The modern woman's definition of equality is not what you think

I've been in various discussions online regarding the topic of feminism. Recently I've been seeing more and more of women claiming they want equality between men and women, and how they want their rights recognized. While on the surface this seems fair enough, in practice it's not quite what they claim.<br><br>One example of this is voting. In the US, women have had the right to vote for well over a hundred years. It seems fair enough that they should have this right, and that it would be equality since men have held this right for so long.<br><br>However, many modern women are now pushing for something they call "voter's rights". The basic premise of this is that no one should be barred from voting, regardless if they can read or not. In other words, if you can not read, you should still have the right to vote.<br><br>To most people, this sounds crazy. Why should someone be allowed to vote if they can't even read? This is a basic requirement for being an informed voter, after all. If you can't read you can't make an informed decision.<br><br>The modern woman's response to this is not what you would expect. Rather than saying "my bad, you're right, we shouldn't be able to vote if we can't read", they instead double down on their stance and say things like "but everyone should be able to vote regardless". The implication is obvious - men have been voting for hundreds of years, and they still don't know what they're doing. Clearly women are better at this whole voting thing, so they should be allowed to vote even if they can't read.<br><br>In practice this means that if a woman can't read, she should still be allowed to vote, while a man who can't read should not. This is the definition of inequality, but that's what many modern women claim they want to get rid of.<br><br>Another example of this is how modern women view laws regarding self defense. In the US, you are legally allowed to use deadly force in defense of yourself if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent imminent death or injury. However, a woman is legally allowed to use deadly force in defense of herself even if she isn't under attack. She can claim "domestic violence" as a reason to use deadly force, which means she can attack a man even if he's not attacking her. The most notable example of this is the case of Nina Sanic from Texas, who shot and killed her boyfriend because she claimed he was abusing her. The courts ruled that since she claimed abuse, her use of deadly force was justified even though she was the one who initiated the violence.<br><br>Again, the implication here is obvious - women know better than men when violence is justified. Since women can claim "domestic violence", they can use deadly force against a man even if he isn't attacking them. Meanwhile, men are still required to wait until they are actually being attacked before using deadly force, or else they will be charged with murder.<br><br>Again, this is the definition of inequality. Women are held to different standards than men, and women get more leniency in the courts than men do. This is what many modern women claim they want to get rid of, yet it's precisely what they are pushing for.<br><br>One more example of this is how modern women view child support. In the US, a father is not required to pay child support unless he has been proven to be the biological father of a child. Meanwhile a mother can claim paternity, and if she does then the father is legally required to pay child support even if a paternity test is not taken. This is the definition of inequality - a mother can force a father to pay child support even if he isn't the biological father, while a father cannot force a mother to pay child support unless a paternity test is taken.<br><br>Again, the implication here is obvious. Women know better than men when a man is the biological father of a child. Since women get pregnant, they obviously know better than men when a man is the biological father. Meanwhile men do not get pregnant, so they obviously do not know better than women. Because of this, a woman can force a man to pay child support even if he isn't the biological father, while a man cannot do the same to a woman. Again, this is the definition of inequality, and something that many modern women claim they want to get rid of.<br><br>In conclusion, modern women don't actually want equality. Rather than holding both sexes to the same standards, they want men and women to be held to different standards. While women should get more leniency in the courts, men should get less. Women should be able to vote even if they can't read, while men should not. Women should be able to use deadly force in defense of themselves even if they aren't under attack, while men should only be allowed to use deadly force if they are actually being attacked. Women should be able to force men to pay child support even if they aren't the biological parents, while men should not be able to do the same to women. And on, and on.<br><br>This is not equality, this is inequality. Modern women want to hold men and women to different standards, rather than holding both to the same standard. And this is precisely what they claim they want to get rid of.