Discussing Women's Unique Experiences: Its Significance in Achieving Equality and Empowerment

Discussing Women's Unique Experiences: Its Significance in Achieving Equality and Empowerment

The hornet's nest always gets stirred when the topic of special support for women entrepreneurs or female quotas in politics emerges. Critics are quick to jump in: "More singling out of women? If you're after equal rights, fight for it on equal terms, without any special treatment!" Some even among the equal rights advocates ponder if the "female agenda" has gone too far. Shouldn't everyone get the same opportunities without any extra aid? Is it necessary to single out women as a separate group? Why do we need unique studies on them when we can examine people in general?

Another voice argues that focusing on women's uniqueness may only strengthen stereotypes. If we keep talking about a female intuition or leadership style, it might attract us to the pitfall of biologizing the differences, labeling women as being from Venus and men as from Mars. On the other hand, women's experience differs fundamentally from men's, and recognizing this difference is the key to fairness. This ongoing debate has no clear resolution.

To grasp why we still require special focus on women's experience today, ask yourself a simple but important question: who's experience is taken as the universal model? Historically, the Western culture's standard model has been that of the white man - in philosophy, science, art, education, law, and medicine. For centuries, man has been considered the universal subject, while woman has been the "other," the deviation from the norm.

In academic research, medicine, and labor law, the initial model was always the male. Female peculiarities were either overlooked or deemed secondary. This persisted in many areas, as exemplified by the delayed research into the symptoms of some diseases and side effects of drugs in women due to male-based medical protocols.

The advocates for women's unique experiences aim to break free from this historically formed viewpoint. This effort is an attempt to shed light on what was previously unseen because it was considered irrelevant.

It's important to emphasize: concentrating on gender differences isn't an attempt to replace one form of universalism with another. It's an effort to destabilize the very idea of neutrality. Thus, focusing on women's experience is actually a demand for justice and completeness.

That being said, it's essential to recognize that the experience of women can't be described as uniform. Lawyer and activist Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term "intersectionality" to explain this concept. Different women face gender discrimination in various ways, and it's impossible to speak of "women" as a cohesive group. For example, the experience of an immigrant in the shadow economy with two kids and no health insurance contrasts with that of a white career woman. Despite the shared gender discrimination, they encounter it in different forms.

So, when discussing women's experience, we're not referring to something uniform but rather a multitude of positions within structural vulnerability. Patriarchal mechanisms operate everywhere but manifest differently.

People often claim: "Women have had equal rights for a long time. They work, vote, and no one stops them." Modern sociology shows that formal equality isn't enough for people from different groups to feel truly equal in their day-to-day life. As philosopher Nancy Fraser explains, justice is impossible without recognition - cultural confirmation of status and significance. Regular pay, leave, and rights to vote do not make up for the fact that women's work is still perceived as secondary or emotion-driven.

This is particularly evident in the professional world. Although formal discrimination is prohibited, the upper echelons of the career ladder are mostly male due to hidden discrimination, social expectations, or the double burden that women often face. The same logic applies in private life: despite gender equality in theory, daily chores (cleaning, cooking, childcare) remain predominantly the responsibility of women, which leads to chronic burnout and fewer opportunities for rest or additional education.**

The concept of meritocracy is frequently used to argue against gender equality programs, suggesting that equal rules automatically result in equal opportunities. These measures to adapt labor conditions, implement quotas, and provide targeted programs are then perceived as defying the "let the strongest win" principle. In reality, the ultimate goal of these measures is not to decrease standards but to eradicate systemic distortions. Positive discrimination has proven beneficial in the long run, provided these measures are implemented and explained clearly.

However, the equal rights discourse is often recycled as "feminist kitsch." Companies publish gender equality reports without fundamentally altering existing hiring, retention, and promotion practices. Special committees have been formed, but their recommendations rarely lead to real change. Reports usually feature statistics on the representation of women in leadership positions, without examining the barriers they face in this domain or why they frequently step down from these positions.

In the realm of health-and-wellness, it's crucial to acknowledge the unique challenges women face due to historical norms that have trivialized women's experiences. For instance, research on women's health symptoms and responses to medications has often been overlooked due to male-based medical protocols, a symptom of the ingrained bias that considers the experience of a white man as the universal model.

To foster a fair and comprehensive understanding of health, we must challenge the concept of neutrality by focusing on women's experiences. This emphasis is not an attempt to replace one form of universalism with another, but rather an effort to destabilize the idea of neutrality as a means to achieve justice and completeness in health and wellness, particularly for women.

Read also: