So. Makes sense right? Being an "equalist" is being the change you wish to see in the world, right?
But no. Think about it. There's a lot of different arguments you can make about being against the term "equalist," but what convinced me was realizing that feminist issues directly affect women. Rape is a hate crime that targets women. Abortion is a policy that is barred from women. The glass ceiling, sexual harassment in the workplace, unequal pay.. these are all directly enforced to disadvantage women. If misogyny directly impacts women, then the fight is obviously going to be for and about women. As simple as that.
Going into it a bit more, leaving it at "equalist" also leaves it at the mercy of a world that is already androcentric/man-centered. Think about it, even at the really really really basic level. Even things that you might not even considered before. The world is essentially designed by men, for men. Making this claim always gets me bombarded with so-called exceptions to androcentrism (I'm still a little bitter), so I'm going to address the most common "exceptions" right off the bat:
-Yes, department stores have mostly women's stores.
-Yes, women have doors held open for them, checks paid for them, etc.
-Yes, women get lesser jail sentences.
-Yes, women were never drafted into the military.
All true, but not exactly feminist victories. These faux victories, I'm going to call them, are all based on some fundamental assumptions about women that have contributed to the ongoing oppression of women. Women have so many shopping options because their value is so often determined by their looks: women have historically been treated as property, so naturally, you have to make that property as alluring as possible to attract a breadwinning husband. Men, on the other hand, are valued for their abilities: intelligence, athleticism, etc. Men are valued for doing, while women are for showing/looking. Again, hardly a feminist victory. The other faux victories are all based on assumptions that women are less reliable, weaker, less capable of violence, more sympathetic, etc. Women are actively barred from serving in combat positions in the military, and are still actively fighting for the right to do so*. Sure, the draft sucks, but making it illegal for women to serve in combat positions is hardly a privilege. Same goes for prison. Nobody is fighting to go to prison, that's for sure, but the reason why women receive lesser jail sentences is because they're perceived as naturally submissive, naturally incapable of violence. In other words, women are historically perceived as marshmallow baby-makers and cake-bakers. This is the same sort of attitude that keeps women from being hired for leadership positions, or within the math and sciences fields-- they're thought of as weak and cooperative, family-oriented, and unable to make the right sacrifices/choices for the job. The key is to keep in mind that those faux victories always have an underlying reason to them: it's not a bunch of old white men sitting in a room choosing to favor those sweet young girls. It is a very predictable pattern of pigeonholing women and keeping them confined to a very narrow definition of femininity.
Anyway, I forget where I was going with that. My point is that fighting for women's rights requires specificity. Yes, the goal is for gender equality, but until we get there, the debate has to be about women. From a logistical point of view, it would be just damn right confusing not to specify women. Equalism? What kind of equality are you talking about? Human equalism? Oh so, equalism between humans in general? So women are disproportionately raped, discriminated against, most likely to be murdered by intimate partners than by anyone else, and we're still talking about how offensive it is that the ideology of the women's rights movement specifies.. women? How is this for a benchmark.. when we achieve gender equality, you'll know it because people will no longer be freaked out by words that imply that maybe, just maybe, women have a say in this world.
*I actually had someone on reddit.com tell me that he was sick and tired of feminists because they "want rights and equal pay, yet they can't even get off their selfish asses and fight for their nation." Yes, verbatim. After I told him that it's illegal for women to do so, and that there is an ongoing movement to overturn the policy, he said something about me watching my sarcastic mouth. Yes, yes. Lovely.
