Egalitarianism and feminism.

[Trassk]

That may be so, but I don't think we should just get used to injustices like that simply because stuff used to be worse. If you subject anyone to awful treatment for long enough then they'll become accustomed to it but really I'd rather they didn't have to. I kind of see it as like... If you go and hold a sign and wave it around and shout a lot, it might take up a day or so of your weekend, but if that protest makes someone in government be like "okay, maybe we should help fund ramps and elevators/lifts in public places" then there's going to be a whole bunch of dudes who have like, just a little thing better in their life that makes a difference.

Thats how I'd sooner do it too, try to be direct to whatever authority there is rather then waving signs around, that is energy spent with little results. That said, I did enjoy the one year I walked with the gay pride parade in London carrying a rainbow flag, though that event feels more like a caravel and celebration then protests of any kind.

- - - Updated - - -

Sadly some people can't differentiate between the two :/

there was a period I thought the same, that all feminists were like that, because of how the media and online portrayed them. luckily I learned there is a huge difference between the two.

[Kurioxan]

Sadly some people can't differentiate between the two :/

The problem is that the most vocal (generally extremists) member of a group tend to bring bad name to their group by their actions.

The problem with open ended groups really, anyone can call themselves a feminist and start shouting crap, it burrows real claims and valid arguments under a mountain of bollocks.
Same thing with MRA really.

[Bladeface]

In a nutshell, criticism against egalitarianism is that it either promotes mediocrity or that it's a generally naïve approach to current issues. If everyone is a winner, then the concept of winning loses merit.
Its relation with several ideologies such as feminism revolves around the concept of equal opportunity =/= equal amount.

but why does somebody need to win? winning implies the group who gets what they want is "better" than the rest... that isnt want any "equality" or "rights" movement should be about.

[Deleted]

As for that video that was posted earlier on the previous page and that pops up all over the place it seems, with the lady in the white jacket... She may be really annoying but end of the day, you can't really fault what she's saying. She's just very shouty and annoying with it, but then... She's clearly frustrated and surrounded by people talking over her and trying to shut her up so you can understand that she's going to get frustrated. I only watched to like minute 6 or 7 or something and had to turn it off as my girlfriend was like "I can't watch that any more she's too annoying" but if you look past HOW she is saying it and instead listen to WHAT she is saying, it makes a lot of sense.

[Deleted]

but why does somebody need to win? winning implies the group who gets what they want is "better" than the rest... that isnt want any "equality" or "rights" movement should be about.

Singularly focused rights groups often fall victim to this, sometimes valid, criticism.

The issue with feminism is for a lot of critics is the absence of any male representation. For example physical and mental health awareness is promoted more for women, and so critics blame the feminist movement. Not entirely true, but you can appreciate their feelings of under-representation.

[Wells]

However given the hijacking of feminism by feminazis, its become a problem that people only recognise all feminists as.. well, this.

You know what's a good way to get awful people out of the spot light? Stop putting them in it.

[Deleted]

As for that video that was posted earlier on the previous page and that pops up all over the place it seems, with the lady in the white jacket... She may be really annoying but end of the day, you can't really fault what she's saying. She's just very shouty and annoying with it, but then... She's clearly frustrated and surrounded by people talking over her and trying to shut her up so you can understand that she's going to get frustrated. I only watched to like minute 6 or 7 or something and had to turn it off as my girlfriend was like "I can't watch that any more she's too annoying" but if you look past HOW she is saying it and instead listen to WHAT she is saying, it makes a lot of sense.

If you look at family law in most nations, with active feminist movements, men are not even represented.

Ireland, for example, gives no regard to the father in terms of custody unless the couple are married. Under Irish law, the father has no custodial rights. I've never seen any Irish feminist movement protest this clear injustice.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

If you look at family law in most nations, with active feminist movements, men are not even represented.

Ireland, for example, gives no regard to the father in terms of custody unless the couple are married. Under Irish law, the father has no custodial rights. I've never seen any Irish feminist movement protest this clear injustice.

That's....an abomination....

[Deleted]

That's....an abomination....

Welcome to Family Law, probably the worst section of Law in Ireland. At least for the father anyhow.

[Zarc]

Cool, hadn't heard of this "egalitarianism" ideology before. I've always been opposed to feminism simply because I would never support any ideology that would base it's name on one of the two genders, be that masculinism or feminism. I support equality between the genders of course, but I'd never call myself a feminist. Also the base of their ideology seem to be that women should be lifted up to be equal to men, rather than that the two genders should be equal - which. right now, in practice would mean to lift up women to be equal to men, but that shouldn't be the basis of the ideology, just what is currently required to achieve gender equality. So maybe I could call myself an "egiltarianist" instead then. Unfortunately that ideology seem to have the possibility of having the meaning of advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people, which is not something I could support. So.. not ideal still.

[Deleted]

Cool, hadn't heard of this "egalitarianism" ideology before. I've always been opposed to feminism simply because I would never support any ideology that would base it's name on one of the two genders, be that masculinism or feminism. I support equality between the genders of course, but I'd never call myself a feminist. Also the base of their ideology seem to be that women should be lifted up to be equal to men, rather than that the two genders should be equal - which. right now, in practice would mean to lift up women to be equal to men, but that shouldn't be the basis of the ideology, just what is currently required to achieve gender equality. So maybe I could call myself an "egiltarianist" instead then. Unfortunately that ideology seem to have the possibility of having the meaning of advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people, which is not something I could support. So.. not ideal still.

The economical aspect deals with fair pay for fair work. Not segregating based on social background, gender, age etc.

Nothing to do with socialist movements, although ignorant people often conflate the two.

[Trassk]

You know what's a good way to get awful people out of the spot light? Stop putting them in it.

I doubt ignoring them would stop them from getting in eveyone elses grill. Imagine your at work and you (as a man) brushes past a woman wearing a sleeveless shirt with your elbow and she begins to rage about a man touching her calling it a rape.

[Puupi]

This isn't representative of feminists, just a bunch of morons shouting.

The biggest cows make the loudest moos.

[Deleted]

The biggest cows make the loudest moos.

Does that make PETA super-ultra-cows-of-doom-hyphen?

[Wells]

I doubt ignoring them would stop them from getting in eveyone elses grill. Imagine your at work and you (as a man) brushes past a woman wearing a sleeveless shirt with your elbow and she begins to rage about a man touching her calling it a rape.

The problem is concern trolls who are way to willing to pretend that those kind of people are a common thing or represent feminism in some way.

[Puupi]

Does that make PETA super-ultra-cows-of-doom-hyphen?

Isn't PETA the tits and furries organization?

[Deleted]

Isn't PETA the tits and furries organization?

Nah, the science hating, terrorist funding misguided individuals.

OT: Google egalitarianism feminism, and see what happens :P

[nextormento]

but why does somebody need to win? winning implies the group who gets what they want is "better" than the rest... that isnt want any "equality" or "rights" movement should be about.

The OP framed egalitarianism withing a narrow scope: gender rights.

The 'win' argument doesn't operate in that framework. The other one does, and has been outlined through the thread: equality may not necessarily encompass equal representation. Take, for instance, representation in government: should our society strive for 50-50 ratio in women/men in power? or should it strive for both to have equal opportunity to reach there?. Take note of these 3 things though:
1. This is not arguing that current ratio (usually favoring men) is not an indicator that there's inequality: it certainly is, and we have historic/societal reason for it to be so. Countries that have chosen to have equal representation of women in power are addressing the symptoms, not the issue.
2. It's also not arguing that using affirmative action is a bad thing: simply that it may be naïve or incomplete.
3. It is simply arguing that egalitarian goals are too broad a catch-all net to be effective or reasonable. To keep with the representation in government idea, imagine what an idealized world should/would look like in that regard. If we a) had effectively reached equal opportunity, and b) let things develop naturally, it's not out of the equation that women could achieve a higher representation in power: after all, the main gender difference -pregnancy- rarely prevents women from working in politics.

As for the 'win' argument, take the oscars: within egalitarianism, we wouldn't have best picture or best actor; we would simply deliver diplomas to every movie actor/director/productor stating that they did good in the competition. Or take the education system. If we teach our kids that they all are special snowflakes, that there's no winner or losers in a soccer match, just people having fun, we'll be doing two things: diminishing the achievement of excellent kids, and badly preparing the underachievers to confront rejection when they grow up. Mind you, non of the extremes are inherently good: it's our ability to balance the two paradigms or approaches what will craft a suitable individual.

- - - Updated - - -

but if you look past HOW she is saying it and instead listen to WHAT she is saying, it makes a lot of sense.

She was hijacking a mra meeting, I think. It's that's so, what she says has very little interest, if she can't figure that's not her place to show her stance. ib4 'she was asking for it' analogy.

[Deleted]

The OP framed egalitarianism withing a narrow scope: gender rights.

snip

"It is essentially a holistic human rights movement, not singly dedicated to one group." Well done.

[Deleted]

Isn't it more like "now it's our turn"?