Equity Feminism vs Gender Feminism

So, I was doing a response to a Youtube video today and came across an article from 2007 by Jeff Fecke on the Shakesville.com site titled "Explainer: What are Gender Feminists and Equity Feminists?" At first I expected it to be an actual explanation of the two types of Feminism, but after reading it the first paragraph or two I realized that what Fecke should have titled it was "Explainer: An idiots biased perspective on the differences between Gender Feminists and Equity feminists." You can find the article HERE. It will open in a new window like most of the things I link to. Now, I am going to break the article down by using the same headings the Fecke used, but unlike Fecke I am going to actually attempt to explain the real differences between Gender Feminism and Equity Feminism. Quotes from Fecke himself will be in normal text and underlined and my own in Italics. So let's begin shall we?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our ongoing quest to inform(Misinform) readers, we've taken to periodically explaining(misrepresenting) terms that come up in discussions of feminism. Today's topic is inspired by this Ask Dr. Helen column, on which I will have more to say later. For now, however, I hope to explain two terms you will hear if you go read Dr. Helen, Glen Sacks, Camille Paglia, or really anyone in the anti-feminist set(Anti-gender Feminist set): gender feminist and equity feminist.

First off, in this opening you'll see where I have made notes with the intent of correcting his statements to represent what he really means. You'll also notice if you have had any experience with the Gender Feminist crowd that they often times use the No True Scottsman arguments and discount Equity Feminists as not being true Feminists, often times claiming they are anti-feminists as Fecke himself has done here. Make no mistake, Equity Feminists are in fact Feminists. They are just "Classical" Feminists or "Original" Feminists as some might say. But let's continue this article shall we?

 What are gender feminists and equity feminists?


Well, first of all, you need to know that these are not terms that actual feminists use.

Well, first of all, you need to know WHY these terms are not actually used by "Feminists" like Fecke. To understand this we must firt understand what Fecke means by "feminists" when he uses the word. As you'll notice later on Fecke doesn't consider Equity Feminists to be real Feminists so whenever he talks about or uses the term "Feminists" he is speaking about the mainstream Gender Feminist movement of modern, western societies. So, whenever you see Fecke say "feminist(s)" or "feminism" he means Gender Feminist(s) or Gender Feminism. With that established, let's delve into the why.

The reason these terms are not used by mainstream Feminists or mainstream Feminism is because it would be admitting that Gender Feminism is real and pervasive within the Feminist movement itself. It would also take away their ability to claim with some credibility that women like Christina Hoff Sommers and others. Now, to continue...

Nuh-uh! Dr. Helen says she's an "equity feminist," and that has the word "feminist" in it, so she's a feminist, and she uses the terms all the time! So does Christina Hoff Sommers, Glen Sacks, that one conservative guy at work, Ladies Against Women...

Okay, you're right: all those people do claim to be feminists, and they do use those terms. So let's first take a look at what they claim those terms mean. Or to be be more accurate, what Fecke claims they mean. Very different things, as anyone who has spoken with an Equity Feminist will tell you.

The gender/equity construct was created by Christina Hoff Sommers in her seminal anti-feminist trope, Who Stole Feminism? Sommers claims that she herself is an equity feminist; that is, she believes in equal rights and equal opportunity for women under the law. But she does not believe in addressing or changing gender roles; that falls under the rubric of gender feminism. That last sentence is a flat out lie, by the way. I have watched Sommers videos on Youtube and she makes no such argument. What she does do however, is take the view that "gender roles" as mainstram feminists like to call them, are a personal choice of the women who make them. If a woman chooses to stay at home and raise her kids, who is she or anyone else to demean, denigrate, or belittle her for doing so. That is far from from the belief that Gender roles shouldn't be addressed or changed.
 
In the standard dichotomy as developed by Sommers, gender feminists are seeking to undermine women's innate goals.(Undermine women's Decisions, not goals) While an equity feminist might believe that women should have the equal right to work as men, equity feminists believe that it's okay if outcomes are different, because women and men are just plain different.(Which is true, and I'll explain in a bit.)  Women like staying home, men like working, and that's just the way it is, some things will never change.

 OK, first, he's wrong. As mentioned above Equity feminists believe women should have the right to choose whatever role they wish for themselves. Equity Feminists like Sommers do not believe Gender Feminists undermine a woman's innate goals, simply that they seek to undermine a woman's right to choose her own goals for herself. The proof is in the comments by mainstream Feminists who write article like the one found in Jezebel by Tracy Egan Morrisey, which can be found HERE. Oddly Enough this article which is titled "'The Feminist Housewife' Is Such Bullshit" claims she's "OK" with women who are stay at home moms, yet she spends the entire article demeaning these women because of their views that women do find it easier to nurture than men do. What I find truly amazing, she actually claims the New York Times article she is railing against doesn't provide "proof" to backup it's claims, yet her entire piece is littered with links to proof that are just opinion pieces, no real proof.

The mean ol' gender feminists, meanwhile, try to claim that women and men aren't "just different," but that many of the differences we attribute to "the way things are" turn out to be societal constructs. They spend their time trying to eliminate those differences, which is, according to the equity feminists, a very bad thing.


 Now, he doesn't deny that the claim of women and men being "just different" is wrong, he just simply states that Gender Feminists believe most of these differences are social constructs. Here's the problem. Equity Feminists believe a lot of roles genders take in society are social constructs too. The problem is Gender Feminists aren't trying to eliminate societal constructs as even Fecke himself admits. They are trying to eliminate the innate differences between women and men that have been the cause of traditional gender roles in various societies. Even in matriarchal societies the women traditionally raised the children.

Is it? (Meaning eliminating gender differences)

No.

Actually yes, trying to eliminate the differences between women and men is a very bad idea, not to mention idiotically futile, thing to do. Why? Because much of those differences have biological components such as brain development and which parts of the brain is used more often. Scientifically speaking it has been proven females and males use different parts of their brains. You can find a good explanation in Scientific America, found HERE. This article actual details what Equity feminists truly believe, that being that in general females and males have differently wired brains but that this does not mean individual variances won't exist. Which is why Equity feminists believe in different but equal, not to be confused with separate but equal which is a stupid concept. Different but equal means true equality, it means that despite being different females and males deserve the exact same treatment without being segregated or denying those innate differences.

Hell, Gender Feminists aren't even trying to eliminate "traditional" gender roles in society. They are simply trying to change those roles and or redefine them, whether others agree with this or not doesn't matter to them. There is a vast difference between trying to eliminate or change societal expectations of gender roles and trying to eliminate the differences between the actual genders themselves.


Well, why not?
Because there is a difference between equality under the law and actual equality.(True) Take race, for a contrasting example. While one can argue about certain points of law and the way the law is enforced, from a strictly statutory standpoint the law is pretty color-blind, especially when contrasted with how it was written in, say, 1957.(Also true)

So far, so good, but here comes the train wreck of logical idiocy...

But only a benighted fool or Will Saletan (but I repeat myself) would claim that therefore, racism has been eliminated, and those working to change society's opinions on race are doing something wrong.(Starts off fine) Indeed, it's well-understood that society still functions in an unequal manner, and that we all need to do more work to eliminate racism.(And the train just jumped off the tracks) Even when conservatives try to argue that racism has been eliminated(Which we don't argue.), one can tell that their hearts aren't in it; it's too obviously false.




OK, as you can see his train of thought just derailed and crashed, here's why. Conservative, and I should know as a Conservative myself, don't think racism doesn't exist anymore. Just as we don't claim sexism doesn't exist. What we DO claim is the systemic or institutionalized racism and sexism do not exist. Governments should not be picking winners or losers, that's not the job of governments and we have pretty much reached that point. It's social racism and sexism that we acknowledge exists, but unlike utopia spewing morons we also face the reality that you cannot eliminate social bigotry regardless of what it is based on. It's an effort in futility. All you can do as a just society is insure that social bigotry never again becomes government enforced like it was during the Jim Crow era. Those who are trying to use government force to regulate social behavior are doing something wrong. They are fighting a useless war that they cannot win, which is why equal representation under the law is more important.

So it is with gender. While the laws are certainly far more gender-balanced now than they were a half-century ago(True) , only someone willfully blind would say that sexism no longer exists in our society(True also), or that we've reached a point where reverse sexism is targeting men(And that train of thought just derailed again, will explain in a bit why). Women have made many strides, but one only has to take a look at the average state legislature(Which fewer females run for)or Fortune 500 company board of directors(Another position few women try for) to see just how much work society has to do before we reach true equity.


Here's the thing. The primary reason for so few females in government position and Fortune 500 companies is interest. Far fewer women actually seek these positions than men, which to Gender Feminists is sexism and not a product of the choices made by Female and males. Seeing a pattern here? For all their talk of equality, they are not talking about equality of choice or opportunity but in outcome, which is just asinine.

So are you "gender feminists" saying men and women are exactly the same?
No. But we are saying that many of the differences we see are pushed on us, literally, from the day we're born. My daughter has two strongly feminist parents, and she still has come home from pre-school to ask if it's okay for girls to play with dinosaurs. When three-year-olds are being pushed to adopt their correct gender roles, it's impossible to argue that those gender roles are constant as the northern star.

In his little anecdote about his daughter, you'll notice what's missing right? He mentioned her asking is it's OK for girls to play with Dinosaurs, but he never mentions whether someone else told her should COULDN'T play with them. Just because a child asks if a given thing is OK does not mean someone tried to stop her from doing it or pushed gender roles on her. He jumps to this conclusion because as he states she has "two strongly [gender]feminist parents" and that's what he assumed was the case. If his 3 year old asked him if it was OK for her to play house would he immediately assume someone touched his little girl inappropriately? ... Well, knowing the Gender Feminist mind set, probably. But that's not the point. Hes doing what a lot of these mainstream feminists do, confusing causation and correlation. He has presented no evidence besides her question itself that anyone was pushing her to adopt gender roles. Perhaps she simply saw many of her female class mates choose dolls to play with, wanted to play with the dinosaurs, but felt awkward being the only female student to do so. Thus, she wanted her parents to inform her if it was OK for her to do so, which of course it is and I would encourage it. It does not however prove she was forced into a gender role.


So you don't like "gender feminist" and "equity feminist." What are better terms?

What Sommers and her ilk rail against is the idea that women should be able to define for themselves what "conforming to gender" means(This is a flay out lie.). (And, for that matter, that men should be able to define it for themselves.[which is true]) But self-determination -- the ability to live one's life as one pleases, without having to bow and scrape before society's arbitrary definitions of gender -- is at the core of modern feminism.





OK, first off he starts with a flat out lie. Equity Feminists don't rail against the idea that women should be able to define for themselves what "conforming to gender" means. What Sommers and her "ilk", aka Equity Feminists, believe is that if a woman chooses to work that's fine, but if a woman chooses a "traditional" gender role such as a house wife then Gender Feminists have no right to tell them they shouldn't be able to. Equity Feminists believe in the right to choose whatever role women and men want, Gender Feminists believe you should only choose the gender roles they decide women should have and ignore males entirely. Big difference and a flat out lie to state otherwise.

The patriarchy is all about placing people in boxes that define who they are.(False) Soi disant equity feminists think that's okay, as long as the boxes are all the same size. It doesn't matter if one box holds slide rules while the other holds baby dolls -- those things are just natural. Soi disant gender feminists think that you yourself are the best person to pick out your own box, and fill it with your own stuff; indeed, they think it's okay to choose no box at all.

First off, "the patriarchy" doesn't exist. At least not the way Gender Feminists claim it does. First off, Patriarchy theory by Gender Feminists literally means the rule of the male and is generally understood within feminist discourses as asserting the domination of all men over all women in equal terms. Which is not what Patriarchy is, at all. I may do a comparison between Patriarchy theory by Gender Feminists and what truly Patriarchal societies actually were. But for now, that explanation will do.

Equity feminists do not believe in putting everyone in a box, as long as those boxes are the same size. Equity Feminists believe that each person has the right to choose for themselves what role they want to have. Whether that's "traditional" roles or new conventional roles, it's up to each individual to choose for themselves and is not societies right to undermine that. Gender Feminists on the other hand demean house wives, feminine ideals, and complain about some of the most idiotic things. Need proof, I suggest doing s google search for "I need Feminism because" images.

Things like "I need Feminism because 1/3rd of 10 year old girls biggest worry is their body" and I know Gender Feminists aren't too bright, but given that 2/3rd of 10 year old girls are no worried bout that means it's not an issue. Or how about "I need Feminism because Mistress does not equal Master." And here I thought Feminism was about equality, if they want to be Mistresses and Masters over people that doesn't sound equal to me. How about one more "I need Feminism because I want the surname of the "Brilliant" woman raised me alone, not the name of the person who was "violent" to her." This last one, setting aside the fact that not all divorces are due to spousal abuse, also shows a lack of understand how names work. There is nothing stopping her from changing her last name, and it is much more likely that her last name was given to her before her mother had to raise her alone and even likely chose the last name to give her herself if she did give birth to her without him being around.
 
In short, there's no such thing as gender feminism(Yes, there is actually); those people who think that society and government must both strive to support equality and self-determination are feminists(false). And there's no such thing as equity feminism(also false), because one can't reach true equity without changing society as well as government(false). Because "equity feminists" are against actually achieving feminist goals, they are anti-feminists(also false).

Gender Feminists do exist. They are people who think society and more important government authority should strive to tell others how to behave, deny self-determination to anyone who doesn't agree with their ideals. That's why they demean, ridicule, and belittle any female who chooses to be a house wife and stay at home mother. There is a such thing a Equity Feminists, because the one can't reach true equity without acknowledging that some individuals will always buck conventional societal rules, but more importantly that government has no place in enforcing societal standards on anyone as long as they aren't harming someone else. Equity Feminists are not against "Feminist" goals, they are against the bigoted, hate filled, sexist goals of Gender Feminists. They are not "anti-feminist" at all, they are anti-bigotry and anti-sexism and thus are anti-Gender Feminist.

Isn't that a bit harsh?
Look, the anti-feminists know that for all their griping, people no longer believe that women should be barred from the workplace(As do most Anti-feminists like myself). Nobody supports laws that give men unfair advantages(Just as anti-feminists like myself do not). So the fact is that technical equality is already a fait accompli(You mean like government not being anti-women). The battleground for feminism now is over the definition of gender roles(True). "Equity feminism" says, essentially, that we're done(Nope), that we've reached true equality between men and women(Only under the law), and the feminists should shut up(Hell yes, true). In other words. If you think that we truly have reached a point when men and women are truly equal, in all senses of the word(nope just under the law), then fine, you can call yourself an equity feminist if you wish(Why, that's not what it means). Here in the real world(He means the Utopian delusion of Gender Feminism), those of us who are truly (gender)feminist will continue to fight for actual, real, and lasting equality between men and women(How, by drinking male tears and preventing male suicide rates and males lacking in academic proficiency from being addressed my protesting it?), homosexuals(lie) and heterosexuals(Damn lie), cisgendered(Damn lie) and transgendered(bullshit). That will have some legal components -- the law isn't completely gender-balanced yet(True, it favors women more than men) -- but most of the work will be in changing the minds of people in our society, one at a time(Yep, even Equity Feminists would agree with this, but fight against using government force to do so). That's the battleground we have to engage in(True, but with facts and truth, not hatred and bigotry). And those arguing we should avoid it are arguing that the battle for equality(Which Equity Feminists do not argue), true equality(an ambiguous goal at best), is a battle that should be left unfought(True, but the bigotry and hatred of Gender Feminists should be).

 In closing, I'd like to point out that any public site that claims to be a run as a safe space is a place that will disregard criticism, and call it sexist or misogynist. All one has to do is look at the Feminism 101 link to understand WHY it's a "safe place" where criticism will get you banned. She actually claims 1 in 4 women are raped, that means of the of the 161 million females, and we'll be generous and say half are children which she doesn't include since she specifically stated women, over 40 million were raped. That's over half the adult female population, which would be 1 is 2 not 1 in 4, but more importantly... it's bullshit.