Quote:
Originally posted by
El-Jaro
Wouldn't you call that "equality" then? See...semantics.
It only as semantically as the difference between a doctor and a cardiologist. "Equality" is an extremely broad thing, too broad for any one to be a specialist in all respects the same way no one is a proficient in all form of medicine. A Feminists demotes working for equality through a lens of gender analysis and changes based around gender mainly focused around the gender labeled woman, others work for equality through an economic lens, yet no one would say the difference between (insert economic theory here) and "equality" is just semantics. Others work for equality through a more racial lens, other by analysis of class.
That you want for "equality" doesn't mean you know or practice it through the lens of gender any more then working for equality through the lens of gender means you understand economic inequality. Their is of course overlap and it get very very complicated but my basic point remains to me saying you believe in "equality' is like a chef saying his culinary specificity is "food" all who have worked for equality have done so through specific lens ,even if they are unaware of which lens they where using, giving names to those lens is no more semantic then giving different culinary approaches different names.
To put it another equality is a goal, feminism is a class of approaches towards that goal (and only one of multiple which must be deployed for that goal to be met.) It is not semantic to differentiate between the goal and the means nor to difference between different process working towards that goal.