women be judged if they are the same as men or are different from men?
This predicament came about because women's identity has been wholly constructed by men. The argument is, we cannot actualise what being a woman is all about in the absence of a male as a frame of reference as in, "women are emotional (and men are not)" or "(unlike men) women are not aggressive" or "women are more caring (than men)".
Such "feminine" or "masculine" characteristics are gender constructions (social constructions which are perceived as essential or "predictable" in sexual difference). This attitude is sometimes referred to as "essentialist".
These statements also tend to reflect a binary or oppositional expression in order to communicate ideas. Thus the definition of "man" relies on its opposition to "woman", the definition of "white" relies on its twin "black" and "straight" defines itself in opposition to "gay".
Post-structuralist approaches like the deconstruction theory asserts that while language may appear to be objective ("men", "women", black", "white", "straight", "gay") it in fact benefits or privileges certain people, ideas and values over others. This is especially true in the case where the classification is made by those in a position of power.
In the "white" verses "black" example, the understanding of the former is built upon the exclusion, repression and repudiation of the latter. "White" people become the standard where "Blacks" are measured.
But equality is not about sameness (or difference). Equality is about the end result to be achieved because women and men are different. Differences must be acknowledged. But rather than adopting a static or fixed definition of femininity, sexual difference should be viewed by the relationships or context in which sexual difference is asserted.
In the pregnancy example, women as different (in that only women can be pregnant), is recognised. But not because it is a "disability" (see the law firm example above). The difference is recognised for what it is and that different treatment is required in order that women have equal access to and participation in social, political and economic activities.
Thus, pregnancy is to be recognised and provided for rather than punished. If pregnancy is seen as a valuable function, then workplaces must be structured to provide maternity leave, benefits, day care so that women are not punished in the workplace.
What constitutes equality (and justice) for women is not about protectionism (men and women are different, women are weaker and subordinate and need to be protected). It is not about sameness (men and women are the same and should be treated the same).
Equality is about correcting women's unequal position in society because of past discrimination. This approach looks at the rule or policy or behaviour in question and queries whether it has contribute to women's subordination or discrimination. It queries whether such a rule, policy or behaviour helps overcome subordination or discrimination.
In the quest for equality and justice, women are painfully aware of the "crisis of governability" (the competition between political parties, the struggle for state resources and the supremacy of state power).
The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, Dr Radhika Coomaraswamy, in her article, "Women, Ethnicity and the Discourse of Rights", doubts if women should entrust the (third world) state with the responsibility of ensuring women's rights. The state's role is limited to articulating and implementing. She places the future of women's human rights with civil society instead.
And perhaps this point was brought home to women who stayed away from the July 24 meeting. The issues brought to the attention of the PM were not new. Women working at policy level have found that the government tend to respond to women's rights in a paternalistic and benign manner. In the words, of the UN Special Rapporteur, the state has mastered "the art of cultivated hypocrisy with regard to women".
Increasingly, women are taking their concerns to the international for a. Women participating in the various World Conferences since Nairobi (1975), Vienna (1993), Cairo (1994) and Beijing (1995) are demanding that they are entitled to recognition as limited subjects of international law and regional norms. Some may view this as a utopian ideal, but women are already influencing international norms and standards. The homefield is another matter.
Some women at the meet-the-PM session at Putrajaya on July 24 bristled at this advice, however well-meaning it may have appeared to the women who responded in laughter.
Indeed, we are conditioned to associate "equality" with "sameness". If you are the same, or are similarly situated, you are entitled to equality. There are historical examples of this reasoning. Jews and the Aryan race are different, they are not equal. Blacks and Whites are different, they are not equal.
The difference, whether race or skin colour in these examples, provided the justification for treating people differently. Women and men are different (sex differentiation providing the justification), therefore women are not equal to men.
In answer to this view, there arose the argument that differences between women and men must be ignored and equal treatment be observed. This "sex-blind posture" failed to advance women's position because decision-makers (lawmakers and the courts among them) tend to construct a standard of equality on a male perspective.
As an example, if women want to be like men (and therefore equal to men), they should not seek childbirth benefits. I have been told that one law firm in the Klang valley, exclude the maternity leave of women staff in calculating the bonus they should earn on the basis that they worked less hours than the men.
This result is informed by the "sex-blind" approach. Employers feel justified, these women are not 'productive'. Some women at the 24th July meeting, spoke out against more maternity leave for women. They want to compete equally with men (men do not get pregnant).
Women who heckled the advocates for less maternity leave at the meeting, would probably accept the view that only women (as opposed to men) can be pregnant and therefore should be given special treatment and given childbirth benefits. This special treatment view nevertheless accepts the male standard as the standard of equality.
What are women's choices? Women should not become pregnant? Pregnant women must accept that they can be treated differently from men? Or should they hope for special treatment as an exception to the standard?
Women in the "sex-blind" (sameness) and "women are different" (difference) approaches are expected either to behave like men or are expected to play female roles that are complementary to the dominant male roles. Both these views force decision-makers into risky choices. Either women get benefits or they don't, depending on what a decision-maker decides, women are really like.
But why should women meet a male standard? Why should women be judged if they are the same as men or are different from men?
This predicament came about because women's identity has been wholly constructed by men. The argument is, we cannot actualise what being a woman is all about in the absence of a male as a frame of reference as in, "women are emotional (and men are not)" or "(unlike men) women are not aggressive" or "women are more caring (than men)".
Such "feminine" or "masculine" characteristics are gender constructions (social constructions which are perceived as essential or "predictable" in sexual difference). This attitude is sometimes referred to as "essentialist".
These statements also tend to reflect a binary or oppositional expression in order to communicate ideas. Thus the definition of "man" relies on its opposition to "woman", the definition of "white" relies on its twin "black" and "straight" defines itself in opposition to "gay".
Post-structuralist approaches like the deconstruction theory asserts that while language may appear to be objective ("men", "women", black", "white", "straight", "gay") it in fact benefits or privileges certain people, ideas and values over others. This is especially true in the case where the classification is made by those in a position of power.
In the "white" verses "black" example, the understanding of the former is built upon the exclusion, repression and repudiation of the latter. "White" people become the standard where "Blacks" are measured.
But equality is not about sameness (or difference). Equality is about the end result to be achieved because women and men are different. Differences must be acknowledged. But rather than adopting a static or fixed definition of femininity, sexual difference should be viewed by the relationships or context in which sexual difference is asserted.
In the pregnancy example, women as different (in that only women can be pregnant), is recognised. But not because it is a "disability" (see the law firm example above). The difference is recognised for what it is and that different treatment is required in order that women have equal access to and participation in social, political and economic activities.
Thus, pregnancy is to be recognised and provided for rather than punished. If pregnancy is seen as a valuable function, then workplaces must be structured to provide maternity leave, benefits, day care so that women are not punished in the workplace.
What constitutes equality (and justice) for women is not about protectionism (men and women are different, women are weaker and subordinate and need to be protected). It is not about sameness (men and women are the same and should be treated the same).
Equality is about correcting women's unequal position in society because of past discrimination. This approach looks at the rule or policy or behaviour in question and queries whether it has contribute to women's subordination or discrimination. It queries whether such a rule, policy or behaviour helps overcome subordination or discrimination.
In the quest for equality and justice, women are painfully aware of the "crisis of governability" (the competition between political parties, the struggle for state resources and the supremacy of state power).
The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, Dr Radhika Coomaraswamy, in her article, "Women, Ethnicity and the Discourse of Rights", doubts if women should entrust the (third world) state with the responsibility of ensuring women's rights. The state's role is limited to articulating and implementing. She places the future of women's human rights with civil society instead.
And perhaps this point was brought home to women who stayed away from the July 24 meeting. The issues brought to the attention of the PM were not new. Women working at policy level have found that the government tend to respond to women's rights in a paternalistic and benign manner. In the words, of the UN Special Rapporteur, the state has mastered "the art of cultivated hypocrisy with regard to women".
Increasingly, women are taking their concerns to the international for a. Women participating in the various World Conferences since Nairobi (1975), Vienna (1993), Cairo (1994) and Beijing (1995) are demanding that they are entitled to recognition as limited subjects of international law and regional norms. Some may view this as a utopian ideal, but women are already influencing international norms and standards. The homefield is another matter.
View Comments0