Why not egalitarianism?

ignatiusloyola · 2011-11-27T06:09:55+00:00

I would argue that some feminists and men's rights activists are egalitarians.

The reason why people join the two separate movements is that they are generally personally affected by the issues being addressed by the separate movements, and so they join based on personal/self interest.

There are also some people who choose a side based on which they view is the current higher moral ground.

And then there are those who are just gender chauvinists, who really only care about their own gender.

(FYI, the entire above message is neutral as to which movement it is referring to, including the gender chauvinism part.)

Syntrel · 2011-11-27T09:52:08+00:00

Can you be egailtarian while advocating men's rights at the same time?

Absolutely. Though this in no way means that people should have to put up with blatant man hating and misandry. From what I have seen, a majority of those that advocate for men's rights are just advocating for equal rights. For too long feminists have been fear mongering and lobbying the feminist agenda that they are in fact the essence of privilege now. Something that they continue to claim men have, and refuse to admit that they have. I have no problem with any women standing as an equal in any aspect in society. Unfortunately, men are practically second class citizens now in many western countries, and even lower in some.

The reason Men's Rights gets such a bad reputation is that feminist ideologues continually beat this message that anything that has to do with men's rights advocacy is misogynist. It's hard to get a clear message past a culture that has far superior lobbying and gets preference from the government and media.

lesath · 2011-11-27T17:55:41+00:00

Sure you can. I'm not though. I am what might be called a "male supremacist" or even "male chauvinist."

2011-11-27T08:43:46+00:00

The important thing is that applying labels will only ever piss people off.

The trick is to choose the kind of world you want to live in and then live your life with integrity.

For example, if I call myself a feminist in 2XC I get downvoted because how could I possibly understand what women go through because of my "privilege'. If I call myself a feminist in MR, I get called a whiteknight and downvoted.

The trick, for me, is to not care and support my own version of egalitarian humanism.

Call out sexism when you see it, call out closed-mindedness, call out hypocrisy and stand up for what you believe in. Fuck labels.

pcarvious · 2011-11-27T11:19:47+00:00

Here's my issue with calling myself an egalitarian: my actions don't necessarily line up with my intent. This is a somewhat common beef I have with selective egalitarian movements. I can say I want equality, but if I'm only pushing for one kind of equality then I'm realistically pushing for dominance. That said, it is possible to establish end goals, specific things based on empirical reality that can be used as benchmarks and more importantly end goals!

Right now, as I write this, I'm thinking about what feminism is doing and how stats have been twisted. It is no longer using empirically true data to push it's agenda. And yes, it is an agenda. It's like a giant check list, one thing then the next then the next, with no end in sight. I don't consider that egalitarian.

Now, going back to my first point. If I want to fight for true equality I have a choice, either try to unite the groups and get people talking or endorse a group and try to work within the horizons of that group. I can personally choose to be egalitarian, and choose to say that I'm fighting for equality. However, if I am then I am fighting for a definition that is almost paradoxical in nature. Do I think that equality can be achieved? Well, yes and no. I think that equality of access is possible, I font think that equality of outcome is possible. Here's where the paradox comes in. If I endorse equality of outcome, then I can't endorse equality of access. Different people have different skill Sets and work in different environments. Thus I would have to modify the outcome for everyone to a uniform level which would mean unequal investment into each individual. Now if I support equality of access I can't support equality of outcome. Here's why; equality of access means that everyone has a fair shot at choosing what they want to do. Be it doctor or trash collector. The results of their reactions actions and choices mean that they will move along divergent paths. Those that choose to get a tutor will get different grades than those that don't. If the tutor is available to everyone though, then it comes down to situational choices.

Now to tie all this together. When all is said and done, people will remember select few of my words, but will definitely remember the results of my actions. My actions work towards improving places where the rights of men have lapsed. That's what I'll be remembered for. Long term short term what have you, my actions may not march my rhetoric.

BinaryShadow · 2011-11-28T05:51:32+00:00

I agree with your position. As I have posted before, in RPG terms I'm a "True Neutral" when it comes to gender theory and rights. If there's an injustice on one side, you'll see me helping that side out.

This is why I am siding with MRAs in the western world. In the third world, feminists have much more to fight for than they do here. While they piss and moan about "objectifying women in commercials" here, women over there are being treated like absolute shit.

mikesteane · 2011-11-28T10:54:24+00:00

Once again, the comments go on about equal rights, while ignoring that rights should be balanced with responsibilities. What about equal responsibilities then? The obligation to fight your country, the obligation to finacially support your family etc.

G-O · 2011-11-27T06:13:43+00:00

This is not just about egalitarianism, it is also about giving a voice to men and their unique perspective and experience. Unfortunately, men are not respected or listened to as a group; and so a dialog to achieve an egalitarian society can not begin until men and their voice will be welcome at the negotiating table.

Octagonecologyst · 2011-11-27T17:08:53+00:00

A noble concept, but total equality between men and women is simple not a possibility. We're just too different for that to ever happen.

Demonspawn · 2011-11-27T11:41:58+00:00

Can you be egailtarian while advocating men's rights at the same time?

No. Because equality is the antithesis of rights for men.

When you look to the top, you will find more men than women. You will always find more men than women, because the top belongs to men. The same is true for the bottom, but nobody wants equality at the bottom, do they? Because of this inequality at the top, which is driven by biology, there will always be reasons to give more and more advantage to women to reach "equality" which can't exist. To argue for equality IS, in effect, to argue for the legal supremacy of women and to argue for the destruction of men's rights.

Someday our society will realize attempting to reach equality is like the old alchemists trying to turn lead into gold.

aetheralloy · 2011-11-27T05:55:54+00:00

Feminism is the equivalent of first-person-shooter players going "Hey everybody stop fighting a second!"... it isn't because the world is suddenly going to give up fighting and become peaceful. It is because that's when they strike.

Make no mistake here. Feminism attacked first and still attacks. We are just defending ourselves.

Title	Why not egalitarianism?
Author	TheOrangeJulius
Upvotes	8
Comments	29
Date	November 27, 2011 5:48 AM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/mqlxv/why_not_egalitarianism/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/why-not-egalitarianism.1031259 https://theredarchive.com/post/1031259

Comments