Why can't we just be Egalitarian?

[Draeth]

With egalitarianism, I don't have to abuse loopholes to make it seem the ideology that supports everyone, because it does without compromise. The name doesn't carry any bias, and it's applicable in a universal manner. The definition of egalitarianism also translates into its practice—unlike other ideologies who's supporters try to push the definition when the actual practice is a far cry.

This is false. Egalitarianism carries with it the bias of false objectivity. Adherents claim to be above bias and only show their own by doing so. It is a label overwhelmingly supported by heterosexual, cissexual white men, who believe their perspective to be the objective perspective because they are in all ways privileged by society into viewing themselves as the "default."

Feminism is called feminism because it acknowledges who the underprivileged party is in gender dynamics. Erasure of that fact is not equality, it is a silencing mechanism, itself a form of oppression.

[May90]

Yes. Cause Anita Sarkeesian is in no way a feminist and feminist fall over themselves to denounce her bullshit. That's why she got to speak at th UN. And being a man and spreading your legs in the New York subway is totally made up. Nope. Feminist have nothing to do with that.

You're right. I made it all up. These things don't exist and all Feminists love men

Why would someone waste time to denounce what that fundraising scammer says? She is a joke, everyone knows it without anyone saying it explicitly.

[oplawlz]

People do not have the obligation to shout down crazies. Some decide to do that, others don't. People are different, and not everyone wants to waste their time on opposing nutcases: they have better things to do. If my neighbor tells me that Martians are planning an attack on Earth and the only way for us to save ourselves is to bow before Buddha - I won't spend time trying to shout him down: I will just walk away.

But you're not a movement trying to achieve an agenda. You keep referring to a groups stance as generalizing, but that's not accurate. A movement, such as feminism, is a collective tag that you apply to yourself. When you apply that tag, you get all of the attributes associated with it, not just the ones you like. That's why it's so important for members of a movement to police themselves heavily.

When I say shout them down, I don't mean get into a debate with them - you don't debate crazy people, that's pointless. You put forth a firm message rejecting their stance and disassociate them from your cause. You don't let them talk at rallies, you don't promote their videos, you loudly scoff when they're brought up in conversation.

[Tempguy]

Why would someone waste time to denounce what that fundraising scammer says? She is a joke, everyone knows it without anyone saying it explicitly.

Everyone does not know this. I thought the simple fact she was invited to speak at the United Nations attested to that.

She was allowed to because apparently it's perfectly acceptable for her to hijack the movement and give it a bad name. Then when people point to it, they are the asshole somehow.

But keep on while people like that stain the movement. It's just a shame that feminist will soon be ignored as a whole because they let such people rise to prominence and be taken seriously.

[May90]

But you're not a movement trying to achieve an agenda. You keep referring to a groups stance as generalizing, but that's not accurate. A movement, such as feminism, is a collective tag that you apply to yourself. When you apply that tag, you get all of the attributes associated with it, not just the ones you like. That's why it's so important for members of a movement to police themselves heavily.

When I say shout them down, I don't mean get into a debate with them - you don't debate crazy people, that's pointless. You put forth a firm message rejecting their stance and disassociate them from your cause. You don't let them talk at rallies, you don't promote their videos, you loudly scoff when they're brought up in conversation.

People should be judged for their own actions, not for actions of others who happen to be associated with them. Would you criticize me if my friend committed crime and I didn't openly denounce him?

I do not know much about feminist movements, but I think the claim that they never at all put firm messages denouncing others who claim to be with them is very far-fetched and needs some citation.

Everyone does not know this. I thought the simple fact she was invited to speak at the United Nations attested to that.

She was allowed to because apparently it's perfectly acceptable for her to hijack the movement and give it a bad name. Then when people point to it, they are the asshole somehow.

But keep on while people like that stain the movement. It's just a shame that feminist will soon be ignored as a whole because they let such people rise to prominence and be taken seriously.

She was invited to speak at the UN for the same reason demagogues were always invited to public political events: the louder you are, the more chance there is you will be noticed. Same way, all those untalented pop-stars always get invited everywhere and rank the highest in musician lists. Actually talented musicians do not make firm messages against them, they just play their music for those who are actually interested in it. It so happens that "better" ones tend to be more humble; not always so, but more often than not.

[Tempguy]

People should be judged for their own actions, not for actions of others who happen to be associated with them. Would you criticize me if my friend committed crime and I didn't openly denounce him?

I do not know much about feminist movements, but I think the claim that they never at all put firm messages denouncing others who claim to be with them is very far-fetched and needs some citation.

I would. I would wonder why you continue to be friends with a criminal. And I would distance myself from you.

[May90]

I would. I would wonder why you continue to be friends with a criminal. And I would distance myself from you.

If his crime was bad enough and it made me dislike him strongly, then I would simply cut contact. I wouldn't make a public message, "Guys, I no longer consider this person a friend". I don't care about such publicity.

[oplawlz]

People should be judged for their own actions, not for actions of others who happen to be associated with them. Would you criticize me if my friend committed crime and I didn't openly denounce him?

That's a great example . . . if you and your friend, say, wear the same jackets, and call yourselves the Silly Purple Thing Club, and your friend sprayed your logo at the crime scene while shouting about how your club was going to change the world - then yes, I would criticize you for not denouncing their actions.

I don't claim that they never put out such messages, but as a regular guy who reads the news and is actually quite supportive of equal rights such messages never made their way to me.

[hrugner]

That depends on the method. If you are being objective, then you won't find the patterns that are not caused by the object of your study. If you are not, if you have a confirmation bias and it manifests in your research - then yes, you are right; but it doesn't have to be that way.

Exactly, so if we're being objective, then this isn't really a problem. However, if we start with the supposition that sex differences are caused by sex issues, then we aren't being objective. The general structure of confirmation bias isn't that a person avoids things that don't support their hypothesis, but that they seek things that confirm it. Thus the needed switch to egalitarianism to avoid preframing problems as being sex based.

[Tempguy]

If his crime was bad enough and it made me dislike him strongly, then I would simply cut contact. I wouldn't make a public message, "Guys, I no longer consider this person a friend". I don't care about such publicity.

But when someone asks you how you feel about him being a criminal, you wouldn't say "not all my friends are like that though?"

You would say he is not your friend and you cut ties. It isn't about seeking a mic to scream it to the world. It's about simply admitting that your friend committed a crime. Also, you wouldn't allow him to go around and claim you two are bros would you? I doubt you would.

Enter, radical feminists that most people see as the face of third wave feminism.

[Tempguy]

I have no idea what you are responding to, but it is certainly not my posts.

I totally do not agree with May90, but at least he/she is making an honest argument. All this "witty" banter only makes you look like you are plugging your ears and choosing to not even see my points.

So be it then. Feminists do not have an image problem and anyone who believes in equality is Feminist because they invented the word.

[May90]

That's a great example . . . if you and your friend, say, wear the same jackets, and call yourselves the Silly Purple Thing Club, and your friend sprayed your logo at the crime scene while shouting about how your club was going to change the world - then yes, I would criticize you for not denouncing their actions.

I don't claim that they never put out such messages, but as a regular guy who reads the news and is actually quite supportive of equal rights such messages never made their way to me.

That's a different example, because here my friend acted on behalf of the organization I belong to, and his actions compromised this particular organization. If there is a certain local feminist organization in which one or more members act contrary to the organization code, then the organization is obliged to take actions against them, most likely denouncing them.

"Feminism" is not some kind of global organization though; it is multiple movements consisting of multiple organization each. Organizations are not responsible for the actions of each other; but the heads of them are responsible for the actions of their members.

Exactly, so if we're being objective, then this isn't really a problem. However, if we start with the supposition that sex differences are caused by sex issues, then we aren't being objective. The general structure of confirmation bias isn't that a person avoids things that don't support their hypothesis, but that they seek things that confirm it. Thus the needed switch to egalitarianism to avoid preframing problems as being sex based.

Switching to egalitarianism, we still will find certain patterns native to male population, and certain patterns native to female population. Trying to ignore it and treat them as if they were equally applicable to both most likely will lead us to either doing nothing about it at all, or taking wrong (harmful) action.

But when someone asks you how you feel about him being a criminal, you wouldn't say "not all my friends are like that though?"

You would say he is not your friend and you cut ties. It isn't about seeking a mic to scream it to the world. It's about simply admitting that your friend committed a crime. Also, you wouldn't allow him to go around and claim you two are bros would you? I doubt you would.

Enter, radical feminists that most people see as the face of third wave feminism.

When someone ASKS me - yes, I will tell them how I feel about him. But if no one asks me directly, then I won't be taking initiative and explaining, "Guys, you know, he is no longer my friend". Why would I say that? People who know me well know anyway that he is no longer my friend, and opinion of others doesn't mean all that much to me.

[Spectral]

Feminism is called feminism because it acknowledges who the underprivileged party is in gender dynamics. Erasure of that fact is not equality, it is a silencing mechanism, itself a form of oppression.

This is difficult to parody. The argument is literally that if you disagree, you're an oppressor.

Ultimately though, who gives a shit?

[Deleted]

I love all the men that say women are playing the victim card, but most of you do it too.

The difference being, that thoose who truly do sin, in terms of playing the victim card - Are not one-off Forum posters or something akin.

It's much worse, it's something akin to the accused "patriarchy" ; A feminist movement that is hellbent on censure, trying to render themselves completely immune to any/all critique.

So, once more, you cannot play the card of "But you do it too!" - cause we don't. Men do not form movements, and claim that we are opressed by some imaginary force.

You cannot play the card of that we argue non-sensical statistics as "proof" of being surpressed, when it has been debunked time upon time upon time. Cause we do not.

What you are left with, is emotional arguments, and FEELING inferior - by own doing.

[Bollocks]

My problem with those who oppose the likes of Anita Sarkeesan and so called "SJWS" in general, is that most of the time whenever someone brings an issue related to women the answer often is: "But men suffer more" and while it might be true I don't hear them advocating to change those issues or at least try to find the root of those problems that is somehow not related to "SJWs". Say what you want about feminist movements but at least they are trying to change the problems that supposedly afflicts them.

Perhaps the fact that men are held to pay more than women has some relation to the patriarchy?

[Deleted]

My problem with those who oppose the likes of Anita Sarkeesan and so called "SJWS" in general, is that most of the time whenever someone brings an issue related to women the answer often is: "But men suffer more" and while it might be true I don't hear them advocating to change those issues or at least try to find the root of those problems that is somehow not related to "SJWs". Say what you want about feminist movements but at least they are trying to change the problems that supposedly afflicts them.

Perhaps the fact that men are held to pay more than women has some relation to the patriarchy?

Make-belief does not deserve a pass as "handling the issue".

Read ; The patriarchy does not exist, wage gaps have been disproven, and there are proven Powerhungry, manipulative and intellectualy dishonest feminist movements.

Deal with it.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Yes. Cause Anita Sarkeesian is in no way a feminist and feminist fall over themselves to denounce her bullshit. That's why she got to speak at th UN. And being a man and spreading your legs in the New York subway is totally made up. Nope. Feminist have nothing to do with that.

You're right. I made it all up. These things don't exist and all Feminists love men

Feminists that work for good causes denounce the radfems that sit on tumblr and do nothing but make feminism look bad. Then people like you cry that they must denounce every. single. incident. It's people like you that seem to think feminism is some hivemind cult rather than a broadly defined ideology that a very diverse number of people follow.

[Bollocks]

Men do not form movements, and claim that we are opressed by some imaginary force.

Why not? T here are legitimate reasons to believe that men are affected by this imaginary force as women are.

[Jinpachi]

To me, egalitarianism is the only logical choice when it comes to choosing a mindset for approaching the issues of equality among genders/races/etc.. Yet many people, despite claiming that they support total equality, remain with labels that clearly favor one group over another—not to mention the baggage caused by the actions of adherents.

With egalitarianism, I don't have to abuse loopholes to make it seem the ideology that supports everyone, because it does without compromise. The name doesn't carry any bias, and it's applicable in a universal manner. The definition of egalitarianism also translates into its practice—unlike other ideologies who's supporters try to push the definition when the actual practice is a far cry.

To me at least there is no other option that remains consistent and logical in both theory and practice, yet people shy from claiming egalitarianism as theirs, and are stubborn in remaining with ideologies that have far too many strings attached.

I probably already know the answer to this, but it would be nice to hear thoughts on egalitarianism in particular from this forum, and why people are slow to adopt it.

Because someone always wants to be in control. Always wants the final say so. You cant change it.

[Deleted]

No men just whine about women wanting to not be treated like sexual objects and less than men and call it ideology

Men don't form movements hmmm? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement

Are you seriously trying to boil this down to "He said She said"?

And that is a Wikipedia page of a Rights movement, in the face of that Feminist cry wolf for "The patriarchy".

Nice try.

- - - Updated - - -

Why not? T here are legitimate reasons to believe that men are affected by this imaginary force as women are.

No, there is not.