Egalitarianism is better than feminism
I am an egalitarianist and would like to say that women are not allowed to be given priority as that view itself as inherently sexist
Do you feel that egalitarianism is better than feminism?
Do you feel that egalitarianism is better than feminism?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Stolyarov Daniel
I am an egalitarianist and would like to say that women are not allowed to be given priority as that view itself as inherently sexist
Do you feel that egalitarianism is better than feminism?
Do you feel that egalitarianism is better than feminism?
Egalitarianism and feminism have the same principles however, the first refers to equality for all whereas the latter is specifically referring to equal rights for men and women. One is not 'better' than the other, in fact they compliment each other and if one is a egalitarian then they should also naturally be a feminist and vice versa.
People will say they are one and the same, but they aren't. One has no biases, the other does. Approaching social issues and inequalities from a women-only perspective (as feminism usually does) generates obvious problems. It's gotten to the point now where the rights and freedoms of women are literally seen as more important by these people. Look no further than how sexual crimes are treated.
"individualism" is better; it assumes that we're all equal in our status and that we're all responsible for ourselves and our actions - rights come with these responsibilities. for example, if a woman punches a man, she's responsible for herself so she deserves a punch back for that act which she was individually responsible over.
egalitarianism or "equality" can imply equality of outcomes, or unwarranted equality when it is not merited. for example, paying women tennis players equally to male ones when males bring in more spectators and therefore more money. individualism, vis-a-vis its elements of responsibility, would see inequality as fairness, whereas equality alone wouldn't factor in fairness in other areas, such as merit/desert.
but, again, "individualism" would see all people as equally responsible for themselves, and therefore, would give them equal rights in that respect in ways that make sense when talking about what each individual deserves. sometimes, equality is blind regarding what individuals deserve.
egalitarianism or "equality" can imply equality of outcomes, or unwarranted equality when it is not merited. for example, paying women tennis players equally to male ones when males bring in more spectators and therefore more money. individualism, vis-a-vis its elements of responsibility, would see inequality as fairness, whereas equality alone wouldn't factor in fairness in other areas, such as merit/desert.
but, again, "individualism" would see all people as equally responsible for themselves, and therefore, would give them equal rights in that respect in ways that make sense when talking about what each individual deserves. sometimes, equality is blind regarding what individuals deserve.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Stolyarov Daniel
I am an egalitarianist and would like to say that women are not allowed to be given priority as that view itself as inherently sexist
Do you feel that egalitarianism is better than feminism?
Do you feel that egalitarianism is better than feminism?
A more pressing question is why strange, lonely men hang out on a student forum to rant about how much they hate feminism.
There is a weird and disturbing obsession with feminism on here and it doesn't come from women...
It's beyond me how people can think egalitarianism and feminism are the same thing.
Here are the definitions:
Egalitarianism: a movement which advocates equality for all people.
Feminism: a gender equality movement which advocates equality for all women.
Please note that feminism isn't for 'women and men', 'both sexes' or vice versa. No where in that does it imply that feminism = men + women's rights. The fact that people try to change feminism's meaning simply shows how out of touch it is with our society's problems.
And if in any way feminism brings about equality for 'both sexes', it's by determining equality for males around female problems. A prime example of this is the issue of the majority of rape victims being female. (No matter whether feminist or masculist, there's no use trying to disprove this. The facts are laid out in front of you.)
However, ONLY BECAUSE this is a women-led issue will feminism act upon what you could call the 'male' side of the story. By definition, feminism will only focus on solving women's equality, and thus any other gender's equality will merely follow up from that women-specific issue.
What about the fact that the majority of suicides are done by men? That the jail time for the same crime is 3 times higher for males? What about the woman's privilege of custody over her child, no matter whether she is fit to take care of it? What about the 61% of homeless people being men? That only 2/5 of college graduates are male? All these issues which are male-led, but by definition feminism will have nothing to do with them. And don't forget that these problems are global, and not just reserved for first-world countries...
Egalitarianism will fight for the rights of all sexes, creeds, appearances or sexualities - or in other words, all people - equally, and so will be the movement out of the two that'll actually combat these problems.
"So if feminism (in its very essence) will not touch these aspects, what about the feminists who fight for men's rights!??"
Despite it being nice to see that even those in a very polarised movement (feminism) still are just as compassionate towards other sexes, it completely goes against the very definition of feminism. Do people not realise the irony of this? Having your own interpretation of feminism will not change what feminism is, and therefore will not qualify you as a feminist.
What people need to realise with labels like 'feminist' or 'egalitarian' is that you can't change what they are to suit your whims. If you want equality for both sexes, you can call yourself an egalitarian. If you want to then lean towards equality for women than men, then don't call yourself an egalitarian. Call yourself a feminist. You have the choice of labelling yourself, but it's not up to you to decide what they mean if they have a globally established meaning (like feminism or egalitarianism do).
"But people will naturally interpret things in their own way - it's called being human!!"
Of course. But the whole point of having ideologies is for them to be defined and followed according to those definitions. It's just as obvious as the fact that you can't be a Christian if you worship Satan. If you have a specific belief, idea or motive that doesn't quite exactly match any other - or, if you want to have your own view of things, then don't label yourself. Don't want to be labelled? DON'T LABEL YOURSELF. Just because you believe in equality doesn't mean you should rush with the hype and start calling yourself something. To believe in equal rights, you don't have to call yourself anything. As an example, if feminists say "if you believe in .... , you're a feminist", that's when you know you should steer clear of them.
"Now you're just contradicting yourself, bawww!!1"
How come? Because I basically said "If you want to ... lean towards equality for women than men, then you can call yourself a feminist"?
Do you notice that subtle little "can call" in there?
That means that I'm not directly telling you to call yourself a feminist - I'm giving you a choice. Like I already said, it's your choice whether you label yourself or not. I'm not telling you that you have to call yourself this the minute you fulfil the requirement, or patronising you if you're not one. However, it is not your choice to determine what feminism means. Feminism has been agreed on by many to be the definition at the very top of my post, as well as by the one who coined it. So no matter whether you call yourself a feminist or not, you won't be a feminist if you go against that definition. You'll be simply making a fool out of the movement and ultimately yourself, and you'll know that deep inside no matter how much you try to justify it.
"So how will people know what you believe in if you can't tell them with a simple definition!?!?!"
Let me tell you of a little quote that encompasses one of the reasons we have movements: Actions speak louder than words.
Actually doing something towards what you fight for would mean that you won't need to explain yourself to people. Call yourself an egalitarian all you want, but if you're not BEING an egalitarian then you're letting your movement down. Spreading awareness doesn't count. Why? Because anyone can do that. When criticising a movement, you're giving it just as much publicity as a radical would. (If anyone wants me to explain further, I will do.) And if someone asks you this despite everything, stop being lazy and just tell them. Being passionate about what you believe in is willing to find a way to explain your motives to people, EVEN IF they didn't have a term. After all, a reason for fighting for things is to get other people to join you.
Here are the definitions:
Egalitarianism: a movement which advocates equality for all people.
Feminism: a gender equality movement which advocates equality for all women.
Please note that feminism isn't for 'women and men', 'both sexes' or vice versa. No where in that does it imply that feminism = men + women's rights. The fact that people try to change feminism's meaning simply shows how out of touch it is with our society's problems.
And if in any way feminism brings about equality for 'both sexes', it's by determining equality for males around female problems. A prime example of this is the issue of the majority of rape victims being female. (No matter whether feminist or masculist, there's no use trying to disprove this. The facts are laid out in front of you.)
However, ONLY BECAUSE this is a women-led issue will feminism act upon what you could call the 'male' side of the story. By definition, feminism will only focus on solving women's equality, and thus any other gender's equality will merely follow up from that women-specific issue.
What about the fact that the majority of suicides are done by men? That the jail time for the same crime is 3 times higher for males? What about the woman's privilege of custody over her child, no matter whether she is fit to take care of it? What about the 61% of homeless people being men? That only 2/5 of college graduates are male? All these issues which are male-led, but by definition feminism will have nothing to do with them. And don't forget that these problems are global, and not just reserved for first-world countries...
Egalitarianism will fight for the rights of all sexes, creeds, appearances or sexualities - or in other words, all people - equally, and so will be the movement out of the two that'll actually combat these problems.
"So if feminism (in its very essence) will not touch these aspects, what about the feminists who fight for men's rights!??"
Despite it being nice to see that even those in a very polarised movement (feminism) still are just as compassionate towards other sexes, it completely goes against the very definition of feminism. Do people not realise the irony of this? Having your own interpretation of feminism will not change what feminism is, and therefore will not qualify you as a feminist.
What people need to realise with labels like 'feminist' or 'egalitarian' is that you can't change what they are to suit your whims. If you want equality for both sexes, you can call yourself an egalitarian. If you want to then lean towards equality for women than men, then don't call yourself an egalitarian. Call yourself a feminist. You have the choice of labelling yourself, but it's not up to you to decide what they mean if they have a globally established meaning (like feminism or egalitarianism do).
"But people will naturally interpret things in their own way - it's called being human!!"
Of course. But the whole point of having ideologies is for them to be defined and followed according to those definitions. It's just as obvious as the fact that you can't be a Christian if you worship Satan. If you have a specific belief, idea or motive that doesn't quite exactly match any other - or, if you want to have your own view of things, then don't label yourself. Don't want to be labelled? DON'T LABEL YOURSELF. Just because you believe in equality doesn't mean you should rush with the hype and start calling yourself something. To believe in equal rights, you don't have to call yourself anything. As an example, if feminists say "if you believe in .... , you're a feminist", that's when you know you should steer clear of them.
"Now you're just contradicting yourself, bawww!!1"
How come? Because I basically said "If you want to ... lean towards equality for women than men, then you can call yourself a feminist"?
Do you notice that subtle little "can call" in there?
That means that I'm not directly telling you to call yourself a feminist - I'm giving you a choice. Like I already said, it's your choice whether you label yourself or not. I'm not telling you that you have to call yourself this the minute you fulfil the requirement, or patronising you if you're not one. However, it is not your choice to determine what feminism means. Feminism has been agreed on by many to be the definition at the very top of my post, as well as by the one who coined it. So no matter whether you call yourself a feminist or not, you won't be a feminist if you go against that definition. You'll be simply making a fool out of the movement and ultimately yourself, and you'll know that deep inside no matter how much you try to justify it.
"So how will people know what you believe in if you can't tell them with a simple definition!?!?!"
Let me tell you of a little quote that encompasses one of the reasons we have movements: Actions speak louder than words.
Actually doing something towards what you fight for would mean that you won't need to explain yourself to people. Call yourself an egalitarian all you want, but if you're not BEING an egalitarian then you're letting your movement down. Spreading awareness doesn't count. Why? Because anyone can do that. When criticising a movement, you're giving it just as much publicity as a radical would. (If anyone wants me to explain further, I will do.) And if someone asks you this despite everything, stop being lazy and just tell them. Being passionate about what you believe in is willing to find a way to explain your motives to people, EVEN IF they didn't have a term. After all, a reason for fighting for things is to get other people to join you.
Spoiler
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Stolyarov Daniel
I am an egalitarianist
It's egalitarian, not egalitarianist.
Original post by Bornblue
A more pressing question is why strange, lonely men hang out on a student forum to rant about how much they hate feminism.
There is a weird and disturbing obsession with feminism on here and it doesn't come from women...
There is a weird and disturbing obsession with feminism on here and it doesn't come from women...
...or perhaps some people want to question the status quo and exchange opinions on a subject that many people are touchy on?
But yeah. The only people who question feminism on a student forum are strange, lonely men. Innit? And they hate feminism. Yeah. Duh.
Original post by kamitersen
...or perhaps some people want to question the status quo and exchange opinions on a subject that many people are touchy on?
But yeah. The only people who question feminism on a student forum are strange, lonely men. Innit? And they hate feminism. Yeah. Duh.
But yeah. The only people who question feminism on a student forum are strange, lonely men. Innit? And they hate feminism. Yeah. Duh.
Every second thread on here is about feminism, usually from strange, lonely men.
I think anyone who wants to stop women (and men) campaigning on issues such as fgm, raising awareness of Breast Cancer and supporting victims, supporting poor,vulnerable women in the sex industry and providing a shelter for domestic abuse victims, is strange.
Women and men can campaign on women's issues. They can campaign on mens issues too.
Original post by kamitersen
It's beyond me how people can think egalitarianism and feminism are the same thing.
Here are the definitions:
Egalitarianism: a movement which advocates equality for all people.
Feminism: a gender equality movement which advocates equality for all women.
Please note that feminism isn't for 'women and men', 'both sexes' or vice versa. No where in that does it imply that feminism = men + women's rights. The fact that people try to change feminism's meaning simply shows how out of touch it is with our society's problems.
And if in any way feminism brings about equality for 'both sexes', it's by determining equality for males around female problems. A prime example of this is the issue of the majority of rape victims being female. (No matter whether feminist or masculist, there's no use trying to disprove this. The facts are laid out in front of you.)
However, ONLY BECAUSE this is a women-led issue will feminism act upon what you could call the 'male' side of the story. By definition, feminism will only focus on solving women's equality, and thus any other gender's equality will merely follow up from that women-specific issue.
What about the fact that the majority of suicides are done by men? That the jail time for the same crime is 3 times higher for males? What about the woman's privilege of custody over her child, no matter whether she is fit to take care of it? What about the 61% of homeless people being men? That only 2/5 of college graduates are male? All these issues which are male-led, but by definition feminism will have nothing to do with them. And don't forget that these problems are global, and not just reserved for first-world countries...
Egalitarianism will fight for the rights of all sexes, creeds, appearances or sexualities - or in other words, all people - equally, and so will be the movement out of the two that'll actually combat these problems.
"So if feminism (in its very essence) will not touch these aspects, what about the feminists who fight for men's rights!??"
Despite it being nice to see that even those in a very polarised movement (feminism) still are just as compassionate towards other sexes, it completely goes against the very definition of feminism. Do people not realise the irony of this? Having your own interpretation of feminism will not change what feminism is, and therefore will not qualify you as a feminist.
What people need to realise with labels like 'feminist' or 'egalitarian' is that you can't change what they are to suit your whims. If you want equality for both sexes, you can call yourself a feminist. If you want to then lean towards equality for women than men, then don't call yourself an egalitarian. Call yourself a feminist. You have the choice of labelling yourself, but it's not up to you to decide what they mean if they have a globally established meaning (like feminism or egalitarianism do).
"But people will naturally interpret things in their own way - it's called being human!!"
Of course. But the whole point of having ideologies is for them to be defined and followed according to those definitions. It's just as obvious as the fact that you can't be a Christian if you worship Satan. If you have a specific belief, idea or motive that doesn't quite exactly match any other - or, if you want to have your own view of things, then don't label yourself. Don't want to be labelled? DON'T LABEL YOURSELF. Just because you believe in equality doesn't mean you should rush with the hype and start calling yourself something. To believe in equal rights, you don't have to call yourself anything. As an example, if feminists say "if you believe in .... , you're a feminist", that's when you know you should steer clear of them.
"Now you're just contradicting yourself, bawww!!1"
How come? Because I basically said "If you want to ... lean towards equality for women than men, then you can call yourself a feminist"?
Do you notice that subtle little "can call" in there?
That means that I'm not directly telling you to call yourself a feminist - I'm giving you a choice. Like I already said, it's your choice whether you label yourself or not. I'm not telling you that you have to call yourself this the minute you fulfil the requirement, or patronising you if you're not one. However, it is not your choice to determine what feminism means. Feminism has been agreed on by many to be the definition at the very top of my post, as well as by the one who coined it. So no matter whether you call yourself a feminist or not, you won't be a feminist if you go against that definition. You'll be simply making a fool out of the movement and ultimately yourself, and you'll know that deep inside no matter how much you try to justify it.
"So how will people know what you believe in if you can't tell them with a simple definition!?!?!"
Let me tell you of a little quote that encompasses one of the reasons we have movements: Actions speak louder than words.
Actually doing something towards what you fight for would mean that you won't need to explain yourself to people. Call yourself an egalitarian all you want, but if you're not BEING an egalitarian then you're letting your movement down. Spreading awareness doesn't count. Why? Because anyone can do that. When criticising a movement, you're giving it just as much publicity as a radical would. (If anyone wants me to explain further, I will do.) And if someone asks you this despite everything, stop being lazy and just tell them. Being passionate about what you believe in is willing to find a way to explain your motives to people, EVEN IF they didn't have a term. After all, a reason for fighting for things is to get other people to join you.
Here are the definitions:
Egalitarianism: a movement which advocates equality for all people.
Feminism: a gender equality movement which advocates equality for all women.
Please note that feminism isn't for 'women and men', 'both sexes' or vice versa. No where in that does it imply that feminism = men + women's rights. The fact that people try to change feminism's meaning simply shows how out of touch it is with our society's problems.
And if in any way feminism brings about equality for 'both sexes', it's by determining equality for males around female problems. A prime example of this is the issue of the majority of rape victims being female. (No matter whether feminist or masculist, there's no use trying to disprove this. The facts are laid out in front of you.)
However, ONLY BECAUSE this is a women-led issue will feminism act upon what you could call the 'male' side of the story. By definition, feminism will only focus on solving women's equality, and thus any other gender's equality will merely follow up from that women-specific issue.
What about the fact that the majority of suicides are done by men? That the jail time for the same crime is 3 times higher for males? What about the woman's privilege of custody over her child, no matter whether she is fit to take care of it? What about the 61% of homeless people being men? That only 2/5 of college graduates are male? All these issues which are male-led, but by definition feminism will have nothing to do with them. And don't forget that these problems are global, and not just reserved for first-world countries...
Egalitarianism will fight for the rights of all sexes, creeds, appearances or sexualities - or in other words, all people - equally, and so will be the movement out of the two that'll actually combat these problems.
"So if feminism (in its very essence) will not touch these aspects, what about the feminists who fight for men's rights!??"
Despite it being nice to see that even those in a very polarised movement (feminism) still are just as compassionate towards other sexes, it completely goes against the very definition of feminism. Do people not realise the irony of this? Having your own interpretation of feminism will not change what feminism is, and therefore will not qualify you as a feminist.
What people need to realise with labels like 'feminist' or 'egalitarian' is that you can't change what they are to suit your whims. If you want equality for both sexes, you can call yourself a feminist. If you want to then lean towards equality for women than men, then don't call yourself an egalitarian. Call yourself a feminist. You have the choice of labelling yourself, but it's not up to you to decide what they mean if they have a globally established meaning (like feminism or egalitarianism do).
"But people will naturally interpret things in their own way - it's called being human!!"
Of course. But the whole point of having ideologies is for them to be defined and followed according to those definitions. It's just as obvious as the fact that you can't be a Christian if you worship Satan. If you have a specific belief, idea or motive that doesn't quite exactly match any other - or, if you want to have your own view of things, then don't label yourself. Don't want to be labelled? DON'T LABEL YOURSELF. Just because you believe in equality doesn't mean you should rush with the hype and start calling yourself something. To believe in equal rights, you don't have to call yourself anything. As an example, if feminists say "if you believe in .... , you're a feminist", that's when you know you should steer clear of them.
"Now you're just contradicting yourself, bawww!!1"
How come? Because I basically said "If you want to ... lean towards equality for women than men, then you can call yourself a feminist"?
Do you notice that subtle little "can call" in there?
That means that I'm not directly telling you to call yourself a feminist - I'm giving you a choice. Like I already said, it's your choice whether you label yourself or not. I'm not telling you that you have to call yourself this the minute you fulfil the requirement, or patronising you if you're not one. However, it is not your choice to determine what feminism means. Feminism has been agreed on by many to be the definition at the very top of my post, as well as by the one who coined it. So no matter whether you call yourself a feminist or not, you won't be a feminist if you go against that definition. You'll be simply making a fool out of the movement and ultimately yourself, and you'll know that deep inside no matter how much you try to justify it.
"So how will people know what you believe in if you can't tell them with a simple definition!?!?!"
Let me tell you of a little quote that encompasses one of the reasons we have movements: Actions speak louder than words.
Actually doing something towards what you fight for would mean that you won't need to explain yourself to people. Call yourself an egalitarian all you want, but if you're not BEING an egalitarian then you're letting your movement down. Spreading awareness doesn't count. Why? Because anyone can do that. When criticising a movement, you're giving it just as much publicity as a radical would. (If anyone wants me to explain further, I will do.) And if someone asks you this despite everything, stop being lazy and just tell them. Being passionate about what you believe in is willing to find a way to explain your motives to people, EVEN IF they didn't have a term. After all, a reason for fighting for things is to get other people to join you.
Spoiler
Awful logic. Not feminists fault that men don't support each other and focus on mens issues like suicide and homelessness, instead men focus on stopping women campaign on their issues.
Men are more than welcome and encouraged to campaign on issues which genuinely affect men, but they don't.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
Every second thread on here is about feminism, usually from strange, lonely men.
Proof or naw?
I think anyone who wants to stop women (and men) campaigning on issues such as fgm, raising awareness of Breast Cancer and supporting victims, supporting poor,vulnerable women in the sex industry and providing a shelter for domestic abuse victims, is strange.
So this, translated from polite English, means that the minute someone here questions something on feminism, they are trying to stop all of what you mentioned.
"What you think is not what is the case." - Unknown
Women and men can campaign on women's issues. They can campaign on mens issues too.
No-one denied that humans can be humans here.
Original post by Bornblue
Awful logic. Not feminists fault that men don't support each other and focus on mens issues like suicide and homelessness, instead men focus on stopping women campaign on their issues.
Oh dear. Where to start?
It is a fact that women's issues are more publicised than men's issues. But do ignore that, and instead blame men for not doing something about it themselves. Because it's their fault. Yah.
To give a common example, there has been a massive increase in islamophobic and anti-semitic attacks, and some ignorant people decide that it's up to Muslims and Jews to sort this out because 'it's their fault that they don't support each other'. If you can see what's wrong with that, but not with what you just said, your efforts at a discussion are worthless.
Did you also know that kind of logic is called 'victim blaming', a phrase very widely known about in the feminist community?
Men are more than welcome and encouraged to campaign on issues which genuinely affect men, but they don't.
Once again, give proof that men don't campaign on these issues.
And my logic is awful?
Original post by kamitersen
Oh dear. Where to start?
It is a fact that women's issues are more publicised than men's issues. But do ignore that, and instead blame men for not doing something about it themselves. Because it's their fault. Yah.
To give a common example, there has been a massive increase in islamophobic and anti-semitic attacks, and some ignorant people decide that it's up to Muslims and Jews to sort this out because 'it's their fault that they don't support each other'. If you can see what's wrong with that, but not with what you just said, your efforts at a discussion are worthless.
Did you also know that kind of logic is called 'victim blaming', a phrase very widely known about in the feminist community?
Once again, give proof that men don't campaign on these issues.
And my logic is awful?
It is a fact that women's issues are more publicised than men's issues. But do ignore that, and instead blame men for not doing something about it themselves. Because it's their fault. Yah.
To give a common example, there has been a massive increase in islamophobic and anti-semitic attacks, and some ignorant people decide that it's up to Muslims and Jews to sort this out because 'it's their fault that they don't support each other'. If you can see what's wrong with that, but not with what you just said, your efforts at a discussion are worthless.
Did you also know that kind of logic is called 'victim blaming', a phrase very widely known about in the feminist community?
Once again, give proof that men don't campaign on these issues.
And my logic is awful?
Men don't campaign on these issues no.
I can't prove an absence of something. Show me proof of men campaigning on cruise make issues which aren't to do with women.
Actually don't, I'm bored of you.
Original post by Bornblue
Men don't campaign on these issues no.
I can't prove an absence of something. Show me proof of men campaigning on cruise make issues which aren't to do with women.
Actually don't, I'm bored of you.
I can't prove an absence of something. Show me proof of men campaigning on cruise make issues which aren't to do with women.
Actually don't, I'm bored of you.
Don't give up so quickly. You're quite amusing
Equal custody of children - http://www.suffragents.org/
Male suicide awareness - https://www.thecalmzone.net/
Male circumcision help - http://www.norm.org/
Male mental health awareness - http://www.menheal.org.uk/
Male rape victim help - http://www.mencanstoprape.org/Resources/resources-for-male-survivors.html
Male domestic violence awareness - http://www.dvmen.co.uk/
Male stereotypes awareness - http://mankindproject.org/
EDIT: For anyone interested, please feel free to save/share/add to this list!
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by kamitersen
It's beyond me how people can think egalitarianism and feminism are the same thing.
Here are the definitions:
Egalitarianism: a movement which advocates equality for all people.
Feminism: a gender equality movement which advocates equality for all women.
Here are the definitions:
Egalitarianism: a movement which advocates equality for all people.
Feminism: a gender equality movement which advocates equality for all women.
Not quite. Egalitarianism is not really a movement, it's more of a social philosophy that holds that all people are born equal. Feminism is specifically a gender equality movement that comes under the umbrella of egalitarianism. Asking why feminists don't just call themselves egalitarians 'if it's really about equality' is like asking why marine conservationists don't just call themselves environmentalists 'if it's really about the environment'. The answer is that they do call themselves those things - but they've taken up a specific cause that they feel is important or relevant or meaningful to them, and that's fine.
"
Egalitarianism is not really a movement, it's more of a social philosophy that holds that all people are born equal. Feminism is specifically a gender equality movement that comes under the umbrella of egalitarianism.
I am aware that egalitarianism is a philosophy in general, and that there are many different equalities it campaigns for. However, since this discussion is in the context of gender equality, egalitarianism would mean to achieve equality for all genders. This obviously differs from the point of feminism, which is to 'level out the playing field' so to speak by increasing women's rights. It's a good thing, but I'll elaborate on the extent of that soon.
Original post by Captain Haddock
Asking why feminists don't just call themselves egalitarians 'if it's really about equality' is like asking why marine conservationists don't just call themselves environmentalists 'if it's really about the environment'.
To use your example: Environmentalism is the protection and preservation of all ecosystems. Marine conservation is the protection and preservation of solely marine ecosystems. They are both good in their own way.
But just because they both fight for 'a form of preservation of life on Earth', doesn't make them go about this goal in the same way. One fights for all ecosystems overall, whilst one fights for solely marine ecosystems.
Just like in the context of gender equality, egalitarianism is fighting for gender equality for all genders, and feminism is fighting for gender equality concerning women. They are both good in their own way. But just because they are built around the idea of 'gender equality' doesn't they go about it in the same way. One fights for the rights of all genders to be level, whilst one fights to increase the rights of solely women (in the theory that this'll make the sexes level).
The answer is that they do call themselves those things - but they've taken up a specific cause that they feel is important or relevant or meaningful to them, and that's fine.
Campaigning for feminism in countries such as the UK, a place where women's inequality is more widely known + combated than men's, is a waste of potential driving force in countries where women's issues are barely touched.
Countries like the UK will benefit more from egalitarian principles which actively touches and brings awareness of male inequality, whilst aiding female inequality too.
That's the whole point of egalitarianism in this context. It's not to troll feminism. It's not a bunch of 'strange, lonely men' as some poor person thought. It's recognising that women and men have issues, that they can both be victims of so-called 'patriarchies', and that focusing on one gender alone isn't going to 'level out the playing field'.
They are both stupid and Marxist in origin. Men and women are very different: hormonally, intellectually and temperamentally. One should neither expect nor desire equality.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Bornblue
A more pressing question is why strange, lonely men hang out on a student forum to rant about how much they hate feminism.
There is a weird and disturbing obsession with feminism on here and it doesn't come from women...
There is a weird and disturbing obsession with feminism on here and it doesn't come from women...
Feminism is of Marxist origin as one of the comment says. It is confirmed, men and women are different. Men have a larger braine for neurons , larger left brain for problem solving skills with task oriented perspective which is the result of salary gap in a lot of different sectors of the economy, even though the main reason for pay gap is that women on average finish work earlier and start their career later than men. However it does not mean that women are inferior, they are just different.
Original post by Bornblue
Every second thread on here is about feminism, usually from strange, lonely men.
I think anyone who wants to stop women (and men) campaigning on issues such as fgm, raising awareness of Breast Cancer and supporting victims, supporting poor,vulnerable women in the sex industry and providing a shelter for domestic abuse victims, is strange.
Women and men can campaign on women's issues. They can campaign on mens issues too.
I think anyone who wants to stop women (and men) campaigning on issues such as fgm, raising awareness of Breast Cancer and supporting victims, supporting poor,vulnerable women in the sex industry and providing a shelter for domestic abuse victims, is strange.
Women and men can campaign on women's issues. They can campaign on mens issues too.
This.
No one's denying there's issues which affect men more than women but the sort of people who constantly go on about 'men's rights' never seem to do any actual campaigning but spend their whole time whining about feminism & trying to justify their own misogyny. A while back I wouldn't really have been bothered about terminology 'feminism', 'egalitarianism' etc but after following the debates about it the attitudes of the anti feminist types is one of the things which makes me more determined to label myself as a feminist.
Original post by Alesha1991
This.
No one's denying there's issues which affect men more than women but the sort of people who constantly go on about 'men's rights' never seem to do any actual campaigning but spend their whole time whining about feminism & trying to justify their own misogyny. A while back I wouldn't really have been bothered about terminology 'feminism', 'egalitarianism' etc but after following the debates about it the attitudes of the anti feminist types is one of the things which makes me more determined to label myself as a feminist.
No one's denying there's issues which affect men more than women but the sort of people who constantly go on about 'men's rights' never seem to do any actual campaigning but spend their whole time whining about feminism & trying to justify their own misogyny. A while back I wouldn't really have been bothered about terminology 'feminism', 'egalitarianism' etc but after following the debates about it the attitudes of the anti feminist types is one of the things which makes me more determined to label myself as a feminist.
Liberals slow down the technological and economical progress. Even though so called social "progress" might seem great, but some times it's over the top.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
