Egalitarianism or Feminism?

I'd prefer not to be discussing who hates who most, or who has it worse, when I could be out there loving men and women equally.

Y'all can have the arguments, I'll take the lovin'!

 

I'm well acquainted with the Swedish feminism and I don't want to be affiliated with them at all in any way. The worst part, about the Swedish feminist party "feministiskt initiativ", is they've pretty much "capitalized" on the LGBT and are bringing it into disrepute by associating it with their reckless communistic politics. Thankfully they didn't make it into the parliament this fall.

That is not to say that all who identify as feminists are crazy. Only those who believes in affirmative action etc. Because that if anything is not equality.

I personally don't need to call my self anything in particular to believe that men and women should have the same rights. That is not to say that there might be inherent differences in our biology.

 

Okay, I just read up on that Swedish feminist party, and I can see why they don't have much popularity. They are basically just old-fashioned radical feminists, and I just don't see that philosophy as being very advanced, personally. I know there may be some radical feminists who feel they have good arguments for their views, which I invite, but the tones of that particular party are not very endearing.

Frankly, I think that more focus should be put onto what feminism is for men and to men. For instance, what about the right of men to be feminine? What about the right of men to be feminine and to be proud of it and to see themselves as noble and unique individuals?

I am a guy, so that stuff is really a bigger deal to me, in my everyday life. It's how I can manage to identify with feminism. There is so much transphobia on gay dating sites, it's ridiculous. Why put in big, bold letters that you don't like crossdressers? If you're looking for cis-men, then state you're looking for cis-men, and don't be a dick about it. It makes you look crass to treat a minority that behaves just as respectfully as anyone else and is out there for the same reasons as anyone else as if they're some "pest" that is somehow beneath you. It's so tacky. Furthermore, "bear-culture" can go the same direction as "curve-appreciation," where people who don't fit into a particular mold are treated as defective or inferior by a group of people who feel justified in being cruel and rude because they also have a persecution complex. Twinks are still "real men." We might not be your type, and that's okay. There is plenty of dick out there for us, and there are plenty of men who are very attracted to us and prefer us as dates.

But the thing about the newer breed of feminism is that, from my point-of-view, it does more to address broader issues like transphobia and the internalized misogyny inherent in condemning men for being feminine or having feminine roles or being in traditionally female-dominated jobs, which I see as being more likely to help unify the populace on the feminist cause. The newer feminist thinking is, to me, more about unity and acceptance.

 

Feminism is used because it shows that females are the gender that is underrepresented, oppressed, and underprivileged, and does not historically have the same powers that men did. This is essentially the same thing with the "Black Lives Matter" vs "All Lives Matter" movement. The reason "Black Lives Matter" is used is because we are focusing on the systematic racism against black people in the justice system. The reason we use the LGBTQ rights movement instead of "human rights movement" means that we acknowledge that LGBTQ people are systematically oppressed.

 

I believe in god.... Yet most of my friends are either agnostic or atheist? Why? Too many annoying people that beleive in god :lol: yet i wont stop myself from considering myself. A monotheist

 

Interesting example!
And on the face of it, you're certainly right. Yet, I do think that, often, in the first stages of fighting inequality, affirmative action can be a boon.

Because, as was shown time and again, historically many governments and companies are essentially a white guy's club. Mostly for historical reasons.
And if you go to governments and boards of directors and tell them: "hey, let's make sure we don't always get white guys as the next congressmen/board members", then most of them will even agree. Yes, sure they'll pick the best candidate, regardless of gender, race, or orientation! That's logical, just, and egalitarian. Who could be against that?

...and if you come back twenty years later, you'll still have governments and boards that are white men's clubs.


What happened? Did they turn back on their principles? Did they have a secret meeting to keep all people of colour and/or women and/og GLBTs out? Did they cackle evilly at their malice?

Not at all (well, not most of them anyway). It's just that they are not aware of their own slight prejudice. When they have to make a ranking of candidates, they always honestly pick the one they consider the best. Not noticing that they just happen to click more with people who are like them than with others.
So as anything else than a white male, you always have to be significantly better than the other guy to overcome the feeling he inspires of "Hey, another white guy! We have stuff in common!"


There's of course multiple ways to overcome this. One could have hiring procedures done blindly. As in: you have someone else do the interviews and tests and transcribe them and erase all hints of name and background, so that you aren't hindered by unconscious prejudice.
But many people dislike hiring people they have never even seen. Personality does, after all, play a role in these matters.

Hence affirmative action. A hugely inefficient method at first, as you might have to go for the second or third best to fill a quota. But time and time again, it has been shown that no white guy's club will refom itself spontaneously into a diverse group. While a diverse group can maintain itself, but historically, there's not many diverse groups in actual positions of power. So you have to get there somehow, or you risk remaining stuck in good intentions.

Point in case: my own government. In the '80s, it was already decided that they would stive for about 50/50 men and women in politics and in boards of directors. Come 2000, and nothing has changed! Were there no capable women in the meantime? That's hard to believe. So they implemented quota. And lo and behold, another 15 years later and the quota have been filled. Everyone recognises that some of our top people are women now. Our CEO of the year was a woman. One of our most popular secretaries in the last government was a woman. But even they admit that they wouldn't have had a chance before people were forced to actively look for women.

Mind you, I'm definitely not for AA as a permanent measure. But as a transition? I suspect that it's sometimes necessary.

 

I think that we should all be treated with respect and as equals. I think that all labels ...feminist,etc..are exclusive and inaccurate and therefore wrong.

 

Well, I am a guy and a feminist, and I like the more inclusive concept of feminism.

For instance, I'm seeking employment as a nurse, particularly caring for the terminally ill. It's a lucrative field in which I have direct experience and for which I have a natural talent, and I could set a career path toward becoming a PA, which pays a very high salary.

Furthermore, I think that macho-ethics are dangerous for men's health. I think the whole concept that "masculinity" requires you to do stupid, self-destructive things and take stupid risks is really kind of dumb. Abolish the whole concept.

The most misogynistic of all cultural beliefs is that it's somehow shameful for women to enjoy their own bodies and to feel empowered in their sexuality. Even though I'm a gay guy, the entire concept that heterosexual men would not end up being beneficiaries, here, is ludicrous. A sex-positive culture is simply an outcome in which nobody actually loses anything in the outcomes.

In the end, I see men, ironically, as possibly the greater beneficiaries of a successful feminist agenda, and I'm a Spock-eared pragmatist. Why would I not be a feminist? I see it as not only a win-win outcome, but I think that men could come out like bandits, in the end. It's simply madness, in my way of thinking, for men not to be on-board with feminist causes.

Although egalitarianism is an attractive alternative label, the way I think of it is that feminism is, in one interpretation, merely a subset of egalitarian principles centered around gender equality and, for most, reproductive rights, which I consider to be a subset of human rights.

The reason that I defend "feminism" as a denomination is that equality itself is ultimately a feminine style of thought. Testosterone actually programs men to try to exceed and compete against others. It programs us to measure ourselves against others, and it causes us to see the world in a more hierarchical format. Like it or not, more conventionally "masculine" thought-forms tend to lead, more readily, to a patriarchal system of thought. Even though the same systems of thought can lead us to conclude, when we are armed with being fully informed, that these are flawed and self-defeating as a means of structuring a society, it remains that egalitarianism is the domain of more conventionally feminine thought-processes. Studies show that women are more likely to be democratic as employers: the reason is simply that men have a tendency to assume that other people are sort of "in the way" of them achieving their visions, so, even if you could prove to them that a more democratic style of HRM would be more effective, in the long-run, in most cases, it would still be harder to convince men to get on-board with it simply because of how their thought processes work, compared with women's. My masculine thought-processes just lead me to the conclusion that feminine thought-processes are, for addressing some types of issues, simply "more better." Because my male brain ranks things more hierarchically, I simply conclude that cultures that have strong feminist movements tend to be better places for men to live, and to want to live elsewhere would simply be madness.

Perhaps, in order to try to avoid confusion between egalitarian feminists and radical feminists (annoying prats), we could try designating ourselves as "egalitarian feminists" in order to clear the air.

 

People fail to realize that misogynistic beliefs of the past are the reason why men are discriminated against, so feminism is supposed to benefit both genders as a whole. Equal rights as a whole does not take in account that it's a patriarchal/male supremacist society that oppresses both men and women.

Just take a look at why men are discriminated against:

He's sensitive/cries a lot: "Only women are sensitive crybabies, so he's degrading himself as a weak woman and a pussy."

He was abused or raped: "Only women are abused/raped, so he made himself out to be a weak woman. He should be a MAN and fight back, not be like a "woman"."

He likes wearing dresses: "Dresses are women's clothing, he's degrading himself by putting himself in the role of the inferior sex."

He's attracted to men: "Women are attracted to men, he's degrading himself by putting himself in the role of the inferior sex."

He likes being penetrated: "That's a woman's role. He's degrading his manhood by "being like a woman"."

See? It's all operated on misogyny and patriarchy. If women were not hated since the dawn of time then WHY would it be "degrading" for men to be like women and why would it be "empowering" for women to be like men?

Feminism fights patriarchy, which is what we should all want. Patriarchy doesn't mean that all men oppress and hate all women. The term means that a society runs on a systematic structure where masculine male manhood is considered "supreme" while women and female gender roles are weak, degrading, and oppressed (including men who follow them). It hurts women by saying we are lesser than men, and it hurts men by saying they are ALSO lesser than men if they start behaving like women do.

 

Feminism ftw. I mean, feminism has its problems but at least they're doing stuff and trying to change things... Still not sure what ~egalitarians~ DO exactly beside tell people that egalitarianism is better than feminism...

 

Very good points, Fallingdown. Certainly many of the reasons men are discriminated against ultimately stem from misogyny. But there are reasons that don't, as well, such as men being disfavored in divorce and custody hearings. And men being guilty until proven innocent when accusations of sexual assault come up. Yes, feminism fights misogyny, which is the source of many problems, but there are some that aren't due to misogyny and we can't forget those either.

 

And circumcision is another one that's not due to misogyny

So yes, I do agree with you, and we need to focus on those as well. However, I still identify as a feminist because I view the word to be about both men and women's rights or full equality. Just like I don't think you need to hate gay people and want to ban birth control to identify as a Christian, the radicals of my group won't define me either.

 

That's a rather redundant question. Feminism and egalitarianism stand for the same thing.

 

Does it matter what label you give yourself?

If you're doing what you believe in that should be what matters.

Hmm...must be in a good mood today, not gonna pick my usual fight X3

 

Feminism fits very neatly into the umbrella term egalitarianism. But it deliberately devalues the meaning of what feminism is, to abolish the term and replace it with egalitarianism, as it waters it down to nothing and everything all at once - removing its specific meaning and goals. It would entirely subsume it to an enormous variety of issues that are, as it stands, deliberately broken down into areas such as feminism for the sake of understanding and exploring issues individually, with rigour and specific theories and solutions for the particular problems relevant to that subcategory of egalitarianism. Even if we refer to it as gender equality (which many feminists and those too scared of the label already do), the concept of raising the prospects of women is still essential to almost all issues which come under that.

So why avoid the term if we're not trying to run away from something? There's nothing to prevent feminists from exploring a broad variety of other social issues at the same time as they hold feminism dear to their beliefs.

 

^

Because a lot of people don't want to get roped into the same group of people who run around causing trouble, man hating, and being otherwise unpleasant to everyone around them.

Also a lot of people think that men deserve to be heard as well and feminism is a term that specificially refers to women, and already sets the tone to shift focus off of men's issues.


There are plenty of reasons why someone wouldn't want to identify as feminist and would choose egalitarian or gender equalist (?) as their label ( though labels are kinda stupid to begin with )


I think whenever something like domestic violence is split so evenly ( literally about 50/50 ) between men and women, but we paint men as the main abusers and women as the main victims than perhaps we should reconsider labels that that start with 'Fem" or "Masculine" on something that's supposed to be for both genders.

 

So are we just going to look over the fact that the reason men aren't taken seriously when it comes to being abused by women, is that women aren't taken seriously in general and are therefore not seen as a possible threat to them?
Men's issues are not about people hating men, it's the patriarchy and misogyny affecting them negatively as well.

Note that the patriarchy isn't men, it's a system in which men hold the power and are valued above women, to put it simply.

 

I'm quite convinced that if we called the movement something different, without "fem" in the root, people would still find ways to minimize or deny issues that affect women.

And when we made an effort to resist such minimization and denial, we're be called unfair for doing so.

 

I encourage people to identify as feminists whenever it seems applicable (I definitely don't subscribe to the idea that it's a term for women only). Of course anyone can identify as whatever they like, but I think it's important to remind people what feminism actually means and what it stands for, and to sort of reclaim it from the rather extreme minority that is so often associated with the term these days. To distance yourself from the label even if you agree with the ideology seems sort of like a slap in the face to those that started the first and second-wave movements, fighting for silly things like the right for women to vote, and thinking women should have equal pay. All that nonsense, y'know. That's what feminism means, and the more those who have moderate and measured opinions distance themselves from the term, the more it skewes the public's idea of what feminism is. So if asked, I'll always say that I a a feminist, and clarify what that means if need be.

Of course, as a guy, I have encountered women who say they are "suspicious" and "creeped out" by men who identify as feminists, and then other women who get upset when men say they aren't feminists. So you can't really win. I can totally understand why people would be inclined to sidestep the potentially inflammatory conversation altogether and opt for a less hotly-debated term. Nobody can knock someone for saying they're "egalitarian". That's a perfectly fair word to use. Just as long as we don't let the different labels fragment those of us who should all be in it together.