Do You Have to be a Feminist to be Egalitarian?

[Esternial]

Who walks around thinking about this stuff? Why does it matter? We're splitting hairs here on an irrelevant ideological technicality.

That may as well be the mission statement for NSG: "Splitting hairs here on irrelevant ideological technicalities".

Surprised there aren't more gay hairdressers on this forum.

[Great Feng]

I voted
"Yes--being egalitarian doesn't mean you care about women's issues"
But my position is slightly different: I think that most "egalitarians" are, actually, perpetuating inequalities - most them are doing it unwillingly, at least I hope (I'm not even sure about that: it can be even the majority of "egalitarians" who are in fact acting in bad faith).
That's explained, very well, even in the WFE of The Feminist Region

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. - Desmond Tutu

https://www.nationstates.net/region=the_feminist_region

I think that's ridiculous pretending to be "egalitarians" in a situation where there's a very clear and very strong unbalancement of power.
It's very clear that such position is being used just only to keep such unbalancement.

I strongly disagree with feminists on many issues, and I try to be neutral in every situation as possible. Your us vs them mindset is unhealthy when it rules out neutrality, which, as a person who has observed many arguments and studied a lot of history and politics, thinks is the right view as sometimes people just don't want to get involved.
People like me often see both sides of the thing in a grey manner and disagree with both sides, and instead advocate their own more moderate view.
Feminism is something that like religion and politics, often goes too far and radical feminists in my view are no better than Fascists, Communists, racial supremacists, terrorists, and Extremist Theocracies such as Iran(Moderate Theocracies are arguably ok, such as Catholicism and the Vatican City. Granted they do bad stuff to but not as bad as Iran).

[Esternial]

I voted
"Yes--being egalitarian doesn't mean you care about women's issues"
But my position is slightly different: I think that most "egalitarians" are, actually, perpetuating inequalities - most them are doing it unwillingly, at least I hope (I'm not even sure about that: it can be even the majority of "egalitarians" who are in fact acting in bad faith).
That's explained, very well, even in the WFE of The Feminist Region

https://www.nationstates.net/region=the_feminist_region

I think that's ridiculous pretending to be "egalitarians" in a situation where there's a very clear and very strong unbalancement of power.
It's very clear that such position is being used just only to keep such unbalancement.

I strongly disagree with feminists on many issues, and I try to be neutral in every situation as possible. Your us vs them mindset is unhealthy when it rules out neutrality, which, as a person who has observed many arguments and studied a lot of history and politics, thinks is the right view as sometimes people just don't want to get involved.
People like me often see both sides of the thing in a grey manner and disagree with both sides, and instead advocate their own more moderate view.
Feminism is something that like religion and politics, often goes too far and radical feminists in my view are no better than Fascists, Communists, racial supremacists, terrorists, and Extremist Theocracies such as Iran(Moderate Theocracies are arguably ok, such as Catholicism and the Vatican City. Granted they do bad stuff to but not as bad as Iran).

Being egalitarian means being egalitarian, not being "neutral". Being neutral implies preference for the status quo, which Chessmistress tried to apply in an attempt to build her argument.

Unfortunately, this is not what egalitarians are so it pretty much falls apart before she made her point.

[Great Feng]

I strongly disagree with feminists on many issues, and I try to be neutral in every situation as possible. Your us vs them mindset is unhealthy when it rules out neutrality, which, as a person who has observed many arguments and studied a lot of history and politics, thinks is the right view as sometimes people just don't want to get involved.
People like me often see both sides of the thing in a grey manner and disagree with both sides, and instead advocate their own more moderate view.
Feminism is something that like religion and politics, often goes too far and radical feminists in my view are no better than Fascists, Communists, racial supremacists, terrorists, and Extremist Theocracies such as Iran(Moderate Theocracies are arguably ok, such as Catholicism and the Vatican City. Granted they do bad stuff to but not as bad as Iran).

Being egalitarian means being egalitarian, not being "neutral". Being neutral implies preference for the status quo, which Chessmistress tried to apply in an attempt to build her argument.

Unfortunately, this is not what egalitarians are so it pretty much falls apart before she made her point.

Just googled Egalitarian.
Still, in regards to neutrality, my point still stands.
I am yet to consider an egalitarian position on the feminism issue, I only know that I am sick of extremism on both sides.

[Esternial]

Being egalitarian means being egalitarian, not being "neutral". Being neutral implies preference for the status quo, which Chessmistress tried to apply in an attempt to build her argument.

Unfortunately, this is not what egalitarians are so it pretty much falls apart before she made her point.

Just googled Egalitarian. :p
Still, in regards to neutrality, my point still stands.
I am yet to consider an egalitarian position on the feminism issue, I only know that I am sick of extremism on both sides.

Think of it as a set of scales.

Feminists and MRA's are (more-and-more) being depicted as the kind of people that push on either end of the scale and don't really look at the balance.

Egalitarians would be the kind of people that look at the balance at the center and would try to adjust the scales accordingly.

Egalitarianism, at least the most basic idea about it, is the most elegant approach, imo.

[Great Feng]

Just googled Egalitarian.
Still, in regards to neutrality, my point still stands.
I am yet to consider an egalitarian position on the feminism issue, I only know that I am sick of extremism on both sides.

Think of it as a set of scales.

Feminists and MRA's are (more-and-more) being depicted as the kind of people that push on either end of the scale and don't really look at the balance.

Egalitarians would be the kind of people that look at the balance at the center and would try to adjust the scales accordingly.

Egalitarianism, at least the most basic idea about it, is the most elegant approach, imo.

Then I'd choose Balance and be an Egalitarian. Though that may just be because despite not being Asian, I've been extremely influenced by Eastern philosophies and religions.

[Galloism]

Who walks around thinking about this stuff? Why does it matter? We're splitting hairs here on an irrelevant ideological technicality.

That may as well be the mission statement for NSG: "Splitting hairs here on irrelevant ideological technicalities".

I'll vote for it.

[New Edom]

Who walks around thinking about this stuff? Why does it matter? We're splitting hairs here on an irrelevant ideological technicality.

That may as well be the mission statement for NSG: "Splitting hairs here on irrelevant ideological technicalities".

It's not splitting hairs. Not when the mainstream of a popular political movement has voices in the media and in politics and other positions of public life demanding that only their interpretation of egalitarianism be taken seriously, given funding and protection. It's not just when some movie actor says "I'm not a feminist" that this is given a fuss--though that's an important part of the damage control of the movement. it's that in education, public awareness campaigns and funding for social programs we find that there are important poltiical leaders ONLY giving their support to the view that if you are egalitarian you must follow a popular set of ideas on feminism. This is not simply philosophy. And peraps they are right, but we should not suport an ideology with public influence without questioning it.

[Umezawa]

Feminism in the west seems really toxic right now. Meaning, if you don't agree with or hold every generally held feminist belief you'll be shunned, dog piled, and ex-communicated. It's not just the belief that men and women should be treated as equals, there are so many strings attached that it's difficult for the average person to meet the criteria. I believe in women's rights, but I don't identify as a feminist because I don't want to be associated with or attached tp something like patriarchy theory. The whole methodology behind current gender studies courses in general seems rather shaky.They routinely present theory as objective truth. It's too tribalistic and politicized for many people unfortunately.

[Hirota]

I think that most "egalitarians" are, actually, perpetuating inequalities - most them are doing it unwillingly, at least I hope (I'm not even sure about that: it can be even the majority of "egalitarians" who are in fact acting in bad faith).

The cognitive dissonance of a radical feminist accusing egalitarianism of perpetuating inequalities is hilariously hypocritical.

[The Conez Imperium]

In my mind feminism is just a form of egalitarianism.

Problem in the world is that women are not treated equal than man
Therefore to achieve equality, one must fight for better treatment of women
C'est-a-dire, feminism.

Granted the feminist movement can be changed to fit a nefarious person's warped perspective but at its core, feminism is about equality.

[Galloism]

In my mind feminism is just a form of egalitarianism.

Problem in the world is that women are not treated equal than man
Therefore to achieve equality, one must fight for better treatment of women
C'est-a-dire, feminism.

Granted the feminist movement can be changed to fit a nefarious person's warped perspective but at its core, feminism is about equality.

I know I've asked this before, but I have yet to receive a satisfactory response.

If, at its core, feminism is about equality, why are there so many examples of many of the most powerful feminists exerting great pressure to prevent any accidental drift towards equality? They're not occasional aberrations. They're pretty fucking common.

Keep in mind: most of those on this forum have become antifeminist have become so not because they hate equality, but because they want equality and see modern feminism as an obstacle to that goal.

[Alvecia]

Little late to the party, but how are we defining feminism here?

[Valaran]

You shouldn't have to call yourself anything.

Nevertheless, my view is that most forms of feminism are compatible with egalitarianism. I am a feminist and egalitarian for very similar reasons. I am probably not what you might term a third-wave feminist (though, tbh, I have no clue what that actually means anyhow).

[Dumb Ideologies]

Feminism is an ideology that is flawed like all others. Equality isn't a theocratic state where you have to worship some kind of cosmic vagina.

[Ashmoria]

what a delicate flower he must be

the failures of particular feminists is still not the topic.

Are ideologies now not responsible for the actions of those who claim to be part of them? No one would argue that fascism is alright because "Hitler and Mussolini didn't really represent fascists, they were just part of an extreme minority", most certainly not feminists. This is not to mention that if you can just exclude whoever you want from your label, regardless of who they are, there is no point in defining an ideology. This isn't Calvin & Hobbes, with a treehouse that has "No X allowed" and you can just redefine members at will. Ideologies aren't just responsible for the actions of their followers, they are defined by them, and presently it seems that the followers of feminism are defining it as childish, immature, and misandrist.

feminism isn't that kind of movement.

without the religion, it is more like Christianity. any group can throw you out but it doesn't make you not a Christian.

[Hirota]

feminism isn't that kind of movement.

without the religion, it is more like Christianity.

Wait, wait, feminism isn't a cult?

[Aapje]

Problem in the world is that women are not treated equal than man
Therefore to achieve equality, one must fight for better treatment of women

"Problem in the world is that men are not treated equal to women
Therefore to achieve equality, one must fight for better treatment of men"

"Problem in the world is that people of one gender are not treated equal to people of the other gender
Therefore to achieve equality, one must fight for better treatment of everyone"

---

Your statement is gynocentric and thus unfair to men.

The second statement is androcentric and thus unfair to women.

The last statement is neutral and fair to everyone. My observation is that mainstream feminism subscribed to the gynocentric statement, while non-feminist egalitarians subscribe to the last statement.

[Ashmoria]

feminism isn't that kind of movement.

without the religion, it is more like Christianity.

Wait, wait, feminism isn't a cult?

no

it doesn't take up enough of your day to be a cult.

[Jello Biafra]

Yes, or at least, yes more than no. Someone could hold a position that is feminism-without-patriarchy-theory and be an egalitarian.

[New Edom]

Are ideologies now not responsible for the actions of those who claim to be part of them? No one would argue that fascism is alright because "Hitler and Mussolini didn't really represent fascists, they were just part of an extreme minority", most certainly not feminists. This is not to mention that if you can just exclude whoever you want from your label, regardless of who they are, there is no point in defining an ideology. This isn't Calvin & Hobbes, with a treehouse that has "No X allowed" and you can just redefine members at will. Ideologies aren't just responsible for the actions of their followers, they are defined by them, and presently it seems that the followers of feminism are defining it as childish, immature, and misandrist.

feminism isn't that kind of movement.

without the religion, it is more like Christianity. any group can throw you out but it doesn't make you not a Christian.

Actually, you're very wrong. Let's imagine that you're a Roman Catholic, but the Pope, several Cardinals, Archbishops, and Presidents of Catholic Colleges call you a heretic. Now there may be every right you have to still call yourself a good Catholic, but it will be hard for other Catholics to call you one or take your words seriously if the well has been poisoned against you.

So let's imagine this: You're Warren Farrell, Christina Hoff sommers, Wendy McElroy, or any number of other prominent feminists, but your views are unorthodox, because there are popular and orthodox views. The views that oppose yours are not merely called corect, they are defined as feminist. Your views are defined as anti-feminist and anti-woman. You are even called a rape apologist. News media, political leaders, professors of gendere studies, and popular spokespersons for feminism on major feminist educational sites or activist groups join in this denunciation. This encourages activists to protest you lecturing at universities because you are encouraging women being abused. Is this being a delicate flower, when you protest how you are being treated?

[New Edom]

Little late to the party, but how are we defining feminism here?

Well here's the problem.

Libertarian feminists and conservative feminists aren't generally the ones I'd say have an issue here, because they generally define feminism as "pursuing equality with men' and are willing to accept that they have achieved a lot of that in most Western highly developed nations.

However many modern mainstream feminists--3rd Wave and 2nd Wave 'intersectional' feminists tend to focus a lot more on ideological and philosophical issues that they seem to believe ought to be driving cultural change, and work hard at defining things so that almost everything is 'problematic'. Such persons are often deciding through media releases of one kind or another what is or is not feminist, and hwat one ought to do in order to be truly egalitarian. There is a strong effort towards debunking the idea that you can strive for equality and call yoruself a humanist or egalitarian rather than a feminist, because it is only, they claim, through feminism that you can truly care for women's issues. These are largely defined through gender studies programs, existing organizations and activist groups that have a generally agreed upon lanuage and way of doing things which may vary. So I would just call them 'mainstream feminists' because they generally act cooperatively.

Radical feminists may sem on the fringe but a lot of their ideas have been watered down into the mainstream.

[New Edom]

You shouldn't have to call yourself anything.

Nevertheless, my view is that most forms of feminism are compatible with egalitarianism. I am a feminist and egalitarian for very similar reasons. I am probably not what you might term a third-wave feminist (though, tbh, I have no clue what that actually means anyhow).

I generally agree with this, and frankly would rather just live and let live, but it doesn't seem possible right now. Not when people's jobs, academic pursuits and private lives are on the line.

[Kelinfort]

For fuck's sake, we have a megathread for a reason.

[Yuropah]

Feminism, traditionally, advocates for women to be equal to men in political, and social situations.
Egalitarianism advocates for all people to be equal in political, and social situations.

tl;dr feminism=women's rights , egalitarianism=everyone's rights