Do You Have to be a Feminist to be Egalitarian?

[Equalaria]

This issue was discussed at length already. Male rape victims are incarcerated, they committed crimes. Women are raped at higher rates, for doing nothing more than trying to exist. The equality comes in saying that women should not be raped at such astronomical rates, something that is given blessing by patriarchy and by extension, traditional male-centric thinking.

There are male rape victims that are not incarcerated. It is entirely possible to be male, a victim of rape, and not a criminal. That kind of thinking is responsible for keeping them down - as are feminists pushing for governments to mislabel "forced envelopment" as a different crime.

Feminism is, in general, gynocentric in its thinking, and continues to be so regardless of societal conditions. That's why the position that all male benefits of the gender system are "male privilege" while all female benefits are "benevolent sexism" is essentially mainstream within the movement. The result is that Feminism's alignment with equality in practical terms drifts farther away from true egalitarianism over time, as the gender situation in society becomes more equal. And, due to the way gender works in society, each chain wrapped around men comes to bind women too, in time.

In its current form, Feminism is incapable of bringing us to the next level of gender equality. (What is needed is male gender consciousness - a phenomena which is emerging now, but which is still quite messy.) Some think that if you change that, what you have is no longer Feminism. Some think that what you have is better Feminism. Either is fine with me.

Feminism is ultimately a reaction to Traditionalism, and in many ways has not fully escaped the Traditionalist frame (which also included women-as-victims and similar ideas).

Feminism promotes male awareness of the issues- I think you may misunderstand feminism as a doctrine. In bringing fourth equality we have first to destroy an old paradigm based on oppression. Feminism in its current development is predicated on righting these wrongs through radical change. What you prescribe is a bit of complacent gradualism which will not destroy what currently indentures women to less pay and sexual abuse. The reason feminism is seen as strident in this regard is simply for the fact that anything radically overhauling an existing system will appear so.

[Ithqington]

Oh, and don't forgot type of people who use ideologies as a insults

Yes I looking at you democratic who saying that trump is a "Fascist" or "Nazi", and I also looking at you republican who saying that Sanders or Hillary is a "Communist" too!

You did quite seriously use the labels SJW and feminazi earlier in the thread, just saying.
But yes, "ideology as insult" is most of what I was driving at when I said "whittled into one-word labels", because labels almost never have a positive connotation.

Yes. I use the labels SJW and feminazi earlier in the thread, but I also use the "Quotation mark" because I don't really feel like using the term without feeling like that I use a overuse term that I see so many time, kinda like how people who called someone who lean to right "Fascist", or called someone lean to left "Communist"., When they not even hit far corner of political compass (I mean Far-Right and Far-Left).

[Ashkera]

Egalitarian - You should treat all people equally
Feminism - You should treat men and women equally

Therefore,

you can be a feminist without being an egalitarian, but cannot be an egalitarian and not be a feminist.

That's Platonic Dictionary Feminism. Some people refer to the political movement, the greater body of philosophy, and so on by the word "Feminism", which are significantly more vast, and include far more contentious positions, than "You should treat men and women equally".

Also by that definition, many MRAs are Feminists (and even some self-identified "Anti-Feminists"), which obscures why there is even a divide between the two in the first place, and why many Feminists treat them as enemies.

I'm not unsympathetic to the idea that MRAs are actually a rogue heterodox school of Feminism, but insisting on the label obscures more than it reveals, in my opinion.

[Lady Scylla]

What is it with you and feminism? You make thread after thread about it.

Well as I've explained above I've been told by many people how important a subject the ones I've brought up are, and the subjects are inf act clear subjects on their own. Do you think the questions I raise are unimportant?

Not unimportant, but I do have to agree, it gets old after awhile. Given, you bring up interesting points but I've gotten to the point where I more than likely glaze over a 'New Edom' thread because it gets stale to discuss the same form of topic over and over.

[The Serbian Empire]

A friend of mine once told me that he considers himself what "feminists want to be", which is an egalitarian.
He also rejected the notions of patriotism or reverent national pride, so he clearly believes himself to be an egalitarian, quite deeply.

This made me more sure than ever that many arguments against feminism by people who ascribe to ideals that feminism also holds, are fundamentally based in a poor branding of "feminism".

Which is kind of sad, really.

This is what I feel like is the true meaning.

[Imperializt Russia]

Feminism is, in general, gynocentric in its thinking, and continues to be so regardless of societal conditions. That's why the position that all male benefits of the gender system are "male privilege" while all female benefits are "benevolent sexism" is essentially mainstream within the movement. The result is that Feminism's alignment with equality in practical terms drifts farther away from true egalitarianism over time, as the gender situation in society becomes more equal. And, due to the way gender works in society, each chain wrapped around men comes to bind women too, in time.

Define "female benefit"?

Women being exempted from military service is out of the misogynistic belief that women are the fairer sex and have no business in conflict; women being preferentially awarded custody of children in divorce is out of the misogynistic belief that child-rearing is "woman's work", for two examples.
Having not heard the word "benevolent sexism" before, the two examples I just gave would very fairly fit such a term. It is benevolent, as it's seen as a benefit, or a privilege. Not out of any rationale that woman should be benefited or privileged, as they exist to tear women down.

[Irona]

Egalitarian - You should treat all people equally
Feminism - You should treat men and women equally

Therefore,

you can be a feminist without being an egalitarian, but cannot be an egalitarian and not be a feminist.

That's Platonic Dictionary Feminism. Some people refer to the political movement, the greater body of philosophy, and so on by the word "Feminism", which are significantly more vast, and include far more contentious positions, than "You should treat men and women equally".

Also by that definition, many MRAs are Feminists (and even some self-identified "Anti-Feminists"), which obscures why there is even a divide between the two in the first place, and why many Feminists treat them as enemies.

I'm not unsympathetic to the idea that MRAs are actually a rogue heterodox school of Feminism, but insisting on the label obscures more than it reveals, in my opinion.

The basic building block of feminism is 'Men and Women should be treated equally', within that there are different strands. MRA are themselves a split between a reactionary force against feminism and people who honestly do think men are left behind on certain issues.

I count myself as a feminist, but men's rights are important and shouldn't be dismissed. I include this advocacy for men's rights within my use of the term 'feminist'. Patriarchy subjugates men as well as women, the problems that MRA raise about how men are treated are problems caused by Patriarchy.

Of course women have it worse than men, but that doesn't mean patriarchy doesn't harm men as well. It is a failure to recognise that which has caused such a backlash against feminism.

[Ashkera]

Feminism promotes male awareness of the issues- I think you may misunderstand feminism as a doctrine. In bringing fourth equality we have first to destroy an old paradigm based on oppression. Feminism in its current development is predicated on righting these wrongs through radical change. What you prescribe is a bit of complacent gradualism which will not destroy what currently indentures women to less pay and sexual abuse. The reason feminism is seen as strident in this regard is simply for the fact that anything radically overhauling an existing system will appear so.

Feminism as a philosophy is full of special-pleading double-definitions and thought that focuses entirely on the welfare of women with a total disregard for men, as well as all sorts of hypotheses about the motivations of men that don't accurately describe why men do what they do.

I don't misunderstand Feminism as a doctrine. I understand that Feminism as a doctrine does not care about me, and as a political movement largely pays only lip service.

The kind of "raising awareness" you have in mind is nothing more than "do what we tell you, think what we tell you, never deviate." I've seen Feminist definitions for a new Masculinity - they are nothing more than long lists of demands, and following them to the letter will mean a lack of interest from many cis heterosexual neurotypical women.

But it's too late for that, now. You can't stop the rebellion. Neither can the Traditionalists, though they're trying, too. The new Masculinity won't be exactly what women want, but the new Femininity wasn't what men wanted, either.

And by the way, there is only one real way to completely overthrow gender in human society: Transhumanism.

[Socialist Tera]

There are male rape victims that are not incarcerated. It is entirely possible to be male, a victim of rape, and not a criminal. That kind of thinking is responsible for keeping them down - as are feminists pushing for governments to mislabel "forced envelopment" as a different crime.

Feminism is, in general, gynocentric in its thinking, and continues to be so regardless of societal conditions. That's why the position that all male benefits of the gender system are "male privilege" while all female benefits are "benevolent sexism" is essentially mainstream within the movement. The result is that Feminism's alignment with equality in practical terms drifts farther away from true egalitarianism over time, as the gender situation in society becomes more equal. And, due to the way gender works in society, each chain wrapped around men comes to bind women too, in time.

In its current form, Feminism is incapable of bringing us to the next level of gender equality. (What is needed is male gender consciousness - a phenomena which is emerging now, but which is still quite messy.) Some think that if you change that, what you have is no longer Feminism. Some think that what you have is better Feminism. Either is fine with me.

Feminism is ultimately a reaction to Traditionalism, and in many ways has not fully escaped the Traditionalist frame (which also included women-as-victims and similar ideas).

Feminism promotes male awareness of the issues- I think you may misunderstand feminism as a doctrine. In bringing fourth equality we have first to destroy an old paradigm based on oppression. Feminism in its current development is predicated on righting these wrongs through radical change. What you prescribe is a bit of complacent gradualism which will not destroy what currently indentures women to less pay and sexual abuse. The reason feminism is seen as strident in this regard is simply for the fact that anything radically overhauling an existing system will appear so.

Random question, do you support capitalism?

[Ashkera]

Feminism is, in general, gynocentric in its thinking, and continues to be so regardless of societal conditions. That's why the position that all male benefits of the gender system are "male privilege" while all female benefits are "benevolent sexism" is essentially mainstream within the movement. The result is that Feminism's alignment with equality in practical terms drifts farther away from true egalitarianism over time, as the gender situation in society becomes more equal. And, due to the way gender works in society, each chain wrapped around men comes to bind women too, in time.

Define "female benefit"?

Women being exempted from military service is out of the misogynistic belief that women are the fairer sex and have no business in conflict; women being preferentially awarded custody of children in divorce is out of the misogynistic belief that child-rearing is "woman's work", for two examples.
Having not heard the word "benevolent sexism" before, the two examples I just gave would very fairly fit such a term. It is benevolent, as it's seen as a benefit, or a privilege. Not out of any rationale that woman should be benefited or privileged, as they exist to tear women down.

Men being forced into military service, and everyone being okay with this, is out of the misandrist belief that men are expendable (also widely seen in the rest of the economy). Men not getting custody is related to the misandrist belief that men are unfit parents.

You can call getting killed a privilege if you like, but I can't say that I agree with you. It would be obvious in any other scenario that you value the person who you don't send to get killed more, no?

There are some people that like the traditional gender system, and they aren't just men. I'm not one of them, but to choose the one-sided spin that it's all about what benefits men is disingenuous. The system values what benefits itself. It makes a lot more sense if you imagine the pre-industrial societies where it emerged as being run by an evil lich that wanted men for war, and didn't want to sacrifice women as they were the bottleneck on population growth.

[Imperializt Russia]

You can call getting killed a privilege if you like, but I can't say that I agree with you.

Good, because I didn't call it such, nor did I allude that it might have been.

It would be obvious in any other scenario that you value the person who you don't send to get killed more, no?

Of course. Women are seen as property whose only use is providing more men.

I'm not one of them, but to choose the one-sided spin that it's all about what benefits men is disingenuous. The system values what benefits itself. It makes a lot more sense if you imagine the pre-industrial societies where it emerged as being run by an evil lich that wanted men for war, and didn't want to sacrifice women as they were the bottleneck on population growth.

This is very much true. This doesn't make the misogynist justifications or the beliefs of "toxic masculinity" ideals wrong, however.

[Equalaria]

Feminism promotes male awareness of the issues- I think you may misunderstand feminism as a doctrine. In bringing fourth equality we have first to destroy an old paradigm based on oppression. Feminism in its current development is predicated on righting these wrongs through radical change. What you prescribe is a bit of complacent gradualism which will not destroy what currently indentures women to less pay and sexual abuse. The reason feminism is seen as strident in this regard is simply for the fact that anything radically overhauling an existing system will appear so.

Random question, do you support capitalism?

Not really. It's historically been a tool of rich white men to oppress people's across the world- those that benefit are overwhelmingly male and white. The theory makes sense, but in practice it just becomes another means of oppressing women and minorities.

[Irona]

Define "female benefit"?

Women being exempted from military service is out of the misogynistic belief that women are the fairer sex and have no business in conflict; women being preferentially awarded custody of children in divorce is out of the misogynistic belief that child-rearing is "woman's work", for two examples.
Having not heard the word "benevolent sexism" before, the two examples I just gave would very fairly fit such a term. It is benevolent, as it's seen as a benefit, or a privilege. Not out of any rationale that woman should be benefited or privileged, as they exist to tear women down.

Men being forced into military service, and everyone being okay with this, is out of the misandrist belief that men are expendable (also widely seen in the rest of the economy). Men not getting custody is related to the misandrist belief that men are unfit parents.

You can call getting killed a privilege if you like, but I can't say that I agree with you. It would be obvious in any other scenario that you value the person who you don't send to get killed more, no?

There are some people that like the traditional gender system, and they aren't just men. I'm not one of them, but to choose the one-sided spin that it's all about what benefits men is disingenuous. The system values what benefits itself. It makes a lot more sense if you imagine the pre-industrial societies where it emerged as being run by an evil lich that wanted men for war, and didn't want to sacrifice women as they were the bottleneck on population growth.

I'm guessing you oppose feminism because you feel excluded. You feel that feminism doesn't care about men, and only fights to promote women.
If you talk to mainstream feminists I think you'll see a different side. The women who think men aren't somewhat oppressed by patriarchy are wrong, and they don't represent main stream feminism.

The things that you think oppress men are almost all created by gender roles, which are created by what remains of patriarchy. Only by destroying patriarchy will these things disappear. They will certainly not disappear by fighting feminism, the main force against Patriarchy.

[Ashkera]

The basic building block of feminism is 'Men and Women should be treated equally', within that there are different strands. MRA are themselves a split between a reactionary force against feminism and people who honestly do think men are left behind on certain issues.

I count myself as a feminist, but men's rights are important and shouldn't be dismissed. I include this advocacy for men's rights within my use of the term 'feminist'. Patriarchy subjugates men as well as women, the problems that MRA raise about how men are treated are problems caused by Patriarchy.

Of course women have it worse than men, but that doesn't mean patriarchy doesn't harm men as well. It is a failure to recognise that which has caused such a backlash against feminism.

Here's the problem. The bolded group heard your rhetoric, noticed it wasn't lining up with the behavior of the political movement, and interpreted what you just said as "do more Feminism/do Feminism harder", which they already think isn't working. Why in the world would they come back without real, clear demonstrations that Feminism as a movement isn't just about women?

There is a very clear one that could be done. The Duluth Model was created by Feminists, based on the not-well-grounded idea that "Patriarchy" causes domestic violence against women. The model doesn't allow for men to be victims of domestic violence, and has actively contributed to sweeping them under the rug and reinforcing Traditionalist MenAreStoic, OnlyMenHaveAgency ideas.

Destroying the Duluth Model would be clear evidence that the Feminist movement is willing to admit where it screwed up, make changes, and actually care about the welfare of men.

[Equalaria]

Feminism promotes male awareness of the issues- I think you may misunderstand feminism as a doctrine. In bringing fourth equality we have first to destroy an old paradigm based on oppression. Feminism in its current development is predicated on righting these wrongs through radical change. What you prescribe is a bit of complacent gradualism which will not destroy what currently indentures women to less pay and sexual abuse. The reason feminism is seen as strident in this regard is simply for the fact that anything radically overhauling an existing system will appear so.

Feminism as a philosophy is full of special-pleading double-definitions and thought that focuses entirely on the welfare of women with a total disregard for men, as well as all sorts of hypotheses about the motivations of men that don't accurately describe why men do what they do.

I don't misunderstand Feminism as a doctrine. I understand that Feminism as a doctrine does not care about me, and as a political movement largely pays only lip service.

The kind of "raising awareness" you have in mind is nothing more than "do what we tell you, think what we tell you, never deviate." I've seen Feminist definitions for a new Masculinity - they are nothing more than long lists of demands, and following them to the letter will mean a lack of interest from many cis heterosexual neurotypical women.

But it's too late for that, now. You can't stop the rebellion. Neither can the Traditionalists, though they're trying, too. The new Masculinity won't be exactly what women want, but the new Femininity wasn't what men wanted, either.

And by the way, there is only one real way to completely overthrow gender in human society: Transhumanism.

That's just not true. Feminism has great follow through. Making demands to facilitate change makes sense. Feminism cares about men too, it just requires an element of accepting thier privelage and being willing to invest in the movement and bring the change to equality.

[Ashkera]

That's just not true. Feminism has great follow through. Making demands to facilitate change makes sense. Feminism cares about men too, it just requires an element of accepting thier privelage and being willing to invest in the movement and bring the change to equality.

Destroy the Duluth Model. Until then, this claim is hollow.

[Aelex]

Ideologically, Feminism is supposed to be a form Egalitarianism. In practice from the little I've seen of it, it just look like yet another supremacist movement.

[Imperializt Russia]

Ideologically, Feminism is supposed to be a form Egalitarianism. In practice from the little I've seen of it, it just look like yet another supremacist movement.

What little have you seen of it? Where did you see it?

[Irona]

The basic building block of feminism is 'Men and Women should be treated equally', within that there are different strands. MRA are themselves a split between a reactionary force against feminism and people who honestly do think men are left behind on certain issues.

I count myself as a feminist, but men's rights are important and shouldn't be dismissed. I include this advocacy for men's rights within my use of the term 'feminist'. Patriarchy subjugates men as well as women, the problems that MRA raise about how men are treated are problems caused by Patriarchy.

Of course women have it worse than men, but that doesn't mean patriarchy doesn't harm men as well. It is a failure to recognise that which has caused such a backlash against feminism.

Here's the problem. The bolded group heard your rhetoric, noticed it wasn't lining up with the behavior of the political movement, and interpreted what you just said as "do more Feminism/do Feminism harder", which they already think isn't working. Why in the world would they come back without real, clear demonstrations that Feminism as a movement isn't just about women?

There is a very clear one that could be done. The Duluth Model was created by Feminists, based on the not-well-grounded idea that "Patriarchy" causes domestic violence against women. The model doesn't allow for men to be victims of domestic violence, and has actively contributed to sweeping them under the rug and reinforcing Traditionalist MenAreStoic, OnlyMenHaveAgency ideas.

Destroying the Duluth Model would be clear evidence that the Feminist movement is willing to admit where it screwed up, make changes, and actually care about the welfare of men.

the Duluth Model

Why are you obsessed with something that created by, and agreed upon by only some feminists? Treating feminists like some sort of hivemind, with no room for conflicting opinions is just incorrect.

[Aelex]

What little have you seen of it? Where did you see it?

Mainstream medias. Newspapers. A bit from the internet but not much since it's not something I give much shit about in general.

[Imperializt Russia]

What little have you seen of it? Where did you see it?

Mainstream medias. Newspapers. A bit from the internet but not much since it's not something I give much shit about in general.

Did it ever concern that you mainstream media, driven to pursue viewership, might hype up the unreasonable extremes at the exclusion of the more mainstream ideologies at work?

Or lie?

[Ashkera]

I'm guessing you oppose feminism because you feel excluded. You feel that feminism doesn't care about men, and only fights to promote women.
If you talk to mainstream feminists I think you'll see a different side. The women who think men aren't somewhat oppressed by patriarchy are wrong, and they don't represent main stream feminism.

The things that you think oppress men are almost all created by gender roles, which are created by what remains of patriarchy. Only by destroying patriarchy will these things disappear. They will certainly not disappear by fighting feminism, the main force against Patriarchy.

That's because Feminism, in general, doesn't care about men, and focuses primarily on women, which is how dumb stuff like "manspreading" became a thing and people actually defended the idea. Now I know not everyone defended it, and some objected, but it's a symptom of something deeper. We know when we're not wanted. People feel excluded if you exclude them.

Mainstream Feminists manipulate stats as bad or worse than the US political parties. I also don't trust this idea of "Patriarchy", since that's just used to mean "shut up and do Feminism harder" and Feminism already isn't working for my goals.

I know a few heterodox feminists that I trust, and that I think legitimately do care. I don't think they're mainstream. Not uncoincidentally, I take all self-identified feminists on a case-by-case basis, because I know it's a wide umbrella.

You can start by calling "Patriarchy" what it really is - gender Traditionalism.

I have the right to pursue my idea of gender equality independent of you or your label.

[Ashkera]

Why are you obsessed with something that created by, and agreed upon by only some feminists? Treating feminists like some sort of hivemind, with no room for conflicting opinions is just incorrect.

Because it has been implemented as practical policy in the real world, not just words on a computer screen, and because destroying it would have actual costs, socially and monetarily, which dramatically increase the signalling value of doing so.

It needs to go anyway. If Feminism really is about gender equality, then it's not a loss ideologically. However, it does have a cost.

Think of it as saying "well if you love racial equality so much, why don't you desegregate this school?" You should desegregate the school anyway, but it requires spending political capital to do so, so it shows a level of commitment to people that doubt that commitment.

Edit: It's also to point out an example that isn't just a "branding" or "PR" problem.

[Aelex]

Did it ever concern that you mainstream media, driven to pursue viewership, might hype up the unreasonable extremes at the exclusion of the more mainstream ideologies at work?

Or lie?

Given that they're left-leaning, they would more likely have a bias toward it rather than the contrary.
Anyway, the only time Feminists appeared in the news it was either for petty shit, like when they petitioned for banning the terms "Mademoiselle" and "En bon Père de Famille" from being used on legal documents, or downright pathetic and almost insulting ones, like when some sticked the name of feminists on the boards with the name of streets (including some honoring the deads from War) or when other went topless and made the Hitlerian Salute at a F.N manifestation.

And sorry, I left my tinfoil hat at the lavomatic so I won't be able to entertain your last part.

[The Huskar Social Union]

No, also is there a need for a new feminist thread like every week? WHy dont you use the large one we already had, or start one thread then just update it with new discussion topics and notify people with a new op and put the previous ones in spoiler tags or something.