"Feminism is about EQUALITY" Equal to who?

submitted by Kai_Decadence from self.GenderCritical

Hey there everyone. So this is something that has been poking at me for quite a while now but I really wanted to get some feedback about this. So I know that "Feminism" was never about Equality and was always about Women's Rights & Liberation. But Liberal Feminists butchered the term and started saying that "Feminism is about Equality". Whenever I try to let people know about the truth of feminism, I sometimes stumble about rebutting "Equality" with "Equal to who?" And that's where I wanted to get some feedback and I thought I was better off asking here than instead of Reddit because that site is overrun by Liberal Feminists and "Trans Feminists". So yeah when people say "Feminism is not about Equality, equal to whom"? Where does this argument really come from? Like when people ask this, do they mean that people are thinking that the whole "feminism is about equality" thing is implying that women want to be equal to men? And if so, is the real question about why would women want to be equal to men?

all 6 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Women are equal to men in our worth as human beings. That's not a matter of wanting; it's a matter of fact.

But equal to does not mean the same as.

One of the aims of feminism has been to recognize that males and females are human beings of equal worth by giving girls and women rights and standing under the law that are equal to the rights and standing of boys and men. And by insuring that the two sexes have equal opportunity to participate in all areas of society.

But this does not mean treating the two sexes as if they are the exact same in every circumstance. Equality under the law and equal opportunity to participate in society means acknowledging the physical differences between males and females and making provisions that accommodate each.

For example, in school sports, boys need to be equipped with jock straps and cups to protect their genitals, whereas girls need to be equipped with sports bras and clothing and products to help manage menstruation. Giving boys sports bras and period pants, or girls jock straps and cups, would be treating the two sexes the same - but it wouldn't be treating them as human beings of equal worth or allowing them to have equal opportunity to participate in sports and society. In the scenarios I've sketched, the needs of one or the other sex would be ignored and all members of that sex would be put at a disadvantage.

In health care, adult males need to be checked and treated for such matters as prostate enlargement and cancer, erectile dysfunction, infertility caused by low sperm count and motility and insufficient seminal fluid. Females need to be checked and treated for various gynecological conditions and cancers, menstrual pain and related problems, pregnancy, childbirth, menopause, infertility caused by a number of issues specific to to females... and so on.

It's similar to providing specific accommodations for people with a wide range of very specific physical differences. People in wheelchairs need provisions that aren't needed by people who can walk - or by people who are hearing or visually impaired, either. People with hearing impairments need one set of provisions, people with sight impairments need an entirely different set of provisions, and people with mobility issues need yet another set of provisions. It's not fair to tell all people with various disabilities that they're being treated equally coz their workplace has a wheelchair ramp or their school offers sign language interpreters. Lots of people won't be accommodated and thus afforded equal opportunity by just those provisions.

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah okay. So the "equality" is already there. It's about basic human decency essentially.

[–]censorshipment 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Equality in general is about everyone having equal rights and opportunities. Well, some idiots believe that men are losing as women are gaining... so now feminists have to balance the scales. It's bullshit, you know.

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Right and I used to be more hard-line in it. Like I still believe in personal choice but I'm also aware on how sometimes there is cognitive dissonance that can take place when making certain choices.

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

This is why I prefer the term women's lib.

The point of feminism should be to free women from oppression not to aim to be equal to men, who often aren't particularly happy or healthy people.

The trouble with that is that for many rich women in the West oppression is pretty thin on the ground so it's easier to look at the gaps in attainment or representation and assume they must be caused by sexism rather than personal choice. And of course there are many issues that all women face, even privileged ones, but they are often difficult or uncomfortable (domestic abuse, sexual abuse, cultural/parental sexism, etc) and concentrating on the gaps set out in nice clean numbers means those messy issues can be safely ignored.

[–]Kai_Decadence[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That all actually makes sense.