![]() Hence we see the language of equality, primarily that of “ fairness” in the name of “protecting” or “saving” girls’ sports, as a defining feature of these bans. ![]() Such legislation leverages a gender-essentialist interpretation of Title IX - which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded educational institutions- to claim that allowing trans girls to compete in sports discriminates against cisgender girls because, the essentialist argument goes, gender is biological and therefore immutable. Take, for example, the 18 states that have banned trans athletes from participating in school sports. ![]() Recent legislative and judicial trends indicate equality’s increasingly overt weaponization. In service of the status quo, equality has become the political cudgel of conservatives seeking to undermine the human dignity and self-determination of women and marginalized people. We suffer from an equality mindset that has resulted in a shortsighted politics that feels so deeply detached from people’s needs, especially in light of the increasing number of legislative attacks aimed at eradicating and limiting our freedom, from the freedom to control our bodies to the freedom to move and cross state lines in search of health care. Opinion: We won’t win the CHIPS race if women and people of color stay on the sidelines It would add about $79 billion to the deficit over 10 years, mostly as a result of new grants and tax breaks that would subsidize the cost that computer chip manufacturers incur when building or expanding chip plants in the U.S. A bill to boost semiconductor production in the United States is making its way through the Senate is a top priority of the Biden administration. Technicians inspect a piece of equipment during a tour of the Micron Technology automotive chip manufacturing plant Feb. From the moment the Fifteenth Amendment gave Black men the right to vote, there have been state-sanctioned and citizen-led efforts to prevent them from voting and from their votes counting, from gerrymandering to voter restrictions, to armed vigilantes intimidating voters at polling sites. This isn’t to deny the tangible benefits of the law, but we must acknowledge that White supremacy remains firmly rooted in our institutions and our society in ways that compromise the promise of even so-called “constitutionally protected” rights, from voting to abortion. This is not a place that was built for us to thrive.”Įven when equality is written into the Constitution - say, in the form of two amendments granting enfranchisement for all citizens (18 and older and who have not been incarcerated) - it is not guaranteed or protected in practice. We’re here to prop it up, not live in it. Including women in our existing institutions does not fundamentally change those institutions but only expands them, swallowing women and demanding we conform to the rules and values of those institutions. As feminist writer Jill Filipovic said, “Women can’t flourish in a system that needs us as support pillars for someone else’s building. Our institutions are fundamentally conservative and were established to preserve the status quo. It is impossible because it cannot be faithfully implemented in supremacist and capitalist institutions created by men, for men. Doing so means accepting that achieving equality is impossible.Įquality isn’t impossible simply because the people in power won’t give it to us. It’s past time to give up the ghost of equality and pursue a goal that has hope of transforming women’s lives for the better: freedom. With odds like those, it’s well worth asking: What does “achieve gender equality” even mean? Laws can exist on the books, but how they are implemented and practiced determine their collective impact. Arguably, billionaires will land on Mars before we achieve gender equality. ![]() And worldwide, those dreaming of gender equality will have to wait another 300 years, according to the latest United Nations estimates. In the US, an equal rights amendment may never become law. In the intervening years since 1977, when 35 of the 38 states required to amend the Constitution ratified the ERA, six states (Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, South Dakota and West Virginia) rescinded their ratifications, rendering the ERA’s constitutional validity questionable even if the Senate had mustered the requisite 60 votes to waive the deadline.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |