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)”
Taca
The most common form of FGM is called ‘nicking’ or ‘pricking’ of the female prepuce (clitoral hood), and removes little or no flesh. The most common form of MGM is euphemistically called ‘circumcision’ and is the complete amputation of the prepuce, the most sensitive erogenous tissue on the male body, and without the motile function of which the penis can not function as nature intended. The purpose of MGM is the suppression of male sexuality, and this is made explicitly clear in ancient texts right up to ‘medical’ journals from the early 20thC. Both globally and in the UK, in terms of fatalities and serious maimings, the problem of MGM dwarfs that of FGM and the fact that someone only cares about the welfare of girls whilst ignoring the gross violation of little boys says all you need to know about them.
Eugene
So many thoughts come to mind. The first is, “Where does all this anger come from?” This woman looks like she comes from a fairly middle class background. No father, which is probably part of the problem, but the rest of this neo-Marxist rant is filled with hate and vitriol. Female Genital Mutilation, which is barbaric, is not mentioned once in her anti-men diatribe. By the way, FGM is carried out by women. Makes you think. Is the world a physically dangerous place? Yes. Are women, who are not as physically strong as men, victimized when not protected by law, custom and (dare I say it?) their men? Yes. Brothels are filled with women and prostitutes are women. Where men are prostitutes, it is generally for gay men. As far as the catwalk and fashion argument goes; the fashion industry is run either by gay men or women. Heterosexual men like a well-dressed woman, but it is women who love to dress up, do their nails, hair and shop for hours trying on dresses. Most well-dressed men are “cleaned up” by the women in their lives.
Men chase and compete with other men for women. Can this woman keep my house and raise my children? Women, in their turn, choose a man based on wealth, power and their ability to protect them and their children. Complementary personalities would be good, but given the number of divorces, this does not appear to be possible.
The author’s view of how men should act has them being reduced to eunuchs, or gay men (fine if you happen to be gay).
Germaine Greer, by the way, is not particularly left-wing and has, or had, a well-developed sense of humor. In her youth she also had a very healthy libido and liked strong, virile Italian men. Check out Camille Paglia for a different take on men and women.
Now, I’m going to get my entrenching tool, dig a fighting position and wait for the enraged hoards to try and cut through the wire. I am locked and loaded.
Sir Henry Morgan
” Equality would be cruel to men if they were treated equal to women: men’s genitals would be sliced up…”
As others have pointed out, it’s called circumcision!
On hearing the hypocritical feminist Ms. Proudman was specialized in FGM law (FGM is such a huge problem in the UK, I’m surprised she has time to harass male lawyers – not!) I guessed she would be one of the types that denies male genital mutilation exists, even as it kills UK boys and maims UK men.
Presumably cases like that of Goodluck Caubergs, who bleed to death in Manchester after Grace Adeleye sliced up his penis on a kitchen table, don’t even register for Ms. Proudman’s? Ms. Proudman no doubt sees nothing wrong with Ms. Adeleye getting off scott-free.
Disgusting.
brian anderson
learn something, most FGM in the world is no more harmful than the male equivalent http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/02/female-genital-mutilation-and-male-circumcision-time-to-confront-the-double-standard/
Kirin
“Any job can be scaled down to be more viable for women.” What you’re really just saying here is that women are inferior to men. It’s probably meant well, but sounds rather offensive and t’s not true either. No, jobs don’t need to be scaled down so those delicate fragile women can do them too. There’s barely any relevant differences between the sexes when it comes to jobs, and those differences are bigger between individuals than between sexes. Women don’t need easier jobs, they need an environment that respects and welcomes them as it does with men.
Of course jobs should always be made as safe as possible, because people shouldn’t be disposable. Reducing weights would be useful for people with disabilities or who are not allowed to lift heavy things, but I think you are greatly underestimating the percentage of women who can lift 50lb. That men are on average a bit stronger doesn’t mean women are too weak to lift anything. The only people I know that can’t lift that weight are people who have had surgery and are no longer allowed to do so. And children. Most women can lift heavy stuff just fine and if they can’t they should work on their strength a bit. I’ve never had any issue lifting things and the men I’ve been working with never lifted double the weight I could handle. And that’s coming from a woman who, while strong by nature, leads a very passive life without exercise.