Gender as a ‘disability’

DISABILITY has always been a controversial subject, many people around the world have sought to use disability to pursue their own hidden agendas.

In this article I use the example of the Women’s Suffrage Movement to highlight how disability has been manipulated in citizenship debates, in order to advance the interests of men.

Up until 1928, men across the world were arguing that to be a woman is to be disabled, hence all women did not deserve to be awarded the same citizenship rights as men (Baynton, 2013). Because issues of gender equality were not clear, disability was identified as the most ideal “tool” for justifying inequality against women.

Male medical doctors who dominated disability and equality debates of the time, grouped together women, beasts, idiots, lunatics, savages, criminals and those with congenital (from birth) disabilities, alongside an argument that they all shared characteristics of under development (Baynton 2013).

To be a woman was associated with nervousness, silliness, stupidity, emotional baggage and proneness to fainting. As a result, women were denied the right to vote on the grounds that they were by nature disabled, hence they would faint in polling booths, thereby threatening the credibility of polls.

Parliaments across the world progressed to being mechanisms of running patriarchal societies, refusing to acknowledge women’s interests as separate and distinct from those of men. When the new wife of the future second US President John Adams implored her husband to remember the ladies when drafting the new nation’s charter, her husband ignored her request (O’Connor 1996).

Governments believed that women had no distinct interests of their own but that their concerns were already included in those of men (Garner 1984). There was widespread fear that if women were allowed to participate in parliamentary affairs, peaceful gender relations would be compromised, resulting in the neglect of men, homes and children.

In the US, a famous neurophysiologist of the time claimed that affording women the same citizenship rights as men would increase the natural mental disability of women by 25 percent (Crawford 1999). He said that all women are born with natural mental disabilities which are not changeable and such disabilities would increase if they were allowed to participate in parliamentary affairs or to vote. Such claims resulted in women being branded as irresponsible and unsuitable persons who should not be allowed to gain access to polling booths.

Men argued that they needed women’s help in running homes and not in parliamentary affairs, “The day on which my wife is given the right to vote will be the day of my divorce,” a Frenchman was quoted as saying (Snellgrove, 1964).

Not only were women barred from participating in parliamentary affairs, but they were also denied access to mainstream education systems, which at the time were designed for men.

Educating women in the same stream as men was condemned on the grounds that education would negatively affect the reproductive system of all women (Baynton 2013). The argument was that women’s reproductive organs would be dwarfed, deformed, weakened and diseased by artificial causes imposed upon them by education.

Medical doctors of the time claimed that mainstream education would also render women infertile, thereby threatening the establishment and growth of families.

Furthermore, it was argued that mainstream education would result in a deterioration of women’s general health before they get married and an inability to carry out the physical and reproductive functions expected of them by society. As a result, a separate education system for women, dubbed “special education”, was recommended as a way of safeguarding the marriage institution.

The idea was that the “special education” would protect women against neuralgia, hysteria, uterine disease and other nervous system instabilities. The basis of such reasoning was that women lack nervous stability and they are also unable to endure tasks that require a lot of thinking or intelligence (Crawford 1999, Garner 1984). A review of pertinent literature reveals that such oppressive attitudes were more or less the same in the West as well as in Africa.

Women across the world organised the Women’s Suffrage Movement and lobbied with governments for equal citizenship rights with men in various countries. According to Baynton (2013) the arguments of women took three forms: 1) women are not disabled, 2) women deserve the right to vote and 3) women are not naturally disabled but they are disabled by inequality.

It was only in 1928 and later, when women around the world began to be allowed to vote and governments began to realise that the female vote was co-operating well with the male vote in the midst of a spirit of unity, which is conducive for securing legislative reforms for both men and women, thereby making any community a better place to live in (Daley and Nolan 1994).

Governments realised that denying women full citizenship rights on the grounds of medical views of womanhood which branded women as naturally disabled was unjustifiable (Walker 1990).

The aftermath of the Women’s Suffrage Movement saw governments across the world acknowledging that the enfranchisement of women did not seem to ruin traditional gender roles or create antagonism between men and women.

Commenting on ensuing gender relations, a New Zealand Prime Minister was quoted as saying “making a pencil mark on a voting paper once in three years [has] not resulted in any loss of grace or beauty among our women”.

His statement was further reinforced by Daley and Nolan (1994) who further proclaimed that “a house divided against itself cannot stand”, hence there was nothing wrong with the participation of both men and women in public affairs. Way forward Disability is not a subject that we should pick and use willy-nilly to advance our own interests without knowing what disability really is, disability is a specialised field under which people invest may years of learning.

The example of the Women’s Suffrage Movement highlights one of the ways in which disability has been used to manufacture gender inequalities and how some professionals can even be called upon to certify that which is not disability as if it is disability, in an effort to pursue hidden agendas.

Today there is evidence that pursuing academic studies in the same stream as men has not in any way damaged the reproductive organs of women, parallel to acquiring mainstream education women are also having babies.

In addition, upholding the right of women to participate in public life has not in any way caused the women to faint in polling booths.

In any case even if all women were disabled it would still be inappropriate to deny them the right to participate in public life on the grounds of gender and disability. To buttress the advancement of Zimbabwe in promoting gender equality, UNFPA acknowledges Zimbabwe’s compact legislation programme in relation to gender equality (UNFPA Zimbabwe, 2011).

In addition, Article 17 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013) directs the promotion of full gender balance in Zimbabwe, the full participation of women in all spheres of society on the basis of equality with men. In addition, the same Constitution in Article 22 and in part directs that persons with disabilities should be treated with respect and dignity and be assisted to achieve their full potential and to minimise disadvantages suffered by them.

Nevertheless, women ought to cherish their right and ability to participate in public life, thereby making perpetual efforts to diligently serve society with the aim of making a positive difference, it was not long ago when women across the world were denied such rights and space in public life. Dr Christine Peta is a public health-care practitioner who, among other qualifications, holds a PhD in Disability Studies. Be part of the international debate on how best to nurture a society which is more accessible, supportive and inclusive of disabled people. Partner with Disability Centre for Africa (DCFA): whatsApp, 0773-699229; website, www.dcfafrica. com; e-mail; dcfafrica@gmail. com