What does it signify politically--that is what does it tell us about the relations of power of the \u27state\u27 in 1982--that the Equal Rights Amendment has not been ratified? It tells us that the patriarchal foundations of the state, even when narrowly defined in terms of the law, remain necessary to those in power. Or (at least) that those in power, particularly in this case state legislators as well as President Reagan, think that the political system of capitalist patriarchy cannot abide women\u27s (legal) equality

Eisenstein, Zillah

English

ScholarWorks at WMU

The Journal of Sociology & Social WelfareVolume 9Issue 3 September Article 3September 1982Some Thoughts on the Patriarchal State and theDefeat of the EraZillah EisensteinIthaca CollegeFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jsswPart of the Gender and Sexuality Commons, and the Social Work CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Social Work atScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contactmaira.bundza@wmich.edu.Recommended CitationEisenstein, Zillah (1982) "Some Thoughts on the Patriarchal State and the Defeat of the Era," The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare:Vol. 9 : Iss. 3 , Article 3.Available at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol9/iss3/3COMMENTSOME THOUGHTS ON THE PATRIARCHAL STATEAND THE DEFEAT OF THE ERAZillah Eisenstein*Department of PoliticsIthaca CollegeWhat does it signify politically--that is what does it tell us about the rela-tions of power of the 'state' in 1982--that the Equal Rights Amendment has not beenratified? It tells us that the patriarchal foundations of the state, even whennarrowly defined in terms of the law, remain necessary to those in power. Or (atleast) that those in power, particularly in this case state legislators as well asPresident Reagan, think that the political system of capitalist patriarchy cannotabide women's (legal) equality.Why has the ERA been singled out by politicians, particularly of the right,for defeat? Because they think that by defeating the ERA they can defeat thewomen's movement. Hence, the question constantly posed by the media: Does thedefeat of the ERA signify the demise of the women's movement? And, the corollaryquestion: What did the women's movement do wrong; how and why did N.O.W. fail toget the ERA ratified?First one needs to recognize that the ERA, in demanding equal rights before thelaw for women, reflects that minimum vision of women's equality which is entertainedby feminists today. This is not to say that it is an irrelevant or inconsequentialdemand. But the demands of the ERA are understood, by most feminists including lib-eral feminists, to be necessary but not sufficient for creating real sexual, eco-nomic, and racial equality for women. It is true that the ERA would make it illegalto pay women 59t when a man is paid $1.00 for doing the same work. But the ERAwould not by itself enforce economic equality or destroy the sexual or racial ghettoof which woman is a part. It would simply make unequal pay illegal while doinglittle about the structural relations of inequality.Feminists know that a law in and of itself cannot create sexual equality. Butthey also know that it can lay the basis for further assaults against patriarchalprivileges, and is therefore important. In this same vein, feminists also know that,although it will affect them, the ERA does not legislate relations in the homebetween husband and wife. Even though Phyllis Schlafly argues that it will, the ERAapplies directly to the public, not the private sphere.To the degree feminists understand that sexual equality requires changes in the'ditor and contributor to Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminismand the author of The Radical Future of Liberal Feminism._388-private and the public realm, and changes in the way these realmsare defined inrelationto each other, they also understand the limits of liberal legislationwhich focuses on the public realm. Hence, although feminists, especially liberalfeminists who are committed to creating legal equality between men and women,believe the ERA is utterly important to American women in 1982, they also knowthat it is more symbolic than it is substantive. Abortion law would be an exampleof legislation which has a real, direct, effect. Interestingly enough legislatorslike Paul Laxalt seem to be backtracing on their antiabortion stands, whereasSenators Hatch and Hatfield cannot seem to agree on how to demobilize this aspectof the women's movement. It is much simpler to attempt to delegitimize the women'smovement by defeating the ERA because of the ambiguities it reflects and becauseit is limited in terms of its direct effect.The ERA clearly reflects the contradictory nature of liberal (and liberalfeminist) reform legislation. It may be more symbolic than real, but it doesaffect consciousness. It also constructs ideology, which never reflects a trueor full picture of reality and yet defines reality. And it operates in a semi-autonomous fashion from our real sexual, economic, and racial identities. Thiscontradictory nature of the ERA has limited its effectiveness as a rallying pointfor the women's movement because it is so clearly insufficient for creatingwoman's real sexual equality. As a demand, it does not encompass the politics offeminism, which in some sense has moved beyond it. Yet, the ERA remains a nec-cessary element in the struggle toward equality in a liberal democratic society.It is because the ERA does not represent the feminism of the 1980s adequately, andbecause it does represent the antifeminist politics of the New Right sufficiently,that the New Right was able to mobilize against the ERA so effectively. The NewRight sought to curtail the radical potential of the ERA to go beyond its ownliberal-legalistic framework. New Rightist, George Gilder has argued in this vein,that even reformist feminists are really revolutionary, in that, in order to createsexual equality, the male role as we know it will have to be destroyed. It is thisrevolutionary aspect of feminism which the state sought to destroy in defeating theERA.The problem with the ERA is that it seems to be, and is, insufficient tofeminists, and it is also radical in its potential to redefine patriarchal law.The ERA is not enough for feminists, and it is too much for antifeminists. The NewRight has therefore been more singly committed t--thIefeat of the ERA than femin-ists have been singly committed to its ratification. It remains to be seen whetherfeminists will be able to build a pro-ERA politics which more directly encompassesthe radical potential of feminism itself by focusing on the private as well as thepublic realm. This is really the crucial dilemma which faces the women's movementtoday: To decipher how it can utilize the radical potential of liberal feministreform which challenges the legal basis of patriarchal privilege while not beinglimited to liberal feminist reforms of the public arena.To return to the question of what the women's movement did wrong in its cam-paign for the ERA, I think it did nothing wrong. The movement should not havefocused all its energy on the ERA, for the very reason N.O.W. found it impossible-389-to endorse Carter in the 1980 election. Officers of the state seek to protectpatriarchal privilege. Feminists must therefore not allow those who wish todefeat them to set their political agenda, because they will only narrow femin-ism's vision.The ERA was defeated by state legislators, not the incapacity of the women'smovement or the skill of Phyllis Schlafly. A simple lesson can be uncovered here.Legislators effectively protect the interests of the patriarchal state, even whenthere is not popular support for such legislation. With a majority of Americanssupporting the ERA, the only explanation for its defeat is that those in positionsof power rule in their own patriarchal interest. The defeat of the ERA only provesthe state's commitment to patriarchal politics, and its desire to fight it out inthis arena because it has the upper hand. The bluntness of this contradition--between majority opinion in favor of the ERA and its legislative defeats--hasradicalized feminists in the pro-ERA struggle. This can be seen in N.O.W.'sannounced political strategy for the new ERA campaign which calls for the electionof women to state and federal legislatures. Such a strategy which is clearlyreformist also points to what George Gilder has called the revolutionary aspectsof feminism, i.e., that the role of men as the primary operatives in the publicsector is under attack.Whether the ERA is finally passed (as women finally got the vote) or not,feminists must remember what they already know: that equality, although it canbe formulated in legislation, cannot be created by it. The state hopes to limitthe feminist movement to the struggle for the ERA and feminists must not allowthis to happen. Feministsneed to use the existing pro-ERA political forces tounify the organization and broaden the commitments of the feminist movement.With the defeat of the ERA the women's movement has begun to rethink what aviable strategy within the electoral arena should be. I think this strategy shouldbe built upon the political autonomy of the women's movement with its own agenda,while recognizing the importance of electoral and reform politics. The seeds forsuch a politics exist at present. As long as feminists, while fighting for theERA, continue to fight for reproductive freedom, economic and racial equality,freedom of sexual preference, sexual freedom, and international peace, the Rightwon't get what it wants, which is a demobilized femimst movement. The defeat ofthe ERA can only mean the deradicalization of the women's movement if liberalfeminism, the largest part of the movement. narrows its vision and limits itsstruggle to the ERA.-390-

Some Thoughts on the Patriarchal State and the Defeat of the Era

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1537&context=jssw

Some Thoughts on the Patriarchal State and the Defeat of the Era

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks at WMU