Unlike equalists, feminists do not want men to share their oppression
How many feminists believe they are working towards equality? How many men self-define as equalists over feminists? Equality is almost universally accepted as the definition of feminism. But the term equality has never been questioned.
I am a feminist and I do not strive for equality. I support liberation. The defenders of equality espouse moderate feminist principles: equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity with no special considerations i.e. positive discrimination, failure is down to the individual, and above all, women must embrace hierarchal work structures where the job always comes first. Equality takes the male status quo as the standard to which women aspire.
To be equal, women have to show they are strong enough to live up to men’s standards in a man’s world. Backers of equality cheer as women enlist in institutionally discriminatory police forces, join the military in invading other countries and committing war crimes, train for the roughest of men’s sports whether its dangerous and cruel horse racing, or life-threatening cage fighting.
Once women have joined male dominated areas of work, nobody asks why anybody regardless of gender would work in these repressive institutions. The crux of the matter is that men live and work in a brutal society, which is maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation, gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.
When women enter the male realm whether law, politics, or a construction site, they find themselves in a repugnant world in which their only means of survival is by undergoing a fundamental transformation leaving them with little opportunity to make any change. We see this manifested in descriptions of women professionals as harsher than men. Assertive women are seen as aggressive bitches.
It is impossible to alter male spheres, which are resistant to outside interference, because women are a minority that could be cut out at anytime, and men have vested interests in preserving the status quo.
The Equality Act 2010, which replaced the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, was designed to give the false impression that women’s subjugation had been legally acknowledged. Political support was gathered because politicians knew no great changes would ensue. Equality legislation exists throughout Europe but nowhere is there equality.
The attitude of the legal profession to equality is best shown by the number of women Attorney Generals over the years: one women in contrast to 202 men. The Act is barely enforceable due to extortionate legal costs and severe costs to time. Of 89 per cent of women health care workers who experience sexual harassment, barely 1 per cent initiate legal actions because they know that regardless of whether they win or lose they will be branded a troublemaker and all hopes of a promotion will be dashed.
The Act is a handmaiden to equality as it strikes down attempts at positive discrimination. Equalists refuse to support positive discrimination; instead they believe in equal treatment and equal outcomes. Here, a contradiction emerges, equalists support 50: 50 men and women in institutions but women will not be recruited in large numbers because ‘equality’ laws have made quotas illegal.
Other unequal situations arise from the equalist debate. A right to maternity leave or an abortion is not an equal right, women are requesting discrimination because of their gendered differences. A woman will never be equal to a man because she can never be the same, and gendered distinctiveness is not valued by equalists.
Arguing about equality or difference results in a debate that drains the life out of the feminist movement. Men plead both equality and difference when it is to their benefit. They argue equality when they want paternity leave, and difference when they want to be paid more prize money for sports.
The equality and difference argument is banal. Equality would be cruel to men if they were treated equal to women: men’s genitals would be sliced up, annual rape of men would increase from 9,000 to 69,000, male prostitution would soar, men’s penises would be sprawled across page 3, men would stroll down the catwalk with their penises hanging out, and the Labour Party would roll out pink vans to attract women voters and blue vans to entice male voters.
Unlike equalists, feminists do not want men to share their oppression.
The equalist debate is one way of preserving patriarchy, whereas feminism seeks to give power to women on their own terms – not mens. This is why I am a feminist, not an equalist. Equality is harmful to women and most men, as they are required to replicate behaviours that are degrading and dehumanising. Once women buy into the masculine terms of society, our civilization will become crueler than ever expected.
Men hold the balance of power. Power is granted in the wrong ways, and used for the wrong ends. Change can come about by redefining and redistributing power, breaking down hierarchal structures, and reevaluating the criteria designed by men.
*This piece was inspired by two of the greatest feminist thinkers of our time, Germaine Greer and Catherine MacKinnon
Charlotte Rachael Proudman is a barrister in human rights law and a PhD candidate in law and sociology researching FGM at the University of Cambridge
243 Responses to “Why I want feminism and not equality (and why they are not the same thing)”
CryptoGiveaway
“The
crux of the matter is that men live and work in a brutal society, which is
maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation,
gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.”
—–Just to be clear, 100% of women are good people, caring, generous, and have nothing to do with what you mentioned above. What you said is not a reflection of feminism as a whole, not a reflection of the common theme “Men do everything, women are only victims”
Also, just to be clear, men control the patriarchy right? So they would change all that if they wanted to right? But they dont, because the like the brutal society which is
maintained through stratified social order based on ritual humiliation,
gentleman’s clubs, fights, rites of passage, sexism, and banter.” Right? Just to be clear, you make no distinction from those man, and all men… Or… Yea ok, All men are that way 🙂
“The
Act is a handmaiden to equality as it strikes down attempts at positive
discrimination. Equalists refuse to support positive discrimination; instead
they believe in equal treatment and equal outcomes. Here, a contradiction
emerges, equalists support 50: 50 men and women in institutions but women will
not be recruited in large numbers because ‘equality’ laws have made quotas
illegal.”
—–I believe that we should all be equal… Does that mean I am on board with the truly INSANE idea that all institutions should be exactly 50:50? NOT – AT – ALL! Do I scream discrimination when I see that the yearbook club is 90% girls? Do I scream discrimination at the fact there are no “Male Studies” at my local college? Do I scream Discrimination because there are more girls in college right now than boys? Do you (the person reading my thoughts) REALLY believe that this writer wants 50:50 representation in the mechanics garage, coal mines, steel foundries, factories, construction etc – or ONLY the jobs and positions that are desirable to women?
“Other
unequal situations arise from the equalist debate. A right to maternity leave
or an abortion is not an equal right, women are requesting discrimination
because of their gendered differences. A woman will never be equal to a man
because she can never be the same, and gendered distinctiveness is not valued
by equalists.”
—–PERFECT! This is something I always have to wait and find a feminist say before I can bring it up, because god forbid a man mention that women and men might be sexually dimorphic… When a man says “Is it possible there are fewer women than men because women dont want to join a particular career path?” its obvious that this man is woman hating dick faced non thinker who cannot see beyond his own male privilege and understand that men and women are 100% the same outside our sex organs. 97% of workplace related deaths are MEN – Lets work on getting some more women killed in the line of work, just to be SURE everything is 100% equal… or is that nuts…
“Arguing
about equality or difference results in a debate that drains the life out of
the feminist movement. Men plead both equality and difference when it is to
their benefit. They argue equality when they want paternity leave, and
difference when they want to be paid more prize money for sports.”
—–It is interesting here how you say that men want paternity leave when they become parents, but those dirty men also want to be paid more prize money for sports… Jesus christ… This is why its hard to take you seriously! You are comparing a situation in which millions of men will find themselves in, that makes logical sense and is a part of real life (paternity leave), and comparing it to Prize money for sports!?!?!?! Those people arguing over prize money for sports are not in need of paternity leave, and your assumption that “men” are doing this is… Well let me put it this way –
You say, Men want Paternity leave, AND more money from sports prizes – UNFAIR!
I say, Women want equal pay, AND they want men castrated worldwide – FAIR?
Not many women want that, but some do (castration agenda…) Just as not many men care how fucking much money a dancing NFL goon takes home, but some do…
Now, lets put the label in there to make sure we all know there are only two types of people in this world, Men who want paternity leave AND sports wage increase, and Women who want equal pay and castration of all males 🙂
“The
equality and difference argument is banal. Equality would be cruel to men if
they were treated equal to women: men’s genitals would be sliced up, annual rape of men would increase from 9,000 to 69,000, male prostitution
would soar, men’s penises would be sprawled across page 3, men would stroll down
the catwalkwith their penises
hanging out, and the Labour Party would roll out pink vans to attract women voters and blue vans to entice male voters.”
—–Ok… I would like to start by saying that when blacks were fighting for equal rights back in the day, WHO THE FUCK THOUGHT THEY WERE ARGUING FOR THE RIGHT TO BAN WHITE PEOPLE FROM ESTABLISHMENTS, WHO THOUGHT THEY WERE ARGUING FOR THE RIGHT TO DESCRIMINATE AND BEAT WHITE PEOPLE IN PUBLIC, WHO THOUGHT THEY WANTED THE RIGHT TO OWN A LEGAL SYSTEM THAT WAS 100% ON THE SIDE OF BLACKS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!
NOGODDAMNFUCKING ANYBODY!!!!!!
We are in america, so its hard to see what you mean about females genitals being mutilated when it is actually almost entirely MENS GENITALS WHO ARE MUTILATED! I think that if you pick up the right magazine, you WILL see male genitalia sprawled out on page 3, but I cant DARE suggest that the reason female bodies are plastered everywhere is because sexuality is different between the sexes, that men are more visual and are more easily controlled via that type of advertising… NO! We are 100% equal in every way, this is purely the exploitation of women to the explicit benefit of men… (despite the distinct possibility that these images could fuck up a mans life slowly but surly as he soaks it all in over a lifetime)
The pink van thing was stupid – but was it really so bad? They thought they could get some women interested with a pink van… What if they had done this to black people using a fancy hummer and rims? Its obviously short sighted, ignorant, and a bad idea all together, but would it really imply that they think black people are (insert every feminist comment about pink van here), or would it reflect the believe on part of the advertisers/politicians that black people may identify more with this vehicle than their usual?
Welp, thats it – sorry for getting angry, but I am 8 hours into my research today and this article touted the exact type of “I am perfect” and “Men are evil” attitude I despise.
CryptoGiveaway
Your actually trying to say that because this person claims (correctly btw) that circumcision is mutilation, that he is anti Semitic? Unless I missed something, and if I did please PLEASE fill us all in – you are a truly insane person.
You say same old crap to his astute observation, when in reality you are the loser, the pathetic shit stain on reality acting as though you have no responsibility to even turn your brain on before interacting with others… For the love of god – if you can truly believe that because someone says some % of boys die from circumcision, that this person hates and believes jews should be killed – YOU SHOULD HONESTLY CONSIDER TAKING A STEP BACK, AND ATTEMPTING TO RELEARN EVERYTHING YOU THOUGHT YOU EVER LEARNED.
CryptoGiveaway
I can understand your point, but it sounds like your saying that if we can make FMG safer, at least as safe as it is for boys, then the practice is acceptable…
Cod Gob
Ok, firstly I was not talking about physical limitations, i was talking about preferences. There is likely a reason why I have never come across a woman collecting bins or a female cement mixer and building site laborer. If those kinds of work are not appealing to women, I imagine no amount of “scaling” will change that.
Also, like i said in another response, this isn’t just a man thing. My example was to do with being a novelist, by try going into HR, beauty treatment or child caring and see how many men you come across. Why? Because men by and large are drawn to other professions.
That’s how jobs are “tailored”. They are tailored by the people who work there. If the people who were drawn to work in construction were not men, it would not be tailored to men. If women had always been drawn to those industries, there would be far less of n imbalance.
This is n example of blaming people for going with their preference, and that it illogical to me. It’s like saying women should have the right to go into industries they’re not drawn to Which they do, but they rightly choose not to. There is no “blame” to be issued here, particularly telling a whole gender not to blame women while simultaneously blaming men for something. That’s hypocritical
bmorejoe
The comments in reply to this comment validate the comment. Those who have ears, let them hear.