The fight for equality between the sexes has been raging on for decades. Although women have always questioned the system in which we abide it hasn't always been an obvious battle. Beginning back in the 15th-17th century there was a small number of female writers who were quietly fighting against the expectations of society. Christine de Pizan (who wrote Epitre au Dieu d'Amour in the 15th century) has been praised as the 'first woman to take up a pen in defence of her sex' by Simone de Beauvoir. Anne Bradstreet wrote 'I am obnoxious to each carping tongue/ That says my hand a needle better fits' in the 17th century. As the first published poet of either gender in America she was required to defend her choice in occupation throughout her life.
'Feminism' however wasn't created per se until the late 19th century. It was at this point what we now call 'first-wave' feminism began. It started with the suffragettes and was built around the desire for women to have the right to vote, a right men had been given since democracy was first introduced in 508-507BC. First wave feminism occurred internationally. There was a distinct common goal, a goal that desired women be given the same legal rights as our male counterparts. There was no grey area in the fight for equality back in the early 20th century. There was no unsurety about what exactly women were fighting for.
Women wanted the same legal rights as men, and so they fought to get them.
First wave feminism was a fight for equality.
Modern day feminism is a fight for equity, wrapped in the bow of its ancestors and framed as equality.
But it is no longer about equality and this is why.
Equality is by definition: 'the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.'
While Equity is 'the quality of being fair and impartial.'
There is a significant difference between the two.
Tim Pool described it well during his interview with Joe Rogan. He explained that equality is 'equal opportunity, two people are allowed to try and if one succeeds: congratulations.' He then described equity as 'determining whether or not [a person] is advantaged or privileged and then holding [that person] back or pushing [that person] forwards based on these metrics.'
The most common example brought into discussion is the fence image below, where equality shows all people receiving the same item and equity shows each person receiving what they need in order to prosper.
Essentially equal opportunity vs equal outcome.
The issue with this image, again as pointed out by Tim Pool, is that this image is quantifiable whereas the idea of equity is not always quantifiable. The solution in the above image is simple, height is a quantifiable number and hence if all need to see the game no one bats an eye at giving the short person extra crates to see.
Problems arise when you attempt to place the same logic in situations such as feminism and race. These are not quantifiable variables.
But modern day feminism is pushing for this idea of equity. We moved beyond the idea of equality when we became protected by law from discrimination due to our sex. We received our equality. If we look back on the definition of equality it is obvious that the threshold has been reached. Men and women do in fact have equal rights, equal status and equal opportunity in individual situations.
The argument for there being inequality still within the sexes appears to be based entirely on averages between 7 billion people. If you take every income from every man and women and find the average it is true that men earn a percentage more than women. But that number does not determine an inequality.
If on the bottom tier men and women are payed the same amount of money for the same work in the same number of hours then equality in pay exists.
To go beyond that is to begin to argue for equity. To argue for equal pay on average means implementing a base pay rate for all people. Only then will there be exact equality in wages. The problem is that we are so caught up in the BIG picture that we are failing to see the success that have occurred since feminism was first introduced.
There is a point in which an argument switches from being impartial and factually based to being emotionally driven and selfish. That is what feminism has become. We have lost sight of the true goals of feminism while being caught up in this pipe-dream 'everyone gets the same outcome' mentality.
True equity between the genders will never exist.
Simply speaking, how do you make laws that protect or benefit people based on their specific situation? How do you determine if a person fits into the category of that specific situation? There is a line in which, if we chose to cross it, we go beyond trying to give all people fairness and we morph into benefiting individuals instead of the majority.
I am all for all people being equal, for having the same opportunities to achieve success and the same support systems to help us reach that goal. What I am wholeheartedly against is this argument that women should receive special allowances because they are women. Yes women need different things, face different problems and experience things differently to men but that doesn't give men some imaginary advantage. Men face their own problems, problems that are unique to being a man and discounting those problems leads only to peril.
Fighting for modern day feminism is fighting for equity between the sexes and I am against the
the concept of equity on such a specific scale.