Women, Gender Equality and Public Policy

DiQuinzio and Meagher write of the double-bind that woman, as well as other marginalized groups, still experience in paternalistic society.  As the Director of a human rights organization, I find this applies to sexually violent crimes, survivors and offenders.

The reference to Hoagland’s theory of “predator/protector that combines protection and vilification”; that blames women for their own marginalization by society and victimization by men and the paths that this has taken us since colonialism and before is as true today as it was in 1995.  Sexual violence survivors, of all genders, continue to be subject to a paternalistic structure of disempowering disbelief, inadequate policy and laws under the guise of protection, and the continued social oppression of myths that perpetuate marginalization of victims of crime, particularly women.

Their collection of essays examines disempowerment and the use of rhetoric and policy to enhance this very subjection, oppression, and continued marginalization of women through medicine, through concepts of motherhood, through the social construction of masculinity and concepts and definitions of violence toward women.  A recent example is the hate crime perpetuated in my area toward a transgender woman, attacked and beaten in public because she identified openly as transgender.  The discourse and arguments in public forum on this attack show the community still believes a person not fitting in with traditional concepts of gender does not rate the same protections from violence.

The Inequality of Gender

Lorber provides an excellent pairing to this discussion through her examination of the variations of feminism and the development of theories through time and culture.  It is interesting that she describes the first wave of feminist rights as being obtained following wars and political conflicts as favors to work during those times.  Certainly the reduction of the male population during war also brings increased awareness of the need to bring women to fill leadership roles in business and communities.  Loder describes how cultures then developed patriarchal systems designed to keep women in second place while offering the illusion of empowerment through rights to work and vote.  One thought rises during this discussion, is the small advancement given to women during this first wave of feminism also a means to distract or delay women from pursuing true cultural equality?  So the second wave of feminists took up arms to address the many layers of cultural oppression of women and working toward including social, cultural and interpersonal equality.  The third wave of feminists is highlighted by Loder as becoming inclusive of all genders in their orientation toward women’s rights, as incorporating a richer definition of women’s power as the inclusive of gender, societal, sexual and economic power.  Loder then identifies three main facets of feminist theory: the “reformist” feminists focus on changing the unequal dynamics in work, home and politics; the “resistant” feminists who focused on patriarchal systems of oppression and exploitation; and the “rebellious” feminists who focus on all inequalities that are present in societies; and how these feminists have confronted and worked to influence the gendered social order.  These waves of feminist theories and the work of those feminists all seem to build upon the previous theories, reject parts of their predecessors, and respond to the push-back of society at each gain toward rights.

Again, I see the push-back of any political, social, and economic gain as being played out against the groups and genders most marginalized. I frequently feel the one-step forward and two steps back of any progress toward equal rights and equitable roles that women and other marginalized groups face.  In the anti-violence field, I find this push back coming from women as frequently as I find it coming from men.  I hear the same prejudicial statements coming from women regarding victims of sexually violence crimes, regarding women on state support programs, regarding women in the workforce and women outside of the workforce.

Women and public policy

Conway, et al looks more specifically at policy and the impact of such on women, women’s rights, and women’s forward progress as initially dependent on the support and actions of men.  Conversely, the gaining of political, social and economic rights have led to the need for policies to be developed that more clearly and conclusively addressed the needs of women in the workforce, the needs of women in regards to their medical and mental health, and their religious needs as well.  Conway, et al identified the greatest attention to women’s policy concerns following the two most significant political changes that happened in the 1060’s:  equal pay and gender discrimination.  However, it has been purported that the gains in rights and policy have benefited white, middle-class women the most politically, socially, economically.  Such policy changes will, most often, benefit those who already have the most access to benefits, to medical care, to education; and have the greater time available to pursue such benefits as education, medical care, and social interaction.  Conway, et al addresses this by explaining the non-linear process by which policy is developed and then implemented.  Like most efforts toward social change; people whose attention is on the inequality are the ones whose lives have been affected the most by the oppressive policies and are the ones most marginalized by society.  Those individuals have the greater barriers to pursuing rights and then fully accessing them once attained.

Conway, et al goes on to lay out three models of policy development.  The most common viewpoint of policy development is the theory of policy being developed by a “dominant elite” whose values are represented the most and who desire is to protect the interests of the elite.  It is suggested that “dominant elite” create self-perpetuating systems that continue to benefit those groups the most. The second viewpoint states the policy is developed by special interest groups, their own needs and the conflicts they have between them.  This viewpoint is just as competitive as the first viewpoint but does allow groups other than the elite to create policy and therefore social change.  While these groups may have self-interest at their core, change benefitting the greater mass or the marginalized groups may still happen.  The third viewpoint is that policy changes slowly and incrementally.  This system change is held under by the cumbersome dynamics of large systems that are slow to change, are encumbered by bureaucracy, and are limited in vision.

I see the field I work in as being impacted the most by the “dominant elite” viewpoint, that sexually violent crimes and other interpersonal violence are fearful things to acknowledge as part of our society, and that one of the fears is the recognition that offenders come from all social levels.  I also see that the influence that viewpoint two has on my industry, that each special interest group divides itself to focus onto its own small piece of any problem and seeks to create policy that benefit them more than their allied partners.  An example is the division of interpersonal violence into: sexual assault, domestic violence, child abuse, and other crime; which leaves these systems competing to develop policies, affect social change, and create programs specifically for them.

Summary

Overall, the texts are organized to give the historical and current view of the development of gender roles and the paternalistic societies that contain women, the rise of feminism to combat sexism and oppression of women, and the development of policy in reaction to social change and as a means to slow its growth.  The essays by each of the editors and author, display an awareness of the complex dynamics that are inherent in any process of change, the use of passive resistance to change and the use of policy to both promote and inhibit change at different times in the overarching history of our political development.

References

Conway, M. M., Ahern, D. W., & Steuernagel, G. A. (2005). Women and public policy. In Women and public policy a revolution in progress (3 ed., pp. 1-248). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Meagher, S. & Diquinzio, P. (2005). Introduction: Women and children first. In Women and children first: Feminism, rhetoric, and public policy.  (pp. 1 – 13). Albany, NY.: State University of New York Press.

Lorber, J. (2010). Gender inequality feminist theories and politics (4 ed.). New York: Oxford

Univeristy Press.