Why can't we just be Egalitarian?

[May90]

............. Again, you can not claim to be about equality if you only support one side. Remember the racials from the Horde, and how it became less equal if you give all of the hordes racial's to the alliance too.. We have been over this...

Yes you can. You are not "supporting" one side, you are trying to make one side equal to the other.

If we have two sinks filled with water, one hot and another cold, then we can focus on the cold side and warm it up until it gets hot, so it is equal to the other side. We can focus on the hot side and cool it down until it gets cold, too. Or we can heat one up and cool another one down, until they become equal.

Focusing on one side doesn't mean ignoring the other. Why some people have difficulty grasping this concept is beyond me.

[Tempguy]

Yes you can. You are not "supporting" one side, you are trying to make one side equal to the other.

If we have two sinks filled with water, one hot and another cold, then we can focus on the cold side and warm it up until it gets hot, so it is equal to the other side. We can focus on the hot side and cool it down until it gets cold, too. Or we can heat one up and cool another one down, until they become equal.

Focusing on one side doesn't mean ignoring the other. Why some people have difficulty grasping this concept is beyond me.

In theory you are right.

However, In Practice you gotta see what others are referring to right? Whence have a quota for min women in high paying/ prestige positions, but not for jobs like trash collection? And no quota for men in female dominated fields?

People see that on on the surface and think "oh, they just want the good stuff. Bing unequal is fine so long as they are on the good end."

[Dezerte]

............. Again, you can not claim to be about equality if you only support one side. Remember the racials from the Horde, and how it became less equal if you give all of the hordes racial's to the alliance too.. We have been over this...

Hmm.

If I play predominately RPG and strategy-games, and I call myself a gamer. Am I not a gamer?

[May90]

In theory you are right.

However, In Practice you gotta see what others are referring to right? Whence have a quota for min women in high paying/ prestige positions, but not for jobs like trash collection? And no quota for men in female dominated fields?

People see that on on the surface and think "oh, they just want the good stuff. Bing unequal is fine so long as they are on the good end."

In practice, every ideology is promoted by living beings, with their flaws and biases. Some of them suggest what you mention, others are against it.

[Deleted]

Yes you can. You are not "supporting" one side, you are trying to make one side equal to the other.

If we have two sinks filled with water, one hot and another cold, then we can focus on the cold side and warm it up until it gets hot, so it is equal to the other side. We can focus on the hot side and cool it down until it gets cold, too. Or we can heat one up and cool another one down, until they become equal.

Focusing on one side doesn't mean ignoring the other. Why some people have difficulty grasping this concept is beyond me.

And that right there is what is wrong with it.

Focusing on one side does mean you are ignoring the other, specially when you are talking about rights/privileges. You can not give the horde racial to the alliance and declare "equality for the alliance" because the alliance now has the horde racials too.

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm.

If I play predominately RPG and strategy-games, and I call myself a gamer. Am I not a gamer?

You have my blessing to be a gamer too!!! But i guess you do get the analogy ;P

[May90]

And that right there is what is wrong with it.

Focusing on one side does mean you are ignoring the other, specially when you are talking about rights/privileges. You can not give the horde racial to the alliance and declare "equality for the alliance" because the alliance now has the horde racials too.

No, it does not. Your example is pointless, because it is an example of ignoring the other side, not focusing on one side. Focusing on one side would be advocating for giving horde racial to the alliance, but also giving alliance racial to the horde - while personally playing alliance.

[Tempguy]

No, it does not. Your example is pointless, because it is an example of ignoring the other side, not focusing on one side. Focusing on one side would be advocating for giving horde racial to the alliance, but also giving alliance racial to the horde - while personally playing alliance.

First off. I hate this phone. One more month till my upgrade. -_-

Anyways. I think what he is saying is ... Giving the alliance the horse racials in the name of equality does not work if you also allow them to keep their racial along with. It's a one way street and in fact may make things worse.

Oh. And few feminists are advocating for giving men some benefits females enjoy.

[Deleted]

No, it does not. Your example is pointless, because it is an example of ignoring the other side, not focusing on one side. Focusing on one side would be advocating for giving horde racial to the alliance, but also giving alliance racial to the horde - while personally playing alliance.

That is what should be happening, but because this one group only focuses on getting the horde racials to the alliance and not vice versa there won't be an exchange, the horde racials will just go to the alliance too and that will be it. Because you are only lobbying for that one group, not the other.

A few posts back you where on about how females used to get less heavy work and so on, i agree, that is one of the reasons that we have different roles between males and females. But this isn't something relevant any more, we could just as easily lose 20% of the females as we could lose 20% of the males. But still females enjoy these privileges, on the other hand, the male plight has not changed. As an example, in current times we should have just as many crisis homes for males as we have for females, as males are just as much victim of espousal abuse as females are. But this isn't fixed, nor mentioned by feminists, as soon as one of them does mention it, their mass tries to suppress it because "there isn't enough place for females, so why should we have male centres".

Over the years this keeps on happening, while female rights are getting better ( and of course this is a good thing) male rights are lacking behind by allot. One of the reasons is because feminism claims to be about "equality" while in reality it is a lobby group for just one of the sexes.

[May90]

That is what should be happening, but because this one group only focuses on getting the horde racials to the alliance and not vice versa there won't be an exchange, the horde racials will just go to the alliance too and that will be it. Because you are only lobbying for that one group, not the other.

A few posts back you where on about how females used to get less heavy work and so on, i agree, that is one of the reasons that we have different roles between males and females. But this isn't something relevant any more, we could just as easily lose 20% of the females as we could lose 20% of the males. But still females enjoy these privileges, on the other hand, the male plight has not changed. As an example, in current times we should have just as many crisis homes for males as we have for females, as males are just as much victim of espousal abuse as females are. But this isn't fixed, nor mentioned by feminists, as soon as one of them does mention it, their mass tries to suppress it because "there isn't enough place for females, so why should we have male centres".

Over the years this keeps on happening, while female rights are getting better ( and of course this is a good thing) male rights are lacking behind by allot. One of the reasons is because feminism claims to be about "equality" while in reality it is a lobby group for just one of the sexes.

Note that your example has a premise: that both races are initially equal overall. Then, yes, to preserve the balance, you can't make one race stronger while not touching the other.

In reality, it is more complicated. Both genders have aspects in which their life is harder and easier. If you advocate for women rights, then it makes sense to focus your attention on the aspects in which women have it harder. It doesn't mean you don't want to fix the aspects in which men have it harder either - but you direct your activity on the former. Others can form groups for men rights and direct their activity on the latter. As long as both groups work in parallel, the end result will be relative equality.

There are aspects which just don't have analogous aspects from the opposite gender. For example, women get raped in couples more often than men, for apparent reasons. Suppose, you want to solve this problems. What problem men have should you also be trying to solve to balance it up? You don't have to: you solve the particular problem you focus your attention is. You welcome others to solve some men's problem too, but you do not have to do it personally.

When you work towards your career, it doesn't mean you don't want others to have good careers, right? You focus on yours, and let others focus on theirs. That's how it works.

---

The problems you are describing, whether they exist or not (I'm not noticing them in my life, but whatever), are likely caused by lack of men's rights groups. There are some, but they do not form any significant movements able to do the change. Why? I don't know why: perhaps because we are pretty comfortable with our rights?

[Deleted]

Sooo we're back to "they're not part of a hivemind, they just all think the same because they talk to each other.".

Nice talk. Next time I want to ride a merry go round I'll look you up.

Nope, remember how it was about not having a choice and not doing your homework. Gee, you have one short attention span.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It is always like this with some folks: a movement/ideology is always malicious, and when it's not, it doesn't count, because [insert a weird reason].

Remember when a group of feminists hosted a male issues convention/conference?

"They're just trying to brainwash us into accepting feminism wants equality!"

[BuckSparkles]

Because true egalitarianism would not benefit the left who enjoys keeping us divided with special snowflake titles.

If you are in the hierarchy of victims, you deserve special treatment and a month.

By the way, did I mention white straight males are the cause for all the problems in the world?? Please like me.

[Deleted]

Note that your example has a premise: that both races are initially equal overall. Then, yes, to preserve the balance, you can't make one race stronger while not touching the other.

In reality, it is more complicated. Both genders have aspects in which their life is harder and easier. If you advocate for women rights, then it makes sense to focus your attention on the aspects in which women have it harder. It doesn't mean you don't want to fix the aspects in which men have it harder either - but you direct your activity on the former. Others can form groups for men rights and direct their activity on the latter. As long as both groups work in parallel, the end result will be relative equality.

There are aspects which just don't have analogous aspects from the opposite gender. For example, women get raped in couples more often than men, for apparent reasons. Suppose, you want to solve this problems. What problem men have should you also be trying to solve to balance it up? You don't have to: you solve the particular problem you focus your attention is. You welcome others to solve some men's problem too, but you do not have to do it personally.

When you work towards your career, it doesn't mean you don't want others to have good careers, right? You focus on yours, and let others focus on theirs. That's how it works.

The problem is that for the past 70 years exactly what you say that should not happen has happened. What has happened is that allot of the females grievances got addressed by feminism. That in of its own isn't a bad thing, however, they have done this under the guise of "equality" for both genders. But in reality they only made one gender "more equal", because there never got anything done about the opposite side.

The reason that it is complicated is because just like the racials in wow, they are different, that is totally correct. But that doesn't mean that giving one all the racials of the other will make things more equal. You mention how there should be other rights groups for men who should do the same for men. The big problem with this is that as soon as you start to talk about something like that then they are mostly met with hostility. Because feminism is for "equality" right!? MRA meetings are often disturbed by "activists" because they dare to talk about mens problems. This is yet another reason as to why feminism is as foul as it is, by being able to claim "equality" while only focusing on this one gender because as you have stated

If you advocate for women rights, then it makes sense to focus your attention on the aspects in which women have it harder.

make it just a terrible thing to govern equality.

The thing is that you have to discuss all of it together, and not sitting in separate echo chambers trying to find a new wrong to fix. You take it point by point and look if this is something you want to have happening or not. And when you do want something to happen then you make sure that it is the same for both genders. It should be a discussion about what both groups can live with, and not about one group demanding stuff without any form of real discussion. This goes for both genders.

When you work towards your career, it doesn't mean that you don't want others to have a good career. But it does mean that i want people to advance on merit, and not because of body parts or other stuff that doesn't matter to the job. The focus you have on your work doesn't matter when there are arbitrary rules that govern the work place.

[Tempguy]

I am surprised you said that May. You really don't know why men's rights groups are not gaining traction? Well let me tell you.

http://jezebel.com/no-i-will-not-tak...sly-1532799085

Not gonna look up more stuff. Bad enough I gotta deal with typos.

Anyways. My point is that just how you are saying that Frminism is not a collective and instead a group of individuals with their own opinion. The MrM should be the same. Some are rascal. Most just want fair treatment for men in certain situations.

However, that does not stop feminists from rallying against them as a whole, and even petition to get the labeled as a hate group. With the backing of the liberal PC machine, they have quickly turned the movement into a defensive little she'll of what it could have been. If you even say you are for men's rights people will see you as some kind of mysigonist.

That is why men's movements have gotten nowhere. Cause feminism crushed them into insignificance.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I am surprised you said that May. You really don't know why men's rights groups are not gaining traction? Well let me tell you.

http://jezebel.com/no-i-will-not-tak...sly-1532799085

Not gonna look up more stuff. Bad enough I gotta deal with typos.

Anyways. My point is that just how you are saying that Frminism is not a collective and instead a group of individuals with their own opinion. The MrM should be the same. Some are rascal. Most just want fair treatment for men in certain situations.

However, that does not stop feminists from rallying against them as a whole, and even petition to get the labeled as a hate group. With the backing of the liberal PC machine, they have quickly turned the movement into a defensive little she'll of what it could have been. If you even say you are for men's rights people will see you as some kind of mysigonist.

That is why men's movements have gotten nowhere. Cause feminism crushed them into insignificance.

MRM will get taken more seriously once their goal becomes to advocate for men instead of fighting against feminism.

Most of the individuals in the MRM don't seem to know the difference.

[May90]

snip

You are making two logical mistakes here. One is regarding hive mind, which was pointed above - "all feminists are the same". Another one is, you are judging an ideology by people who practice it and not by its inherent aspects. I really don't feel like going into a deeper explanation, because at this point it is just walking in circles, addressing the same illogical arguments time and time again.

No, disrupting MRA meetings is not an inherent quality of feminism; it is an inherent quality of some people who use an ideology to promote their selfish ideas, having nothing to do with the ideology itself. If you really think that focusing on one group's issues means that you are bound to disregard or even hate other groups, then, I suppose, this discussion is pointless.

That is why men's movements have gotten nowhere. Cause feminism crushed them into insignificance.

Lol, this isn't how it works at all. Movements are only as successful as people's interest in them is high. If men's rights were "crushed", then it simply means that there wasn't enough demand in the society for their existence. Why? Who in the world knows. I think both women and men rights are important; but, apparently, most other people, men and women alike, do not think so. *shrugs*

[Theodarzna]

MRM will get taken more seriously once their goal becomes to advocate for men instead of fighting against feminism.

Most of the individuals in the MRM don't seem to know the difference.

Advocating their goal will inevitably involve fighting Feminists and Feminism, Feminists claim most assuredly that men need no such groups. The conflict is inevitable.

[Tempguy]

You are making two logical mistakes here. One is regarding hive mind, which was pointed above - "all feminists are the same". Another one is, you are judging an ideology by people who practice it and not by its inherent aspects. I really don't feel like going into a deeper explanation, because at this point it is just walking in circles, addressing the same illogical arguments time and time again.

No, disrupting MRA meetings is not an inherent quality of feminism; it is an inherent quality of some people who use an ideology to promote their selfish ideas, having nothing to do with the ideology itself. If you really think that focusing on one group's issues means that you are bound to disregard or even hate other groups, then, I suppose, this discussion is pointless.


Lol, this isn't how it works at all. Movements are only as successful as people's interest in them is high. If men's rights were "crushed", then it simply means that there wasn't enough demand in the society for their existence. Why? Who in the world knows. I think both women and men rights are important; but, apparently, most other people, men and women alike, do not think so. *shrugs*

That's not true. You honestly cannot say that when a NEW organization starts up, and an established LARGER one rallies against it, that the smaller only fails cause of lack of interest.

That is literally how everything works. From clubs,to businesses, to even countries. If the big dogs work against you,short of a miracle you're done. Period.

- - - Updated - - -

MRM will get taken more seriously once their goal becomes to advocate for men instead of fighting against feminism.

Most of the individuals in the MRM don't seem to know the difference.

Just like Most Feminist do not fight for actual equality right?

Oh wait. the rules only apply when it is towards men. That's feminism. Got it.

Feminists cannot be held responsible for the actions of their radicals. They are not of a hive mind. Even f some go off on weird routes, they still stand for equality. Fighting against them is anti equality.

But MRA's? Fuck em. Let's apply all that shit to them and shut them down.

[Deleted]

You are making two logical mistakes here. One is regarding hive mind, which was pointed above - "all feminists are the same". Another one is, you are judging an ideology by people who practice it and not by its inherent aspects. I really don't feel like going into a deeper explanation, because at this point it is just walking in circles, addressing the same illogical arguments time and time again.

No, disrupting MRA meetings is not an inherent quality of feminism; it is an inherent quality of some people who use an ideology to promote their selfish ideas, having nothing to do with the ideology itself. If you really think that focusing on one group's issues means that you are bound to disregard or even hate other groups, then, I suppose, this discussion is pointless.


Lol, this isn't how it works at all. Movements are only as successful as people's interest in them is high. If men's rights were "crushed", then it simply means that there wasn't enough demand in the society for their existence. Why? Who in the world knows. I think both women and men rights are important; but, apparently, most other people, men and women alike, do not think so. *shrugs*

The first isn't a mistake, as i have explained to another poster, there is a difference between a hive mind and an echo chamber. I do not claim hive mind, i claim echo chamber. And the echo chamber is the result of people sitting in an rights group that is solely focusing on just one point. No, im judging an ideology for what it exactly is, promoting the rights of one gender. The fact that they claim that feminism=equality but actually only are concerned with one side (as you have said your self). The inherent aspect of feminism is that it is trying to further female rights, the false claim is that it is about equality.
Let me ask you this, how can a group that is only focused on one gender claim to be about equality? They can't, so it is an inherent quality of feminism, and not just one that some of its members have.

I never said that disrupting MRA meetings is an inherent quality of feminism, that is you making a hyperbole. What i did say is that feminists have actively tried to block MRA meetings and the MRA in of itself. They can get away with this because they claim "equality", and again, i have shown that they do not, you have said that they do not.

Mens rights have never been, and they do not get any room what so ever to get out their message. If you truly think that they should be equal then you should be all about egalitarianism as that is how it should be, about both, and not just that one gender.

[May90]

That's not true. You honestly cannot say that when a NEW organization starts up, and an established LARGER one rallies against it, that the smaller only fails cause of lack of interest.

That is literally how everything works. From clubs,to businesses, to even countries. If the big dogs work against you,short of a miracle you're done. Period.

Businesses work the same way: businesses that are able to provide supply to satisfy demand on the market get on top, while businesses that are not fail or never make it to the larger market. Same way, if there was a demand in a strong men rights organization, it would appear and get a lot of support - that doesn't seem to be happening. When (if) such a demand appears, maybe, as a result of domination of women rights movements for a long enough time - you will see the rise of those organizations.

The first isn't a mistake, as i have explained to another poster, there is a difference between a hive mind and an echo chamber. I do not claim hive mind, i claim echo chamber. And the echo chamber is the result of people sitting in an rights group that is solely focusing on just one point. No, im judging an ideology for what it exactly is, promoting the rights of one gender. The fact that they claim that feminism=equality but actually only are concerned with one side (as you have said your self). The inherent aspect of feminism is that it is trying to further female rights, the false claim is that it is about equality.
Let me ask you this, how can a group that is only focused on one gender claim to be about equality? They can't, so it is an inherent quality of feminism, and not just one that some of its members have.

I never said that disrupting MRA meetings is an inherent quality of feminism, that is you making a hyperbole. What i did say is that feminists have actively tried to block MRA meetings and the MRA in of itself. They can get away with this because they claim "equality", and again, i have shown that they do not, you have said that they do not.

Mens rights have never been, and they do not get any room what so ever to get out their message. If you truly think that they should be equal then you should be all about egalitarianism as that is how it should be, about both, and not just that one gender.

Claim that everyone lives in an echo chamber is essentially the claim that everyone shares hive mind.

Feminism is, by definition, about equality. Just because you want to twist the definition to fit your narrative, doesn't mean the definition actually changes. Hence, feminism's inherent qualities do not change either. Now, PEOPLE participating in feminist movements have a natural tendency to be biased, and I talked about it a bit above - but it is the problem of human flaws and not the ideology itself.