Gender-BLIND, or about the non-rights of the sexes

The universal declaration of human rights begins with the words: "All people are born free and equal in their dignity and rights." This phrase can be understood differently. The most accepted interpretation now interprets “equality” as “the same”. This corresponds to the mathematical thinking that dominated the XX century, in which the statement “ x = y ” means that the X is completely identical. I do not exclude that the semantics of the English language played a role in this, where the words “equal”, “equal”, “equal” are not just single -rooted, but come down to one word Equal . But thinking with mathematical metaphors creates a problem: in this logic, any X with any game will fall into the relations of equality, or in the relationship “more/less”, which we are already aware of as hierarchical, superiority and submission. Then “more/less” means “better/worse”. But reality does not come down to abstract numbers. Separating the whole into categories, we get not “X” and “Igrek”, but, for example, “yin” and “yang”.

Human rights are based on the universality of the human mind and the complete ignoring of cultural and biological differences: these are the principles of humanists of the Enlightenment. But faith in such a complete versatility has led this ethical concept into a dead end. In this dead end, any mention of cultural and even more biological differences stigmatizes as a direct path to fascism. As a result, we left the whole space in which the differences are recognized, to those who reason what exactly American culture is worse than Russian or why Africans are biologically not predisposed to mental work. Now, humanism is faced with the task of learning to recognize the differences, avoiding judgment "worse/better."

I propose to leave cultural differences for so far by brackets, and now to dwell on one simple biological fact: the body of a woman is different from the body of a man. Yes, there are borderline situations, but in the vast majority of cases the body is clearly differentiated. And, oh horror, the human body of a certain gender has features that are unusual for another gender. One of these obvious differences is the menstrual cycle. My male body will not allow me to know this phenomenon. Yes, I can rationally explore it. But no matter how much I read research on how, during the menstrual cycle, hormonal background or preferences of women regarding potential partners change, I still will not know what it is. And from the awareness of this fact, one can easily imagine the unequal rights.

If “to be equal” becomes “to be the same”, then this is not a victory, but the surrender of femininity. Real feminism, on the contrary, would have to question all the institutions created by men.

For the past two years, I have read a course on human rights at one American University. And I was amazed at how difficult it was to touch upon the topic of the Gender among my colleagues, most of which considered Gender-Blind (not noticing the floor). Sometimes I had the feeling that the entire state flywheel is aimed only at achieving the same men and women in all areas of life. “It is necessary to solve the problem with a low set of women in a class in mathematics, to the struggle section and with the advantage of women in the volunteer organization for work with children.” But in order to bring this idea to the victorious end, one should begin to implant the device to all faces that will cause sensations similar to those that women experience during menstruation. Or make women do not have cycles. Approximately this is aimed at all advertising of hygiene products that should allow a woman not to notice “problem days”.

When, during emancipation, women began to achieve the same rights as men, few people understood that these rights, like the entire public sphere, were created by men for men. In this context, for example, the struggle for equal access to military service is a game according to the rules laid down by organisms with a high content of testosterone. But if “to be equal” becomes “to be the same”, then this is not a victory, but the surrender of femininity. Real feminism, on the contrary, would have to question all the institutions created by men, and their starting points. Say, men in general read emotions worse. According to Simon Baron-Cohen , a well-known researcher of autism, "to be a man means to suffer a very easy form of autism." And then there will be real feminism that promotes empathy into this world.

Empathy - "an understanding, comprehension of the inner world or the emotional state of another person who does not have a rational explanation." It is inappropriate in the modern utilitarian world, built on the principles of rationality and efficiency. Why should I comprehend the pain of another? This will only increase my suffering. Rational and effectively come up with a medicine that will drown out his pain, and it will become as healthy as me. But any pain is just a signal that some part of our body transmits to the central nervous system to pay attention to what is happening.

Uneven rights should be built on the principles of empathy, when, comprehending the other, I can think about what he needs, even if I do not need it. Recently, the British company Coexist decided to provide its employees with ruins during menstruation . In Nike, such a rule has existed since 2007.

This is an obvious example of unequal rights, which at the same time support the equality of human dignity.