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)”
BetaKing69
Still, a woman can reproduce without feeling pleasure, if you cut off a penis it is pretty obvious that having babies eventually becomes a side show,.
Kendall
LOL and yet this account is the one deleted.
Mytheroo
100% of the fastest humans alive are men. How are you going to quota for that?
You have no idea what men think, have no idea what they value in other men, give no reason why there should be more than 1 woman out of 202 whatevers, falsely think equalists want equality of opportunity AND equality of outcome (they don’t because that is impossible).
“greatest feminist thinkers”……not just the greatest thinkers of our time then? They probably only just made it onto the list of greatest thinkers in their own households
NHLfarmteams
I’m shocked that #1 didn’t garner more comments. While anecdotal in nature it is indicative of the double standards that come along with feminism in general. Feminism has done an exemplary job of keeping the pieces of Patriarchy it finds palatable and crapping on the rest. Patriarchy theory informs us that men are oppressors and women are victims. But it also portrays women as nurturers and men as producers (we wanna keep that part). The double standards are so glaringly obvious that only the truly obtusely brainwashed can’t see it.
Were men in the 1940’s assumed to be pedophiles if they were interested in children? What’s changed? Could it be 50-60 years of classical conditioning where men are viewed as social pariahs? Could be that even one of the most powerful men in the world has abandoned all reason and flippantly refers to a 1 in 4 statistic that is so grossly inflated as to be laughable?
Feminism has absolutely nothing to do with equality and never has, period. It is a movement by women (and a few mindless drones like the author of this piece) for women’s privilege. When surveys are created they are biased every time. The entire movement is supported by surveys stricken with confirmation bias. Do feminists care that HR departments are predominantly run by women, no. Are they trying to get more female ditch diggers, sewer workers, construction workers on highrises? No. Why? Because those are not privileged positions suitable for 2nd class citizens, men. We hear endlessly about the number (or lack there of) of women in elected government positions and as CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies. Why? Because they are high profile power positions and they are the one’s feminists want. It’s the elephant in the room that no one is willing to talk about.
The author is quite right that power has been handed out incorrectly in the past (nepotism is a far greater contributor than any feminist would ever admit because you know, sexism) but redistributing power based on genitalia makes about as much sense as Patriarchy theory.
NHLfarmteams
Because it’s not feminism. Feminism is not and has never been about equality. It solely focuses on areas where men are privileged and ignores where women are privileged. It is rife with surveys loaded with confirmation bias by so called “academic” feminists that cannot separate fact from their worldview. It is a reductionist ideology that refuses to acknowledge biological and societal imperatives.
Feminism is more akin to a cult or religion. It chooses targets to create maximum empathy for the plight of women. It dresses it up by calling the actions the “fight for equality” when in actuality it is cherry picking. A movement for equality would not deride and dismiss another movement that was trying to reconcile the fact that men are 75% of the homeless, 80% of suicides and 90% of workplace deaths. A social movement for equality would be fighting to even out those numbers.
So be a feminist if you want just don’t be surprised in the end when you and your movement are exposed as frauds and your legacy is one of disgust by anyone willing to think for a moment.