Recently, I came across a CNN article titled “Women’s rights are on a sharp decline in Israel”, which discusses results from the Peace and Security Index by Georgetown University. The article argues that women’s rights in Israel are declining.
One thing that immediately stood out to me was the index itself. One of the main reasons given for the decline is that it measures how many women live within 50 km of an armed conflict. Since Israel has been at war in the past two years, this automatically lowers its score. That feels like a very strange way to measure women’s rights.
But the article raised a much deeper question for me: what do we actually mean when we talk about feminism and equality?
A Bit of Historical Context
From the late 18th century through the 19th century and into the first half of the 20th, Europe experienced a massive population boom. That energy spilled outward — fueling the colonization of America, rapid industrial growth, and eventually two world wars.
Fast forward to the mid-20th century. Feminism rises across the West, fertility rates fall, and societies gradually “cool down.” The result? A long period of peace and prosperity in Europe and the US.
That doesn’t mean feminism caused peace directly — but it clearly reshaped society in ways that reduced demographic pressure and social instability.
Equality of Opportunity or Equality of Outcome?
Here’s the real question: what kind of equality are we actually aiming for when we talk about feminism?
Is it equality of opportunity — where everyone has the same chances?
Or equality of outcome — where results must be balanced no matter what?
Many modern “gender equality” reports lean heavily toward outcomes. They count how many women are ministers, CEOs, or members of parliament. But is that really the right way to measure equality?
Should we also demand that 50% of generals be women? Or that half of battlefield casualties and war heroes should be women? That sounds absurd — not because women aren’t capable, but because men and women are not biologically identical.
On average, men have physical advantages in combat roles. Yes, some women outperform most men — but averages matter. And we never measure “equality” by asking how many children men give birth to, because men simply can’t give birth. That’s nature, not discrimination.
Different Strengths, Same Success
Because men and women are different by nature, forcing equal outcomes doesn’t make sense. What does make sense is equal opportunity — no negative discrimination against women, but also no artificial positive discrimination either. Not in academia, not in business, not in politics.
The natural question at this point is: doesn’t this mean women will always end up with lower status or feel less fulfilled?
And the answer is that this would only happen if we insist on measuring success by a game designed around male strengths and around money and power. Money and power matter — they drive innovation and ambition — but are they really the only things that should define social status?
Why shouldn’t raising children, building families, and giving the next generation a great education come with real social prestige?
Instead of pushing women to compete by rules built around traditionally male strengths, maybe it’s the rules themselves that need an update. This is not about forcing women back into the role of housekeepers, and not about rolling back the achievements of feminism. It’s about making sure that if women choose to invest in larger families and better education for their children, society actually values that choice.
And not just with polite words or empty praise, but with real recognition — real status, and real visibility. Something closer to the fame and admiration we give to sports champions or music stars.
Will this be easy? Probably not. It would require deep social change.
But it’s possible — and it’s worth thinking about.
Rethinking the Game
True equality doesn’t mean identical paths. It means equally respected paths.
Men and women should be able to compete fairly in environments that fit their natural strengths — while still being free to choose other paths if they want. This should never be used to justify discrimination, but it should allow for honest differences.
And there’s a major bonus here: societies that value bigger families don’t collapse demographically. This matters if liberal societies want to exist 30 or 50 years from now.
Final Thought
Instead of trying to force equal outcomes between men and women, we should focus on equal opportunities — and create fair, meaningful ways for both genders to achieve status, purpose, and recognition on their own terms.
Equality isn’t about pretending we’re the same.
It’s about building a society that works because we’re not.