There is a predictable panic among a certain group of men whenever universities attempt to correct for poverty, exclusion, or historic deprivation. They suddenly discover a reverence for “merit,” as though the world they inherited has ever rewarded it. As though the playing field has ever been level. As though women were merely late to the competition, rather than systematically barred from it.

This panic would be more persuasive if it came from a class that had not spent centuries ensuring its dominance by force.

Men did not merely “outperform” women historically. They eliminated them. They silenced women, excluded them, legally erased them, denied them education, property, wages, and bodily autonomy, and enforced compliance through violence—domestic, sexual, and institutional. Women were subjected for centuries to gendered systems of terror and punishment designed to suppress autonomy and enforce obedience.

After centuries of suppression by force, men now demand to be judged by “merit,” as though the field had ever been fair.

Where the Field Is Actually Level

What gives the game away is where women are allowed to compete on something approaching equal terms.

In school—where standardized evaluation replaces patronage, intimidation, and informal gatekeeping—women consistently outperform men. Across income levels. Across disciplines. Across countries. When physical dominance, sexual leverage, and institutional bias are reduced, the results are not subtle.

On a genuinely level field—where evaluation replaces force, patronage, and coercion—women win more often than men.

That is the part no one wants to say plainly:

When the field is genuinely level, women win.

The Real Engine of the Backlash

That is the real engine behind the backlash against equity, affirmative action, and access programs. Not a principled defense of excellence, but fear—fear of losing unearned advantage. Fear that once brute force, exclusion, and inherited status are removed, the story men tell about their superiority collapses.

So “meritocracy” becomes a talisman. A word repeated to ward off reality. It is invoked not to protect fairness, but to preserve hierarchy.

Men who benefited from centuries of rigging the rules suddenly insist that any attempt to acknowledge that history is discrimination against them.

Naming the Rigging

Equity programs do not create unfairness. They name it.

They recognize that generations of enforced dependency, unpaid labor, sexual violence, and exclusion do not disappear the moment the law changes. They are a partial, inadequate attempt to address damage that was never accidental.

The irony is grotesque.

Men accuse women of seeking special treatment while defending a system built to their specifications, enforced by their violence, and maintained by institutional indifference. They call it neutral only because it favors them. They call it fair only because they are used to winning before the race begins.

If Merit Were Real

If merit were truly the standard, men would welcome a fair contest.

Instead, they protest the moment the rules begin to resemble one.

And no—this isn’t polite. Politeness is for equals acting in good faith. What you are hearing now is the sound of women no longer pretending to respect a system that required our erasure to function.

You call it merit because you are afraid of competition.

We call it what it is.

And yes—we’re sneering at you, because that is the merit you’ve actually achieved.