this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2026
80 points (91.7% liked)
Asklemmy
55570 readers
522 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You can address issues without putting yourself in a position that excludes others. Where will we end up if there are only “marginalized groups” trying to strengthen their position? In this example, the feminist movement is met with masculism (“Manosphere”), the rise of right-wing/fascist movements (Proud Boys), and so on. And on the women’s side, there are also movements against “woke” feminism (Tradwives, religious movements, etc.).
Giving advantage to one group automatically results in the disadvantage of another - or at least that is how it feels to the “disadvantaged” group. Let’s take the example of women’s quotas: all other marginalized groups - and men as well - are disadvantaged by this, because suddenly it is no longer their performance that counts, but only their gender. This is exactly what men are constantly accused of and where the discrimination of women with the same performance comes from.
That’s why I stand by my position that discrimination cannot be defeated through exclusion and accusations. We need a unified perspective that grants everyone the same rights and responsibilities. Those who do not give love will never receive it.
That's not how quotas work, though. Policies that aim for supporting women and increasing the number of them as a ratio does not mean qualifications do not matter. Performance absolutely counts, but systemic barriers to employment also exist that lower the number of women in fields like tech.
Secondly, the fact that reactionary groups form as a resistence to social progress does not make social progress a bad thing. Again, trying to give full legal equality without addressing lingering impacts of historic issues leads to those issues persisting for far longer than they need to. Under the banner of "equality," reactionary groups merely defend existing inequality.
The solution is to address historical inequalities that persist to this day actively, through social programs. Legal equality is merely the first step to achieving actual equality.