Petrie Wheeler-Lill

This conversation is closed.

"Women's Rights Activists should change their pitch from 'equality' to 'equity'"

Around the world today Feminism has been on the rise. Indeed, while some argue that Feminists want "superiority" over "equality", and others otherwise, most can agree that "equity" would be a far more achievable, and indeed appropriate, goal.

So what is the difference? Equality is the state of being equal despite your individual differences, whereas equity is the state of having your differences catered to in a best attempt to "equalise" between Genders. One example: women (by and large) are not as strong in fields of hard labour as men, however most men are not as gifted in fields of arts as a lot of women are.

So pick a side: are you for or against the motion? Should feminists change their sales pitch and goals? Or is that anti-feminist? Do feminists want superiority? Is equality impractical or even unachievable? Is equity? Where might religion or culture fit into this (for example, Islam does tend to take on quite an "equity-based" approach)? Is this a debate for future generations?

These are all things you could consider and make statements out of. Good luck!

  • thumb
    Sep 30 2012: I think equality should be the focus. It should not just be assumed that women can not do the "hard labour".
    As far as jobs are concerned women should be given the same opportunities as men, and men the same opportunities as women. That is what freedom is about. One is actually given a choice, a right to self-determination. Dont just say that a woman can not be a bodyguard or a truckdriver or a pilot; the focus should be ability, competence and talent.

    As a kid growing up in Nigeria I thought that women can not drive large buses like double-decker buses; until I came to South Africa and saw that most of the drivers of double-decker buses were women. One day I was amazed to see two South African policewomen overpowering a man with a knife and putting cuffs in his wrists.

    I think people should be allowed to make their own choices.
    • thumb
      Sep 30 2012: I agree with you, to a point... but I worry about one thing, and this will be my answer to the question in general... I worry we, in America, and many western nations, are creating a culture, where tall, strong, young men, without education, and uninterested in education... are also unwilling to do mine, or farm labor, hard labor.

      One problem with the word equality... Is that no one wants to be the equal of the miner, or farmer, no matter what color, or gender they may be... but people need to do these jobs. Automation will eventually solve this problem, but I worry that in the west, we've created a generation unwilling to do the hard labor in the meantime. There are lots of jobs, that no one wants until unemployment is above 10%... and when we talk about equality, we tend to forget, that we used to be able to convince young men to do those jobs... but young women weren't exactly chomping at the bit to steal them.

      In some ways we have raised both genders standards... but in some ways we are creating a culture that no longer even guides young men towards "putting their hands to work", and I think that may be unhealthy. I think most young men benefit from putting some physical labor into the world while their powers are at peak... I think there is room for equity, for encouraging without judging.

      I would not suggest Islam as a champion of equity however.
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • +1
    Sep 30 2012: I prefer the word equality. I know that I have more lower body strength than a man who has more upper body strength, but that doesn't mean that I should be treated badly by my society. In the USA, thanks to the born-agains, I no longer have the right to own my body as soon as I get pregnant. In fact, the born-against have successfully ended the right of many poor women to buy birth control using insurance. Of course, a pedophile can still get Viagara using HIS insurance.

    Islam, that treats women as inferiors, does not have an equity-based approach. Heck, in some cultures they may not leave their house without a male relative escorting them. They can't drive cars. They are required to wear a head scarf in more liberal cultures, and a burka in more fundamentalist. In all cases, they are inferior to men.
    • thumb

      Josh S

      • 0
      Oct 1 2012: I know my answer isn't going to be based off the original question, but i couldnt resist answering:

      'I no longer have the right to own my body as soon as I get pregnant'
      - is another life your body? we classify sponges as a living organism, so is an embryo any less of a life? the 'born agains' simply want to protect the embryo.
      The best analogy i could give is just because i dont like someone, doesnt mean i have the right to kill him. Just because a 1 year old baby may be a burden to a single mom, doesnt mean the single mom can simply kill it. This is the argument of 95% of born agains. Very very few people have a problem with contraception, but that doesnt mean we want to pay for someone else's.

      Viagra is a medicine fixing a physical problem, contraception is not required to 'have a good time'. If you have a problem going out and buying contraception for a few bucks, but can afford a car/phone/house/food, then you need to rethink your finances.

      And please, 60% of people in the US are against abortion (other then in cases of rape and incest) while only 8% of americans are for abortion at any time for any reason. That's a pretty notable difference and in a democratic nation, 60% is a majority...
      • thumb

        Gail .

        • 0
        Oct 2 2012: So a large majority—77 percent—of Americans support abortion being legal in all or "certain circumstances," and just 20 percent of Americans are actually "pro-life" in the sense that opponents of legalized abortion understand the term. Another way of saying this is that most Americans are actually pro-choice even if they sometimes identify as pro-life. In fact, there are more Americans who think abortion should be legal in all circumstances (25 percent) than think it should be illegal in all circumstances (20 percent).

        That's good news for someone, but not for people who want to outlaw abortion.

        http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/05/many-pro-life-americans-dont-want-outlaw-abortion
  • thumb
    Oct 14 2012: I think:
    All the 3 of superiority, equality and equity are subjective.
    The objective one should be biologivally inseparable CO-BODY as follows:
    "
    a. Husband
    The husband half is biologically assigned in charge of food-seeking, habitat constructing, defending, donating all kinds of co-body-safety messages ceaselessly to his wife (kissing, embracing, and so on) .
    His ability and smartness come mainly from the ceaseless intimate encouragement of the other half of the marriage ---- the wife.
    b. Wife
    The wife is biologically assigned in charge of the child bearing, child bring up, house hold, and etc.
    She transfers all the physical substantial materials from her own body into the baby’s. Also, she exhausts all her spiritual energy to bring up the baby or child ---- the DNA-carrier of both the husband and wife.
    That is where her mother-greatness and beauty come from.
    Her beauty and virtue are support-enhanced by the ceaseless intimate co-body message from the other half of the marriage ---- the husband.
    "
    All the 3 subjectives are come from the false concept of INVALID HPINESS. 

    Am I wrong?