What is Alternative to Gender Discourse: The Displacement of the Concept of “Gender Equality”

It is evident to gender theorists, philosophers, and practitioners alike that gender discourse remains a work in progress, an ongoing text that is constantly observed, reshaped, and reformulated to suit varying global contexts. This implies that global gender discourse, in its current Western iteration, is presumed to be cross-cultural. However, as a writer and researcher in this field, I argue that global gender discourse collides with cultural inevitabilities that resist displacement, even if decades of feminist movements, which remain merely foundational attempts, are factored in. Consequently, I question the cross-cultural universality of this global gender discourse, given that it is a highly contextual experience born out of socio-economic conditions fundamentally distinct from those of the Global South.

I posit that change is a relative phenomenon, intrinsically linked to economic consciousness and subjection to socio-economic systems. The Western feminist experience has succeeded in establishing its centrality within the Western consciousness, meaning that laws and policies in those countries are continuously filtered through gender discourse. This success is attributed to the “will to knowledge” (volonté de savoir) inherent in Western consciousness. This is not an idealization of Western consciousness, but rather a reflection of a reality shaped by Western intellectual, political, and social renaissances following the two World Wars.

Perpetual Wars: The Destiny of the Global South

The intricate and complex forms of colonialism in the Global South create a state of turmoil and frustration that impedes the realization of basic psychological, social, economic, and political life. The nature of neoliberal politics in these regions relies on a strategy of manufactured crises, constantly igniting unquenchable volcanic craters that drain the energy and resources of the peoples of the Global South. Under such structural complexities, practicing actual equality becomes impossible. Instead, a cascade of compounding crises swallows the most fundamental human rights, engulfing both women and men alike. Therefore, if any genuine equality exists within the Arab context today, it is the equality of exploitation and gender-based oppression suffered equally by both men and women!

On Equality and the Displacement of Equality

Demanding equality in its current framing within Arab societies may reflect an unnatural inflation of entitlements. It demands equality for a specific segment of society, while overlooking the demand for equality in critical areas such as inheritance and marriage. Furthermore, this current formulation implies that the historical dialectical conflict between male and female identity can be resolved solely through the mechanism of equality. Yet, let us imagine that this equality has actually been realized within a patriarchal Arab society.

Traditional equality, the clichés championed by Arab feminist movements, which achieved minor breakthroughs in issues concerning wages, bonuses, leaves, and leadership, is an equality that does not transcend the economic context of the workplace. It functions merely as a desired behavioral necessity to fulfill organizational productivity goals. Rather than wasting billable hours and disrupting production over demands for equal pay and leave benefits, the employer simply bypasses the friction to maintain market operability, particularly under the pressures of market competition or the sensitivity of client expectations.

Shifting to the social context, which is governed by the “Arab Mind,” by which we mean a social system completely subjected to ancient taboos inherited over millennia, this system solidifies into a naturalized daily life. It persists regardless of the radical alterations brought about by political shifts. Thus, we emphasize here that while historical political circumstances fluctuate and transform, social conditions remain stagnant, acting as the unchanging axis.

Arab political formations differ fundamentally from Western political formations. In the West, political changes are almost automatically followed by social transformations. Conversely, the Arab region possesses a unique specificity rooted in its patriarchal social fabric, so much so that monotheistic religions themselves absorbed patriarchal characteristics to secure public acceptance and devotion.

Examining the essentialist, logocentric structure of patriarchy in Arab society reveals a deeply constructed architecture. This construct is so entrenched and static that it resists both substitution and displacement. It aggressively rejects modern phenomena unless it identifies a mutual interest, securing its endurance through strategic alliances: the alliance between capitalism and patriarchy, between politics and patriarchy, and between law and patriarchy. These structures are merely variables revolving around patriarchy, which remains the permanent fixture and the absolute center.

When the question of equality is approached through the lens of patriarchal social values, it is viewed as an extension of authority, while equality itself becomes a property of the subject subjugated by that authority. This dynamic raises a dialectical question: where do subjective choices, such as non-marriage, anarchism, childlessness, non-participation, and non-modernity locate themselves?

Deep-seated anxieties withdraw behind the term “equality.” Or perhaps they do not withdraw at all; rather, the ideological apparatus of equality actively obscures radical issues and systemic crises within society. It treats inequality as a foregone conclusion or a superficial symptom floating on the surface of suppressed struggles and muted voices.

Evoking a vision of actual equality within Arab societies is difficult to formulate, even within the imagination. However, I can project the concept of equality onto the site of most intense friction between men and women: the home.

When observing a man’s movements inside the domestic sphere, they differ entirely from a woman’s. A man acts out of an assumed ownership of the home, a traditional ownership shrouded in rigid social values. It is culturally untenable for an Arab man to reside in a home that is not his own property. Consequently, a woman’s positioning within the household reduces her to an appendage of the man’s property, or binds her existence to what he owns. Even if a woman maintains a formal or substantial presence within the home, ownership remains the ultimate weight that tilts the balance of power in favor of the man.

In this scenario, a woman’s agency faces compounding constraints. She is constantly relegated to a defensive posture, perpetually striving to preserve her mere existence. Even if all forms of security are provided to her within the domestic space, this security is never granted without a reciprocal cost exacted from her.

How, then, can we call for equal treatment between unequal entities? Does the demand for equality constitute a waste of a woman’s time in her struggle to acquire rudimentary rights, before even transitioning to the stage of demanding equality in grand structural matters? To what depth can a woman grasp the significance of comprehensive equality in everyday details where she herself rejects equality inherently?

The spectacle of a woman settling for a mere modicum of equality, or a relative equality, is a landscape fractured by deep chasms. These gaps only widen the circular, ongoing dialectic between man and woman. No matter what form this equality takes, it remains inherently deficient.