What’s divisive is having a society defined by gender-based hierarchy and discrimination. Pointing this out and trying to change it isn’t divisive, it’s an opportunity for solidarity.

I agree that gender-based discrimination exists, but the path to equality is not to demand quotas for women and thereby discriminate against other genders. Either there are equal quotas for all groups (gender, religion, skin color, etc.) or there are none at all.

This just upholds existing problems though by pretending they don’t exist. It’s the same exact argument against reparations and DEI, full equal treatment cannot exist without addressing the lingering impact of historic inequality.

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.

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.