EQUITY VS EQUALITY

Mr and Mrs Peters had two children: John and Mary. Mr and Mrs Peters treated John and Mary fairly and justly. Whatever they bought for John, they also bought for Mary. John and Mary also had their own chairs at the dining table. The two chairs were equal in size, height, design and comfort. No child of theirs was more important than the other and they made sure they taught their two children this fundamental truth.

One day John disobeyed his father's order to do the dishes and he was punished. He was denied access to the dining table and to his favourite chair. Thinking that it would help correct John's attitude, Mr and Mrs Peters told his sister, Mary, that she could sit on her chair or on John's chair and if she wanted, she could join them together and sit on both.

The punishment went on for a while and, when John could no longer bear to be marginalised from a family time as sacred as dinner, he demanded for his chair to be given back to him. But Mary had grown comfortable in having two chairs to herself and she wouldn't let go.

Mary claimed that John's chair now belonged to her because their parents had allowed her to be sitting on them for such a long time.

However their parents, even though they had realised that they had made a mistake by stripping John of his chair and by allowing Mary to sit on it for that long, wouldn't do much to help matters. They confided in Mary to understand that the chair never really belonged to her and that she would eventually release it on her own will. Unfortunately this didn't happen. Mary wanted both chairs and she was going to keep them.

At this point Mr and Mrs Peter came up with a solution. They offered John an alternative chair. It wasn't as beautiful as his original chair. It was lower and even less comfortable, but his parents told him to be content. At least, now, he had a chair to sit on at the dining table. But accepting to sit on that chair would have meant strecting his neck to see what meal had been set before him and stretching his hand to reach for sides and water. Also there no handles. Any sudden movement could make him end up on the floor. John couldn't accept eating under those conditions so he insisted for his chair to be given back to him.

And that's how Mary started accusing her brother of hating her, attacking her and wanting to strip her of her extra chair.

-----------------------------

This simple story is an allegory to explain gender inequality and the perceived extra rights that men think they have over women.

Mr and Mrs Peters represent the state.
Mary represent the male sex.
John represent the female sex.
The two chairs represent equality of both sexes.
John's chair under Mary's possession represents male privileges.
The alternative chair represents equity.

When people say what we need is equity and not equality, what they mean is that women are no longer entitled to their chair but they can manage this other little one instead. It's not as comfortable as their original chair, but at least they have a chair to sit and that should shut them up and keep them good.

But that wouldn't change the fact that men are still sitting on two chairs. There is equity but there is still no equality.

Now ask yourself, if you were John, wouldn't you also want your chair back?

And if you were Mary wouldn't you release John's chair to him?

Equity says everybody gets to sit.
Equality says everybody gets to enjoy the same level of comfort when they sit.

Has this explanation shed more light on the difference between equity and equality?

Let me know what you think in the comment section.