WHAT DO FEMINISTS WANT?

Equal access to opportunities or equal outcomes of the genders even if it means restricting access to opportunities from men?

A thread.

#SundayService #PalmSunday
#sundayvibes #lockdown2021

They will simply say EQUALITY without mentioning equal rights and responsibilities which are mutually inclusive.

Now, what is equality? EQUALITY is the quality or state of having the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another. As in rights, as in responsibilities.

Now, that definition is ambiguous as to the reality of life. How? Different skills, talents, abilities, efforts etc. differentiate people (men & women) from one another. Those efforts and likes are what make some people more successful, influential or productive to say the least.

Is it now possible to give people same measure, quantity or amount with no regard to differences in their capacities/abilities/efforts?

Is it possible to give people equal responsibilities (as rights too) with no regard to differences in their capacities/abilities?

I’ll say NO!

Now, if there are differences in the abilities and capacities of people based on differences in natural privileges, is it fair to try to compensate the less privileged? I’ll say YES!

For example, it is fair to give more consideration (e.g, time to write in an exam) to children with certain disabilities in a class because of their natural handicap so they can stand a chance to compete with their peers. That is EQUITY.

What then is equity?

EQUITY is fairness, impartiality, or justice as determined in light of ‘natural law’.

So regardless of equity being granted by the teacher or school, the disabled children’s academic ability will still have to come to natural competition with other children’s abilities.

And it is very possible that they are still unable to compete with some other children, not because of their disability but because of possible differences in interest, brilliance, discipline, effort etc.

Now, this also plays out in many cases and more ruthlessly in real life.

In real life, natural selection takes place.

The difference is now who gives the equity: the non-participant distributor. The teacher/school gave equity to the children in the class. God, to a real world, would replace the teacher.

It would be foolish for the teacher to set a sporting exam, for example, which determines the success of each student then expect better equipped students (naturally or artificially) to suppress their abilities so the disabled students can compete with them.

In which case, there are consequences for actions either of which will be favorable or not.

It would be more foolish if the expectation come from the disabled children.

However, there’s room for fairness in such situation which can be determined by the teacher not the students.

And that’s the allocation of prizes to all participants (both winners and losers) but with differences.

The disabled children will do better for themselves if they blame no one for their inability to be first in a competition.

They will even be better off if they don’t ask other children to have their legs tied/cut, eyes blinded/folded etc. (as the case may be) to compete with them.

Conversely, it shows stupidity of the highest order.

Now, back to the issue of gender.

Some say gender equality is the goal, while neutrality and gender equity are practices and ways of thinking that help in achieving the goal. What does this mean exactly?

This takes me back to the beginning. WHAT DO FEMINISTS WANT?

Equal access to opportunities or equal outcomes of the genders even if it means restricting access to opportunities from men?

The latter would be what feminists mean by gender equality is the goal. Not access to equal opportunities, but in fact unequal access (in their favor)...

...to opportunities.

The worst, often foolish, approach towards it is even the dodging of responsibilities & accountabilities towards achieving the success they crave thus excusing their own actions or lack thereof.

E.g Some female footballers (e.g Rapinoe) cry about equal pay.

What they don’t say is “We don’t care to generate equal revenue, just pay us as the men” (in an insular profession).

*We who generate N10m want to get N3m because the men (who generate N60m) receive N3m too* is their logic.

Their deliberate hebetude is even far more disgusting;

the deliberate overlooking of the very low interest of women even in women football.

Worldover, more men watch women football more than women do. But rather than encourage women to pay to watch women football, they choose to gaslight (in vain) men for earning more than they.

Martha is the most prominent female soccer star. Rashford is not in top 100 most prominent male soccer stars. But it’s very likely even women will be more eager to meet-&-greet Rashford than Martha.

The deliberate overlooking/avoidance of women nature (which is sometimes...

...counterproductive) has made some men conclude that:

Women want the privileges of men, women, children, animals and responsibility of non.

The fault is not of women in general, it is of the feminists who engage in deliberate hebetude/dullness.

Though the feminist ideology (fairly) started as a fight for women’s rights & equal access to opportunities, it has since degerated into a fight for equal outcomes of the gender through manipulative means (social & scientific); and sometimes, through the emasculation of some men.

To them, if it’s hard to meet far up (as it is due to differences in biology), let’s pull them down so we meet in the middle.

Because of the aforementioned, feminism can then be likened to Pyrates Confraternity founded by Wole Soyinka & co with its development over the years.

I will not explain the aforementioned.

Now, assuming I’ve written a gobbledygook, I ask, WHAT DO FEMINISTS WANT?