Is an “Equal Rights” Framework Sufficient for Human Flourishing?

The United States of America. Supposedly the “greatest” country in the world. The country known for its equal rights framework created by the “great” founding fathers and its radically changing government over the years. This so-called progressive country is also where one in five women will be raped at some point in their lives (“Statistics”). The country where “a woman is assaulted or beaten every 9 seconds” (Sharff and Smith). So, one may ask, “Is an ‘equal rights’ framework sufficient for human flourishing.” And even though the United States may have an “equal rights” framework, “in a country where racism, sexism, and homophobia are inseparable,” it is certainly challenging for women, the LGBTQ+ community, and people of color to flourish and reach their fullest potential (Lorde n.pag, 1979).

Firstly, one must acknowledge the ever-changing essence of the term “equal rights” in the sense of who or whom this idea has pertained to through the course of this country’s history. Before the Civil War, equal rights only mattered and referred to white men. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments gave “equal rights” to African American males in 1789 but communities of color did not “fully” get their civil rights until the late 1960s. Until 1919––after more than 140 years–– the notion of including women in “equal rights” that men so tightly held onto was considered silly or invalid. It is great that the government takes the time to beautifully scribe various amendments in the Constitution that guarantee equal rights for all but whose job is it to ensure that these amendments are actually being enforced in all aspects of our society? Through this brief summary of the history of equal rights, one can notice that “we find ourselves having to repeat and relearn the same old lesson over and over” (Lorde n.pag, 1984). Even today, although women may be included in the framework of equal rights, many still do not have rights over making decisions regarding their own bodies. In addition, even though people in the United States are meant to be protected because by this idea of equal rights etched into the Constitution and law books, sexism, “racism and homophobia are real conditions of all our lives in this place and time” (Lorde, 1979). In our society, equal rights are not “in-reach” for “those of us who stand outside the circle of this society’s definition of acceptable” human beings (Lorde, 1979).

In order to understand how this “equal rights” framework does not guarantee equality in all aspects of society, we can just look at one of the most basic institutions of human social relations: marriage. Despite the fact that the partners in a marriage have been given equal rights by government laws, it is “the caretaker-dependent relationship” where inequality thrives (Fineman 245). Martha Fineman eloquently writes that “we should view the parent-child relationship” in family dynamics to examine the unfair expectations society sets where women are expected to take care of the children and any other dependents while the men are expected to go outside and work (245). In this particular heteronormative context, one can observe that through these stereotypical roles created by society, women are expected to “flourish”––more like restrict themselves––inside the home while the men are expected to flourish to their fullest potential outside. In stating that “the role of the mother, in spite of decades of attempts to equalize family responsibility and draft gender-neutral, equality-enhancing rules, continues to exact costs to women,” Fineman highlights the idea that the restricting of women to the sphere of caretaking has hindered their ability to flourish and grow into successful individuals (256). Moreover, this “equal rights” framework has not protected women from domestic violence along with the “economic inequities that emerged with divorce reform and the prevalence of physical and psychological abuse of women” (248). Thus, a rational individual can infer that an “equal rights” framework is not sufficient for human flourishing.

So, what now? To begin with, we must keep in mind Audre Lorde’s words that it is not “the responsibility of the oppressed to teach the oppressors their mistakes” (1984). But, we do have other responsibilities. We have to learn “how to make common cause with those others identified as outside the structures in order to define and seek a world in which we can all flourish” (Lorde, 1979). Not every institution of society can be changed or reformed by an “equal rights” framework. A reinvigoration of acknowledgment, respect, and care is also part of the process of bringing about true change that can impact the growth of a large part of our oppressed population.

---

Works Cited

Fineman, Martha Albertson. “Why Marriage?” Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law.

Legal Studies Research Paper Series, col. 9, no. 12-204, 2001, pp. 239-271. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2075914.

Lorde, Audre. "Age, Race, Class and Sex: Women Redefining Difference" (Reproduction from

Sister Outsider, 1984). https://www.colorado.edu/odece/sites/default/files/attached-files/rba09-sb4converted_8.pdf.

Lorde, Audre. “The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House (1979).” History is

a Weapon, www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/lordedismantle.html.

“Statistics.” National Sexual Violence Resource Center, www.nsvrc.org/statistics.

Sharff, Chris and Rita Smith. “Every 9 Seconds in the US a Woman Is Assaulted or Beaten -

Help End Domestic Violence.” PRWeb, 8 Oct. 2012, www.prweb.com/releases/2012/10/prweb9986276.htm.