Perhaps I should clarify my meaning with an example. Let us assume that there is a job opening, for some qualified, high-status post (say, chief financial officer of a large company). There are four applicants for this position. Anne and Andrew are competant, qualified, and have a lot of experience in the field; either would be an excellent choice. Bob and Barbara are clearly incompetant for the position, neither having managed to complete their elementary schooling; either of these applicants would be a terrible choice.
There have been, and probably still are, parts of the world where Bob’s incompetant application would be considered above Anne’s competant application, entirely on the basis of gender. This is wrong, and is clearly a case of gender discrimination.
There have been, and still are, places in the world where, although Anne’s competant application is considered above Bob’s incompetant application, Andrew nonetheless always acquires the position on the basis of his gender. This is still not right, and is what I understand to be the case you refer to as women being “in a cage”.
What I think would be the correct approach, if Anne and Andrew are truly indistinguishable on the basis of their qualifications alone, would be to either administer some sort of skills-based competitive test, or (should that still come out even) to select randomly between them. This is what I mean by neither side being in a cage.
There are some feminists who would state that Anne should always gain the position above Andrew, purely on the basis of her gender. While there are reasonable arguments that could be made to support this position on a strictly temporary basis (including that young girls need more femal role models than currently exist), it is not the position that I hold. Supporting this position on a permanent basis would be a mild example of putting men in the cage.
And then there are some feminists who would prefer that, while Anne should clearly get the job, Barbara should nonetheless be ranked above Andrew, on the basis of her gender. This is a severe example of putting men in the cage.
In summary; destruction of the privileged position is not what puts men in the cage. Elevation of women to the privileged position is what, in my view, puts men in the cage.
Some feminists would argue that the very notion of a “skills-based competitive test” is a device of the patriarchy. Given that patriarchal attitudes permeate our entire society, any such test would be biased toward privileging men over women—because such tests are constructed and scored by humans, and humans are subconsciously (and, in some cases, consciously) predisposed toward men, and against women. This predisposition includes both overt bias, as well as the more subtle bias of treating men as the “default gender”, and women as the exception (which would result in their tests being harder, and getting scored more poorly).
Therefore, given that the very notion of a neutral test perpetuates the patriarchy, we should at the very least decide randomly between Anne and Andrew—and possibly even between Anne, Andrew, and Barbara, given the strength of the patriarchal bias.
However, if our goal is not merely to increase the revenue of some random company, but to build a better world, we should strictly prefer Anne (and possibly Barbara) over Andrew, not just in this specific case but in all such cases. This will cause the proportion of women in the workforce to rise, until it reaches majority status at some point, which would help us to erode the notion that men are the default and women are the exception.
I do not personally endorse the above arguments, but I believe they are an accurate representation of at least some feminists’ views. They are not limited to feminism, either; you can replace “male/female” with “white/black” or “young/old” or any other such criterion.
Perhaps I should clarify my meaning with an example. Let us assume that there is a job opening, for some qualified, high-status post (say, chief financial officer of a large company). There are four applicants for this position. Anne and Andrew are competant, qualified, and have a lot of experience in the field; either would be an excellent choice. Bob and Barbara are clearly incompetant for the position, neither having managed to complete their elementary schooling; either of these applicants would be a terrible choice.
There have been, and probably still are, parts of the world where Bob’s incompetant application would be considered above Anne’s competant application, entirely on the basis of gender. This is wrong, and is clearly a case of gender discrimination.
There have been, and still are, places in the world where, although Anne’s competant application is considered above Bob’s incompetant application, Andrew nonetheless always acquires the position on the basis of his gender. This is still not right, and is what I understand to be the case you refer to as women being “in a cage”.
What I think would be the correct approach, if Anne and Andrew are truly indistinguishable on the basis of their qualifications alone, would be to either administer some sort of skills-based competitive test, or (should that still come out even) to select randomly between them. This is what I mean by neither side being in a cage.
There are some feminists who would state that Anne should always gain the position above Andrew, purely on the basis of her gender. While there are reasonable arguments that could be made to support this position on a strictly temporary basis (including that young girls need more femal role models than currently exist), it is not the position that I hold. Supporting this position on a permanent basis would be a mild example of putting men in the cage.
And then there are some feminists who would prefer that, while Anne should clearly get the job, Barbara should nonetheless be ranked above Andrew, on the basis of her gender. This is a severe example of putting men in the cage.
In summary; destruction of the privileged position is not what puts men in the cage. Elevation of women to the privileged position is what, in my view, puts men in the cage.
Some feminists would argue that the very notion of a “skills-based competitive test” is a device of the patriarchy. Given that patriarchal attitudes permeate our entire society, any such test would be biased toward privileging men over women—because such tests are constructed and scored by humans, and humans are subconsciously (and, in some cases, consciously) predisposed toward men, and against women. This predisposition includes both overt bias, as well as the more subtle bias of treating men as the “default gender”, and women as the exception (which would result in their tests being harder, and getting scored more poorly).
Therefore, given that the very notion of a neutral test perpetuates the patriarchy, we should at the very least decide randomly between Anne and Andrew—and possibly even between Anne, Andrew, and Barbara, given the strength of the patriarchal bias.
However, if our goal is not merely to increase the revenue of some random company, but to build a better world, we should strictly prefer Anne (and possibly Barbara) over Andrew, not just in this specific case but in all such cases. This will cause the proportion of women in the workforce to rise, until it reaches majority status at some point, which would help us to erode the notion that men are the default and women are the exception.
I do not personally endorse the above arguments, but I believe they are an accurate representation of at least some feminists’ views. They are not limited to feminism, either; you can replace “male/female” with “white/black” or “young/old” or any other such criterion.