n Olena Ripnick’s column regarding females in government (“As a majority, women need to stand up and be counted,” Sept. 27, p. 5) falsely alleged gender oppression with misleading claims and ignorance of the US Constitution. To make matters worse, her ideas were internally incoherent, and she provided no useful answers to the questions she posed.
After presenting the male majority in the federal government as a problem in itself, she referred to it as a “patriarchy that has historically oppressed [women]” with supposed examples such as restrictions on birth control, attempts to erode abortion “rights” and the rejection of a federal equal rights amendment. The implication was that men hold more conservative views on these issues — and seek to oppress women — and that a Congress with a greater proportion of women would be more likely to adopt the progressive/liberal side.
In direct contradiction, equal, if not greater, proportions of men are pro-choice and support modern feminist proposals than women do. Hence, more women in Congress would have no effect on these specific proposals.
The notion that more men in Congress is an injustice begs the question — why?
Where does the moral imperative for equal numbers in Congress come from (Ripnick doesn’t mind a female majority)? Are the large majority of men serving in our military — despite lower standards favoring women — also an injustice?
We must accept that elected politicians are, too a large degree, self-selected. Fewer women than men nominate themselves for political positions. So how can we expect them to share an equal presence?
The greatest and most beautiful gift possessed solely by women is the power to bear children. Abortion and contraception misconstrue procreativity as a burden and inconvenience, not as a gift. Men fighting to defend the lives of unborn children should be commended for respecting women and valuing a woman’s procreative gift.
Ironically, feminists themselves, not conservative men, demean naturally feminine attributes, such as motherhood by pressuring women to take up traditionally masculine roles.
The presentation of abortion as a women’s constitutional right only shows a misunderstanding of the Constitution and the nature of rights as outlined in the Declaration of Independence.
Sadly, this misunderstanding infiltrates even our judicial branch of government. If one reads past “…all men are created,” he or she will see that we “are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights…To secure these rights [God-given], governments are instituted among men…”
I challenge anyone to find a right to abortion that can be derived from a higher power or from the Constitution.
Ripnick desires special treatment for women — and women enacting the appropriate legislation — since they face vulnerabilities such as a greater risk of domestic violence or sexual assault and because they are the bearers of children.
And yet, at the same time, she seeks gender-blind policy — that each person receives the same legislative treatment regardless of gender — as would be implemented by a federal equal rights amendment.
One can not have it both ways, and an amendment for gender equality naively denies gender differences that deserve celebration not condemnation.
Fergus Hodgson
CAS ’07