Yes, I believe in equality. But I don't like the word 'feminist,'

"Yes, I believe in equality. But I don't like the word 'feminist,' because it's such a rational belief to think that women are equal to men, and I'm a rational person. You shouldn't be labeled for being reasonable." These words from Michael Che reflect a deep, insightful tension between rational thought and the social labels we often place on beliefs that are, at their core, simple truths. Equality—the idea that men and women are of equal value—should not be a radical or contentious belief, yet the very act of embracing it often comes with societal labels. To Che, the need to be labeled for something so rational feels unnecessary and even limiting. For him, equality is not a political or ideological stance but a simple truth that should not be shrouded in complex labels.

In ancient times, the concept of equality was often reserved for philosophers and leaders who saw the potential for a more just society. Socrates and Plato believed in the inherent rationality of equality, even if the societies they lived in did not always live up to those ideals. The very idea that people—regardless of gender, race, or status—should be treated with fairness and dignity was a notion deeply connected to wisdom and reason. But, as Michael Che points out, modern labels, such as feminism, can complicate what should be a clear and rational belief. It should not require a special category to believe that both men and women deserve equal rights and opportunities; it is, after all, a belief rooted in reason itself.

The word 'feminist' has long carried both power and controversy. In the past, the term has been used to describe revolutionary women who fought for their right to vote, own property, and hold positions of power. Susan B. Anthony, one of the most famous advocates for women’s suffrage, would never have described herself as a radical. Rather, she viewed her cause as a rational pursuit of equality, something essential to the functioning of a fair and just society. Yet, over time, the word feminism became entangled with political movements, with differing interpretations and contentious debates about its scope and meaning. Che’s discomfort with the term reflects a broader tension in society—where simple truths are often co-opted by ideologies and complicated by extreme labels, making it harder for people to agree on something as fundamental as equality.

The roots of equality can be traced back to ancient lawgivers and thinkers, who understood that fairness and justice were the foundation upon which society must be built. The Code of Hammurabi, one of the earliest known legal codes, included provisions that sought to balance the rights of men and women in society, particularly in matters of marriage, property, and inheritance. Although the code itself was imperfect and deeply patriarchal in many respects, it laid the groundwork for the belief that equality—at least in principle—was essential for the preservation of order and justice. The recognition of the rationality of equality is not new; it has been with us since the dawn of civilization.

Fast forward to the modern era, and we see that equality remains a fundamental value, one that continues to be championed by people from all walks of life. But the word 'feminist'—often associated with a specific political movement—can sometimes act as a barrier to the universal truth it represents. Che’s reluctance to embrace this label suggests that he sees equality as something so inherent, so natural, that it should not need political identity or labels to validate it. If you believe in equality, Che argues, why must you be categorized or defined by a word that carries both weight and division? The simple belief that women are equal to men should, in a rational world, be a shared value, not a political statement or ideological position.

Michael Che's statement also reminds us of the danger of labels—how easily they can limit our understanding of issues that are, in essence, universal. The battle for equality has always been a struggle to make simple truths accessible and clear to all, regardless of the labels society imposes. The ancient Romans, for instance, may have been early proponents of certain rights for women, but their conception of equality was limited by cultural norms and legal structures that did not recognize women as fully equal citizens. Much like today, where the belief in equality for women is often viewed through a partisan lens, ancient societies often saw this truth as something only worthy of partial acceptance, confined to particular spheres of life.

The lesson that Michael Che and the ancient world offer is that equality should not require us to adopt rigid labels or define ourselves by political ideologies. Equality is not a radical belief; it is a rational one, a truth rooted in the core of what it means to be human. Che urges us to simplify the conversation—equality is not a movement, it is a shared principle of human dignity. We should embrace this belief not as a badge of political identity but as a universal understanding that transcends ideologies. It is not the label we wear but the action we take that proves our commitment to equality.

So, future generations, take this wisdom to heart: equality is a rational, undeniable truth. Do not allow the noise of labels to drown out the simple principles that should unite us all. Act on your belief in equality, whether or not you are given a label for it. Let your actions speak louder than any word or ideology. Strive to build a world where equality is not something debated or questioned but simply understood as the right of every individual. In doing so, you will honor the true, rational belief in the dignity of all people—regardless of gender, race, or creed.