Clip taken from the YouTube video of the Elbows Up T.O. Public Meeting - original post from earlier today found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/50501Canada/s/U7jyMoggwj I have to share the most impa...
Activist groups that fought for equality, never thought to disband after equality was achieved. Current higher education enrollment is heavily skewed female now. Gender identity shouldn’t be made a hiring criteria.
It’s not just that. There’s another way to look at these groups…
Something like feminist equality pushes are basically advocating for women’s rights/equality in areas that are advantageous to women. It makes perfect sense that they don’t advocate for something like equality in terms of life expectancy, or male access to traditionally female occupations, because it’s outside the scope of their mandate. They are not advocating for equality/egalitarian goals, they are advocating specifically to gain benefits (or remove impediments) for their niche group. They don’t totally hide this bias, they put it front and centre in most cases, but the public ‘reads’ it as pushing for equality because of marketing and the inability to question the narrative without being labelled as a misogynistic arse, basically. It’s not just feminist pushes, special interest rights movements in general are not about egalitarian goals / equality, but are explicitly about providing advantages to their special interest groups.
If you remove all the negatives from one side of an equation, without touching the other side, you don’t end up with equality.
Activist groups that fought for equality, never thought to disband after equality was achieved. Current higher education enrollment is heavily skewed female now. Gender identity shouldn’t be made a hiring criteria.
It’s not just that. There’s another way to look at these groups…
Something like feminist equality pushes are basically advocating for women’s rights/equality in areas that are advantageous to women. It makes perfect sense that they don’t advocate for something like equality in terms of life expectancy, or male access to traditionally female occupations, because it’s outside the scope of their mandate. They are not advocating for equality/egalitarian goals, they are advocating specifically to gain benefits (or remove impediments) for their niche group. They don’t totally hide this bias, they put it front and centre in most cases, but the public ‘reads’ it as pushing for equality because of marketing and the inability to question the narrative without being labelled as a misogynistic arse, basically. It’s not just feminist pushes, special interest rights movements in general are not about egalitarian goals / equality, but are explicitly about providing advantages to their special interest groups.
If you remove all the negatives from one side of an equation, without touching the other side, you don’t end up with equality.