Ahsen Ayhan
When we talk about gender justice, two terms frequently emerge: gender equality and gender equity. Although they are often used interchangeably, these concepts are not identical—and understanding the distinction between them is critical for shaping just and effective policies. In this blog post, we explore the analytical differences between equality and equity, why they matter, and how feminist theory has engaged with this debate.
Defining Gender Equality and Gender Equity
Gender equality refers to the state in which individuals of all genders have equal rights, responsibilities, and opportunities. It assumes a level playing field and calls for treating everyone the same, regardless of their gender identity. The United Nations defines gender equality as a human rights principle that ensures individuals can fully realize their potential without being hindered by gender-based discrimination (UN Women, 2020).
Gender equity, on the other hand, recognizes that systemic barriers—historical, social, cultural, and institutional—prevent marginalized genders from accessing the same opportunities. Therefore, equity involves fairness in treatment by providing specific resources or support tailored to people’s different needs. Equity is about achieving justice in outcomes, not just in procedures. As the World Health Organization (2011) notes, equity “takes into account the differences in lived experience that influence the ways in which individuals can enjoy the same outcomes.”
Scholar Amina Wadud offers a complementary perspective, emphasizing that equality is not sameness, but dignity in difference. She writes:
“Equality is not sameness; it is honor and dignity within our distinct localizations, our lived realities and our differences.” (Wadud, 2023)
Why the Distinction Matters
Treating everyone the same doesn’t always lead to fairness. Consider a workplace policy that offers equal parental leave to all employees, regardless of gender. While this may appear equal, it overlooks existing gender roles and the disproportionate care burden that women often bear. Equity, in this case, would involve supporting women with additional resources or restructuring leave policies to reflect the unequal division of domestic labor.
Feminist scholars have long critiqued the notion of formal equality that fails to address structural power imbalances. Joan Acker (1992) famously pointed out that organizational structures often claim neutrality but are in fact deeply gendered, reinforcing male dominance. In such contexts, “equal treatment” often perpetuates inequality.
Wadud adds that even when frameworks promise justice, these promises are hollow unless they are experienced as justice by women in their real lives. She argues:
“The lived reality becomes the principle rubric for understanding justice. It puts context over theory.” (Wadud, 2023)
Historical Context: Formal Equality and Its Discontents
The critique of formal equality emerged prominently in the second wave of feminism, especially through the work of legal and political theorists. Catharine MacKinnon (1987) argued that equality in law often assumes a male norm, with women being treated as if they were men rather than addressing the specific disadvantages they face. She writes, “Treating men and women the same only works when they are the same in relevant respects. Where they are not, equal treatment operates to perpetuate inequality.”
Similarly, bell hooks (2000) emphasized the need for a justice-oriented feminism that recognizes how race, class, and gender interact. Equity allows us to see that some women, particularly those from marginalized communities, need different types of support to achieve similar outcomes.
Case Studies: Equality vs Equity in Practice
Let’s look at education. Gender equality would mean giving all students the same textbooks and opportunities. Gender equity would involve identifying why girls in certain regions drop out earlier—perhaps due to menstruation stigma or unsafe transportation—and designing policies that address these barriers.
In healthcare, equality would ensure men and women have access to the same services. Equity would recognize that women may need additional reproductive health services and that transgender individuals may require gender-affirming care. As Annandale and Hunt (2000) argue, a gender-sensitive healthcare system must go beyond uniform provision to consider lived experiences and health disparities.
Intersectionality and the Push for Equity
Kimberlé Crenshaw’s (1991) theory of intersectionality also offers strong support for equity over mere equality. She shows how people at the intersections of race, gender, class, and other identities face compounded discrimination. An equality-based approach might miss these overlapping injustices, while equity explicitly seeks to correct them.
Crenshaw writes, “If you’re standing in the path of multiple forms of exclusion, equality in one lane won’t get you out of the way.” Equity, by contrast, takes the full context into account.
Wadud reinforces that mainstream feminist frameworks often overlook cultural and locational specificity:
“I did not then and do not now allow the localization of others to sideline my identity, no matter how dominant tropes.” (Wadud, 2023)
Critics of Equity: Is There a Risk of Unequal Treatment?
Some critics argue that equity-based approaches risk introducing unfair advantages. They warn that in compensating for disadvantage, equity may inadvertently reinforce a victim identity or introduce new biases.
However, defenders argue that the goal of equity is not to offer permanent advantages, but to level the playing field. Equity aims to remove structural barriers so that everyone can begin from a position of fairness. As Iris Marion Young (1990) notes, justice requires not just redistribution but also the transformation of institutional norms that sustain inequality.
Towards a Synthesis: Equity as a Path to Substantive Equality
Rather than viewing equality and equity as competing principles, many feminist and social justice scholars advocate for an integrated model that sees equity as instrumental to achieving genuine equality. In other words, equity is not a compromise on equality—it is its most effective strategy. This shift from formal to substantive equality emphasizes that identical treatment does not always produce just outcomes.
Catharine MacKinnon (1987) critiques formal equality approaches by showing how legal systems often apply a supposedly neutral standard that masks male-centered norms. As she explains, “The male standard becomes the standard of what is human, and women are measured and treated accordingly.” This illustrates how equal treatment under a biased framework can reinforce existing inequalities. Instead, equity calls for an adjustment of standards themselves to ensure meaningful access and participation for all.
Nancy Fraser (1997) provides a dual framework for justice, advocating the need to integrate both “the politics of redistribution” and “the politics of recognition.” Redistribution addresses material inequalities through economic reforms, while recognition targets cultural and symbolic injustices. Fraser emphasizes that without addressing both, efforts toward equality remain incomplete: “Neither redistribution nor recognition alone is sufficient; only their combination can adequately address the full range of injustices.”
Moreover, Iris Marion Young (1990) warns that policies focused only on sameness or assimilation risk erasing difference. She proposes a model of differentiated solidarity that embraces group-specific needs without falling into essentialism. Equity, in this view, offers a pragmatic and ethically grounded route to equality by acknowledging diversity while removing structural barriers.
Conclusion: The Future is Equitable
The conversation about gender equality is incomplete without equity. While equality offers a compelling vision of fairness, equity provides the practical tools to get us there. In policy, education, healthcare, and beyond, an equitable approach is essential for dismantling systemic barriers and creating meaningful change.
Feminist theory reminds us that treating people equally does not always treat them fairly. If we want justice, we need to start where people are—not just where we hope they’ll end up. In short, equity is not a detour from equality; it’s the road that leads us there.
References
Acker, J. (1992). From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary Sociology, 21(5), 565–569.
Annandale, E., & Hunt, K. (2000). Gender inequalities in health. Open University Press.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
Fraser, N. (1997). Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist” Condition. Routledge.
hooks, b. (2000). Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. South End Press.
MacKinnon, C. A. (1987). Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law. Harvard University Press.
UN Women. (2020). Gender equality: What it is and why it matters. https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/csw
World Health Organization. (2011). Gender mainstreaming for health managers: A practical approach. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/gender-mainstreaming-manual
Wadud, A. (2023). Feminizmin Yerelleşmesi [Localization of Feminism]. In Musawah Papers & Presentations.
