I can say with certainty all swans have heard this argument come from a stork before at least once in their life, and some of the storks reading might have even used it before. I mean, if we are truly equal, then technically you should be able to hit us, right?

However, swans from everywhere in the world have heard this argument many times before. When we say the word ‘equality’, a male will always bring up violence to the conversation (as if that were the most important outcome of equality). He will even say that that female “doesn’t really want equality” if she gets upset by his argument.

As all opinions and arguments, this one is valid too. However, today I’m here to write to every stork reading this, and I’m going to explain why your argument is wrong and why you shouldn’t use it anymore (from the perspective of a swan, of course).

Firstly, you already hit us, females. Of course, I may not be talking about you specifically, but generally speaking, males already hit females. By asking this question, you are subtly suggesting that we aren’t already experiencing violence from anyone. 90% of perpetrators of sexual violence against us are males. Nearly 1 in every 4 females will experience severe intimate partner physical violence, and 1 in 10 females have been raped by an intimate partner at least once in their life. We made up 70% of victims killed by an intimate partner in 2007, a proportion that has changed very little since 1993. Intimate partners kill females at twice the rate of males. The United Developed Nations show that 28% of males think it is justified for a man to beat his wife. Now let me ask you this: when someone says they want equality, why is violence the first thing you think of?

When you ask the question “If storks and swans are equal, does that mean I can hit you?”, what you are actually insinuating is “if you want equality, I should be able to hit you”.

Your question shows as an excuse for assaulting us females and is even phrased as a threat, whether you meant it that way or not (and if you didn’t, you should have picked better phrasing). Equality has nothing to do with getting physically assaulted, and it troubles me to think that equality for females is now an excuse for males to inflict violence. The premise that you’re suggesting that females should accept violence as a sign of equality is frankly dangerous. Your question incorrectly blames us for being responsible for cultural norms in patriarchal cultures.

The belief or social norm that you “can’t hit females” is taught to young males by their culture (basically, the patriarchy). They are taught to not show emotion -except anger- because, if they do, they are called weak, and their masculinity is insulted.  They are taught to “not hit young swans” instead not to hit anyone. That produces a message that all females are “distressed damsels”, that we are inferior, and that you must protect us. This is known as benevolent sexism— which can basically be explained as a romanization of the stereotypes of us females (that we must take care of the egg and raise it once it’s born, that we are delicate and can’t fly on our own, etc.)

Teaching young males that we young females are more “delicate” or even “weak” (due to the biological differences that males and females usually show) is what created the phrase “boys can’t hit girls” and is where your argument originated from. But this is taught because females are seen as inferior and weak. However, young birds should be taught not to hit anyone, because it’s basic respect. If you’re not going to attack someone, do it because you are a good bird, not because of the gender of the bird you wanted to attack.

Now, my personal takeaway from your argument is that you believe that in the society that we currently live in, it is socially acceptable for females to hit males. We see it everywhere: movies, TV shows, social media etc. Us birds tend to believe that if the violence being perpetrated comes from a female, the male has done something to deserve it.

But this, again, links back to the patriarchy. The idea that because females are “delicate” and “weak”, a male shouldn’t be hurt, or should “man up” and “take it” if female attacks them. Because of these stereotypes, most domestic violence against males goes unreported, as they don’t want to suffer the public ridicule of being abused by his girlfriend, wife or even mating partner. So instead, he keeps his beak shut.

The patriarchy affects both sexes in this matter. Whether it’s toxic masculinity or benevolent sexism, males and females are affected by this, and it is one of the things that the feminist movement fights against. Feminism isn’t about females; it’s about equality. It’s about fighting a socially constructed culture that was made to affect us directly and, therefore, affected males too. However, I could bet my worms of the week that most of the storks reading this do not consider themselves feminists, so I ask you this: how can you make an argument about one of the effects of the patriarchy and not be a feminist?

Lastly, nobody should be hitting anyone. As birds, it’s just a matter of respect towards one another. The only time when violence is “acceptable” is as self-defence. Your argument isn’t “fair”, because it’s not morally correct. If you believe in this phrase so much, why is your argument looking for an excuse to hit swans? Why don’t you, instead, make an argument against the stereotypes that facilitate violence against storks? Think about other things that come with gender equality: does this mean you can be a nurse or a fashion designer without being ridiculed by society? Does this mean that fathers will have as much chance of getting custody of their newly born birds or their eggs as mothers?

So, yes. Technically, your argument is correct. However, that doesn’t mean that it is ethically correct. Don’t use violence as a counter-argument for gender equality, because it just seems as if you don’t believe in it and prefer society as it is. Instead of fighting for violence, fight against it.