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)”
Enam Lesfa
Holy Crap! This article gave me a lot to think about… Well, I’ll start by saying I’m suprised that the person who wrote this is a PHD Candidate… To clarify, I don’t think Miss. Proudman is an idiot or un-intelligent, I was just expecting bigger words… I’m not complaining, don’t get me wrong. Actually, I feel quite thankful. Anyway, I actually did enjoy this article, I’ll be honest I’ve been feeling a little unsure about feminism lately, and by unsure I mean to say that I can’t help but wonder what the point of me being a feminist is? I mean I’m a guy, and I feel like I have no part in it… Don’t get me wrong I side with the ideals, live and fight for a world where women don’t get treated like crap or get descrimminated against. But then I want that for everyone, a world where people aren’t descrimminated against because of their skin colour, gender or physical sex. I’ll be honest, the main reason I don’t/have been putting off the idea of calling myself an equalist is because of the mental image of Avatar Korra busting down my door and frying my backside with a fireblast. (And with that reference I hope I’ve clarified the type of nitwit that I am). The first thing I am confused by in this article is the cage fighting comment… So wait, is it wrong for me to think that Leslie Smith is a total badass? Or heck, the idea of any women being able to kick some major ass as being awesome? Is that really a guy thing? Don’t get me wrong that getting less sports prize money is bull. WTF! The only thing I know about Tiger Woods is that he screwed a bunch of women and cheated on his wife… Or something? AND I DON’T EVEN WATCH GOLF!!! Heck, I’m pretty sure the Womens england football team is better than the mens, although that could just be down to lack of corruption… I dunno if that is the case but it wouldn’t surprise me… Although that said, it wouldn’t surprise me if the womens league was fixed, its football, there’s alot of money to made! And on that note, I’ll mention something that does confuse me… Why do equalist’s want people to be raped? I’ll be honest, I like this article because it challenges the former definition of Equality I had and gives it a different one I previously hadn’t considered. The understanding I had was that Equality was about equal rights, where as (and I think this definitely an interpretation) the article gives tells an understanding that Equality means that men and women should be treated the same in all aspects of society both positive and negative. I most certainly do not want any of the negatives for all of society that women have had to endure, like persurcution (a: not sure if I’ve spelled that correctly. b: Not sure if I understand the definition for that word correctly) for being sexually assaulted or raped, being treated in an inappropriate manner or thought that they cannot do something because they are of a physical sex. Now that said, there is a point that the article makes that does leave me feeling slightly confused… And that’s page 3. I think I understand where Miss. Proudman is coming from, in that page 3 is essentially selling sex with page 3 and having women on it. I believe the idea is that it objectfies women to which the counter argument most often used (as I understand it) is that the women on page 3 actually feel empowered by it… But this does still make me wonder two things, 1: regardless of objectification or empowerment why aren’t men shown? It’s just for selling sexual splendor right? Wouldn’t something like that make the paper money? 2: What would the guy actually show? I mean would it really be his junk? If that’s the case would women have to show their Vagina’s on page 3? I know that sounds very trivial but to be honest it’s always something that confused me… I mean, doesn’t that mean that women possess the capactity to become more nude than men? Wierd). Another point the article makes is about making change in Law, Politics and construction. Now I understand why its important to make change in law and poiltics (and by “Law AND Politics”, I mean the day a change happens in politics overall is the day Thatcher rises from the grave to bitch slap the world with Churchill lighting them both some cigars)… But construction? Really? What changes need to be made? I heard that some builders got some legal action thrown their way after having whistled at a women. First: OK, there might, and I mean might be some women out there who would take that as a compliment, But (second) what the hell! Why aren’t lazy dipwads getting on with their work! If I was their boss I’d probably shock em a tazer. Anyway, there are some others points I’d like to go over but It’d probably take a little long. I feel like this article was a little unbalanced but it was a good read, for me at least… One thing that does both confuse and intrigue me is “positive Descimmination”… I don’t think I’ve ever heard of that.
Human ... Work
Sounds like you want equality but not want females to dictate what equality means.
Aggrobiscuit
It can be compared to female circumcision though, which does exist even if Wikipedia lumps both practices under one name. Which is probably why Mason Dixon is unaware of it.
Laura Vergara
Gavin, I truly appreciate your views, especially because you are a man. Some women, such as me, have similar opinions, but it is rare to find a man who can see from our female perspective.
Many men seem to suggest that biology is the main determinant of our culture, and try to excuse certain bad aspects of our culture as a result of nature. However, I disagree with this view for two reasons:
First, I’m really interested in native cultures (they are not as well known as the powerful Western culture, African or Asian cultures). However, from the little I’ve learned so far, the role of men and women differs vastly from what we are used to seeing (and natives share our same basic biology). In a small tribe that’s slowly disappearing in the Amazon men and women alike are allowed to marry more than one person at the same time. As far as Native American culture (North America), in some tribes women fought the wars with men. In other tribes, women worked harder than men most of the year, except during the winter, but both genders respected and regarded each other. Women would take care of farming, the household (as true heads of the household), and other responsibilities. The men didn’t take as many responsibilities most of the year. However, men would work very hard during the winter months because farming wasn’t possible and they needed to hunt for food, which required more physical strength. Men valued women for their very hard work, and women valued men for their very hard work too. Many native societies created cultures which valued women as much as men, they just didn’t have a chance to flourish after ironically being robbed of their lands, slaughtered, enslaved, and nearly eradicated by patriarchal societies.
Second, our closest relatives (biologically speaking) are apes. Dr. Robert Sapolsky, who is a Harvard Graduate and Professor at Standford University, has studied wild baboons for 30 years, and their hierarchies seem to resemble the hierarchies formed in patriarchal societies. During his research one group of baboons ingested contaminated food and the alpha males died. After this happened, the group of baboons has developed a nicer and softer culture without hierarchies but stronger personal connections. This group of baboons continues living this way after twenty years, and this is not 100% due to genetic predisposition (such as eradicating the alpha male gene), because baboons usually leave their “homes” and join new groups when they reach adolescence. New young male baboons who join this nice group initially display a lot of aggressiveness and violence trying to assert themselves, but they soon realize that this culture doesn’t appreciate this behavior and adapt to it in about six months. Culture definitely plays a big role, and our biology doesn’t necessarily benefit the most from, nor always leads to, a patriarchal society.
I think at this point we have evolved enough to use our brains and improve any bad aspects of our cultures. Our capability to reflect, to imagine different perspectives, to solve problems, to discuss ethics and philosophy, and to distinguish right from wrong makes, suggest that we could create a society that’s equally beneficial for men and women. As long as a mentality of competition instead of collaboration prevails, there will always be a loser and a winner. I hope one day this will change because even wild baboons were able to do it.
Gavin Gamache
Hi Laura, good to know someone out there is reading this after so long! Thanks for leading me to look up the Sapolsky study on NCBI; that’s pretty interesting! Do you know the name of the Amazonian tribe you mentioned, and where I could find more about them?
And thanks for the compliment, but I’d deflect your appreciation to the women in my life (one in particular) who led by example. So I’d say to YOU, keep your head up and fight the good fight: sometimes there are people quietly watching and learning.