(Un)Packing the Punch: What People Mean When They Mock Equality

 

"If women want equality, it's fine if I punch you, then?"

"Why should I give up my seat for a pregnant woman? They wanted equality, after all!"

"Equality means she should be doing a proper day's work, too, not lounging around scrolling socials all day!"

These are all common retorts against the equality that is legally enforced to the benefit of cisgender, able-bodied, mentally well women (and which is often more readily and fully given to white women in those categories.)

The perception of the Left is that this is "proof that men just want to be violent."

And some men - and some women, and some non-binary folk - undoubtedly do. The possibility of being an objectionable piece of sh*t who wants to harm others, and make irresponsible choices, is a fundamental aspect of being human, which is why the consequences of irresponsible and anti-social choices should never be weakened or removed.

For many others, though, their discomfort with the concept of equality, which may manifest as at the very least unspoken agreement with hostile and violent statements, doesn't come from innate violent tendencies, but from a feeling that the right to equal treatment is being granted without any of the same responsibilities they as (usually) cisgender, able-bodied, mentally well men were expected to fulfil in order to "earn", as they perceived it, their rights.

While men do do p*rn, including on sites such as OnlyFans, and are involved in sex work, including street sex work, there is a far narrower range of male body types which will gain any level of traction in that work, removing from many men the option they perceive women having, of "just taking my clothes off to get the money rolling in."

Similarly, while men are increasingly being subjected to quite aggressive demands that they "do their fair share" of child rearing and domestic labour, they do not benefit, in the UK, from anything close to equal parental leave, nor equal consideration for flexible working - even when this flexibility is necessary to accommodate a disability.  

There is no option for anyone who is not pregnant to simply take 6wks+ off on full pay (depending on their company's policy around maternity leave), and be legally protected from being sacked while they're gone, demoted (whether technically or actually) when they return to work.

And, while the 'earning' of these rights is inherent in the enactment of the responsibility of carrying, birthing, and (usually) being the primary care-giver for the next generation, this is something which is not perceived as a responsibility, and therefore the perception is that people are getting a "right" without "paying for it" by engaging with responsibilities.

When equality of rights is being extended to non-cis people, particularly those who are visibly trans, the anger covers a confusion which arises from a sense that cis people are enacting the "responsibility" of heteronormative role performance which leads to procreation, or, for LGB people who object to the extension of rights to non-cis people, the "responsibility" of behaving in a "morally and socially responsible" way - because those LGB people usually also object to other cis LGB people whom they perceive as behaving "badly", particularly in relation to their approaches to sexual expression and conformity or not to norms ascribed to their biologically assigned sex, but are not being given the same "right" to explore their own identities.  This "denial", however, doesn't come from any statutory body or government edict - indeed, as we are increasingly seeing in the USA and UK, governments are typically inclined to exceptional hostility towards trans people, and don't object to gender-non-conforming people who do not consider themselves trans being harmed by that same hostility, viewing them merely as "collateral damage" in an "ideological war."  The only actual "denial" of a right of a person to present and identify in any way which feels natural to them (which has never, in fact, come with an immediate and attendant right of access to sex-specific spaces, which is, and has always been, a separate consideration, both societally and legislatively; many women do not automatically have the right of access to spaces specific to women in particular conditions; for example, a white woman is a woman, but would not be welcome in a group for Black or Muslim women.  A woman who is not pregnant, even a cisgender woman who cannot become pregnant, is still a woman, but would not be welcome at a group for mothers; the right of access is a complex and nuanced thing; essentially, where access is to a "sex specific" space which allows for attention to a biological necessity, it should be granted to those who, as fully as possible, live and present a cohesive identity that connects to that sex) is their desire to not experience hostility and ridicule from others.

Which is, in fact, the same method by which trans and gender-non-conforming people earn their rights, and why it is genuinely unfair that those rights are under threat; the responsibility which has been enacted to "earn" the right to be seen and treated as the type of person you identify, live, and present as (and that trifecta of responsible enaction is important) is the responsibility of presenting the diversity which is necessary for a full and vibrant economy and society as an option to others.  Not an obligation, not something people are coerced to follow as merely another form of conformity, but an option.  Part of that responsibility of enacting visibility of essential diversity is the responsibility to live and present as a cohesive expression of your identity.  That doesn't preclude masculine-presenting trans women, because women can be masculine.  It doesn't even preclude trans women with visible facial hair, because some cisgender women with PCOS will have visible facial hair.  It doesn't preclude feminine-presenting trans men, because men can be feminine.
What it does, and should, preclude is people who are claiming a female identity, but engaging with phallic genitalia, publicly, in a very masculine way, and those who are claiming a male identity, but are still very deliberately and performatively showcasing their breasts, for example. 
(The fact of a person who identifies as a woman having a penis, or someone who identifies as a man having breasts, is not the issue; some intersex women who are assigned female at birth are born with a penis, which is usually surgically removed, without that individual's consent, at or shortly after birth, and men with gynaecomastia can have very prominent breast development; the difference is women do not want a penis, and men do not want breasts.  Likewise, the "public expression" is the pertinent aspect; what people do in private will always be somewhat variant, because our private spaces are where we are free to explore societal taboos which do not violate consent, for example, women using strap-ons to explore what having male genitalia might feel like, and how the presence of a representation of that genitalia alters their experience of their identity. Similarly, there will be non-binary people, and gender-non-conforming people who are not trans, who are not citing a gendered identity, but are merely presenting publicly in the way which most closely represents their internal experience; they also have earned the right of acceptance and freedom from hostility and harm by engaging with the responsibility of visibly presenting options, and ensuring the continued diversity, creative expression, and dynamism of human experience which is necessary for a strong economy, a forward-focused society, and an emotionally positive community.)

Similarly, the resistance to equal rights for disabled people is rooted in the idea that, especially if particular disabilities prevent someone from being employed, they "haven't earned them" - gainful employment, and the surrendering of taxes, is how people believe they "earn the right" to be seen and treated as human beings; with courtesy, respect, tolerance, and compassion, and the permission to live their lives unhindered, provided they are behaving lawfully.

The work of disabled people is firstly in being disabled, which often requires far more labour than employment, and at considerable expense to the individual.
Secondly, disabled people enact the responsibility of holding existing systems to account, and challenging them where they do not serve the population; every disabled person does this through their interactions with systems that see disability as a "problem" to be "solved", and societies and spaces which are built for abled people.

Disabled people, like trans and gender-non-conforming people, are enacting the responsibility of showing us what is possible - which benefits the whole of society, rejuvenates the economy, and strengthens the position of nation-states on the global stage.

No, it is not that all men are inherently violent.
It is that people who have true privilege - where their rights are given so seamlessly that they perceive them merely as a natural and deserved state - are inherently blinkered when it comes to seeing and appreciating other forms of the "work" of responsibilities being enacted, and therefore they see people being given rights who, as far as they are aware, haven't enacted any responsibilities to "earn" those rights.

Because rights are earned by the engagement with and enactment of social responsibilities.  The only rights which come freely, without any attendant responsibilities (but with some legal and social caveats nonetheless) are 
The right to life  (unless you contravene a lawful requirement whose violation your government holds as so serious that only a punishment of death is acceptable)
The right to liberty (unless you need to be confined for your own or others' safety, either in a situation of social extremis, such as a major threat to public health, or because you have proven yourself unable to keep to the social contract of not causing harm or loss to others.)
The right to freedom from harm, which has no caveats, save that individuals may agree to suspend it in their own individual case in order to serve their country in military combat.  (This is why countries which have National Service and/or mandatory conscription also have the right for individuals to register as Conscientious Objectors, which usually requires some specific action, or the taking up of an alternative role, to be formally recognised and respected.)

These three universal rights are actually merely the most well-known rights of 30 "Universal Human Rights" covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which are all the internationally-enforcable rights that come without responsibilities.

30.
A free right for every day of roughly half the months of the year.

That's not much, really - and yet too many governments still can't tolerate even that level of license.