Feminism & Egalitarianism

[Iulus Cofield]

I think we are getting far from the issue of whether feminism or egalitarianism is a more effective vehicle for ending inequality and getting dangerously close to having our personal biases towards feminism turn this into an argument of whether or not contemporary American society is misogynistic to some degree.

I'm still confused as to why you think specialized responses can't be as valid or effective.

It's not that I think specialized responses aren't effective or valid. I haven't been helping the LGBT group at my university by going around saying, "Everyone is equal!" Although I have to admit it's both my reasoning and my underlying point. I think feminist organizations are good, just like I think the NAACP is good.

I don't think a specialized movement/philosophy is as valid or effective. It's limiting, perceptually. And perception is by far the most dominating cause of inequality. Women, black people, homosexuals, and atheists don't get treated differently than men, white people, heterosexuals, and theists because they are inherently different as people, but because people perceive them to be not only different but also not worth being treated as fully human. By that I mean any negative discrimination is dehumanizing. Feminism, although it's goal is admirable, does not entail or necessitate changing how we perceive all other human beings, only women.

[The Great Hippo]

Okay, if your issue isn't with what feminism does (addressing women's issues), but with what feminism values (valuing the inequality women face before other forms of inequality), then your argument pretty much can be summarized as "I wish people would value what I value".

Or, to put it in the framework you're using: "An egalitarian's values are the most effective at attaining universal equality. Everyone should abandon their values and adopt an egalitarian's values."

[GardenGoblin]

You missed the point entirely. The point being: Even in 'safe spaces', we run afoul of this kind of behavior.

I thought the point was that no one called out the behavior when it happened?

Yep. And even in so-called 'safe spaces', the behavior isn't always called out and people still feel entitled to act that way in the first place.

When the question asked is "What did the man intend to do?". This can be a relevant question--particularly if we are interested in changing the person's behavior.

Really? I need to second guess why, how, and what when all I want is for it to stop?

Did I fail to communicate this point in my previous post?

No, you communicated quite effectively, it's just you didn't say what you thought you said. You just made the same noise, coming from the same place of privilege, as I've heard a thousand times. The same excuses, the same 'well you should be nicer and take the time to explain why my snatching items out of your hands, treating you like a second class citizen, objectifying you, harassing you, assaulting you, etc...' is wrong.

Why should I have to explain it to you? Do I need to assume you are stupid and incapable of critical thinking skills? Because I really don't think that's the case. [snip] So why do I need to take time out of my day to kindly and politely explain to you why assuming just because I have a uterus I know how to decorate or am incapable of handling technology or lifting a box is wrong?

Should I assume you are incapable of figuring out why comparing a woman to a dog is offensive and thus be careful to be polite, kind, and soft spoken when telling you that you hurt my feelings?

[snip]

Why is it 'important' to listen to the excuses? Would you just prefer I operate on the assumption that all men are mouth-breathing Neanderthals incapable of empathy or rational thought, or would you rather I treat you like a human being responsible for your own actions and capable of observing the world around you?

Feminism is for the benefit of men just as much as it is for the benefit of women. Imagine a world in which no woman ever got mad at you for opening a door because experience had never taught her how condescending chivalry is to her? Imagine a world in which women were comfortable making eye contact with you and perhaps even initializing conversation with you in a public area because she didn't have to risk you being Schrodinger's rapist? Imagine a world where you could criticize a woman's work without her getting defensive because she had no reason to suspect you were criticizing it based on her chromosomes rather than it's merits. Wouldn't that be great?

As it is, 90% of the time, when a male colleague criticizes my work, I could have a male friend hand him the same work with a masculine name on it and suddenly it would be perfect, awesome, just what was needed, and most importantly, actually examined before being judged. Do you have any idea how many times I've suggested an idea, been shot down, only to have the exact same idea offered moments later by a male and been accepted by all present? I'm fairly confident some of that is happening now, with my posts.

If the only consequence was a daily lecture about its inappropriateness--and I considered it very appropriate--hell yes I would. Just to piss them off; crap, just to argue the point. Just to say 'fuck your noise'.

So, in other words, if I repeatedly tell you not to stare at my breasts when talking to me, you will, just to piss me off? If I repeatedly tell you not to grab items out of my hand because I'm perfectly capable of carrying them myself, you'll continue to do so, just to piss me off? Because YOU consider it appropriate, and to hell with what anyone else thinks?

And therein lies the problem.

Many feel entitled to act in a misogynistic fashion, and so when called out on it, the response isn't to modify their actions, but to pretend the problem is women getting all uppity and it's all these femi-nazi's just looking for offense so to hell with them. And those uppity bitches just need to be put in their place.

[snip]

- Az

[Iulus Cofield]

Okay, if your issue isn't with what feminism does (addressing women's issues), but with what feminism values (valuing the inequality women face before other forms of inequality), then your argument pretty much can be summarized as "I wish people would value what I value".

Or, to put it in the framework you're using: "An egalitarian's values are the most effective at attaining universal equality. Everyone should abandon their values and adopt an egalitarian's values."

Is - is that so wrong? Any attempt at persuasion is wishing "people would value what I value". You sound so dismissive of...what people do with ideas. Any system of human values is inherently arbitrary, there isn't a universal truth that says misogyny, feminism, slavery, or egalitarianism is better than the others. I'm promoting the values I agree with, you're promoting the values you agree with, everyone is promoting the values they agree with.

I mean, if we reject the validity of persuading people to agree with out values, then philosophy is pretty much useless.

[snip]

- Az

[The Great Hippo]

Really? I need to second guess why, how, and what when all I want is for it to stop?

While I absolutely respect both your experiences in this matter and your desire for the abuse targeting you to stop, I was not addressing your particular needs or how you should respond to your situation. I was explaining how these questions and answers might be relevant to other people, including myself.

To put it simply: I said 'we', not 'you', for a reason. Because my answer was not about you, or how you should respond to an oppressive culture. Other people respond differently. Please respect those responses, as I respect yours.

The same excuses, the same 'well you should be nicer and take the time to explain why my snatching items out of your hands, treating you like a second class citizen, objectifying you, harassing you, assaulting you, etc...' is wrong.

No. I never said that. I never even implied it.

You never need to explain yourself. But some of us want to explain, and want to understand. Please respect that desire, just as we respect your desire--and unquestionable right--to never have to explain a goddamn fucking thing. Again, I am not telling you how you need to respond to the challenges you face in your life. I am trying to get you to understand and respect the way I respond to the challenges I face--and others like me. I don't ask that you emulate us--only acknowledge and respect our experiences, just as I acknowledge and respect yours.

Feminism is for the benefit of men just as much as it is for the benefit of women.

Please try to understand when I tell you that these words feel like you are spitting in my face. Feminism is not my movement; it does not exist for my benefit. I do not need to be taken care of any more than you do. Would you tell a woman uninterested in feminism that it exists for her benefit? Do you see how demeaning it is to tell someone that something is for their benefit when they aren't even a willing part of it? When you don't even know who they are, or what their experiences are, or what they need? You have absolutely no idea who I am, and yet you're telling me feminism would benefit me? Have you any idea just how condescendingly paternal that is?

I support feminism, because I oppose patriarchies, and I support the dismantling of oppressive culture--but I am not a part of feminism, and it does not exist for my benefit. You have no idea what would benefit me--what my experiences, wants, or needs are. Please do not assume.

So, in other words, if I repeatedly tell you not to stare at my breasts when talking to me, you will, just to piss me off?

No. I cannot think of any situation where staring at a woman's breasts¹ would be appropriate. I can think of several situations where wearing blue jeans would be appropriate. That, and I consider not staring at a woman's breasts to be a moral issue. Hence, two reasons I wouldn't.

¹ Outside of situations where the staring is consensual and desired by all involved parties.

[Pez Dispens3r]

I don't think a specialized movement/philosophy is as valid or effective. It's limiting, perceptually. And perception is by far the most dominating cause of inequality. Women, black people, homosexuals, and atheists don't get treated differently than men, white people, heterosexuals, and theists because they are inherently different as people, but because people perceive them to be not only different but also not worth being treated as fully human. By that I mean any negative discrimination is dehumanizing. Feminism, although it's goal is admirable, does not entail or necessitate changing how we perceive other human beings, only women.

Women comprise over half the people, so it's not a bad place to start.

More importantly, however, there are often patterns of oppression: by understanding it in one of its forms, we are given the tools to understand many of its forms. It's no accident that feminist scholars borrowed heavily from Enlightenment and Marxist theory (even as those movements ignored the plight of women), because they both offered a style of analysis that could be reapplied along a different axis. Feminist theory focuses on women, of course, but in that focus must come to question the nature of gender and the nature of sexuality, the upswing of which is that feminist theory lends itself to better understanding homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, transgender and the miscellaneous "queer", but also towards understanding cisgender, heterosexuality and masculinity.

Universal inequalities cannot be successfully challenged with a single, unified approach. It's just unworkable. It has always been the case that any equality movement will marginalize all others, to some extent. If this weren't the case, Egalitarian movements of the eighteenth century would have granted women equal rights before Wollenstonecraft needed to pen a single manuscript. Rather, it is far more practical, if a little awkward in a holistic sense, for specialized movements to make both practical and theoretical gains for other movements to learn from and to use as leverage.

[The Great Hippo]

Is - is that so wrong? Any attempt at persuasion is wishing "people would value what I value". You sound so dismissive of...what people do with ideas. Any system of human values is inherently arbitrary, there isn't a universal truth that says misogyny, feminism, slavery, or egalitarianism is better than the others. I'm promoting the values I agree with, you're promoting the values you agree with, everyone is promoting the values they agree with.

We value what we value because it brings us some form of satisfaction and fulfills our needs. I've never been able to separate a criticism of what I value from a criticism of what I want and what I need, and neither are things I'm interested in criticizing.

When I criticize philosophy, I'm criticizing the means by which we express our values. A feminist who values women above men just has a preference for women's issues over men's issues; I have no problem with that¹. A feminist who leaves a man to drown because he is a man²--that I have a problem with. One is a value, one is a poor and amoral expression of that value.

I believe we need to respect people's values even as we criticize their methods.


¹ Conversely, I also have no problem with someone who cares about men's issues before women's issues. What you value is what you value.

²And yes, that's a ridiculous example. I don't think there are many feminists who would leave a man to drown.

[GardenGoblin]

No. I never said that. I never even implied it.

It has been said. Not just implied, outright said. Here, in this thread, more than once. I quoted it and called it out for what it was.

I am trying to get you to understand and respect the way I respond to the challenges I face--and others like me. I don't ask that you emulate us--only acknowledge and respect our experiences, just as I acknowledge and respect yours.

And that's the thing, you haven't actually acknowledged and respected mine. You've agreed with the person who asked me to empathize with the person that injured me by his misogynistic actions. You've told me I need to 'understand the excuse to dismantle it'. I DO understand the excuse. Do you?

The excuse is privilege and entitlement. Why do I need to empathize with that? Why do I need to acknowledge and respect that?

Feminism is for the benefit of men just as much as it is for the benefit of women.

Please try to understand when I tell you that these words feel like you are spitting in my face. Feminism is not my movement; it does not exist for my benefit.

[snip] If you actually feel stating that treating men and women should be treated as equal human beings is spitting in your face, I really don't think there is anything else I can say to you. [snip]

Would you tell a woman uninterested in feminism that it exists for her benefit?

Yes. Because it is. Why should I pretend that's not the simple fact of the matter? Do you want me to lie? Do you think women [snip] want to be the victims of sexual harassment? The victims of rape? Do you think doing away with these things isn't to the benefit of women? Do you think being treated with respect isn't to the benefit of women?

You have absolutely no idea who I am, and yet you're telling me feminism would benefit me? Have you any idea just how condescendingly paternal that is?

Do you have any idea how little sense that remark makes? You feel condescended to by me saying 'imagine a world where you aren't stereotyped negatively?' [snip] Really? Why? Please, explain how you are insulted by this, I'd love to know how that can possibly by considered 'condescendingly paternal'.

I support feminism, because I oppose patriarchies, and I support the dismantling of oppressive culture--but I am not a part of feminism, and it does not exist for my benefit. You have no idea what would benefit me--what my experiences, wants, or needs are.

Are you saying you want and need women to be treated as though they are less than you? Because unless you do, feminism exists also for your benefit.

It's truly one or the other. Either you want women to be second class citizens who must live in shame and fear, or feminism exists for your benefit. There are no assumptions being made here. These are the simple facts. Which category do you fall into? There is absolutely no middle ground here.

I can think of several situations where wearing blue jeans would be appropriate.

I didn't list several situations. I actually specified a situation. [snip]

I've asked you a lot of questions, in my post, most of them starting with the word 'why'. They all end in question marks. Would you please answer these questions? I've also provided a lot of links to back up my statements. Have you read any of them? Please [snip] respond to what I have said and the questions I have asked.

[snip]

You see, feminism does entail and necessitate changing how we perceive other human beings, which does include women. Feminism is challenging gender stereotypes. If you've ever been offended because someone expected you to act in a certain way because you are a man, then the feminist movement is for you. If it's ever annoyed you that when you are out with your kids, someone refers to it as 'babysitting' instead of 'parenting', then the feminist movement is for you. If it's ever irritated you when someone's suggested a mistake you made is because you are 'just a guy', then the feminist movement is for you.

[gmalivuk]

You've told me I need to 'understand the excuse to dismantle it'. I DO understand the excuse. Do you?

The excuse is privilege and entitlement. Why do I need to empathize with that? Why do I need to acknowledge and respect that?

Um, did you miss the part clearly explaining how Hippo wasn't talking about you?

If you actually feel stating that treating men and women should be treated as equal human beings is spitting in your face

That's not what he or anyone else feels. His problem wasn't in your saying men and women should be treated equally. His problem was your "it's for your own good" way of arguing why he should support feminism. Which, to him, sounds a lot like the kind of line parents often take when trying to get wayward children to do something they don't want to do.

[Iulus Cofield]

You see, feminism does entail and necessitate changing how we perceive other human beings, which does include women. Feminism is challenging gender stereotypes. If you've ever been offended because someone expected you to act in a certain way because you are a man, then the feminist movement is for you. If it's ever annoyed you that when you are out with your kids, someone refers to it as 'babysitting' instead of 'parenting', then the feminist movement is for you. If it's ever irritated you when someone's suggested a mistake you made is because you are 'just a guy', then the feminist movement is for you.

[snip]

- Az

It is difficult for me to impartially respond to your comments about being dismissed by men, when I feel you are dismissing me because I am a man; anymore than I would be able to impartially respond to a person of X-ethnic/racial-group being dismissed by whites, if I felt they were dismissing me because I am white.

I get your other points. I have felt expected to behave in ways contrary to my personal desires because I am a man. I have also felt expected to behave in certain ways because I am white, young, American, middle class, a college student, And non-Christian. So you see, the feminist movement is not enough for me.

[GardenGoblin]

You've told me I need to 'understand the excuse to dismantle it'. I DO understand the excuse. Do you?

The excuse is privilege and entitlement. Why do I need to empathize with that? Why do I need to acknowledge and respect that?

Um, did you miss the part clearly explaining how Hippo wasn't talking about you?

I actually read his remarks, all of them. He can claim he is speaking in generalities all he wants, but pretending he isn't 'talking about me' just doesn't cut it. It was nothing more than an attempt to derail, instead of addressing what I actually said. I asked him repeatedly to explain how the excuses are relevant when we already understand what is behind the excuses. He hasn't answered that question. You haven't either. He's ignoring the question by pretending he doesn't have to answer it because he 'isn't addressing my particular needs'. But it isn't a 'particular need'. I'm not unique in my experiences. What happened to me isn't an isolated incident, it's just part of a greater pattern.

So, here is the question again - Why should I continue bothering to try to 'understand' the excuse when I already understand it and it's irrelevant because it doesn't actually change anything to 'understand' the excuse? The excuses are just an attempt to justify the actions to make them 'okay'. That needs to stop. Allowing the actions to be excused won't stop the actions.

So you see, the feminist movement is not enough for me.

And?

Does the world revolve around you now?

Because it isn't enough for you, we shouldn't bother with it anymore?

Unless the movement encompasses all YOUR needs, it's a waste of time?

Even though it benefits you, it isn't about you, so what's the point?

If it's not about you and doesn't revolve around your needs, you feel dismissed and thus no one should participate in it?

[snip]

- Az

[Iulus Cofield]

I don't think I can have a productive discussion with you and for that I am sorry.

[Azrael]

Guess what?

It's time for everyone to cool off a bit and find their way back to the thread's topic.

Let's not forget that the entire purpose of this thread, section and forum is to host a discussion. Some of the recent posts seem to be bordering on arguing from the position that such a discussion shouldn't happen.

[jakovasaur]

GG, it seems to me like Hippo and Van are trying to dissect and analyze this topic you brought up. You have every right to disagree with their interpretation, of course, but I don't think you're going to get very far by demanding that they approach an idea or topic the way you want them to. You just "want (misogyny) to stop", but you seem utterly disinterested in thinking about it other than how it affects you, how angry you get, and how many "femininism 101" blog posts are relevant. What solutions are you offering, other than "JUST STOP IT"? Because most people that will read your posts here are (generally) the kind of people who try to be cognizant of their privilege, and considerate in their dealings with others. So the vitriol isn't really necessary.

On the other hand, Vaniver and Hippo are making good-faith efforts to better understand where that kind of behavior comes from, and the best way to stop it. You don't have to agree with their approach, but neither do they have to acquiesce to your demands. But it's a forum, so they'll probably keep talking, and if you want to participate in that conversation, you kind of need to understand what they are saying.

[GardenGoblin]

I don't think I can have a productive discussion with you and for that I am sorry.

You are right. You can't.

PROTIP: Saying this is one of the first clues you need to stop participating in a Serious Business thread.

- Az

You see, everyone in the world's experiences are different, and for that reason, different concerns and different societal challenges must be answered for different people.

A black man experiences one kind of discrimination. A black woman experiences that kind as well as additional discrimination because she is a woman. Different attitudes must be addressed to bring her into society as an equal. She will face different challenges.

And for that reason, there are subsets of egalitarianism. Pretending there is a one size fits all solution is just, well, for want of a better word, I'll go with dumb. Pretending that feminists have a short-sighted focus is just delusion. I am a feminist. I have a blog that addresses feminist concerns. And you know what? It also addresses immigration issues, racial issues, socio-economic issues, etc... because these also all play a factor in feminism. A poor woman's experiences are different than a rich woman's, and a white woman's experiences are different than a brown woman. But pretending that the fact that they are women never comes into play is silly.

There are issues that primarily effect women, issues that men regardless of color or creed will never experience. Here is one - http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2011 ... says-women .

And yet, for reasons known only to you, you felt you needed to start a thread with an inflammatory title that completely dismissed the fact that simply by being female, women have one more challenge to face than men do. An atheist man faces discrimination for being an atheist. An atheist woman faces discrimination for being an atheist and for being a woman. A black man faces discrimination for being black. A black woman faces discrimination for being black and for being a woman.

And you dismiss this. You want to sideline and silence us. You claim, incorrectly, that our focus is only on women in spite of the fact that women also face the same racial, economic, religious, size, etc... issues men do on top of facing the additional struggles that come from being a woman.

I am a card carrying member of the ACLU, I've been harassed by cops on account of my race, harassed by co-workers due to my religion, treated as undeserving of higher education because of my economic status, and on top of all that, hassled for being a woman.

So please, enlighten me as to why I'm not allowed, in your mind, to fight for gender equality along with the rest of the obstacles I face?

And while you are at it, enlighten me as to why you, a man, decided to attack feminism in this way? Why do you feel we need to shut up and sit on the sidelines when the issues we face are still real, still prevalent, and not addressed by the larger movements?

Spoiler:

Above, on topic. Below, ignoring the request to stay on topic.

- Az

GG, it seems to me like Hippo and Van are trying to dissect and analyze this topic you brought up.

The word you are looking for is 'derail'.

What solutions are you offering, other than "JUST STOP IT"? Because most people that will read your posts here are (generally) the kind of people who try to be cognizant of their privilege, and considerate in their dealings with others.

And yet, in this thread, I haven't really seen a lot of that.

What solution is there, other than 'just stop it?'

[snip]

Why do I really need to explain to you why snatching an item out of my hand and injuring me is behavior that should stop?

On the other hand, Vaniver and Hippo are making good-faith efforts to better understand where that kind of behavior comes from, and the best way to stop it

You mean when they excused the behavior and instructed me that it was my responsibility to be nice and sweet and kind and well mannered to the poor, innocent, misguided person who grabbed my personal belongings from me in a manner than injured me, behaving similarly to a mugger?

you kind of need to understand what they are saying.

I do fully understand what they are saying. [snip] Would you try understanding what I'm saying? Would you try actually answering my questions?

A strange man comes up to you, grabs your valuable personal item out of your hand in such a way as to nearly break your finger and unbalance you in a way that could easily have made you fall down and starts walking off with the item without so much as a by your leave.

Answer me, honestly, how would you, personally, have reacted to that situation? Don't generalize, don't ignore the question, answer this specific instance. How would you, specifically YOU, react to that situation?

Answer before you read on.








I'm expected to be nice and seek to understand the strange man's actions and kindly educate him as to why his actions were rude, while taking care not to offend him. That's what's been said and implied here in this thread. Back in the real world, often I'm just expected to accept this behavior and be complimented by it. And these aren't one-time occurrences. Do you really think that's a reasonable thing to ask of me?

So what solution would you offer? No, not to the man grabbing the box out of my hand. To the 'well-meaning' folks who think I'm a bad person for telling the guy off and just wanting to be able to go about my life without being the victim of guys like him?

[Vaniver]

I see it as helpful in two respects--it reaffirms to the victim of an act that what happened was indeed wrong, and that the following discussion won't be an attempt to justify those actions--but rather evaluate them.

It seems to me that "hurtful" serves that purpose while avoiding the loss of alienating the perpetrator, and thus is a superior substitute. While I understand the desire to play to the victim's side by scoring points against the perpetrator, scoring points against a side is a terrible idea for mediation.

Spoiler:

This is basically what the previous purple text was suggesting we move away from.

- Az

Please, enlighten me. What is the degree of misogyny where I can be annoyed without being dismissed as a 'hysterical b**** looking for offense'?

You can be annoyed by all degrees of misogyny. The trick is matching the degree of annoyance to the degree of misogyny- people are typically averse to those that come across as having a chip on their shoulder, and you will be more effective if you avoid that impression.

He obviously didn't actually take a moment to consider that I might have feelings, but I'm supposed to take care not to offend him? Really?

Actions should serve goals. What do you want, and what is the best way to get what you want?

If you want to escalate the situation, then offending him helps escalate the situation. If you want to put him on the defensive, then offending him helps put him on the defensive. If you want to hurt him, then offending him might be an effective way to hurt him.

If you want him to acknowledge your pain, does offending him help? If you want him to alter his behavior, does offending him help? If you want him to apologize, does offending him help?

The reason I suggest not offending him is not because his feelings are precious to me; I feel the opposite. His feelings are simply a tool that you can use to further or to frustrate your ends, and my suggestion is that you use them well instead of poorly. This requires effort- controlling anger is harder than not controlling it- but the payoff is what you want, assuming you want him to acknowledge your pain, apologize, and alter his future behavior.

Are those goals guaranteed by not offending him? Of course not- we can never guarantee what other people will do. But it improves your chances significantly, and that's generally the best one can hope for.

[Azrael]

Would you prefer I assume you are a hormone-addled Neanderthal, or would you prefer I assume you are a rational, reasonable human being?

I just had a bit of an epiphany: I would have kicked anybody else out of this thread for behaving the way you are. So, no more tiptoeing: GardenGoblin, you're ejected from the thread for 48 hours.

Everyone else, please refrain from responding further to her posts that do not directly address the topic+. It will not be kindly received if you appear to be playing the 'I got the last word' game while I'm enforcing the absence.

[Azrael]

I've busted out the Purple Pen of Removing Personal Attacks, and there's been some collateral damage.

Please return to the topic loosely revolving around whether or not Feminism can/should be absorbed by Egalitarianism. Let's avoid the detailed dissection of what aspects of society are misogynistic and to what degree as there are more appropriate threads for it.

Most importantly, remember that in SB we should always argue points not people. And that it is no place for a rousing game of No, John, You're The Racist.

[Jessica]

Please return to the topic loosely revolving around whether or not Feminism can/should be absorbed by Egalitarianism

Is this still in dispute? I thought it was settled, hence the off topicness. I mean, it seems that anyone who is disagreeing at this point isn't really making new arguments...

(more calling for a thread lock, but whatever...)

[Iulus Cofield]

Disputed, but I don't have anything to add at this point.
Although that may be because I somehow feel like drying and shriveling up like a mummy at the thought of this thread. I might have something to add after I recover in a few days.

[Vaniver]

Is this still in dispute? I thought it was settled, hence the off topicness. I mean, it seems that anyone who is disagreeing at this point isn't really making new arguments...

Well, the fundamental question as I see it is comparing egalitarian non-feminists (ENFs), egalitarian feminists (EFs), and non-egalitarian feminists (NEFs). It should be uncontestable that EFs exist as well as ENFs and NEFs, and there seems to be widespread agreement that EFs are superior to NEFs and ENFs, but not much discussion of what makes them different and why one would be superior to the other. It seems there are major philosophical and methodological differences between the three that are worth contemplating.

Like, the comment in my last post, about whether "hurtful" or "evil" is a more productive word to add to "ignorance." A preference for the word "evil" strikes me as more typical of a NEF than the other two, since it chooses to explicitly identify with the victim over the victimizer. That identification makes sense to me on emotional grounds- being pleasant towards hurtful people is hard- but doesn't make sense to me on strategic grounds. The victimizer has to be dealt with somehow, and wishing people into nonexistence is a poor strategy.

An ENF would probably trivialize the issue: "well, it's just some interpersonal conflict, and that's for those two people to work out" or "the victim should just realize that the victimizer wasn't malicious and move on."

An EF, though, seems well equipped to look at both the victim's and victimizer's positions, which is a precondition to generating realistic solutions. When dealing with someone, it helps to understand them, and mediating a conflict requires skill at understanding opponents. Too many feminists, while they understand a lot about women, are made ineffective by their ludicrous ignorance about the people they desire to change. Similarly, too many egalitarians, while they profess a strong desire to include women, are made ineffective by their ludicrous ignorance about the people they desire to include.


A tripartite division like that seems useful because it allows for error on both sides of the divide while pointing towards a correct mean. There are feminists who campaign for women's rights at the expense of other humans' rights, and identifying the differences between them and feminists who campaign for human rights is beneficial at both convincing outsiders and making the feminist movement more reasonable from the inside. Likewise, a rehashing of the basic philosophy underlying human rights in the context of feminist experiences and modes of thought can help people who are committed to egalitarianism help realize what more needs to be done when it comes to the obstacles individuals face based on sex.

[Iulus Cofield]

I think you're right. I've been looking at this too dialectically. The middle ground of this Venn diagram is the clear ideal, to me at least.
Thank you for phrasing it that way. I am persuaded.

[*bird]

Are you familiar with the Bechdel test?

I am; I don't watch movies frequently, so I can't even recall the last 10 I saw, and even if I could I wouldn't expect them to be indicative of movies as a whole. I estimate 2-8 of them passed the Bechdel test (I believe Inception did, I believe Robocop didn't, I don't recall what the others were). The degree of female empowerment in them ranged from "mediocre" to "strong."

[/quote]

Ergo, I'm recalling the whole of Inception from memory so I may be getting it wrong, but I believe Ellen Page and Marion Cotillard's characters were the only two women in the story; and they were mostly talking about Leo Dicaprio's character.

Are you familiar with the research suggesting that men are interested in consuming stories about men, and women are interested in consuming stories about men?

I don't think it's that men are interested in consuming stories about men as much as they avoid consuming stories about women. This society has a strong aversion to anything that can be perceived as "feminine", to the point of bullying and shaming men about it.

I think intentions are relevant for determining responses, which interest me far more than judging the morality of an action. To me, labeling an action "evil" implies malice- and so without evidence of malice, I don't see how it's helpful to call an action evil.

The big problem with "evil" per say is that people attribute it to a binary: eg defending a belief, for example, of a stereotype, if it's termed "evil", means that a person is evil for having believed in the stereotype. Most people tend to believe that they're good, so they defend it to the point of blaming the affected party (of course, victim blaming can be pretty bad in and of itself, but most people when put in that type of situation are in reactionary mode). This type of thinking seems to be rather hard to correct or clarify.

[Jessica]

@vaniver - Thank you for that analysis. That does give me more to talk about.

I like your analysis between the two groups (egalitarianism vs feminism), but there are more nuances then that. If you look at... well essentially any other axis of oppression there are groups who focus more on that. Anti-racists, GSAs and queer studies, anti-ablism groups, transfeminist groups, gender radical groups, anti-poverty and anti-class groups.

I think there's a place for each groups, and that there is no need to disparage any specific group. While Feminism and Egalitarianism are the largest reaching groups, it's important to remember that they both need to be prodded at times to look at the other axises of oppression. This is the important part keeping both groups from being oppressive to different groups.

[Vaniver]

I think you're right. I've been looking at this too dialectically.

Looking at things dialectically is fine, so long as you remember the analysis always ends in synthesis.

Ergo, I'm recalling the whole of Inception from memory so I may be getting it wrong, but I believe Ellen Page and Marion Cotillard's characters were the only two women in the story; and they were mostly talking about Leo Dicaprio's character.

I remember them talking about besides Leo or Cillian at some point, but I could be mistaken. Did they talk about Leo+Marion's children? (Does that count? It doesn't seem like it should.) Googling suggests if it passes, it does so dubiously.

I think there's a place for each groups, and that there is no need to disparage any specific group. While Feminism and Egalitarianism are the largest reaching groups, it's important to remember that they both need to be prodded at times to look at the other axises of oppression. This is the important part keeping both groups from being oppressive to different groups.

Very much agreed.

[Iulus Cofield]

I think you're right. I've been looking at this too dialectically.

Looking at things dialectically is fine, so long as you remember the analysis always ends in synthesis.

So what you're saying, Hegeliver, is that feminism and egalitarianism won't get anywhere without these kinds of violent discussions?
Does that mean The Great Hippo is President Aaron Kimball, GardenGoblin is Caesar, and I'm Mr. House?

[podbaydoor]

I think we are getting far from the issue of whether feminism or egalitarianism is a more effective vehicle for ending inequality and getting dangerously close to having our personal biases towards feminism turn this into an argument of whether or not contemporary American society is misogynistic to some degree.

I'm still confused as to why you think specialized responses can't be as valid or effective.

It's not that I think specialized responses aren't effective or valid. I haven't been helping the LGBT group at my university by going around saying, "Everyone is equal!" Although I have to admit it's both my reasoning and my underlying point. I think feminist organizations are good, just like I think the NAACP is good.

I don't think a specialized movement/philosophy is as valid or effective.

I'm...still not sure how someone who subscribes to the feminist philosophy is now completely forbidden from subscribing to any other philosophy.

[celer]

1 I I have heard someone seriously argue that "patriarchy is the root of all evil." Examining that for a moment, we can deduce that every matriarchal society was paradise on earth. Sadly, things like facts contradict this. I have also heard, while hearing someone defend female only scholarships to majority female universities and womens only dorms without the allowance of mens only dorms, that "You had your turn, now we get ours." Both of these positions get characterized as "feminism." Yet we can't call these views egalitarian.
2 To make this more formal, is egalitarianism better than feminism? Egalitarianism argues for the equality of all, feminism either argues for the equality of genders or the superiority of women. By the former, it is just limited egalitarianism, and as such a defensible label in its own right. By the latter, we create an unequal society that fails the "blind veil" test utterly. I will take as an assumption that equality is better than sexism.
3 Therefore any feminism that contradicts egalitarian principles is inherently bad.
4 I therefore assert that feminism is an inaccurate label for an egalitarian who chooses to focus on cis gender issues.
5 I would further note that for every other subset of egalitarianism, a word against prejudice is used. Anti racist, anti homophobic, ect. Only feminism takes a label that goes beyond equality. Anti sexist is therefore, to me, the better term.

Short summary(In Python):
1 Feminism = Egalitarianism[women] + stuff
2 Egalitarianism > feminism == True
3 bad = stuff, egalitarianism not in bad: True
4

[Azrael]

Anti sexist is therefore, to me, the better term.

We talked about this pages ago. If your biggest complaint is that the movement needs a new name, you must not have anything particularly significant to address.

[celer]

Thank you Azrael.

I explicitly say that the current state of law in the United states is either in favour of women or is gender neutral in every case I can think of, and most cases that exist. I therefore state that I will not support Feminism, because there are people still suffering legal discrimination, which to my mind as an egalitarian should be addressed first and foremost. In this I agree with Iulus. I can't understand why an egalitarian would focus on the cause of a group that has full legal equality or better (and with Title IX, there is no equivalent provision about men's teams being equal) when there are groups that suffer open legal inequality. Could a feminist and an Egalitarian explain to me why you would choose to focus on the issue of Feminism and not, for example, LGBT rights? It is not just that feminism is one issue out of many: It is that Feminism is an issue that has made massive leaps and it is better to focus on supporting groups that have not.

[Azrael]

Could a feminist and an Egalitarian explain to me why you would choose to focus on the issue of Feminism and not, for example, LGBT rights? It is not just that feminism is one issue out of many: It is that Feminism is an issue that has made massive leaps and it is better to focus on supporting groups that have not.

This request is a pretty blatant indicator that you haven't read the three pages of intervening discussion between the OP and now. I suggest you go do so as your question has been addressed repeatedly.

[The Great Hippo]

I explicitly say that the current state of law in the United states is either in favour of women or is gender neutral in every case I can think of, and most cases that exist.

Here's one: Are women still excluded from certain fields in the military?

(the answer is yes)

I therefore state that I will not support Feminism, because there are people still suffering legal discrimination, which to my mind as an egalitarian should be addressed first and foremost.

As a moral being, it is your right to focus the bulk of your attention on the inequalities and indignities of any group you choose. However, if your selection criteria is based on 'those most in need', then it is my contention that you need to leave the United States immediately and focus your attention on countries abroad.

I can't understand why an egalitarian would focus on the cause of a group that has full legal equality or better (and with Title IX, there is no equivalent provision about men's teams being equal) when there are groups that suffer open legal inequality. Could a feminist and an Egalitarian explain to me why you would choose to focus on the issue of Feminism and not, for example, LGBT rights?

Because I don't invest my energy based on merely where it would be most effective; I invest my energy based on what is important to me.

The fact that you think you are owed an explanation as to why someone would invest more energy into feminism than LGBT rights exposes, to me, the deepest and most troubling issue that lies at the core of this thread--the position several posters, feminists and egalitarians alike, have taken: That we are required to value what you value--that we are required to fight the fights you want us to fight.

And the irony? You're not even interested in the most violent and horrific violations of human rights; you've picked a few you think are more important than the rest, and you want to tell other people to give up their fight and join yours. Fuck that noise.

I believe in supporting human beings--men and women--but I will not be told who I need to support more. These are decisions I make--not you. I do not need to justify those decisions to you or anyone else.