"Discussing women's unique experiences as a collective matter": Exploring the significance of open dialogue about women's distinct experiences
Candid Reflections on Why We Need to Embrace the Distinctiveness of Women's Experiences
The debate over affirming women's unique experiences continues to swirl, sparked whenever proposals for special support programs for women entrepreneurs or quotas for women in politics emerge. Critics, unyielding, retort, " singling out women? If you're fighting for equality, battle for equal footing, without special concessions!" Yet, even supporters of equality often wonder if women's agenda initiatives are venturing too far. After all, should equal ones not receive the same treatment without any extra help? Should we not forego identifying women as a separate group? Why do we require research focused solely on women when we explore humanity as a whole?
These questions invariably raise the question: whose experience serves as the universal benchmark? Historically, in Western society, white men's experience has dominated – shaping philosophy, science, art, education, law, and medicine. Simone de Beauvoir aptly pointed out that, for centuries, man was the archetype, while woman was viewed as the "other." This translates to women's characteristics being either disregarded or considered secondary in scientific research, medicine, and labor law – a pattern exemplified in under-researched symptoms and side effects of some diseases in women due to research protocols based on male bodies.
By focusing on women's unique experiences, advocates aim to challenge the historically-formed perspective. Their intent is to bring into focus what was previously overlooked or considered insignificant. It's essential to underscore that this is not an attempt to replace one form of universalism with another. Instead, it's an aspiration to destabilize the very concept of neutrality. In essence, the call to consider women's experiences is a plea for fairness and completeness.
However, it's crucial to realize that speaking of a homogeneous women's experience is a misnomer. Lawyer and activist Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term "intersectionality," emphasizing that it's impossible to discuss women in isolation. Cross-sections of race, class, sexuality, and ability shape individual experiences, making it futile to define a unified women's experience.
Myriad lives within a structural vulnerability: an immigrant working in the informal sector with children and no health insurance has a distinct experience compared to a white woman in an academic environment – yet both encounter gender discrimination. When we talk about women's experiences, we delve not into uniformity, but into a multitude of positions embedded within prevalent systemic vulnerability. Patriarchal mechanisms function ubiquitously, but manifest differently.
In contemporary society, we routinely hear, "Women have equal rights – they work, vote, and face no hindrances." However, modern sociology demonstrates that formal equality does not assure members of different groups will feel equal in reality. Philosophers, such as Nancy Fraser, contend that justice cannot be achieved without recognition – a cultural affirmation of one's importance and status. In the labor market, women's work is still viewed as "secondary" or "emotion-driven," making it challenging for them to fully capitalize on traditional "equalities."
Similarly, in everyday life, women shoulder the lion's share of domestic responsibilities – cooking, cleaning, childcare – unrelentingly. Ignoring this invisible but continuous load contributes to women's burnout and limited opportunities for rest or further education. The meritocracy argument against gender equality programs, championing the notion that equal rules inherently guarantee equal opportunities, is merely fallacious, rhetorical fairness camouflaging ignorance of initial inequalities.
Ultimately, special measures of support, such as quotas and targeted programs, aim not to lower standards but to rectify systemic distortions. The legacies of positive discrimination show that temporary measures can yield lingering effects. Accomplishing this requires not just the implementation of such measures but also open public explanation of their necessity and the systemic issues they address.
Regrettably, the gender equality rhetoric is often reduced to "feminist kitsch." Companies advertise gender balance reports without revising hiring, retention, or promotion mechanisms. Special committees are formed, yet their suggestions seldom materialize in actual changes. Reports include data on the number of women in leadership positions, yet neglect to analyze the internal dynamics of how these women ascend, factors impeding them, and reasons they often leave these positions.
Recognizing women's unique experiences offers opportunities to reconsider the essence of equality – not as an attempt to conform to universal, yet biased standards, but as an acknowledgement of differences, without which authentic fairness is impossible. Gender lenses in research have not merely shifted the subject of investigation but changed the methods of description, revealing hidden forms of oppression and hierarchy.
Furthermore, the framework of focusing on women's experiences also bears risks – the temptation of essentialism, ghettoization, and polarization. Emphasizing the "special nature" of women runs the risk of reinforcing antiquated expectations – care, empathy, lower aspirations, and avoidance of power. In this circumstance, it's crucial to remember that gender differences are a social construct – reproduced through norms, practices, and expectations.
The risk of ghettoization is particularly prevalent regarding underrepresentation in fields such as science, IT, and politics, which is often misinterpreted as a result of personal preference and not systemic limitations. To prevent this, it is critical to view women's experiences within a broader stratum of social disparities.
Finally, there is the specter of polarization. When discussions about women's experiences are perceived as criticism or liabilities, they often elicit defensive reactions – ranging from withdrawal to aggression. Some men might perceive these discussions as an attack, and feminism should not pit men versus women. Instead, feminism is about dismantling norms that harm everyone – including men who are excluded from compassion, vulnerability, and emotional expression. It's not a gender war, but an expansion of possibilities for everyone to be their authentic selves.
Achieving a balance between the universal and the particular remains one of the most crucial questions for contemporary sociology. While we advocate for basic rights from a universal standpoint – like the right to life, freedom from violence, education – there are instances when focusing on particularities is indispensable. For example, government family support programs lack inclusivity when they fail to cater to single mothers or civil unions. By addressing distinctiveness, politics can embrace true inclusivity and promote actual, achievable equality.
As feminist historian Joan Scott observed, feminism often "has nothing but paradoxes in reserve." Simultaneously asserting women's equality to men and emphasizing women's unique experiences seems paradoxical. However, it's a necessary tension to break down old boundaries and genuinely see the barriers hindering women's advancement. Our goal is a world where the concept of "human" encompasses everyone, without exception or exclusion, a realm where equality ceases to be a promise and becomes a reality.
Note: This article reflects the author's perspective, which may not align with the editor's.
Note on Relevant Literature:
- Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139.
- Fraser, N. (2000). An Un Venezuela World: Redistributive Justice in a Trickle Down Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Solinger, R. (1996). Welfare Women and the Myth of the American Dream: From the New Deal to the Personal Responsibility Act. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
- Collins, P. H. (2001). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge.
- Mies, M., & Shah, G. (1993). Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour. London: Zed Books.
- The debate persists on whether to acknowledge and embrace the uniqueness of women's experiences in certain areas, such as women's health and the labor market, as special support programs or quotas emerge.
- A focus on women's unique experiences aims to challenge the long-standing, biased viewpoint that has overlooked or deemed insignificant women's characteristics in scientific research, medicine, and labor law.
- Implementing special measures like quotas or targeted programs is not intended to lower standards but to rectify systemic distortions and address issues like underrepresentation in science, IT, and politics.
- It's essential to remember that recognizing the uniqueness of women's experiences should not reinforce antiquated expectations or lead to polarization, but instead should promote a world where everyone can truly be their authentic selves, free from barriers and inequalities.
