Why can't we just be Egalitarian?

[May90]

The exact same one you have been using...



Equality to men, not for men, its for woman, not men. Read it again, women's right... women's rights.... What problems do you have with understanding the difference between making things more equal for woman to men isn't the same as making things more equal for the genders in general. For the 1098768076th time, feminism isn't about equality for the sexes, it is about womans rights.

Equality of women to men. EQUALITY OF WOMEN TO MEN. On the grounds of... equality to men.

Equality of women to men = equality of men to women, by the definition of the word "equality".

Making things more equal for women to men EXACTLY equals making things more equal for the genders in general: what do you think "more equal" means?

---

I've never talked before to someone who doesn't understand such basic things. I have to assume that you are fooling around, because even a 2 y/o kid at this point would get it.

- - - Updated - - -

And there is a context ; Selective reading, is what we tend to call your behaviour.

You know, one carried by people who have an agenda to push.

"Equality of the sexes".

What's selective about it?

[Deleted]

"Equality of the sexes".

What's selective about it?

The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes., this is the whole sentance.

"Equality of the sexes", is a part of said context. A PART.

"The advocacy of women’s rights" - Is also a part.

If we were to take, just this part, it sounds just plain sexist.

Selective reading, as i said.

You are proving my point, in a crystal clear manner.

[May90]

The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes., this is the whole sentance.

"Equality of the sexes", is a part of said context. A PART.

Selective reading, as i said.

You are proving my point, in a crystal clear manner.

It means that the advocacy for women's rights is done on the assumption that sexes should be equal. The final goal is equality between the sexes.

Is it so hard to grasp? I'm losing grasp with reality, because I've never had to deal with people having such poor reading skills before.

[Deleted]

Equality of women to men. EQUALITY OF WOMEN TO MEN. On the grounds of... equality to men.

Equality of women to men = equality of men to women, by the definition of the word "equality".

Making things more equal for women to men EXACTLY equals making things more equal for the genders in general: what do you think "more equal" means?

---

I've never talked before to someone who doesn't understand such basic things. I have to assume that you are fooling around, because even a 2 y/o kid at this point would get it.

No it is not, we have been through this, giving one group all the goodies of another group doesn't make them equal. You are cherrypicking the shit out of this definition and really do not understand basic premises.
Another example, group 1 and 2 both have their own separate buildings, building A for group one, and building B for group 2. Now group 2 wants the same right as group one to sleep in building A, and they get this right. Does group 1 and 2 still have equal rights to enter the buildings? No they have not, so no, there is no way to bring equality by upping the rights of just one of the two groups.
Really 3th grade logic failing you here.

[Deleted]

Equality of women to men. EQUALITY OF WOMEN TO MEN. On the grounds of... equality to men.

Equality of women to men = equality of men to women, by the definition of the word "equality".

Making things more equal for women to men EXACTLY equals making things more equal for the genders in general: what do you think "more equal" means?

---

I've never talked before to someone who doesn't understand such basic things. I have to assume that you are fooling around, because even a 2 y/o kid at this point would get it.

Focusing on one gender, in this context, is called Sexism.

- - - Updated - - -

It means that the advocacy for women's rights is done on the assumption that sexes should be equal. The final goal is equality between the sexes.

Is it so hard to grasp? I'm losing grasp with reality, because I've never had to deal with people having such poor reading skills before.

Assuming there is an inequality, but focusing on woman's rights, is explicitly sexist. No matter the basis.

"I wish to be better than everyone else, on the basis of Greater Good!" - Does not make it less centered around the fact of me wanting to be better than everyone else, does it.

You are blinded by your own incapacity of seeing past your own agenda.

[May90]

No it is not, i we have been through this, giving one group all the goodies of another group doesn't make them equal. You are cherrypicking the shit out of this definition and really do not understand basic premises.
Another example, group 1 and 2 both have their own separate buildings, building A for group one, and building B for group 2. Now group 2 wants the same right as group one to sleep in building A, and they get this right. Does group 1 and 2 still have equal rights to enter the buildings? No they have not, so no, there is no way to bring equality by upping the rights of just one of the two groups.
Really 3th grade logic failing you here.

You are right, it does not. It also happens to not be what feminism is about, according to the definition. Feminism is not giving females the goods of males and not giving males the goods of females, feminism is about making sure that females have the same goods as males, one-in-one. That's right there, in the definition: "equality of the sexes", or, from mine, "equality of women to men".

I'm done explaining it to you. If you still do not get it, then there is really no hope.

[Deleted]

You are right, it does not. It also happens to not be what feminism is about, according to the definition. Feminism is not giving females the goods of males and not giving males the goods of females, feminism is about making sure that females have the same goods as males, one-in-one. That's right there, in the definition: "equality of the sexes", or, from mine, "equality of women to men".

I'm done explaining it to you. If you still do not get it, then there is really no hope.

And what rights do women not have, that men have?

It makes the definition empty.

Kinda explains why there is so much idealistic blathering from "Feminists", no? Everyone has a different idea, cause there is no solid concrete point of unison to actual eliminate.

There is just the whole, "I feel surpressed", thing, going on. FEEL. Mind you.

[May90]

Focusing on one gender, in this context, is called Sexism.

- - - Updated - - -



Assuming there is an inequality, but focusing on woman's rights, is explicitly sexist. No matter the basis.

"I wish to be better than everyone else, on the basis of Greater Good!" - Does not make it less centered around the fact of me wanting to be better than everyone else, does it.

You are blinded by your own incapacity of seeing past your own agenda.

Advocating for women's rights on the basis of equality between sexes is sexist? Wow...

I think it's time to go to bed...

[Deleted]

You are right, it does not. It also happens to not be what feminism is about, according to the definition. Feminism is not giving females the goods of males and not giving males the goods of females, feminism is about making sure that females have the same goods as males, one-in-one. That's right there, in the definition: "equality of the sexes", or, from mine, "equality of women to men".

I'm done explaining it to you. If you still do not get it, then there is really no hope.

Yes it is exactly about that, it is right there in your definition, it is a woman's rights group, i'll repeat, woman's rights group. I don't know how often i have to say woman's rights group before you actually read it for ones. It isn't about equal rights, it is about equal rights for woman, hens a womans rights group. When i asked you when feminism would actually advocate anything else but womans rights you needed a crystal ball, and now you are right back there claiming that they do this all the time. That it says equality for the sexes doesn't mean that you can ignore what it says right before that WOMAN'S RIGHTS, i'll repeat it again, woman's rights. You have not explained a single thing, the only thing you do is ignoring the part where it says that it is a WOMANS'S RIGHTS GROUP, i'll repeat, a woman's rights group.

- - - Updated - - -

Advocating for women's rights on the basis of equality between sexes is sexist? Wow...

I think it's time to go to bed...

And again you fail to read. Focusing on womans rights when under the guise of equality is very sexist indeed.

[Deleted]

Advocating for women's rights on the basis of equality between sexes is sexist? Wow...

I think it's time to go to bed...

Arguing that i am entiteled to as much as someone else, on a nominator of common ground, does not remove the explicit focus on who that is directed towards.

What is it, you do not grasp, of this?

[Deleted]

All the poor minorities would have to accept causality instead of feeling victimised evertime something happens to someone of their race (the very definition of discrimination I'd argue but.. ye) .

[Deleted]

Arguing that i am entiteled to as much as someone else, on a nominator of common ground, does not remove the explicit focus on who that is directed towards.

What is it, you do not grasp, of this?

Ok, this is going to be a complete stab in the dark, but i'm guessing "words", i really believe that the part where you use words is what is eluding him.

[Deleted]

road to hell is paved with good intentions.
radical and extremist things are usually deconstructive. lately it seems a trend that people take some good ideals and radicalize them. there's nothing wrong with equality but if you start force it in hitler/stalin-like (they prob. thought also that they are best thing what happened to humanity) manner then people, and usually the original idea also, get hurt.

[May90]

Yes it is exactly about that, it is right there in your definition, it is a woman's rights group, i'll repeat, woman's rights group. I don't know how often i have to say woman's rights group before you actually read it for ones. It isn't about equal rights, it is about equal rights for woman, hens a womans rights group. When i asked you when feminism would actually advocate anything else but womans rights you needed a crystal ball, and now you are right back there claiming that they do this all the time. That it says equality for the sexes doesn't mean that you can ignore what it says right before that WOMAN'S RIGHTS, i'll repeat it again, woman's rights. You have not explained a single thing, the only thing you do is ignoring the part where it says that it is a WOMANS'S RIGHTS GROUP, i'll repeat, a woman's rights group.

- - - Updated - - -



And again you fail to read. Focusing on womans rights when under the guise of equality is very sexist indeed.

I will try one. Last. Time.

Three expressions:
1. I am advocating for A to be equal to B;
2. I am advocating for B to be equal to A;
3. I am advocating for A and B to be equal
- mean the SAME DAMN THING.

A = women's rights.
B = men's rights.

In our case, feminism means 1, MRM means 2, and egalitarianism means 3. They all mean the same damn thing, the only difference is in what is taken for a basis. In the first case, we see B as it is now and try to get A to be equal to B by changing it. In the second, we are changing B to try to equate it to A. In the third, we change both to make them equal.

In any case, the final goal is the same: A=B. It is equality, regardless of the path you took out of 3 to achieve it.

---

Hope this was enough for anyone on this planet to get it - but I don't hold my breath.

[Deleted]

I will try one. Last. Time.

Three expressions:
1. I am advocating for A to be equal to B;
2. I am advocating for B to be equal to A;
3. I am advocating for A and B to be equal
- mean the SAME DAMN THING.

A = women's rights.
B = men's rights.

In our case, feminism means 1, MRM means 2, and egalitarianism means 3. They all mean the same damn thing, the only difference is in what is taken for a basis. In the first case, we see B as it is now and try to get A to be equal to B by changing it. In the second, we are changing B to try to equate it to A. In the third, we change both to make them equal.

In any case, the final goal is the same: A=B. It is equality, regardless of the path you took out of 3 to achieve it.

---

Hope this was enough for anyone on this planet to get it - but I don't hold my breath.

If they all meant the same thing, they would not have different definitions - As they are all built on a different basis.

Lest you would call ALL social rights movements, to be equal to Feminism, cause "They are all for social rights! They are all the same!!!11"

They are not.

[alucardtnuoc]

No shit Sherlock... Now read the definition of Feminism for the 253535th time. See the word "equality"? Yes. See the words "giving more rights to women"? No. It is something that you made up to justify your straw man, and it has nothing to do with feminism.

Definitions change though, so you can't say "Look, definition!"

Faggot - Use to mean bundle of stick or a ball/roll of seasoned chopped liver, baked or fried.
Gay - Light hearted, joyous, happy.
Nice - derived from the latin word nescius meaning Ignorant.

Always referring to the definition like it's the holy bible and because it says so, it must be true.

[May90]

If they all meant the same thing, they would not have different definitions - As they are all built on a different basis.

Lest you would call ALL social rights movements, to be equal to Feminism, cause "They are all for social rights! They are all the same!!!11"

They are not.

The end goal is the same. The vision of how that end goal can be achieved is different. Different perspectives, same goal.

- - - Updated - - -

Definitions change though, so you can't say "Look, definition!"

Faggot - Use to mean bundle of stick or a ball/roll of seasoned chopped liver, baked or fried.
Gay - Light hearted, joyous, happy.
Nice - derived from the latin word nescius meaning Ignorant.

Always referring to the definition like it's the holy bible and because it says so, it must be true.

Well, so far the definition of feminism doesn't seem to have changed, according to modern dictionaries.

[Deleted]

The end goal is the same. The vision of how that end goal can be achieved is different. Different perspectives, same goal.

And if the end goal is the same, how come the applicanses, by said members of said group, clearly show different results by recorded actions?

You are at a point of having a clear bi-as and pushing an agenda.

- - - Updated - - -

Definitions change though, so you can't say "Look, definition!"

Faggot - Use to mean bundle of stick or a ball/roll of seasoned chopped liver, baked or fried.
Gay - Light hearted, joyous, happy.
Nice - derived from the latin word nescius meaning Ignorant.

Always referring to the definition like it's the holy bible and because it says so, it must be true.

The basis was the definition, we could grab examples of RL feminists who do bad shit as well, if that suits you better.

Or is that too real, for you?

Many opponents of Feminism have clear valid cases, with thorough evidence and substancial research to validate their claims, more so than "Lol, they are good people".

And many feminist, have recorded acts of doing, said bad things.

It is obvious, that a group-driven bi-ased mentality, does not lead to "Equality", cause they are focusing on a group that is not Humans, which we all are.

[Deleted]

I will try one. Last. Time.

Three expressions:
1. I am advocating for A to be equal to B;
2. I am advocating for B to be equal to A;
3. I am advocating for A and B to be equal
- mean the SAME DAMN THING.

A = women's rights.
B = men's rights.

In our case, feminism means 1, MRM means 2, and egalitarianism means 3. They all mean the same damn thing, the only difference is in what is taken for a basis. In the first case, we see B as it is now and try to get A to be equal to B by changing it. In the second, we are changing B to try to equate it to A. In the third, we change both to make them equal.

In any case, the final goal is the same: A=B. It is equality, regardless of the path you took out of 3 to achieve it.

---

Hope this was enough for anyone on this planet to get it - but I don't hold my breath.

You saying that something means the same thing doesn't make them mean the same thing. When only group 1 of your groups has any success then it is only group A that is equal to the rights that group B has. This doesn't change anything to the plight of group B. Therefore, 1,2 and 3 aren't the same, in 1 the group isn't concerned about the lack of rights in group B. And even though they want the same rights as B, they are not advocating the opposite, like option 3 does. 2 pretty much is the direct opposite of 1, so they aren't the same as 3 either.

The final goals aren't the same, group 1 wants the same rights as group B and don't care about the rights of group B.
Group 2 wants the same rights as group A has, while not caring about the rights that group A has.
And finally group 3 wants group A and B to have the same rights.

Those are their goals, group 1 and 2 can not claim to have the same goals are group 3, because that would actually make them be in group 3. And you have been claiming for pages now that group 1 is actually the same as group 3, where by the very definition of the word says that this isn't the case.

[May90]

And if the end goal is the same, how come the applicanses, by said members of said group, clearly show different results by recorded actions?

You are at a point of having a clear bi-as and pushing an agenda.

People are people, they are not always consistent. Someone who verbally advocates for equality in reality often wants "all benefits, no responsibilities". It is not the problem with feminism itself, but with human flaws.

---

Here is an analogy I came up with. Look.

Egalitarianism: "I want me and my wife to have the same salary".
- Kinda vague, doesn't give us much information.

Feminism: "I want my wife to earn as much as me".
- Implying that my wife is earning less than me and I want her to be richer, or that she earns more than me and I feel uncomfortable because of it.

MRM: "I want to earn as much as my wife".
- Reverse the case of feminism.

The end goal is the same: I want our incomes to be equal. The perspective differs, since we take different things for standard. It also demonstrates the flaw of egalitarianism: it is too vague, too general, it tells us almost nothing about how we assess the current situation.