Do You Have to be a Feminist to be Egalitarian?

[Socialist Tera]

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.

I swear to god we had one.

[New Edom]

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.

Feminism is all about equality. The male power structures of the past were predicated on domination, exploitation and forced subservience of women. Feminism espouses true equality by first righting these wrongs via empowerment of women. Through this, we can have true equality by destroying the broken and virulent system of patriarchy, in favor of a feminist idealology of fairness for all.

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 put these all together because they are all asking a similar question which I would sum up as "in order to be equal why NOT support feminism?" My response is that feminism is not the only game in town. There is more to feminist analysis, as Chessmistress' post points out, than focus on equality. It is a particular view on WHY inequality exists. Capitalism was also mentioned and so I'm going to go there.

Libertarians would argue that capitalism as we currently have it in the West is corrupt, but that the idea itself is a good one. Old fashioned Liberal Democracy is the way to go--with enelightened self interest and rights of the individual being made very important. Constitutionalism therefore is the main basis by which equality for different groups that formerly had little political voice--women, poor people in general, non-Wihtes in the West, the disabled and so on, and that building upon that is the means by which equality is being achieved. Individual rights and meritocracy are proposed by libertarians to be the best way to pursue achieving equality for all. Feminism may have useful ideas to contribute but ultimately merit is the main means by which people ought to be able to achieve in this world acording to this approach.

Marxists and Socialists, by contrast, are far more concerned with things like collective bargaining, erasing traditional means of control of resources and authority and placing them in the hands of hte people generally. The patriarchal family structure is not so much seen as being an advantage to men in general as it is a backbone for the structures of economic control that oppress people in general. While there may be similarities in some views and alliances with feminists, and while there are socialist feminists and marxist feminists, there has been a long standing and varying degree of mutual suspicion, occasional cooperation and sometimes outright hostility beteween the two views. A good example is Emmeline Pankhurst breaking with former allies and even family members over the issue of suport for socialism.

[New Edom]

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.

I swear to god we had one.

I said in the OP that the reason for this is that the threads cover different major subjects within feminist theory and so the diduscssions have to be broken down by subject. Otherwise it's just a mess of opinions. If you would like to contribute to the subject in this thread, please do. Do you think you have to be feminist to be an egalitarian?

[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.

I swear to god we had one.

We did, and do. Its around somewhere just not been posted in for a while.

[New Edom]

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.

If you're not interested, then don't post. No one is making you. I'm not interested in macrame but I don't seek out forums where people who are interested in it write about it to say "hey, this seems unimportant. How long can peopel go on talking about this?" I'm sure you pursue your own interests--please continue to do so.

[Swith Witherward]

We already have a feminist megathread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=357514&start=8100. The OP participates in it. I really don't see the need to launch a new thread every other day when all these things could be discussed there. It alleviates clutter.

In answer to the OP's question:

I'm egalitarian. I'm a feminist. Part of being egalitarian is, for me, to look at both sides. There are times when mainstream feminism goes astray. In these cases, I won't support a cause just because I'm a woman or a feminist. I'll denounce it because its only purpose is to disrupt the lives of other people. Pulling fire alarms just to stop a men's advocacy meeting? Staging bare-breasted protests in order to gain attention a some other cause's rally? Vote for Clinton or else you betray feminism? There's a line between "feminism" and "obnoxious".

I compare this, at times, to radical fundamental Christianity. "You aren't saved unless you've said 'Jesus, I ask you into my heart', and you have to be a true, born again, bible-believing Christian or else you're going to hell". All those words are required in your profession of faith or else they'll denounce you. These people fail to understand that they based their opinion on their own denomination's tenets.

Likewise, there are feminists that insist every feminist embrace their exact tenets and utilize their exact vernacular or else they'll denounce someone.

When atheists have a go at the average Christian, it's entirely possible they've only experienced the radfundy. They presume all Christians believe gays are evil, that evolution is wrong, and that Jesus hates all the same things that Christian does. When non-feminists or some MRA people have a go at the average feminist, it's under the assumption that all of us believe or embrace the same things the radfems do.

Does one have to be a radfem to be an egalitarian? No, IMHO. Most radfems lack the ability to see beyond their own cause. But most egalitarians support women's rights... because they support the rights of all people. Equality, fairness, and so on. Some don't choose to embrace the "feminist" label. That's okay.

[Socialist Tera]

I swear to god we had one.

I said in the OP that the reasonf or this is that the threads cover different major subjects within feminist theory and so the diduscssions have to be broken down by subject. Otherwise it's just a mess of opinions. If you would like to contribute to the subject in this thread, please do. Do you think you have to be feminist to be an egalitarian?

My opinion is it is not necessary but it is necessary that you at least take feminism seriously.

[Ashmoria]

yes you have to be a feminist. and you have to think that black lives matter. and you have to be for freedom of religion.

but that doesn't mean you have to join a feminist organization or to have the seal of approval from some feminist or other.

[Neutraligon]

Yes and no. I would say if you are an egalitarian you are also a feminist. You do not need to use the label, but you are one. See feminism isn't just a movement, or a set of movements, it is also a description of people who believe in the equality and rights of women.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Nope. You can be an egalitarian without using the label or branding of a movement. I know people who are pro women's rights, but do not stand behind feminism as a movement due to issues they find with it.

[New Edom]

I said in the OP that the reasonf or this is that the threads cover different major subjects within feminist theory and so the diduscssions have to be broken down by subject. Otherwise it's just a mess of opinions. If you would like to contribute to the subject in this thread, please do. Do you think you have to be feminist to be an egalitarian?

My opinion is it is not necessary but it is necessary that you at least take feminism seriously.

And I do take it seriously.

[Lady Scylla]

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.

If you're not interested, then don't post. No one is making you. I'm not interested in macrame but I don't seek out forums where people who are interested in it write about it to say "hey, this seems unimportant. How long can peopel go on talking about this?" I'm sure you pursue your own interests--please continue to do so.

Didn't say it was unimportant, I'd advise not putting words in my mouth, Edom. Furthermore, I expressed, or rather backed up another opinion that I share: the fact you hyper-focus on feminist subjects being nothing more than an observation. Consider it a friendly suggestion that we'd like to also discuss other things with you, and, that it might be nice to see you put forth other topics -- since you do bring up interesting points typically. However, considering you've taken it as an affront, apparently, I might have to reconsider such.

[New Edom]

yes you have to be a feminist. and you have to think that black lives matter. and you have to be for freedom of religion.

but that doesn't mean you have to join a feminist organization or to have the seal of approval from some feminist or other.

Why can you not be say a libertarian or a socialist rather than a feminst and pursue equality that way?

[New Edom]

Nope. You can be an egalitarian without using the label or branding of a movement. I know people who are pro women's rights, but do not stand behind feminism as a movement due to issues they find with it.

That is exactly my point of view, as you know.

[Lady Scylla]

Nope. You can be an egalitarian without using the label or branding of a movement. I know people who are pro women's rights, but do not stand behind feminism as a movement due to issues they find with it.

Pretty much this. While subsets of Feminism aren't necessarily exclusive with egalitarianism, they can be treated as such insofar as their label. Essentially, one can agree with them on principle, or a selection of principles, while deciding to not support feminism as a whole.

[Ashmoria]

yes you have to be a feminist. and you have to think that black lives matter. and you have to be for freedom of religion.

but that doesn't mean you have to join a feminist organization or to have the seal of approval from some feminist or other.

Why can you not be say a libertarian or a socialist rather than a feminst and pursue equality that way?

I see no reason why you cant. but if you aren't a feminist how can you be an egalitarian?

[New Edom]

We already have a feminist megathread: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... start=8100. The OP participates in it. I really don't see the need to launch a new thread every other day when all these things could be discussed there. It alleviates clutter.

In answer to the OP's question:

I'm egalitarian. I'm a feminist. Part of being egalitarian is, for me, to look at both sides. There are times when mainstream feminism goes astray. In these cases, I won't support a cause just because I'm a woman or a feminist. I'll denounce it because its only purpose is to disrupt the lives of other people. Pulling fire alarms just to stop a men's advocacy meeting? Staging bare-breasted protests in order to gain attention a some other cause's rally? Vote for Clinton or else you betray feminism? There's a line between "feminism" and "obnoxious".

I compare this, at times, to radical fundamental Christianity. "You aren't saved unless you've said 'Jesus, I ask you into my heart', and you have to be a true, born again, bible-believing Christian or else you're going to hell". All those words are required in your profession of faith or else they'll denounce you. These people fail to understand that they based their opinion on their own denomination's tenets.

Likewise, there are feminists that insist every feminist embrace their exact tenets and utilize their exact vernacular or else they'll denounce someone.

When atheists have a go at the average Christian, it's entirely possible they've only experienced the radfundy. They presume all Christians believe gays are evil, that evolution is wrong, and that Jesus hates all the same things that Christian does. When non-feminists or some MRA people have a go at the average feminist, it's under the assumption that all of us believe or embrace the same things the radfems do.

Does one have to be a radfem to be an egalitarian? No, IMHO. Most radfems lack the ability to see beyond their own cause. But most egalitarians support women's rights... because they support the rights of all people. Equality, fairness, and so on. Some don't choose to embrace the "feminist" label. That's okay.

Well, there's a generally dominant narrative that gets public support from political figures, businesses and places of higher learning, and so they tend to get out most of the media articles, they tend to get most of the funding, they tend to have their policies followed.

As for your thread, it's fine, but it's very broad and the conversations are rarely focused and are easily distracted by someone suddenly posting something from the news. It's also unregulated. My threads are focused on particular subjects. If you find these subjects uninteresting, then you don't have to post here.

Your general point of view on this particular subject seems very fair to me. My only concern is that feminists who have your position seem to have the point of view of 'this too shall pass' which doesn't seem productive to me.

[The Lone Alliance]

No

[Grand Britannia]

If you are, it's preferable you're not feminist at all.

[Rodrania]

I personally see no reason to call myself a Feminist first so I can call me an Egalitarian. I disagree with feminism and how it's been showing itself to act on the latest years. We are all equal as a human race, and different as individuals, but this doesn't mean we need to mistreat anybody or have more or less rights based on any physical description, what should define a human being is not the outside but (metaphorically) how they are on the inside. And while that sounded really damn cheesy, I believe that's how it is. I'm not really in the mood of discussing why Feminism is good or bad, but I feel like making the difference between Feminism and Egalitarianism is rather important. Feminism (on paper) is a gender/sexuality thing, mostly, seeking equality between man and women (and recently many new genders and sexualities even I didn't know existed), egalitarianism goes beyond that, seeking equality between human beings when it comes to not only gender and sexuality, but race, religion, and much else.

[Republica de la nova catalunya]

Well, the fact is that many feminists tend to be extrem such as disagreable in some facts. I feel everybody has to have the same rights and the same opportunities, no matter if you are man or woman, black or white, christian muslim or atheistic. We are all the same

[New Edom]

Well, the fact is that many feminists tend to be extrem such as disagreable in some facts. I feel everybody has to have the same rights and the same opportunities, no matter if you are man or woman, black or white, christian muslim or atheistic. We are all the same

I think that equality is a good thing, but anyone ought to be wary of a movement that wants the government to spend its money a certain way, wants to use your taxes a certain way, wants to make demands on your time or academic requirements. It's not bad to be a feminist per se, it's bad to demand that only feminist policies be taken seriously.

[New Edom]

I personally see no reason to call myself a Feminist first so I can call me an Egalitarian. I disagree with feminism and how it's been showing itself to act on the latest years. We are all equal as a human race, and different as individuals, but this doesn't mean we need to mistreat anybody or have more or less rights based on any physical description, what should define a human being is not the outside but (metaphorically) how they are on the inside. And while that sounded really damn cheesy, I believe that's how it is. I'm not really in the mood of discussing why Feminism is good or bad, but I feel like making the difference between Feminism and Egalitarianism is rather important. Feminism (on paper) is a gender/sexuality thing, mostly, seeking equality between man and women (and recently many new genders and sexualities even I didn't know existed), egalitarianism goes beyond that, seeking equality between human beings when it comes to not only gender and sexuality, but race, religion, and much else.

The issue with feminism that I have is not with what is put down on paper as values feminists claim to have--it's that they tend to insist that only their policies and views should be followed, and also they tend to paint anyone who disagrees with how they want their policies carried out must hate women, thati t couldn't possibly be about the policies themselves.

[The Romulan Republic]

Depends on the definition of feminist used.

Some define feminism as basically just supporting equality between men and women. In that sense, yes, any egalitarian is by definition feminist.

Some, for example, think that you can't be a feminist if you're a man. That does not strike me as egalitarian.

Then their's the MRA/alt-Right straw feminism, which is defined more or less as "hating and wanting to discriminate against men"- which is (a few foolish fringe elements aside) a false definition, but would certainly not be egalitarian.

[New Edom]

Depends on the definition of feminist used.

Some define feminism as basically just supporting equality between men and women. In that sense, yes, any egalitarian is by definition feminist.

Some, for example, think that you can't be a feminist if you're a man. That does not strike me as egalitarian.

Then their's the MRA/alt-Right straw feminism, which is defined more or less as "hating and wanting to discriminate against men"- which is (a few foolish fringe elements aside) a false definition, but would certainly not be egalitarian.

Most serious criticism of feminism is more about feminist actrivism, feminist educational policy, feminist business/economic policy and feminist government policy which is arguably led by mainstream feminism--a combination of 2nd Wave and 3rd Wave intersectional feminism.

You are right, that some do define feminism simply as being equality between mena nd women. This is not strictly speaking accurate since it is clearly an ideological battleground. There are enough strong voices that state that feminism is a form of opposition to pattriarchy as a general approach to societal leadership and ingrinaed ideas about men and women for instance.