Equalist vs Feminist

‘I’m not a feminist, I’m an equalist’. This phrase was spoken by one of my closest friends when we were in conversation surrounding the label of being a feminist. I was struck by this comment because I, being a self-proclaimed and proud feminist, want equality – so how are the two terms different? When did this division start? How has feminism somehow become a partially negative term; one that women are reluctant to use for themselves, even today? Is ‘equalist’ being used as a softer label than feminism? When defining each term, the differences seem minute. But there is clearly something within the definition of feminism that puts people off of using it for themselves.

With a multitude of definitions contributing to what feminism is, the general consensus is that feminism is the need for equality of all genders. With so many definitions and changing perspectives of what feminism is, perhaps this is the issue? People are unfamiliar with what feminism now actually stands for. Since the start of the feminist waves the media has created a negative image of what feminism is. The bra-burning feminists of the second-wave created the idea that feminists were angry and fighting for trivial pursuits surrounding clothing rather than issues of global importance. However, items of systematic oppression, including bras, were brought to protests in order to symbolise removing male domination that controlled female beauty standards. Third-wave feminists were presented as projecting femininity in a radical way that promoted women as objects. Self-sexualisation became a prevalent term. Women were seen as using their bodies rather than their minds: women displayed themselves as objects of consumption. However, this is not how I see it. Women were embracing their femininity in order to combat the societal pressures that argue the female form cannot be shared. Even today, women struggle, particularly on social media, to present their bodies the way men do. These moments in feminist activism have resulted, arguably, in feminism being seen as a trivial pursuit for women to advertise their bodies and engage in the idea that women are above men.

However, to me, feminism is not just equality for women, but equality for everyone who is oppressed by the societal constructs of gender. There is no longer just a focus on women: feminism seeks to change the ‘patriarchal paradigm’ which creates the male viewpoint as superior, thus creating an equal society in which all genders, including non-binary people and men, are afforded equal treatment. It is about equality for all genders.

Supposedly different to feminism, equalism is the notion that all beings are equal, regardless of race, gender, class or sexuality. By this definition, feminism does not focus on other areas of oppression, but solely focuses on gender. Whilst gender is naturally central to the concept, I would argue that equalism is the definition of intersectional feminism: where gender, race, class and sexuality intersect in order to create an equal society. An intersectional approach is essential to being a feminist. Learning from other women about the struggles they face, whether that be because of their gender, race, sexuality or class, is essential to understanding the feminist movement and how we can help create an equal world for everyone, not just an equal world for ourselves. As Fannie Lou Hamer said: ‘Nobody’s free until everybody’s free’. If you identify as an equalist, you are a feminist.