Why I Chose Egalitarianism

[Anonymous]

The topics of feminism and anti-feminism seem to be extremely controversial these days. I can’t go a day without seeing these topics brought up somewhere on GirlsAskGuys. Constantly hearing about all of this has caused me to think about where I stand and how I want to identify myself. Many times I have seen people say that women who are not feminists are only doing it to “look cool” or “get the attention from guys.” However, this is a generalization and obviously not true for every woman who chooses to not identify with feminism. In this take, I will explain my viewpoints and why I am not a feminist.

I have found that there are many definitions for these terms so instead of using the Internet for a definition, I used my own dictionary that I have at home. The definition of feminism as defined by Webster’s dictionary is, "the movement to win political, economic, and social equality for women.” This is wonderful; I’m obviously a woman myself so how could I be against equality for women? The fact is, I’m not against advocating for the equal rights and opportunities for women. There is nothing at all wrong with fighting for women’s rights. This is not a feminist bashing post, I fully realize that feminism is the reason I have the right to vote in my country among other things.

However, I feel that it is my responsibility as a human being to not only advocate for the equality of women but to advocate for any group that may be experiencing either oppression or inequality in some way. The definition of egalitarianism (also defined by my dictionary) states, "upholding the principle of equal rights for all.” This movement does not single out any groups, it is not directed at one group in particular; it is about advocating for the equal rights for ALL. And yes, this would include men as well.

Most feminists I have met say that they want equality for everyone. However, the very definition itself only speaks about women. So my question is, if feminists do want equality for everyone, then what is being done to advocate for other groups besides women? The only issues I see feminists addressing are women’s issues, and in particular, western women’s issues. In my humble opinion, actions speak louder than words. Most feminists that I have personally spoken to do not acknowledge that men have issues worth addressing. When I say men’s issues, just as an example, suicide disparity. Statistically, men seem to commit suicide at a much higher rate than women.

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/statistics/rates02.html

Now, personally, I really don’t care if other women (or men) choose to be feminists. However, I don’t think I should be shamed just because I’m not a feminist. In my experience, whenever a woman finds out I’m not a feminist, I get rude looks and they ask me why I’m “against” women and why I’m “against a movement that gave me so many rights.” My response is, what’s wrong with actually wanting equality for everyone and not just women? I am not saying that we should stop fighting for women’s rights in the world. I am simply saying that I do not think women are the only ones whose issues should be addressed and advocated for. There are many groups all over the world who experience inequalities. I am choosing to acknowledge human beings as a whole and fight for equality regardless of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious affiliation (or lack thereof), etc.

I do not think men should be above women and I do not think that women should be above men. Biologically and mentally, women and men may be different; I don’t believe we are all exactly the same. That’s not what I mean when I say I am an egalitarian. What I mean is, I believe that our differences should be respected and that those differences should not hinder a person’s rights or opportunities, regardless of who they are.

I will say this, I don't believe it is a competition. It doesn't matter which sex has the most problems. What matters is that we, as human beings, can acknowledge and accept the problems that different groups of people have and be able to work together to try to solve these issues.

So, to those who are reading, if you are a feminist, feel free to explain your point of view regarding this issue. Do you think there are some areas of society in which men may be lacking? Since feminists claim they want equality, what is feminism doing for men? I am not asking these questions out of malice and I am not writing this to put down anyone, I merely want to promote discussion and all responses to this will be read and received with an open-mind. My questions, thoughts, and opinions are genuine.

[Ozanne]

I'm a feminist, and it really doesn't bother me one way or another if a woman or man does not identify themselves as a feminist. I've been through many topics about this and have seen women quickly deny being a feminist when asked, and that's fine. Labels are hurting us, as these same women if faced with inequality would be quick to try and defend their right to do or say something. Your post would not have existed in any published format fifty years ago. You are a woman, and privileged now to write something and have your say online on a forum such as this. That is something feminists defend (but you and most others know this anyway).

You are recognizing that labels are the issue, and maybe we should be called something else. Us, the women who love men and don't want to see them crumble, and don't take for granted the rights that others before us have worked so hard to make sure we have. When I say I'm a feminist, it gets some people's back up. If I said nothing at all regarding a label, but simply defended women's rights and made comments to support equality, I likely wouldn't be criticized or have (men) make assumptions about me or my character.

The fact is that I am a feminist, though I am not an extremist. Just as I know my nationality, my level of education, my political stance, my take on religion, I am also a feminist. I refuse to change the labeling because some radicals got it wrong, and others began to believe them. I think the best thing I can do is to continue being strong and support equality by not giving in, much like Americans refusing to give in to terrorism. Why be afraid of who I am and change what the original meaning of feminism really was? I respect your label of Egalitarianism, but I am still toting feminism even though we think very much alike. :) Good post.

[myTake Owner]

Thank you for your in-depth response, I was hoping to get more responses from feminists :) As I mentioned in my post, I didn't write this to bash feminists, it was just to give my own personal viewpoint. I have had a lot of bad experiences with self-proclaimed feminists so I can admit, that has kind of turned me off of the term all together. I can appreciate people like you though who know how to express their thoughts in respectful ways. Thanks for reading and giving your input :)

[Ozanne]

Honey, you have been on this site a long time and have earned the Guru level for a reason. Your opinions to me don't need to be justified because I know when you say something it is because you care about what you say and can use your experience and intelligence to make sure others benefit. That is a strength that makes women look good, and something that a feminist wants to see more of. it's not about men-bashing, it's about having a voice and proving that our communication deserves to be heard and carrying out with actions that we know we are capable of. There are a lot of feminists now that will not speak up, fearing that if they say something it will classify them as man-haters. If it takes another category of women to change this, then I respect and support whatever it takes to change the direction of feminism for the greater good.

[myTake Owner]

Well, I think that's a great mindset to have. If all feminists were like you, I don't think anyone would have an issue with it. Lol

[Yc2K15]

You girls are awesome. Seriously I love reading this. I wish I could meet you because I feel I could learn a lot and actually have an intelligent conversation : ) !!!

[Anonymous]

@xHoneyxBeex - we have come to expect intelligent, thoughtful and fair perspectives from you here at GaG and this one is no exception. Kudos for a nice take.

I, too, am an egalitarian because egalitarianism is what feminism says it is but really isn't. The only real purpose feminism serves today is to foster an us-versus-them condition between women and men, which is the root of the problem behind the state of gender relations in the western world today. Every feminist have ever talked to was in complete denial about that fact.

[myTake Owner]

Thank you! :)

[Opinion Owner]

Thank you for MHO! It's good to see you are still around.

[miramiraonthewall]

I won't lie, I do tend to see the egalitarian identity as an intellectually dishonest, if not blatantly ignorant, way to dodge feminist identity due to its lack of popularity and social stigma. But to each their own, we all have different identities and opinions. I just hope the identity you have doesn't just stop at "this is why I'm not feminist," and can be substantiated by action, positive associations, working toward causes and goals, and in-depth analysis of gender and sex inequality, racism, etc. Because thats what we feminists have been a part of for years. (Myself and clearly those who came before me, many of whom have been inspirations for me, and some my mentors.) Because I find all too often that those who call themselves egalitarian have only just realized the term, and don't fully understand feminist history or feminism in action today, let alone the histories, political structures, and social systems from which gender inequality stem.

So if thats not you, then awesome.

My own take is that egalitarian is a general umbrella term, rather vague and with a less developed identity and history, under which feminism naturally falls. There are many manifestations of egalitarianism. Any well designed movement to attack all inequality in one group will surely fail. Political strategy calls for concentrated attacks on inequality. So thats why it seems ignorant/dishonest, in my opinion, to only stick to that one label. Because if you're sporadically attacking random points of inequality here and there, with no focus to harness your collective power, you really won't accomplish anything. And thats considering how hard it can be for focused groups to accomplish anything in the first place. So you're exacerbating the issue of inequality, in my opinion, (not you specifically, but if there were any general departure from focused movements) and encouraging it. Whether it's racial inequality, economic inequality, sex inequality, sexual orientation... focus is power.

[miramiraonthewall]

correction on "well designed movement." Because obviously if there's no focus, my point is that the movement isn't well designed. whoops. :)

[ComDom]

Based on what? I would say Feminism is intellectually dishonest fundamentally. So do explain. Egalitarianism is only vague if you don't use the dictionary. Feminism is not developed. It is open-ended.

"Any well designed movement to attack all inequality in one group will surely fail."

Feminist logic = Fallacy. As evidenced by this. This is just one big unorganized rant with no focal points.

[Roast_Beef]

"I do tend to see the egalitarian identity as an intellectually dishonest, if not blatantly ignorant, way to dodge feminist identity due to its lack of popularity and social stigma."

Maybe in your shroud of arrogance you could see that identification with a movement that slightly differs from yours, if not, is the same as yours, in which it advocates for the basically the same thing: equality for all, doesn't make that person "blatantly ignorant" and instead, you generalizing someone's point of view and intelligence because they are associated with said movement, ironically makes you, the "intellectually dishonest, if not blatantly ignorant" one.

[Roast_Beef]

"Because I find all too often that those who call themselves egalitarian have only just realized the term, and don't fully understand feminist history or feminism in action today, let alone the histories, political structures, and social systems from which gender inequality stem."

OR prehaps you could consider that infact they know about it more than you do, and that's why they they decided that the best way to not create further disparity amongst the genders is to not be based on a movement which implies it directly. And its funny how you convey this idea that anyone who would rather identify themselves as "egalitarian" is a clueless moron who doesn't know what they are saying. How despicable and shameless.

[Roast_Beef]

"My own take is that egalitarian is a general umbrella term, rather vague and with a less developed identity and history, under which feminism naturally falls"

I want to know what leads you to belive that a movement without previous history cannot work, because it does not have an identity or history, see, feminism was exactly the same when it began, no identity, no history, but it worked anyway didn't it? It worked pretty damn well, so tell me, what makes this any different? Like you said, feminism falls under egalitarianism. They defend the same principles, except egalitarianism defends both parties. Why does this conflict with feminism at all when it defends the same thing? Why do you view these people as ignorant when they defend what you defend, except they actually feel empathy for men aswell?

[Roast_Beef]

"Any well designed movement to attack all inequality in one group will surely fail. Political strategy calls for concentrated attacks on inequality. So thats why it seems ignorant/dishonest"

OH, i get it now, all this is because you can't wrap your head around how politics work and you just assume it has to be a certain way for it to work? Because you, in your own ignorance assume that politics work in the way that you deem it easy to understand, and that's why taking on the issues of both men and women won't ever work? Well i've spoken my piece.

[Yc2K15]

Like ^^ @Roast_Beef.

[miramiraonthewall]

lol I can see my opinion is not popular here. Not at all surprised. Business as usual on gag.

[miramiraonthewall]

@Yc2K15 @ComDom @Roast_Beef

I'm super late but... I'll respond.

I indicated that I do think its often chosen in response to views on feminism (as you can kind of see with the author, the entire focus is on a response to feminism), instead of serious analysis, research, and knowledge of history and inequality. It seems like a crutch to lean on in the absence of feminism, without even a real understanding of how extremely varied general egalitarianism itself can be, as I indicated in my opinion post with varying points of inequality. Egalitarian on its own says very little to me about what you actually believe, specifically if I don’t see that you’re especially educated in the history behind that philosophy in the first place. It seems, as I’ve said, that you’ve simply chosen it out of a response to one aspect of inequality.

[miramiraonthewall]

(And if that is true, and you don’t truly hold wholly egalitarian values, and simply want to identify as non-feminist, focusing on the equality between sexes/gender, then one could argue that you’re not really an egalitarian at all.)

And if you’ve chosen it, as the poster indicated was her motive, simply out of your experience with some people in a movement, opposed to analysis of the philosophy itself, and the political, economic, and social factors contributing to different types of inequality, then…it seems that you are generally uneducated about this foundation behind these identities. I’m not assuming that much, to be honest. She kind of explained “why she chose it,” and this post deals directly with a “my response to feminism” experience, opposed to an “I actually understand what egalitarianism is, that it goes far beyond my desire to not be a feminist.”

[miramiraonthewall]

Thats how I read it anyway, and I think another guy commented something similar below, about wanting to see something more focused on egalitarianism itself, and not a “response to feminism,” which again, is what I see with a lot of the people claiming this - its a response to feminism, a wanting to be detached from feminism, but I guess still claim equality values. Or whatever.

If you don't see it that way, then thats fine.

[miramiraonthewall]

Its the difference between marketing generally favorable terms and having the public agree, and then defining specifically what you want in detail of action, and having a completely different response. Its lip service, basically, without substantial foundation or specificity in a modern political context. As a philosophy, its interesting, but as applied to a movement, I’m not sure how it would work.

And specificity is so important. If you don’t agree that focus is important in political movements, then I guess your knowledge base is different from my own education and professional experience with politics and policy. We all have different experiences…

Although I've never heard any political scientist or sociologist argue that focus is not more effective than a general approach in terms of political and social movements. The most influential movements, that gain the most traction and accomplish the most, to my knowledge, have usually been those with focus.

[miramiraonthewall]

If you have evidence to the contrary, then by all means provide it. I've just never heard of such a thing.

The egalitarian movement would need to defy general trends in a necessity for focus and somehow get everyone under that movement to agree on a specific direction to follow, as a small, budding movement. It simply isn't a well developed, established movement. Feminism is a developed movement with a large place in history spanning across countries. Everyone knows what feminism is, as a movement, even if they don't really understand it. Egalitarianism is hardly more than a line of thought, a philosophical discussion most valuable (imo) within certain circles of people who actually know what they're talking about. In my experience, to my own knowledge, that is. Again, if you have other evidence, by all means share it.

[miramiraonthewall]

Lets look at specificity in identity.

All identities come with variation, but some more than others and the broader your identity is, to cover a wider range of inequalities, it tells us less about what you actually mean. It’s as if someone chose to identify solely as “religious theist” instead of a specific identity like Christian or Muslim. Sure, there is variation under those specific identities as well, but there is far more focus than under “religious.” I will need to ask you a bunch of questions to figure out what it is that you actually believe in, as there are infinite possibilities under that umbrella term, including many that you don’t actually agree with. One can be both Christian and religious theist, both apply. However, to gain political and social power and influence, having a well established and organized Christian church with a specific holy book is far more strategic and valuable, if you are seeking any kind of influence or change.

[miramiraonthewall]

Likewise, Egalitarian on its own is very general, and there is going to be, in my opinion, a far larger margin for difference and stark disagreement amongst egalitarians, as not everyones concept of equality reaches the same point. For example, if economic inequality is your focus, the biggest thumpers in that camp are socialists and communists. What if you don’t believe in complete economic equality, and instead favor a class system? you might then also want to asterisk your egalitarian identity by adding that you are a capitalist, which seems non-egalitarian in some eyes, but I’m betting most of the nay-sayers who respond to feminism with “I’m egalitarian!” are not, in fact, socialists or communists. They have a different limit to what they conceive to be “economic, political, and social equality for all people,” as the mantra goes.

[miramiraonthewall]

Likewise, another asterisk under that umbrella is feminism. Why? Because, just as socialism and communism offer more specificity in a persons identity, so does feminism. There is some variation under modern feminism, sure. However, just as there are a list of things I can assume a christian believes in, with probable certainty, it has been my experience that the vast majority of feminists I’ve known or read from can be assumed to also at least subscribe to a specific set of ideas and beliefs, aside from subset variations.

Egalitarian doesn’t tell me nearly enough to know anything about what you, or your movement, really stand for, especially considering people like the poster, who seem to not really understand the reaches of egalitarianism, and simply use it as a response to feminism. Specific identities, while varied in themselves, like socialist or feminist, tell me so much more.

[miramiraonthewall]

I simply find that egalitarians often can’t really tell me what it is they actually believe in, in very specific goal-oriented terms or even just specific ideas. In my experience, it does seem like a way to escape either the stigma of feminism or the burden of having specific policies, established histories, or goals attached to your identity, because it isn’t a developed movement yet, if it ever will be.

This is just my opinion. there's no need to be nasty about it. If your experiences show you a different reality, thats okay too. We will see if anything becomes of it in politics. I just highly doubt it. And the lack of focus and agreement would be one of the huge issues, in my opinion. Thats all.

[miramiraonthewall]

The only exception to focus would be a diffused group, most likely not a movement necessarily, that aims to only appeal to what is most favored by a large population of people with a lot of money and influence. Think large political parties, democrats and republicans. They are not concentrated and are large enough that varying ideologies and groups within (well, especially so with the democratic party) aim for specific commonly favored goals instead of acting on behalf of a specific interest group. Lots of interest groups or movements will appeal to that one large party. But in terms of specific movements moved by philosophies, especially not so popular or well known philosophies... can't see how that would work without focus. I could be wrong, and as I've said, I'm always open to evidence or logical arguments to the contrary. (And not just "maybe someone knows more than you" catty responses.) Now I'm done, if anyone wants to respond. To my super late post. :)

[Yc2K15]

You have some very well spoken gibberish. The relevance of what you are saying is very slim. It seems like you are repeating yourself a lot with words you seem to only have just discovered.
I think you are missing the point of the article and trying to glorify your knowledge.
You speak of beliefs, but seems like you are arguing with this post because you seem like you would rather women be the dominant species.
You don't seem to stand for equality, you sound like you merely want us to look into the past when we weren't even alive and dwell on that.
Well sorry love but If I dwelled on the past I would be fighting with EVERYONE, because I am an Irish man who is basically a forgotten race in history. But I was born in the 80's and I see very little of hat you seem to imagine.
I know more women with high paying jobs than men. your living in the past and need to wake up.

[miramiraonthewall]

@Yc2K15

Well, if you didn't see or agree with the points I was making, then there's not much more to say I guess. We all see things differently, for better or worse. You're making some really random, illogical conclusions about "what I want," considering I haven't mentioned any of my beliefs on anything, other than my take on what tends to happen with movements that lack focus, and my experiences with people who identify as "egalitarian." How you reached a few of your points from all I've said here, I'm not really sure. It sounds like you're inserting your own bias into my opinion and reading what you want to read. That's your prerogative, but I can see I'm not going to get any real discussion from you, which is fine.

[miramiraonthewall]

But I will concede that I'm not so ignorant as to assume that the past doesn't affect every single thing in existence today. The society we have wouldn't exist as it does without the past, and I don't believe in ignoring or turning a blind eye to history. I can't, I'm a political science, social sciences nerd. lol Asking me to pretend the past doesn't matter is pointless. I simply can't and won't. But to each their own.

[ComDom]

@miramiraonthewall the technicality, "Egalitarianism" is irrelevant. It's the notion that people deserve the same opportunities in life that is important. If Egalitarianism, Equalism, or another word can serve that function it seems much more viable than Feminism ever could be.

Popular Feminist "analysis" is often blatantly false or usually at best exaggerated. Feminism is much more vague than Egalitarianism. All a person needs to claim the label Feminism is to be involved in "women's interests/advocacy."

I'm surprised this is even a discussion anymore. Feminism seems so antiquated. Not to mention I've noticed a lot more people avoiding vocal Feminists as of late.

[miramiraonthewall]

@condom

Well, there's not much more I can say then if you still feel that way. The fact that we are having this discussion in the first place and the fact that several people seem to voice their preference for one term over the other seem to indicate that the terms do matter a great deal. And I definitely think they do. If you think egalitarianism is less vague that feminism, then... good luck, kid. You continue doing whatever it is that you do, and I will continue being the feminist that I am, no question about it. Ciao.

[miramiraonthewall]

@ComDom

[ComDom]

@miramiraonthewall not really. There are still a "few" nazis out there too. That wouldn't mean it isn't a fringe group or antiquated. I think there are still a "few" pagans as well. If you want to follow along with a relic that is vague by definition vs. a group that isn't that's your prerogative. But it is indubitably an irrational choice much as your decision to call me a "kid" given that I'm apparently older than you. Does that make you a baby? Fascinating. Have a nice day.

P. S: according to Merriam Webster this is the full definition of Egalitarianism: ": a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs: a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people."

That's only vague if a person can't read.

[miramiraonthewall]

@ComDom

I've already specified how vague that is when it comes to constructing political movements based on ideals and rallying common support for that movement. It's all in my answer and the comments I've written. I'm not really going to continue to repeat myself, and you haven't really presented any effective counterarguments to those points. As I said before, if you don't get it, you don't get it.

[ComDom]

@miramiraonthewall well double checking your unnecessarily long rant was pretty pointless. It was a combination of empty words and how "Egalitarianism" could be used by communists and that others could use it to further their cause? I nor that movement have said everyone would be exactly equal.

The point was to allow equal opportunity, so that would make your case on communism null. I don't get your argument because you don't have one. The word choice doesn't matter. The function of equal opportunity for people does. Feminism serves no practical or beneficial function and it's fortunate people are realizing that.

You're more than welcome to cling to your beliefs but it appears you are approaching a lonely minority. Also my counter argument to your other post about "focus" is that your assertion is arbitrary. There is no scale for "focus". Not to mention that the Civil Rights Movement did just fine. It wasn't the Black Power movement.

[ComDom]

@miramiraonthewall not to mention that even if Egalatarianism were flawed, and as far as I can tell it isn't (at least in comparison to Feminism), it's still much more sensible than Feminism ever could be.

[ComDom]

@miramiraonthewall but anyway this conversation is boring me now. So as I said before have a nice day.

P. s: If you want to remain a Feminist you're more than welcome to. But if people avoid you and you don't know why/they don't tell you why... Feminism is probably the reason.

[miramiraonthewall]

@ComDom

*sigh* You're right, love. I made no valid points, and I have no arguments. Well, thank you for humbling yourself to the point of entertaining this discussion, for whatever reasons you have, even though I haven't written anything worth reading, with no valid points.

I don't really have issues with anyone I'd actually want to be in my life avoiding me because of my feminist values. Anyone who disagrees with feminism isn't really someone I'd want close to me, so thats probably a good thing. However, I haven't really noticed any social deficit in my life, so if they are, then I'm blithely unaware. And pretty much everyone knows I'm a feminist at one point or another, so its no secret. Its okay, I avoid all kinds of people too, or I should say, I definitely have no interest in being close to lots of types. We all have groups we don't like.

I'm equally bored with this. Thanks so much for calling that point, so we can both walk away and relieve ourselves. Cheers, babe.

[YourFutureEx]

When I joined the site, I didn't even know what feminism is, because it's kind of non existent here in eastern world. Then I read something about feminism that how they try to fight against society for equality and even men can be feminist so, I thought it's cool and wanted to support the revolution BUT what I found that my fellow feminist sisters are doing? Fighting for the things which don't even exist. Their ambitions, their intentions urgh!

I read about egalitarianism in my political science book. I thought it'd be great if these feminists choose the path of egalitarianism so that even anti feminists would also join them and why not?
I shared my thoughts regarding this and I received replies like: "what is this?" "This is complicated" "So you're scared of equality?" "Misguided" "Delete this post" "*no reply*"

Fortunately, there are so many people who support egalitarianism and thank you for being the first lady to write on it.

Main thing is, people think that one must have to be feminist in order to empower women while it's not true at all.

Very good effort but I don't think we can teach these blindfolded people. I hope someone learn something out of it.
Best wishes :)

[gotc147]

Excellent take :)

The modern feminist movement claims to be for men's rights, but they actively suppress any effort to address men's issues. This is why I am also egalitarian, I frequently find myself in debates simply over the label, so I get called a rape apologist or sexist simply because I saw someone identify as a feminist but then claimed to be for equality for all and I tried to clarify the different meanings.

However I am also of the opinion that women's issues are pretty much settled in the United States. They get paid equally (despite feminist groups and politicians claiming otherwise), they can vote, own land, they can do anything a man can do aside from something physically intensive, but that's biology, not sociology. If anything the tables have been turned somewhat because while the areas where women were disadvantaged have been rectified, the areas where they had the leg up have not been rolled back, for example, very few women have broken through the idea that the man is supposed to ask the woman out and pay for the date, most feminists I've met are opposed to this social mindset changing, despite their claims to the contrary.

Hopefully this take will give some people a clearer picture of what's going on.

[Azara]

Would you accept if a woman asked you out and payed for dinner and was the first to initiate sex?

[gotc147]

If I was attracted to her, yes.

[Longblackveil]

I see this view a lot, but actually, and please don't become a feminist because of this ;) but I think if you want to make a big change in the world, it's better to be part of something more focused. Equality for all is great and all, but if you had a movement or an organization dedicated to this idea, they might be stretched a little thin.

That's why I think the original feminist movement was great and worked so well, they focused on something that they thought they could change, and they got it done, bringing us one step closer to the goal of egalitarianism. I wonder if they weren't so focused on women's rights and instead addressed the bigger picture, if they would've been able to accomplish what they did?

However, I believe the current feminist movement should focus their energy where it's actually needed, abroad. Instead of making up grievances that the women in the western world simply aren't really facing that have nothing to do with equal rights they could work on the treatment of women in the Middle East, specifically Saudi arabia in my opinion

[akadatank44]

Agreed. I also believe that a lot of younger women, some on here believe they are feminist but don't actually know what it means to be a feminist. The original goal of the movement was to have equal rights especially in the workforce. Equal pay, the right to actually vote, and get rid of the notion that women should stay at home at be a homemaker. Which I have no problem with at all. A study was done a few years back that said a fortune 500 company survived better in out latest recession with women CEO's then with men
However feminist was not meant to stop making men gentlemen. There was a question on here with a younger women and she claimed to be a feminist. She went on a date, first date to be exact, and argued with the guy about opening doors for her, taking her coat for her and basically being a complete gentlemen.
Us men that actually do that we do it because we want to and its how we show respect for you women and that you are equal in the relationship but we want to show that we care for you. We don't think we are above you or you are above us. We are gentlemen, rare, but we do exists.

[KDA20]

I am very much in agreement I see discussions disintegrate here so often because people withdraw into their treches to hurl grenades rather than search for common ground. Reminds me of the joke a man is driving along a mountain road a car with a woman driver comes around the corner and she screams "Pig" at him, he turns his head and shouts "Bitch" at her. Then he drives around the corner and crashes into a pig standing in the middle of the road.
I have always felt world was not black and white that we should analyse each case study and pick the solution fairest to all. A long time ago I came across this word and felt it was the best reflection of my viewpoint. Here is the definition of Egalitarian on the net.
"Egalitarian
ɪˌɡalɪˈtɛːrɪən/
adjective
1.
believing in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.
"a fairer, more egalitarian society"
noun
1.
a person who advocates or supports the principle of equality for all people.
"he was a social and political egalitarian"

[Azara]

people always Get mad and tell me I'm a feminist lol as if I woildnt know what I am. Course if I say I'm not there are peoeple to be uoset with that too.

I believe in poltical spiritual cultural equality of opportunity for all but I also think just bc oppression " happened" doesn't mean leople suffering the effects will emerge unscathed. I dk t think anything in place atm deals with that problem theoretically but that doesn't mean there is no problem.

And I do think everyone has different challenges and there should be organizations that deal with the soecusl needs of that collective. Not limited to race or sex Thiugh that can be a group but also whatever the unifying factor is.

There are always partuclar and genral problems and the question of human rights is complicated as well as the wuestion of what a human is. doesn't mean we should get rid of everything while we sort it out but I think it's importsnt not to simplify things with rhetoric.

Anyhow seeing as I'm against degradation and oppression of any indivudal or subjugation of any person or group by another person or group to another i have no problem with your post. I just think it goes beying equal opportunity and equal righTs in the society we live in now bc that society is built on fascistic ideologies going way back. No matter how many clauses are added the foundation is still subhuman.

I believe in a society fit for its memebers (which I don't think anything close to a solutIon has been seriously considered let alone discovered) not just a society where everyone has an equal opportunity to "fit in."

And of course anti war government :-)

[Azara]

Main reason im not a feminist is bc it puts too much or any at all emphasis on splitting women and men down an invisible line as if all woman and all men are equal to begin with. Instead of recognizing everyine everywhere has relative inequalities bc ebey one has different needs that dividing or equalizing women and men will not solve. And it promotes the idea that the world IS divided by women and men ( just like patriarchy slready does) which in my opinion just kind of reenforces sexism and a general us bs them mentality and is just categorically wrong. You don't create unity by division and you can't affect can ge by remaining in old spaces regardless of whatever new arguments you use... Feminism is archaic its not really moving forward ideologically. Identifying new problem in an old system isn't "progress".

[Anonymous]

I've encountered some men's right activists and not a single one of them was advocating equality - they were (the ones I've met, clearly I can't talk about the entire movement) all about the men's rights, some even advocating patriarchy quite openly. They were quite hateful to be honest.

As far as I'm concerned, if feminism fights again female oppression, it's like a group who, lets say, fights against certain disease - it's focused on issues of that particular group, it doesn't mean that it is against people who have some other disease. If I become an activist for one cause, I don't think I should be blamed for not dealing with all other causes that society needs to fix. But I agree with you, that it is not a competition.

I'm all for equal rights and for everyone's right to choose a life that is as traditional or as non-conventional as a they feel is right for them.
I do feel it's kinda sad that feminism has become this dirty word, when the first feminists sacrificed so much and went through hell so that women of today would be able to have all the rights that they take for granted.

[gotc147]

I would agree with you, but feminist groups have said they support mens rights and fixing mens issues, therefore they've opted to involve themselves in other groups issues, at least on paper.

[AllAboutTheX]

In my experience, men's groups have never set out to only act on the rights of men, they simply speak out against the downplaying and ignoring of their issues by the feminist groups which say they are for equality. Pointing out the bias and hate whenever they are faced with it. They don't actively try and shut down female gatherings or shelters, they don't cause aggressive and violent protests (like the feminist groups do)
The men's groups are significantly more for egalitarian values than feminist groups and the proof is in the actions of both parties.

[onlyaguy]

What AllAboutTheX said. Exactly!

[OpenClose]

AllAboutTheX

Also, let's talk about how many of the biggest voices in the MRM are women. And these women aren't threatened or unwelcome into the group. And they aren't included on some condition that they "apologize for the actions of their own gender." That has been one of the big plusses about the movement.

[bubble_tea]

I like how you wrote "I am choosing to acknowledge human beings as a whole and fight for equality regardless of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious affiliation (or lack thereof), etc.", but the sad reality is, you can't fight for all people at the same time.
In this question (www.girlsaskguys.com/.../q1572477-135-000-in-emotional-damages-over-a-cake), you clearly took the side of the Christians and told the homosexual couple to go somewhere else.
It didn't matter to you or concern you at all that those Christians were literally breaking the laws of their state by doing so nor that the homosexual couple was literally being discriminated against.
I could also say "Obey the fucking laws in your state or move your bakery to another state or country where it's okay to discrimate against homosexuals to your heart's content. If you don't either, expect to get fined for breaking the laws." But you won't agree with that, will you? See, you're already putting the rights of one group of people above the others.
When push comes to shove, egalitarians are no better than feminists. At least, those feminists are more honest and transparent about their fave group to help.

I also just noticed you refused to reply to my last comment. I take it as you never got discriminated against and you think what they did to me was ok since "it's not the end of the world". Guess what, it's also not the end of the world, if they sold stuff to someone they did not like for their race.

[gotc147]

Then you must also be opposed to allowing businesses prohibit people from carrying guns into their stores right? You're describing a private property issue, private citizens can discriminate all they want under the 1st Amendment. The laws you describe are unconstitutional.

[bubble_tea]

@gotc147 A private owned business that is open to everyone is essentially offering business to the public (not just club members like the church does) and as such have to act according to the laws for public businesses. When smoking in pubs and clubs finally got prohibited in a city here, many pubs and clubs formed a 'smokers club' to not get in trouble for continuing to allow it without breaking the law.
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Please tell, how is a bakery an ESTABLISHMENT of religion? Churches are, a bakery is not. The laws I described are not unconstitutional.

[gotc147]

So you are opposed to prohibiting businesses from not allowing people to carry guns on their property then?

Exercising religion in most cases means not endorsing gay marriage, therefore forcing a business to do such business is unconstitutional, this is not difficult to understand.

Businesses are not obligated to serve anybody, any business can refuse to serve you for any reason.

[bubble_tea]

@gotc147 I'm opposing allowing people to carry guns overall, but the state laws regulates where it's forbidden and where it's not. Just like on what ground it's okay to not serve people and when it's unlawful discrimination. You can't refuse to serve someone because you don't like their skin colour for example. You must be from the Deep South to think that's ok.

[gotc147]

Even in the most liberal states, state law leaves it up to private property owners if they wish to allow guns to be carried on their premises, we're not talking about government buildings, we're talking about private property and private businesses.

There is a business in Florida that posted a sign on its front door saying if you voted for Obama you won't be served, no lawsuits have been filed against this business as far as I'm aware, what's your opinion on that?

[bubble_tea]

@gotc147
So gun possession is regulated by state law and private businesses have a choice, so it's not unlawful for them to decide they don't allow it in their business. -.- In this case, however, that bakery -important here- does not have a choice.

The anti-discrimination law of the state in which that bakery resides clearly says you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. § 659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
„without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of […] sexual orientation […]
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.403

What's a "place of public accommodation" you may ask?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12181
(7) Public accommodation
The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce—
(E) a bakery, […]

So you see, even a privately owned business like a bakery still has to follow the anti-discrimation laws of the state.

[bubble_tea]

@gotc147
Now in the case of the business in Florida that I assume resides in the Northern part. What does the anti-discrimation law say there?
„760.08 Discrimination in places of public accommodation. […] without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, familial status, or religion.“
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/760.08

Voting for Obama is neither of those things. Refusing to serve people who voted Obama is very stupid, -but- that business is not breaking the law. That bakery did break the law.

Anything else?

[gotc147]

I am not arguing that businesses must follow the laws, I'm arguing that the laws are unconstitutional and should be opposed by everybody due to the precedent that they set.

A Christian baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is them exercising their religion, and is a protected right under the 1st Amendment, plain and simple.

Meanwhile, you're supporting laws that would force black business owners to work for the KKK, Jewish business owners to work for Nazis, and gay business owners to work for the Westboro Baptist Church. Did you ever stop for even second to think about what you're supporting? I doubt it, liberal's aren't known for their critical thinking skills, so let me provide you a couple examples:
A Muslim owns a small store, a salesman from Playboy magazine comes in and offers to sell the owner magazines to put on his shelves, the owner refuses and gets sued and forced to put Playboy on his shelves.
An Indian owns a restaurant and a customer wants a burger...

[gotc147]

Indians hold cows as sacred and thus do not eat beef nor serve it, the owner gets sued and now has to serve beef.

If you think these examples are apples and oranges think again, judicial history is jam packed with judges twisting themselves into pretzels to come to a desired ruling, even if that ruling is so far out there it leaves even the most seasoned legal expert scratching their head.

A prime example: An underage boy received a blowjob from an of-age woman while wearing a condom, he ejaculated into the condom and the woman used the sperm inside it to impregnate herself without him knowing. She came back and sued him for child support. The ruling came down as the boy, since he was underage, was not legally able to consent to the sexual encounter, but, in the same ruling, was found to be a "willing participant" and thus was liable. The woman won the lawsuit.

Explain to me how someone not legally able to consent can be found liable because he consented.

[bubble_tea]

@gotc147
Lol, and you conversatives are known to make very sound examples and comparisons. It is indeed apples and oranges.
You offer to sell something and if I refuse to pay money for it, I get sued? lol please
A store owner has the freedom to sell whatever he wants. Do doctors get sued too for preferring to prescript Xanax over Zoloft? -.-
An Indian restaurant can create their own menus. If they don’t offer beef burgers, you can’t order beef burgers lol or do you go to McDonalds and sue it for not being able to order pizza? -.-
Your other examples are nothing new. People are working for racists everyday. It’s the latter who chose not to give business thus money to the people they hate.

[bubble_tea]

@gotc147
The way I see it, constitutions are like a first draft made hundreds of years ago. People didn’t know back then what society is like today. A society evolves, and thus new laws need to be made. Those new rules are current drafts, not set in stone either, and they might and should get customised in the future.
The right to carry guns everywhere may have made sense back in the wild days hundreds of years ago when there was no efficient police or security to protect you, but nowadays it makes little sense anymore.

I guess conservatives are just the most reluctant to change for reasons.

Sheesh, at least give me a source for your last example to check if what you said was even true.

[gotc147]

Go to any men's rights website and do 5 minutes of looking, you'll find the case.

And elyeah we have plenty adequate police these days, I mean they were there right away in Charlston, Chattanooga, Newtown, Aruora, Isla Vista, DC Navy Yard, Columbine, Virginia Tech, I mean the response was so fast only 125 people died. Meanwhile at places like Trolley Square, Arapahoe High School, Clackamas Mall, LA Theater and Chicago (with that Uber driver), where ordinary citizens were carrying guns and used them, I think the number of dead was 5. Yeah, no need for that silly right to self defense anymore.

So you think rights should he compromised as tike goes on eh? Okay, your right to free speech has hereby been revoked, because I say so, if you speak your mind ever again you will be arrested and imprisoned without trial.

Sound good to you?

[Mustachekitteh]

Well I just learned a new word today. :) Also agree 100% with what you said. Since most people these days seem at war with each other over race and gender. Like one group I can think of. Would be anyone who was diagnose with a mental disability. Tend to be seen as someone dangerous that would go on some kind of rampage killing people. So every time on the news you hear some kind of mass killing and they say it's all because the killer had a mental disorder. That just adds to making other people believe anyone who has it will do the same. Plus some people will even deny the fact of someone having one and say "oh they are just being lazy" or "they are just to stupid."

plus people doing this type of thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uipDEbsL9Cs

[myTake Owner]

Thanks for reading! And yes, I agree with you. There's definitely a stigma related to mental illnesses or disorders. That video is terrible! Some people are just so cruel :(

[heavensgift2girls]

Thank you. I really appreciate when a woman takes male concerns seriously. The fact so many feminists have a problem with egalitarianism should make it clear that they don't care about issues that men face, and clearly are not a movement looking for true equality. Egalitarianism is what feminism has pretended to be for so long. A movement for equal rights for all humans.

[bananatossing]

^^ very well said

[Ccmeu]

"I don’t think I should be shamed just because I’m not a feminist." Amen. I couldn't agree more with every point you stated in your Take. Very well written. Right on, sister.

[myTake Owner]

Thanks for reading! :)

[genuinlysensitive]

Finally, Someone comes out as an Egalitarian :) You have my full support but get ready for hate from the feminists and the mras...

Also, feminism was ALWAYS this way, yes they helped get women the right to vote, but they were always focusing exclusively on women. The same could have been achieved without the sexist mentality of feminism.

[Yc2K15]

The best read I have had from a Woman in a long time, Thank you.
If you were to create a movement, your supporters would hopefully consist of those who have not only some common sense, but also a soul.
Your haters are your ammunition for your stockpile. Just wait and see how hypocritical they actually are, but most importantly do not take any of it to heart.
I've never even firkin heard of an "egalitarian" haha. Good on you! and all the best : )

[Yc2K15]

hey look a hater! hahahaha, Wonder who it is lol? anyway..

We all know the internet gives out the most basic of info when you google search something like "the history of feminism" but take a look at this from wiki

[Yc2K15]

The history of feminism is the chronological narrative of the movements and ideologies aimed at equal rights for women. While feminists around the world have differed in causes, goals, and intentions depending on time, culture, and country, most Western feminist historians assert that all movements that work to obtain women's rights should be considered feminist movements, even when they did not (or do not) apply the term to themselves. Other historians limit the term to the modern feminist movement and its progeny, and instead use the label "protofeminist" to describe earlier movements.[6]

Modern Western feminist history is split into three time periods, or "waves", each with slightly different aims based on prior progress.[7][8] First-wave feminism of the 19th and early 20th centuries focused on overturning legal inequalities, particularly women's suffrage. Second-wave feminism (1960s–1980s) broadened debate to include cultural inequalities, gender norms, and women roles in society.

[kheserthorpe]

I think most of the remaining gender specific problems stem from cultural ideas that are double edged swords. That's why just trying to fix one side of it doesn't work. Which makes it frustrating that many feminists refuse to address them based on their belief that the patriarchy is running everything for men and hence no double edged swords exist.

[Jersey1]

In the UK feminism is not seen in a positive light and is considered "old fashioned". I have attached one of many articles. Marriage is a team environment where two become one. Team members have some different skills so they perform different jobs but they do it for the family, the team. People forget that and get wrapped up in needing to be two separate individuals instead of one family. Divorce laws are deeply concerning as they are actually causing a decline in marriage given the bias against men.

www.telegraph.co.uk/.../...selves-as-feminist.html

[bananatossing]

woooooo each take I read these days is the best! Great work and agreed in every sense. My hats to you lady

media.tumblr.com/.../...line_nlubq7jRDh1ss66hw.gif

[gonyr]

You seem to imply hat, if someone is s feminist, they can't also have other political or social opinions. Like, if they are a feminist, that apparently means they don't support equal rights and opportunities for minorities? Feminism is just agreeing that women should be equal to men. That doesn't mean that people who are feminists don't care about other groups of people.

Think of egalitarianism as he broader, over arching theme that encompasses everyone.

It's like if your a baseball fan. You might root for one team. It it doesn't mean you don't like the whole sport.

[myTake Owner]

Feminism is the ideology of furthering women's rights so by definition, it only encompasses women. As I said in the article, I obviously have nothing against women's rights but if someone actually wants equality for everyone, they wouldn't be a feminist, they would be an egalitarian. And also as I said, most feminists I have met don't acknowledge men in any way except in negative ways. I go to a liberal arts school so I have met and spoken to many feminists and that has been my personal experiences with them. I don't identify with the vast majority of feminists I have met simply because of their extreme viewpoints and the fact that they bash me for NOT being a feminist, which is why I wrote this.

[myTake Owner]

Of course, I can admit that not all feminists are the same. I wasn't trying to imply that, I'm only speaking from my personal experiences.

[TadCurious]

As we've all come to expect, this is another extremely well-written and well-thought-out post. I can't find a single point you make that I would disagree with. Very well done.

[myTake Owner]

thank you! :)

[Azara]

Aren't you a traditionalist?

[TadCurious]

Am I a traditionalist? In some respects I am, but not all. It depends on the issue. I personally don't identify with strident, hardline feminism, even though I believe strongly in the rights of women and girls. But I see those rights as human rights that aren't just for one gender, and I think that's what HoneyBee was getting at.

[delsp]

I understand your reasons to support egalitarianism, however I feel that by emphasising an argument around feminism in this article you are missing the point slightly. Why not just write an article about egalitarianism with a subtle hint towards feminism, which runs a much better course than using the controversy surrounding feminism to highlight a point about egalitarianism. My two cents...

[myTake Owner]

Actually, I know what point I was trying to make. I wrote it because I got tired of feminists bashing me for my views. So in this, I was not only explaining what egalitarianism is, but comparing it to feminism. The actual point of this was to promote discussion, however, very few feminists have commented so far.

[delsp]

I'm sorry to hear that, I would have been interested to see the tiring arguments you have had with feminists, as I don't think an egalitarian viewpoint runs a controversial line of argument