Why can't we just be Egalitarian?

[starlord]

A problem that doesn't have a particular solution is not a problem, it is just a property of the Universe.

is that a math joke?

[May90]

is that a math joke?

Not really. My point is, if something does not have a solution, then it is going to be there forever, and, as such, it is not a problem per se, it is a property we have to deal with.

[hrugner]

Identifying groups the problem affects is the first step towards identifying the problem itself.

Not necessarily. That method leaves your solutions at the mercy of illusory correlation. If group membership isn't causal, then your solutions deriving from group membership won't function and may even create the appearance of a solved problem by simply rearranging those suffering from it.

[Simulacrum]

Well, the problem with egalitarianism is that, while it's a great strategy to apply when applied to members within a group who are all working towards a common goal - as it increases the efficiency of your group - it's a really bad strategy to apply between groups working towards different goals. Sure, it works even there if both groups doing it are completely fair, but that's unlikely to happen, since it's in both groups' interests to destroy the other group, and one low-risk way of contributing to that is by cheating them, which works extra well if they're not trying to cheat you back.

So it's very unlikely (I'd say "impossible", but who knows what the future holds) we'll ever have a truly egalitarian society, just because people automatically break down into smaller and smaller groups naturally; groups which then immediately begin competing against each other, and will engage in that competition by whatever means they can get away with because that's the strategy that's most rewarded.

Which is probably why we're as tribal as we are. Evolution has selected in us for in-group cooperation and out-group hostility, because this is the most efficient long-term strategy for our genes (and memes, for that matter) in perpetuating themselves. Any group that wasn't very outwardly hostile was destroyed by groups that were, while groups that didn't have in-group cooperation were destroyed by the ones that did. So we exist in this sort of weird push-and-pull state, where egalitarianism is both good and bad for you depending on your environment. So you'll always have a lot of it, but just the same not too much of it either.

The problem is that "feminism" is an ideological position that states that men and women should have equal social and civil rights and privileges. So taking "egalitarian" as if it's opposed to that outcome, that's necessarily taking a position that's hostile to those equal rights.

Do some self-identified feminists say silly things? Sure. Holds true of any ideology. You won't find me defending most of what Sarkeesian says, despite people here thinking I'm a "feminazi". But that doesn't change what feminism is. Which is this;

"Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, personal, and social rights for women."

How is this definition consistent with the description of people like e.g. Solanas, Dworkin, Luce Irigaray, etc., as "feminists"? Clearly, these people were explicitly opposed to the equal "political, economic, personal, and social rights for women", ergo they cannot be feminists. But they are feminists, widely recognized as such, "radical" though they may be described. Far as I know "radical" doesn't usually mean that someone stands for the opposite of what it qualifies, though.

Y'know, by your definition, I would in fact not expect feminists to say silly thing. Or at least not too silly things. Like that men are just walking dildos or that people should be held to different standards based on their gender. But those are things feminists say; they say a lot of it in fact. I mean, you wouldn't expect an atheist to say that he believed in God, would you? Or, if you did, you'd probably challenge the validity of his self-labeling as an atheist. Such challenges don't seem to be made against feminists who say things like this, though, at least not very vigorously. People are really eager to shit on the MRAs, though, as if a tiny group of almost unknown, very unpopular when-known, and politically powerless people had any real ability to influence the zeitgeist enough to make people not like feminists; a group that ostensibly just stands for "equal political, economic, personal, and social rights for women."

What it looks like to me is just more tribalism. Which would explain why the standards are so low, why the dishonesty is so rampant, and why the aggression towards dangerous out-group members is so much more vigorous than the aggression towards dangerous in-group members. What matters isn't anything so noble as the ideology; what matters is the tribe. And that makes them just another group trying to lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top, by whatever means necessary, just like everybody else is. Also makes them just another group of people for whom you really shouldn't trust a word of what they say about anything, because when the tribe comes first, things like truth and honesty usually play second fiddle.

Honestly, it's kind of weird to see people in this day and age who still claim to honestly believe that they believe that large, powerful political groups actually stand for what they claim to stand for. Has the cynicism really not been beaten hard enough into you yet?

[May90]

Not necessarily. That method leaves your solutions at the mercy of illusory correlation. If group membership isn't causal, then your solutions deriving from group membership won't function and may even create the appearance of a solved problem by simply rearranging those suffering from it.

Talking about solutions is pointless without being aware of what groups that solution will benefit. If you do not care about the groups it will affect, then why would you need solution in the first place?

[hrugner]

Talking about solutions is pointless without being aware of what groups that solution will benefit. If you do not care about the groups it will affect, then why would you need solution in the first place?

Because we may have identified the wrong group due to bad heuristics. Because group membership may have no correlation to the problem. I could make a list for you, but it's generally a bad idea to start your fact finding with a demographic variable already in mind.

[Deleted]

I am far more concerned with other ideologies when they're in practice than their definitions which advocates keep trying to push while ignoring the truth of the former. This applies to not only feminism, but MRAs as well—along with other groups who's labels are inherently biased, as the practices of their advocates contrast the ideals of egalitarianism and often the liberties of free speech/thought/etc..

This is very true. Too often we get to witness how those who claim to be the most progressive are, in truth, the most regressive; those who claim to be the most liberal are the worst totalitarists on Earth; those who claim to be morally superior to others are themselves completely amoral or morally corrupt; those who claim to support gay rights in the name of tolerance are even more eager to support extremely homophobic cultures in the name of the same tolerance. And so on ad infinitum.

The tree is known by its fruits. Look at the results and actual actions and sayings of an ideology's supporters, not what they declare in their official definitions.

[Spectral]

Not really. My point is, if something does not have a solution, then it is going to be there forever, and, as such, it is not a problem per se, it is a property we have to deal with.

This strikes me as a pretty good way to phrase this point.

[Deleted]

Identifying groups the problem affects is the first step towards identifying the problem itself.

and some problems dont have any particular solution.

And in most cases the solution depends entirely on the said group's own behaviour, not on external factors like some mysterious "institutional racism" or some other shit.

[May90]

Because we may have identified the wrong group due to bad heuristics. Because group membership may have no correlation to the problem. I could make a list for you, but it's generally a bad idea to start your fact finding with a demographic variable already in mind.

Well, that's why you don't just randomly label groups and think you've identified the problem, but try to find correlation and causation first. "We may end up being wrong" is not a reason to disregard the whole idea, don't you think?

And in most cases the solution depends entirely on the said group's own behaviour, not on external factors like some mysterious "institutional racism" or some other shit.

"Group's behavior" is a very muddy concept. Every group consists of multiple individuals, each with their own behavior. If a higher percentage of blacks than whites participate in crime, it is a sad state of affairs - but it is not the reason to discriminate against all blacks.

[Tempguy]

Well,(...)

Just wanted to say that I think what you just said was absolutely brilliant. Even if I don't see 100% eye to eye, I can honestly say you have a sound understanding on the topic at hand and this is the most objective viewpoint I have read thus far.

Pretty much; when someone says "I'm egalitarian, I oppose feminism", they contradict themselves.

No they don't.

First and second wave Feminism =/= Third Wave feminism. Feminism may have started out well and good but as it stands now, they are not actually fighting for equality. That is fact. Period. End of story.

If Feminists raised up women to be equal with men on the things that benefitted them, and also acknowledged the areas where they are already above men and worked to make that area equal too, then they would be for equality. You can't just choose one and claim you are all about equality, you must do both.

Sure, you can focus on the major issues where women are lagging first. But eventually you need to look at the situation and be like "Oh shit, men are committing suicide at a much higher rate, their domestic abuse is ignored, society sees a teenage boy fucking a 30 year old women as "Nice" , and men are still required by law to sign up for the draft to get many gov't benefits." And then you need to at the very least make a fucking show of at least acknowledging that those problems should be gotten to at some point in the future.

At this stage I am lowering the bar so much that feminists don't even have to physically do anything. Just agree that men face some issues that are simply not fair and should be looked into one day in the future.

Yet they do not. And when some #Feminists start pulling fire alarms and lobbying against such discussions, the collective group turns a blind eye and will not even call them out on that hypocrisy.


Equality to Feminists means Raising women up. That is it. Fuck what they say, fuck the definition they point to (which even then focuses exclusively on women.) It is in their actions. Their actions show they only care about elevating women, and they will actively fight against any attempts to elevate men in the areas were men are behind.

In fact. I will lower the bar once more. All Feminists as a whole have to do to gain my devoted support is to STOP WORKING AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS THE INEQUALITY MEN FACE. That is all. Just stop actively kneecapping anyone who attempts to do something like fundraise for prostate cancer research. Or speak out about young men being abused by older women.

Just don't do anything. Act like it doesn't exist for all I care. I'll take it as a win.

I am against Feminism because Feminism is against men. Stop being anti men and I will support any and all causes Feminism takes up.

[May90]

snip

Feminism is an ideology that advocates for women becoming equal to men on social and economic basis. Everything else is made up by you and has nothing to do with feminism. "I dislike feminism because many feminists are bad" is like saying "I dislike potatoes because last 3 times I ate them, they were poorly cooked". Feminism is not against men, feminism is for women to become equal to men - contradicting your claims.

I am not a feminist, and I don't care much about feminist movements and such - I am as apolitical as one can get. I just dislike it when people twist logic to better fit their narrative.

[Jotaux]

Pretty much; when someone says "I'm egalitarian, I oppose feminism", they contradict themselves.

Nope, its generally agreed upon that feminism is anti-equality. We can take a poll if you would like but theres no white knighting in that so I doubt you would agree.

[May90]

Nope, its generally agreed upon that feminism is anti-equality. We can take a poll if you would like but theres no white knighting in that so I doubt you would agree.

A poll, really? I didn't know poll results defined reality now.

[Jotaux]

A poll, really? I didn't know poll results defined reality now.

You don't know how language works?

[May90]

You don't know how language works?

I do. It doesn't works based on the results of "polls".

[Jotaux]

I do. It doesn't works based on the results of "polls".

It works based on the general consensus. In what way could that be obtained here? Don't insult yourself by playing dumb.

[Irian]

I've asked this before, and the best answer I was able to receive was "It subverts and waters down the main issue of inequality for women".

Which I can honestly understand to an extent. If you make an issue for "human rights for all" it become a "well no shit" movement, similar to saving starving children or donating to the victims of a tragedy. Certainly, these are good messages, but they stand for nothing and they don't make enough noise to be relevant in the eyes of the average man or woman.
Do you ever question why sensationalism and idiotic campaigns go so much further than rational messages? Because people talk about the controversial. Feminism is massive because it's such a polarizing subject; while many agree that there is some minor merit to it in some way, or at least was at some point in time, it's very debatable how much weight it has in modern society and because it is discussed, it is given more attention than simply "equal rights for everyone" would ever be.

In short: feminism is an ideal that has good roots and a terrible following, and is so broad that people use it for controversial means on an almost daily basis. That makes it worth talking about. Egalitarianism is the game goal, under a more forgettable name. You need sensationalism to send a message.

[Jotaux]

You're conflating the definition of the word with people's opinions of the movement the word refers to.

Thinking Nazis are assholes doesn't mean the definition of Nazi becomes "asshole."

No, you're confused. Guaranteed, the definition of feminism would be some form of fight for inequality.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

I've been wondering this myself for a long, long time...