Can There Ever Really Be “Equality of the Sexes”?

It’s the scene when, after a storm has knocked the park’s power out and the newly genetically engineered dinosaurs are believed to be roaming free, Dr. Ellie Sattler, a young, attractive paleontologist, is gearing up to venture out with the park’s game warden to try to turn the electric fencing back on manually. 

As Ellie is getting ready to go, the park’s elderly owner, John Hammond, appears hesitant. 

“It really ought to be me going,” he says, concerned compassion on his face. 

“Why?” Ellie says, perturbed. 

“Well, I’m a … and you’re a …” Hammond trails off, clearly indicating with gallant, gentle chivalry that it’s because he’s a man, and she’s a woman. 

Ellie angrily retorts as she heads out on her heroic quest, “We can discuss sexism in survival situations when I get back.”

When Chivalry Becomes “Sexism”

The reason this scene bothers me is not because I think Ellie is incapable of turning the park’s power back on. She’s young, athletic, and full of spunk, and she does (spoiler alert) get the job done. 

My issue with this scene is that she was offended that Hammond offered to go in her place, when he actually did so out of an ingrained sense of masculine duty that honors, rather than belittles, the female person. 

The older man considered himself the better candidate not because he was stronger or braver (he doesn’t appear to be either), but because he was a man.  

This touching sentiment of an old-world chevalier who would put himself at risk in place of a much younger woman is exactly the kind of instinct that younger generations have been taught to scorn as “sexist,” but it gives us a painful look at just how much the idea of “equality of the sexes” puts women at risk and demotes their sense of dignity. 

Equal in Dignity, But Not the Same

Now, before we go any further, let’s get one thing straight: men and women are equal in dignity and worth. This is written into the fabric of the universe by the fact that we were both “made in God’s image” (Genesis 1:27). 

Men and women are both entitled to basic human rights such as life, freedom of speech, and a fair trial in the justice system. 

The Feminist Paradox of ‘Equality’

Yet an insidious aspect of feminism that millions of people often miss is that it seeks not merely legal, but social equality between men and women. 

In other words, full “equality of the sexes.”

When we consider the fact that men and women are also made “male and female” (Genesis 1:27), i.e. differently, is it positive, or even possible, to have true equality between the sexes? 

Let’s consider the issue of women and the draft. Despite all the drastic social changes that have been wrought by feminist ideals across our culture over the last 100 years, something that U.S. feminists have never seen fit to secure is equality in the draft. 

To this day, only men are required to register for Selective Service, meaning feminism’s call for complete social equality has never extended to this most basic area of civic duty.

What’s more, for all the allowances made within the military to incorporate more female troops, standards typically have to be lowered to allow women entry. 

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has been sharply criticized for his concerns that women in the military are not subject to the same fitness standards as men and recently issued directives within the Department of War to set this right, although he by no means opposes women serving in the armed forces. As he told Megyn Kelly last year, “if we have the right standard and women meet that standard…Let’s go.”

True equality of the sexes would allow women to compete under the same conditions as men. I agree with Hegseth that if they can meet male fitness standards, there’s no reason not to allow them to fight. But how many women could truly meet the same standards as men? 

When “Equality” Hurts Women Most

And what about women who are forced to compete against men? 

We’ve seen this happen time and time again to female athletes who are forced to go head-to-head against men who identify as women. Even when male athletes’ testosterone is suppressed by artificial hormones, they often still blow their female opponents out of the water (as we saw almost literally happen to dozens of women who competed against college swimmer Lia Thomas). 

True equality of the sexes, as we see in the instances of transgender athletes, clearly leaves women at a disadvantage. 

Something that was meant to create equal opportunity for women to engage in athletics, Title IX, has been weaponized by ideology seeking the complete erasure of gender to rob female athletes of their chance at well-deserved titles and accolades. 

This is, by the way, exactly what many radical feminists openly sought to achieve with their ideology. 

True equality of the sexes, as we see in the instances of transgender athletes, clearly leaves women at a disadvantage. 

Consider radical feminist Shulamith Firestone, who said the quiet part out loud in her book The Dialectic of Sex that “just as the end goal of socialist revolution was not only the elimination of the economic class privilege but of the economic class distinction itself, so the end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally.”

This is the very shocking truth about the idea of unfettered “equality of the sexes”: it naturally leads to the erasure of sex distinctions, which, since sex can’t ever be truly erased, always leaves the female sex at a disadvantage. 

Why Real Men Still Protect Women

Consider our Jurassic Park survival scenario played out in real life: what if there truly were no longer men like John Hammond, offering to die in a woman’s place? 

Can you imagine a world where men broadly expected women to defend them, protect them, and shield them from harm? 

If this makes you viscerally cringe, there’s a very good reason for this. 

As a woman, you are biologically programmed to need male protection and provision. 

I hope I’m not insulting your intelligence by explaining this to you, but the main difference between men and women is that women can bear children. 

While most of a woman’s life won’t be spent pregnant, she will always be female, and this means that, no matter how strong or brave she may be, her body will always be designed for the purpose of ovulation and pregnancy. 

The fact that your body is softer, your hormones fluctuate monthly, and your brain is more attuned to emotional information vs. pragmatic compartmentalization all mean that you would have a very difficult time surviving in the wild without a man. 

Men, meanwhile, have bodies that are harder, much more attuned to building muscle, and brains that have an easier time responding to threat and the practical needs of women and children. 

There’s nothing wrong with this at all; whether you believe in a Creator or not, there’s no denying that binary sex distinctions are defined entirely by the unique role each sex plays in conceiving, bearing, and providing for children. 

Equality of the sexes is a myth and, what’s more, a very dangerous one at that. 

Men and women don’t cease to be men and women just because they’re not procreating or because they no longer live in a hunter-gatherer society. 

Our bodies and brains are still the same, and distinct from one another, and this is totally OK. 

However, what is not OK is arguing that, because we are equally human, this means that we are essentially the same. 

We are not. We are very different. 

And the unique design women have to conceive and bring forth children is the basis of the old-fashioned belief that men ought to put their lives at risk to protect women. 

Consider the survivors of the Titanic. Only little more than a century ago, classical chivalry (and, I’d argue, healthy biological instinct) was so prevalent on board this ill-fated ship that only about 20% of the men survived, while roughly 76% of the women on board safely escaped the wreck. 

I’m sure you’ve seen that millennial classic as well, which is very true to life as men cried out that women and children were designated first on the life rafts as the majestic ship sank. 

Here’s the poignant truth about “equality of the sexes” in the feminist sense: It doesn’t truly elevate women. It strips us of the very differences that safeguard both female and male dignity. 

When our society scorns men like John Hammond, who represent the apex of male morality in their tender willingness to sacrifice themselves to protect women, or forget the millions of men throughout history who have done so, we lose the profound virtue of honoring the differences between the sexes. 

Equality of the sexes is a myth and, what’s more, a very dangerous one at that. 

True dignity doesn’t come from sameness, but from embracing the fact that we were created different—for a very good reason.