There is something profoundly contradictory about the way we have come to discuss equality. We speak of it with conviction, defend it with passion, and invoke it whenever we encounter an injustice that offends our sense of fairness. Yet, somewhere between our declarations and our everyday conduct, we have developed a peculiar tendency to decide whose suffering deserves recognition, whose struggles warrant sympathy, and whose experiences can be conveniently dismissed. We have become remarkably articulate about the equality we expect and occasionally less thoughtful about the equality we extend. It is almost as though fairness has become a principle we enthusiastically endorse, provided it does not require us to question our own prejudices, privileges, or deeply held assumptions. And that, perhaps, is where the conversation becomes uncomfortable, because equality, if it is to mean anything at all, cannot remain a matter of personal convenience.
I have often wondered why conversations about fairness, particularly those concerning gender, so frequently deteriorate into arguments about who has suffered more. A woman speaks about discrimination, and someone immediately produces an example of a man who has been treated unfairly. A man speaks about emotional isolation, and the conversation is redirected towards the historical disadvantages women have endured. Neither experience is necessarily being fabricated, exaggerated, or presented in bad faith, yet both are somehow made to compete for legitimacy. What should have been an opportunity to understand another human being becomes an exercise in comparative suffering. We seem increasingly uncomfortable allowing two realities to coexist, as though acknowledging one person’s pain automatically diminishes another’s. But human experiences are rarely so conveniently arranged. The difficulties faced by women do not cease to exist because men experience hardship, just as the emotional struggles of men do not become irrelevant because women have endured systemic discrimination. Both can be true, and recognising that is not a concession to either side. It is simply an acknowledgment of reality.
The history of equality movements deserves considerably more respect than the superficial arguments that sometimes dominate contemporary discussions. Women’s struggles for education, financial independence, political representation, bodily autonomy, and equal opportunity were not exercises in seeking preferential treatment. They emerged from deeply entrenched structures that restricted individual freedom and reinforced unequal power. Many of those structures have weakened, while others continue to influence how opportunities, responsibilities, and expectations are distributed. To dismiss these realities would be intellectually dishonest. But it would be equally unwise to assume that recognising historical and structural disadvantage requires us to become indifferent to the difficulties experienced by individuals outside those categories. Equality and equity are not interchangeable concepts, and neither should be reduced to a slogan. Equality concerns dignity, rights, and fair treatment, while equity recognises that different circumstances may require different forms of support to achieve meaningful fairness. Understanding this distinction allows us to address systemic injustice without abandoning our responsibility to see the individual human being standing before us.
As a psychotherapist, one of the more revealing aspects of human behaviour I encounter is the extent to which people internalise expectations they never consciously agreed to. We inherit ideas about strength, success, responsibility, desirability, and worth long before we develop the emotional vocabulary necessary to question them. A young boy may grow up hearing that he must be strong, dependable, financially successful, and capable of protecting those around him. He may rarely be told that uncertainty is acceptable, that fear does not diminish his masculinity, or that asking for help is not evidence of inadequacy. A young girl, meanwhile, may be encouraged to excel academically and professionally while simultaneously absorbing expectations about being accommodating, emotionally available, physically presentable, and responsible for maintaining harmony within the family. Both may enter adulthood believing that these expectations are natural expressions of who they are, rather than social arrangements that deserve examination. Their struggles will not necessarily be identical, nor will the consequences of those expectations be equally severe, but both may spend years attempting to reconcile their authentic selves with identities that were quietly constructed for them.
What troubles me is not merely that these expectations exist, but that our willingness to challenge them is sometimes selective. We rightly celebrate women who refuse to be confined to traditional roles, who pursue ambition without apology, and who insist that their identities extend beyond marriage, motherhood, or domestic responsibility. Yet we are not always equally enthusiastic about men who question the roles assigned to them. A man who expresses emotional exhaustion may still be expected to remain composed because others depend upon him. A man who struggles financially may discover that his perceived worth is closely associated with his earning capacity. A father who wishes to become more actively involved in caregiving may encounter assumptions that parenting is primarily a maternal responsibility, while a man who admits vulnerability may find that the very people encouraging emotional openness are uncertain about how to respond when he actually demonstrates it. These are not universal experiences, and they should never be used to obscure the discrimination women continue to face. Nevertheless, they illustrate how restrictive expectations can operate in different directions, often within the same family, workplace, or relationship.
There is also an important distinction between recognising patterns of disadvantage and assigning moral responsibility to individuals merely because they belong to a particular group. Social structures can privilege some groups while disadvantaging others, and acknowledging that is essential to understanding inequality. But individuals are not interchangeable representatives of those structures. A person may benefit from certain social advantages while simultaneously experiencing profound personal hardship. Someone who has endured discrimination may nevertheless behave unfairly towards another person. Privilege and vulnerability are not always mutually exclusive, and neither virtue nor wrongdoing can be reliably inferred from identity alone. When public discourse begins treating people primarily as representatives of gender, class, religion, or other social categories, we risk losing sight of the complexity that makes human behaviour worth understanding in the first place. We stop asking what happened to a person and begin assuming that we already know their story.
This tendency becomes particularly damaging within intimate relationships, where abstract beliefs about fairness are tested against the ordinary demands of living together. I have observed how easily partners can become trapped in arguments about whose contribution matters more, whose exhaustion deserves greater recognition, or whose sacrifices have gone unnoticed. One partner may carry the greater financial responsibility while the other shoulders much of the invisible emotional and domestic labour. Both may feel overburdened, both may believe their efforts are insufficiently appreciated, and both may begin interpreting the other’s frustration as a failure of gratitude. The relationship then becomes an informal accounting exercise in which affection is overshadowed by the need to establish who has given more. Yet a meaningful partnership cannot be sustained by treating every responsibility as a contest. Fairness does not necessarily require identical contributions; it requires that contributions are recognised, responsibilities are discussed, and neither person’s dignity becomes dependent upon fulfilling a predetermined role.
Perhaps this is why I find the growing hostility in some conversations about gender particularly unfortunate. There is a difference between challenging harmful behaviour and developing suspicion towards an entire category of people. The former creates the possibility of accountability and change; the latter often produces defensiveness, resentment, and emotional distance. When every disagreement is interpreted as hostility, every uncomfortable question as an attack, and every attempt at nuance as evidence of disloyalty, meaningful dialogue becomes almost impossible. People retreat into communities that confirm what they already believe, where their frustrations are validated but their assumptions are rarely examined. Gradually, the conversation shifts from understanding injustice to identifying enemies. We may become increasingly certain of our moral positions while becoming less capable of recognising the humanity of those who do not share them.
Psychologically, this is not particularly surprising. Human beings have a strong tendency to organise complex social experiences into categories that simplify the world around them. We distinguish between people who resemble us and those who appear different, between those whose experiences we instinctively understand and those whose perspectives challenge our own. These distinctions can help us navigate social life, but they can also encourage us to extend empathy unevenly. We may interpret the behaviour of someone we identify with as a response to difficult circumstances, while interpreting similar behaviour from someone outside our group as evidence of a character flaw. We may readily recognise the pressures that shaped our own decisions while expecting others to overcome theirs through sheer personal responsibility. Such inconsistencies rarely announce themselves as prejudice. More often, they appear to us as common sense, justified anger, or a reasonable response to previous experiences. That is precisely what makes them difficult to confront.
I believe one of the most important questions we can ask ourselves is whether our principles remain consistent when the person seeking fairness is someone with whom we do not naturally identify. It is relatively easy to defend dignity when the individual being mistreated resembles us, shares our experiences, or belongs to a group whose struggles we understand. The more demanding test comes when extending that same dignity requires us to reconsider an opinion we have held for years. Can we acknowledge that a woman has been denied an opportunity because of gender without becoming defensive about the broader conversation surrounding men? Can we recognise that a man may be struggling with loneliness, emotional repression, or unrealistic expectations without dismissing his concerns as an attempt to divert attention from women’s rights? Can we support measures intended to correct structural inequalities while remaining attentive to their implementation and the experiences of individuals affected by them? These are not contradictions to be avoided. They are precisely the complexities that a serious commitment to fairness requires us to engage with.
Our workplaces provide an especially revealing illustration of this challenge. Organisations increasingly speak the language of inclusion, belonging, psychological safety, and equitable opportunity, often with sincere intentions and meaningful initiatives. Yet the credibility of these commitments depends less upon the elegance of their policies than upon the consistency of their everyday decisions. Does an organisation evaluate leadership potential without relying on assumptions about gender? Does it recognise caregiving responsibilities without automatically treating them as a woman’s concern? Can employees express psychological distress without being quietly judged as less capable? Are complaints examined fairly, with sensitivity towards the complainant and procedural fairness towards everyone involved? Are people encouraged to challenge bias even when doing so inconveniences those in authority? Inclusion becomes meaningful only when it survives situations in which fairness is difficult, emotionally charged, or administratively inconvenient. Otherwise, it risks becoming an attractive vocabulary that organisations use more confidently than they practise.
The same principle applies to parenting, perhaps with even greater long-term consequences. Children learn far more about equality from the behaviour they observe than from the values adults claim to endorse. A daughter notices whether her ambitions are celebrated with the same enthusiasm as her brother’s. A son notices whether his sadness is received with compassion or embarrassment. Children observe who is expected to compromise during family disagreements, whose professional commitments are treated as important, who performs domestic work, and whose opinions carry greater authority. They notice whether adults challenge unfairness consistently or only when it affects someone they favour. Over time, these ordinary observations become part of their understanding of relationships, identity, and personal worth. We may spend considerable energy teaching children to respect everyone, yet undermine those lessons through the casual stereotypes we repeat, the jokes we excuse, and the emotional double standards we fail to recognise.
I sometimes think that one of the greatest gifts we could offer the next generation is the freedom to become human beings before they are required to become socially acceptable versions of men and women. Imagine raising boys who understand that courage and tenderness can coexist, that responsibility does not demand emotional silence, and that their worth cannot be reduced to their financial productivity. Imagine raising girls who know that ambition and compassion are not competing qualities, that personal boundaries do not make them selfish, and that their identities need not be organised around the approval of others. Imagine relationships in which strength is not monopolised by one gender and emotional intelligence is not assigned exclusively to another. None of this requires us to ignore biological differences, individual preferences, or the historical realities that continue to influence people’s lives. It simply asks us to stop treating inherited expectations as unquestionable instructions for how every person must live.
Of course, acknowledging everyone’s humanity does not mean pretending that all forms of disadvantage are identical or that every claim of unfairness deserves the same institutional response. Justice sometimes requires us to distinguish between isolated experiences and persistent patterns, between individual discomfort and systemic exclusion, and between competing claims that cannot all be accommodated equally. Difficult decisions must be made, and those decisions should be informed by evidence, context, and a clear understanding of consequences. But there is an important difference between determining how resources or remedies should be distributed and deciding whether a person’s experience deserves to be heard. Compassion is not a finite allocation that must be withdrawn from one individual before it can be extended to another. Listening to someone’s suffering does not oblige us to agree with every interpretation they offer, but neither should disagreement become an excuse for indifference.
What concerns me most about selective empathy is the gradual erosion of trust it creates. When people believe that their experiences will be dismissed because of who they are, they become less willing to speak honestly. They may begin concealing vulnerability, exaggerating certainty, or seeking validation only from those who share their grievances. In relationships, this can create emotional withdrawal. In organisations, it can undermine psychological safety. In public life, it can intensify polarisation. And in communities, it can produce an atmosphere in which people are more concerned with defending their identities than understanding one another. The consequences are rarely immediate or dramatic. More often, they emerge quietly, through conversations that never happen, apologies that are never offered, and opportunities for understanding that disappear beneath the need to be right.
There is a certain maturity required to recognise that another person’s pain does not diminish our own. It requires us to resist the temptation to respond to every unfamiliar experience with comparison, correction, or suspicion. It asks us to acknowledge that our understanding of the world, however carefully developed, remains incomplete. We may have lived through considerable hardship and still be unaware of the difficulties faced by someone sitting across from us. We may have devoted years to advocating for justice and still possess blind spots that deserve examination. None of this invalidates our convictions. On the contrary, the willingness to question ourselves may be among the strongest indications that our convictions are grounded in principle rather than personal preference.
Ultimately, I do not believe equality will be achieved merely by winning arguments about which group has endured the greater injustice. Those discussions may be necessary for understanding history, identifying structural problems, and developing effective responses, but they cannot become the entirety of our moral imagination. A society committed to fairness must be capable of recognising unequal circumstances without reducing people to those circumstances. It must be willing to challenge discrimination without normalising contempt. It must recognise that accountability and compassion are not opposing values, and that extending dignity to someone does not require us to excuse their behaviour or abandon our own boundaries. Above all, it must resist the comforting simplicity of believing that injustice exists only among those with whom we disagree.
Perhaps the most revealing measure of our commitment to equality is what we do when fairness becomes inconvenient. When acknowledging another person’s struggle complicates our argument. When someone we admire behaves unfairly. When someone we disagree with makes a legitimate point. When defending a principle requires us to challenge our own community, reconsider our assumptions, or admit that we have judged someone too quickly. It is in those moments, rather than in our most eloquent declarations, that our understanding of equality becomes visible. Principles are easy to celebrate when they confirm what we already believe. Their real value emerges when they demand something of us.
I would like to believe that we are capable of a more generous and intellectually honest conversation about equality, one that does not confuse empathy with endorsement, disagreement with hostility, or fairness with the absence of difficult choices. A conversation in which women do not have to minimise their experiences to accommodate men’s concerns, and men do not have to deny their vulnerabilities to demonstrate support for women’s rights. A conversation in which historical injustices are acknowledged without allowing the past to become a permanent justification for present-day prejudice. A conversation in which we can examine systems critically while continuing to treat individuals as more than the categories to which they belong.
Because, in the end, equality is not demonstrated by how passionately we defend the dignity of people who resemble us. It is demonstrated by whether we remain committed to that dignity when the person before us challenges our sympathies, our assumptions, or our understanding of the world.
Justice may require us to recognise our differences, but humanity requires us not to forget what we share.
And if our compassion must first examine someone’s identity before deciding whether their suffering matters, perhaps what we are practising is not equality at all. Perhaps it is merely preference, dressed in the respectable language of principle.
We can, and must, aspire to something better.
Not an equality that belongs to men or women, majorities or minorities, the powerful or the marginalised, but one that recognises the dignity of every individual while remaining courageous enough to confront the inequalities that shape their lives.
Because equality that includes only those we agree with is not equality. It is simply another form of exclusion, expressed more politely.
Dr. Sheetal Nair is a psychotherapist, executive coach, author, and entrepreneur whose work explores human behaviour, relationships, leadership, and personal transformation.
—
This post was previously published on medium.com.
Did you know? We have 8 publications on Medium. Join us there!
***
–
Photo credit: Clay Banks on Unsplash
