Www Girlguest Single Family Szh 1 Girl Guest Economist Debates: Women: Guest

Richard Donkin makes several good points about the progress that women have made in the United States and other developed nations, and I appreciate his agreement that there is "still much work to be done". But I take issue with several of his specific arguments as well as his larger theme.

In his second paragraph, after acknowledging the transformational advancements of the vote, the pill and divorce, Mr Donkin lists a number of other prizes he claims women have won on our continuing march towards equality. Might I suggest a few trades for some of these dubious rewards? How about we exchange Chippendales dancers for freedom from domestic violence and rape? Might we also swap pedicures for an end to the relentless attacks on our reproductive rights? And let us replace retail therapy with women's rights being written into the US constitution. (We'll probably vote to keep multiple orgasms and suits with pants, thank you.)

OK, maybe Mr Donkin was just being cheeky. But really! Did women filch "relatively easy divorces when their marriages didn't work out" or did they finally win the autonomy to liberate themselves from unhappy, abusive marriages? And where Mr Donkin might see a woman raiding her soon to be ex-husband's bank account, I see the sobering reality that women generally fare worse economically than their exes do, largely because of child-care obligations and wage discrimination.

To Mr Donkin's optimism, my response is: if only. The assertion that women in power generally are met with respect, thus they "have nothing left to prove", is a gross overstatement. The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have been ridiculed in the media for their appearance and supposedly unladylike drive and ambition. Pundit Tucker Carlson, for instance, has referred multiple times to being afraid of Ms Clinton because he finds her "castrating, overbearing and scary". Ask any woman politician, including the former GOP vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, and I bet she has at least one story where she saw herself portrayed through a lens that focused on her "feminine" characteristics rather than her positions or qualifications. These assessments might seem slight, but they contribute to women not being taken seriously in the workplace, in all industries and at all levels.

It was indeed cause for celebration when the prime minister of Iceland, Johanna Siguroardottir, became Europe's first openly lesbian head of government without much objection. But that hardly means that homophobia, and for that matter racism and other forms of oppression, don't continue to plague developed countries. A woman who is a lesbian, and/or a woman of colour, not to mention a woman with a disability, faces challenges that have yet to be fully dismantled.

Which brings me to my biggest beef with Mr Donkin's argument, and that is his over-arching premise that women have been given more choices than ever, and it is up to us to make the right ones. This has emerged as one of the most common rationales for why feminists should just call it a day, at least in the developed world, and stop pestering everyone with our critique of patriarchal privilege.

In reality, women's choices are severely constrained. Is it really a choice when a woman leaves an otherwise good middle management job because of relentless harassment by men unwilling to accept female leadership? Is it really a choice when a woman drops out of the workforce because her employer won't make any accommodations for her need to care for kids or other family members?

In recent years, the media have reported on the trend of women starting their own businesses, often from home. But here is the rest of the story: women are doing it because they hit the glass ceiling at work, not because of some burning desire to be entrepreneurs. Their work life might be improved in some ways, but not in others, like pay and benefits. Regardless, it can be a forced "choice". 

Yes, it is entirely possible for a society to make a number of options legally available to all, while these opportunities remain effectively out of reach for many.

I can think of no better example than women's fundamental right to abortion. We are about to mark the 37th anniversary of the US Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which recognised the constitutional right to safe and legal abortion in this country. However, huge numbers of women have no reproductive choice because the government blocks their access to funding for abortion care, which is tantamount to blocking access to services altogether. Clinics and doctors who provide abortion care dwindle as anti-abortion violence and harassment drive them away. And when they continue to care for women in need despite continued threats, heroic physicians like Dr George Tiller are murdered.

Additionally, women's right to abortion care is a perennial political football to be put into play during critical negotiations, such as the recent health-care reform debate in the United States. We might gain a sliver of health insurance reform, but we will surely lose a significant degree of abortion coverage in the process. What other right in the industrialised world is under such constant scrutiny, under such concerted attack, but the right to abortion? That it is a right only women can exercise should not be lost on us.

Lastly, I can help Mr Donkin with the patronising question of what women want. I assure him that our pretty little heads can handle a vast array of choices. But those options must be honest ones, not Catch-22s or false promises. Women want full equality, and we want the space and time to tell you what all that entails. Oh, and we want to stop being told that we never had it so good.