Why I Fight.

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Without wishing to offend, equality isn't something you can apply the libertarian ideal of 'market forces' to, because if that were the case, I am pretty sure market forces would dictate that African-Americans would still be slaves, women wouldn't have the right to vote and a whole slew of other progressions in human rights we've had in the last 100 years. Equality is something you have to work at, often against the status-quo and indeed market forces. Because market forces tend to favour the majority. That's how it works.

Yes, there are variations on BOTH sides that want an advantage, except one of them happens to already have those advantages and seems very very upset that someone else might want them too. And many of them didn't "earn" it at all, they were born into it by virtue of being...well, born.

And the overall aim, once again, is for equality for both men and women. It just happens to use the lens of women because, surprise, women are the disadvantaged ones.

Thanks for the response.

See, here's the thing with "earning". There will always be folks who are born into a position they didn't earn. Changing who is in that position doesn't change that fact. It is not anyone's right to take that away whether they earned it or not. And its far from my point, because there's a human quality that factors in that folks tend to miss. Most folks tend to feel their offspring are more important than other people, are more special and deserving. It has nothing to do with social justice and it is definitely not social justice to take away what some people have simply because others do not have that. That is a misconception, and no I'm not putting words in your mouth, just pointing out an issue that I see when it comes to the whole SJ idea.
We're all born, we live, we die and those are the only guarantees we will get. In the US, the foundation of the country is upon the pursuit of happiness, but not guaranteeing we'll all be happy. We won't all be rich, powerful or treated fairly. Equality is a grand goal, but it is very difficult to accomplish because people aren't in agreement on what equality actually means. We are all born equal, in the sense that we all have the same guarantees of birth life and death, but beyond that it is up to us to overcome the obstacles we encounter in life. Equality has nothing to do with finances in reality. Being rich isn't a guarantee of happiness, only access to what some might consider the "finer" things. So lets dump the financial part.
What sort of equality are we asking for? Are we asking that no one objectify women, that people stop being racist or homophobic? How do we go about accomplishing that? You cannot change someone's perspective, only they can. And human beings are notorious for self-deception when faced with rational, logical, fact-based arguments. They tend to cling to their perceptions, right or wrong, with no rational basis for doing so other than its comforting.
History does tell us that viewpoints change over long periods of time, and awful practices that don't work don't survive forever. Slavery, for example is on the decline. It still exists of course, but it is not sanctioned by most of the progressive countries these days. Its in the shadows, and in countries that are still very backwards when compared to the more contemporary ones. It is by no means eradicated, but it is not the status quo any longer. Other things have changed drastically in the last century for women too, though some may feel its not changing fast enough. Right to work, right to vote, etc. are relatively new ideas, though it is still a struggle in a lot of areas. Still we are progressing as a society, something people seem to be forgetting. Social revolution is not instantaneous, and when pushed too far it will only tip the scales from one side to the other, therefore nothing has changed except what side is in charge. Thats not equality.
I don't have answers on how we become more "equal" in society but it is definitely not just shifting around who are the haves and have nots.
Education is the only thing that I believe can change the way people think and perceive each other. That means that ivy league colleges and their exclusivity are not the answer, but part of the problem. That also means pre-college education needs to be examined and reworked completely. I can only speak from an American point of view, and I don't see the education system getting better. In fact its just changing paradigms from one set of indoctrination to another, but its not improving. I don't have real answers on how things should be handled, or how education can be made better, but I know education is the key to improving anyone's quality of life.
The real thing we should examine is what "quality of life" means and what people really want out of "social justice."
Honestly though life is unfair, we don't get to pick where we're born, who our parents are, what gender or race or sexuality we are. We just get to play the cards we're dealt as best as we can, and sometimes we lose, and sometimes we lose big. Sometimes we have to do what we can locally, make small changes in our fourth dimensional spatial location and hope that it affects things in the larger sphere. We can't change the world, we can change ourselves and the small parts of the world we live in.
I know I have a lot of digression in my reply, its a byproduct of the hand I was dealt in life and I make due with what I have because it cannot be fixed. Not by today's science, it can only be managed. I don't expect anything, no pity or handouts or equality for my mental issues. I just deal with what comes to me from or because of them. And I also deal with people's intolerance, not with anger but with tolerance for their inability to understand my life and my perception. That is the best I can hope for, and yet my quality of life is wonderful. I'm far from rich or successful, and I have been discriminated against because of my issues, and yet I am happy because I don't give up, don't expect others to understand me or even like me.
Maybe I just don't believe in equality in society because we're not equal. We are all different, except that we're human, we are born and live and die. That is the only true equality. Society will change, or we'll end up killing ourselves.

 

[Weaver]

Question: how is "egalitarian feminism" simply not egalitarianism, which is it's own thing? It even has its own little logo that reminds me of the Mega Man energy tanks.

edit: didn't read the next paragraph in which you explain it x_x.

'The pursuit of gender equality from the perspective of improving the lives of women' seems a bit daft to me. It's focus is on equality, while only caring about one side of the equation. The problem is it creates an insular rhetoric blind to what is really happening in favour of its own echo chamber of ideas it's deemed true.

True egalitarianism looks at all people as people and, philosophically, believes all people are of the same fundamental social value and should be treated as such, with the same political, economic, social, and civil rights. I fail to see how this could possibly be accomplished by only focusing on gender as a differentiator. Why align yourself specifically with the injustice of gender inequality, ignoring the other social inequalities? Why not just adopt pure egalitarianism?

I mean I suppose the answer is that it's not really a "social movement" as much as it is an idea, but if that's really what you're working for then call it what it is.

 

[Something Amyss]

...

Well, to be fair, I think that's generally an uncontroversial opinion you have there.

Except it is controversial when it's brought up, generally. And one could possibly argue that it's the brand, but one doesn't have to say "feminist" to trigger outrage over ideals like "women's sexuality should be addressed with the same standards a man's is." It shouldn't be controversial, no. But it is.

Yeah, putting things like "maybe it's time for men like myself to start doing some of the heavy lifting" doesn't sound sexist at all. "these women need a mans help to sort this stuff out".

But women do need men's help. Things like this don't tend to get better when the action is one-sided.

Black people didn't get rights in the US by themselves. Is it racist to say they needed help? Not particularly, unless you attach something specifically stating it was due to limitations on their faculties. Gays need the help of straight people. And while women don't have the same statistical limitations, women aren't going to get anywhere alone.

It is what it is.

 

[Thaluikhain]

True egalitarianism looks at all people as people and, philosophically, believes all people are of the same fundamental social value and should be treated as such, with the same political, economic, social, and civil rights. I fail to see how this could possibly be accomplished by only focusing on gender as a differentiator. Why align yourself specifically with the injustice of gender inequality, ignoring the other social inequalities? Why not just adopt pure egalitarianism?

Why is there the assumption that if someone cares about gender issues, they can't also care about other issues?

 

[Weaver]

True egalitarianism looks at all people as people and, philosophically, believes all people are of the same fundamental social value and should be treated as such, with the same political, economic, social, and civil rights. I fail to see how this could possibly be accomplished by only focusing on gender as a differentiator. Why align yourself specifically with the injustice of gender inequality, ignoring the other social inequalities? Why not just adopt pure egalitarianism?

Why is there the assumption that if someone cares about gender issues, they can't also care about other issues?

I think you're misunderstanding the thrust of what I was getting at. Egalitarianism is all encompassing as an ideal, "egalitarianism feminism" is not. Which, by the way, is the one and only movement he's chosen to associated himself with. I'm asking why that particular stance is preferable, in his eyes to, to egalitarianism which does not focus only on the inequality of gender.

 

[Something Amyss]

True egalitarianism looks at all people as people and, philosophically, believes all people are of the same fundamental social value and should be treated as such, with the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.

Egalitarian movements have often not been to support specific groups, such a women. While this isn't true in every case, it's a common theme. You can, of course, argue "not TRUE egalitarian," but then you open another can of worms. Part of the problem is how quick "egalitarians" have been to declare issues involving many groups non-issues, or resolved issues. The problem is in perception of equality. The US was founded on the notion that all men were created equal, which already excluded women, but also excluded blacks, Indians, and people of lower social status. The founders of this nation wanted equality for themselves, effectively.

I know, I know, #notallfoundingfathers

I fail to see how this could possibly be accomplished by only focusing on gender as a differentiator. Why align yourself specifically with the injustice of gender inequality, ignoring the other social inequalities? Why not just adopt pure egalitarianism?

Well, because of what I said above, but also I think Thal nailed it in saying that calling yourself a feminist in no way requires you to adopt the attitude of "screw everyone else."

 

[Weaver]

True egalitarianism looks at all people as people and, philosophically, believes all people are of the same fundamental social value and should be treated as such, with the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.

Egalitarian movements have often not been to support specific groups, such a women. While this isn't true in every case, it's a common theme. You can, of course, argue "not TRUE egalitarian," but then you open another can of worms. Part of the problem is how quick "egalitarians" have been to declare issues involving many groups non-issues, or resolved issues. The problem is in perception of equality. The US was founded on the notion that all men were created equal, which already excluded women, but also excluded blacks, Indians, and people of lower social status. The founders of this nation wanted equality for themselves, effectively.

I know, I know, #notallfoundingfathers

I fail to see how this could possibly be accomplished by only focusing on gender as a differentiator. Why align yourself specifically with the injustice of gender inequality, ignoring the other social inequalities? Why not just adopt pure egalitarianism?

Well, because of what I said above, but also I think Thal nailed it in saying that calling yourself a feminist in no way requires you to adopt the attitude of "screw everyone else."

1) Sounds like a very American issue. In Canada I really don't think I've seen this attitude. The (few) people I know who claim egalitarian philosophies go to feminist events (among other events, like basic income support).

2) That's not what I was insinuating, sorry if it came off that way.

 

[Something Amyss]

I feel the need to add to this that, while movements do need help from outsider groups, they shouldn't be doing it on their terms. Otherwise, change never happens.

Indeed. I don't believe in false contrition for the sake of peace. At the same time, I don't actually like to start shit, and I understand why people don't. That said, the quote is very appropriate, and I've found this mentality troubling since I was pretty young.

And I'm adding to this that if you're reading this, and you're ever thinking something like "Your aggressiveness is off-putting me from your movement" or "I'd be with you guys if you weren't so angry", you were never an ally in the first place. Saying shit like that shows that you don't really care if what is good for people gets done as long as its the way that you like it. Its extremely condescending as well, and basically reads like "No, no basic liberties and respect for you until you eat your vegatables and clean your room!" You can have disagreements with whether something is or is not productive, but don't treat these issues like they're a dog treat being waved over our heads, cuz I see way too much as that bullshit.

It is interesting, because to be considered equal, one often has to behave better. And honestly, one of the great earmarks of a problem comes from when people don't understand why you might be angry. Sometimes in life, anger is the appropriate response. A lot of minorities where I live probably should be angrier. And I'm guilty of this myself.

[
1) Sounds like a very American issue. In Canada I really don't think I've seen this attitude. The (few) people I know who claim egalitarian philosophies go to feminist events (among other events, like basic income support).

Only a very American example. This isn't a new or original thing. I've seen it on the internet from pretty much every English-speaking nation. Not sure if any NZers have spoken to the effect, but still. And it honestly sounds like your personal anecdotes swing towards that "no true Scotsman" buit I alluded to earlier. I mean, I'm glad that you haven't experienced that, but you're trying to set the definition based on the set of "people I know."

Even examples like the French Revolution (a topic I'm sure everyone here is sick of), which supposedly expanded basic liberties to women and slaves, saw this sort of issue. Historically, slavery was abolished well before we saw any form of equality from a supposed equality movement. Because even in a supposedly egalitarian society, some people were accepted as "more equal."

I'm sorry, but I have no doubt that this is a Canadian issue as well. Because it's a human issue. Because people have bias towards self and things which resemble them. Don't downplay this as an American issue.

2) That's not what I was insinuating, sorry if it came off that way.

I'm not sure what other way you mean it. Even as you elaborated in a prior post, it still looks like the same issue I'm talking about.

In other words, why not state you are an egalitarian feminist?

But still, I also speak to the larger point I've made: that egalitarianism, or any other large sweeping movement, will almost inevitably sweep some people under the rug. I think these dovetail: not only are issues mutually exclusive, but it is sometimes necessary to go a step beyond. From general to specific.

 

[Erttheking]

SJWs just want to feel like they're changing things for the better, when in reality they're making non-issues into issues just to feed their sense that they are a good person. Specifically for male feminists, these are people who are bad with women, who have really never really talked to a woman. They think that feminism is their chance to finally get a girl to like them. By the same token, it's plain to see that feminists like Rebecca Watson haven't had success with males so they say "If men don't like me I don't like them either" and start their stupid fuckin' crusade against "the patriarchy" that everyone with half a fucking brain knows doesn't exist.

*Looks at self

*Is a male feminst.

*Best friend is a woman.

*Has never had a girlfriend and really doesn't care

Your claim seems pretty baseless. They think that feminism is their chance to get with a girl? Or maybe they think like me and that many of the things feminists beleive in should in reality fall under "basic things decent human beings should just do anyway but the human race is pathetic at living up to even the most basic standards"

The Patriarchy doesn't exist? 90% of government and corporate leaders are not charge out of chance. It's not a roll of the dice. And what about all the double standards against women, especially sex related, where women seem to exist only to please the physical needs of men

 

[purf]

+1, OP
with cream and cherry on top and seriously and no sarcasm here.
These threads however and that whole "SJW" and whatnot and the responses and fuckinghell!
"Hey, how about we all stop being idiots and become decent human beings instead?"
NO! CONTROVERSY!

What. Blows my mind.

 

[Queen Michael]

I've always been what I call an "Of Course!" feminist; I support any feminist idea that'll have you saying "Well, of course that's a good idea."

 

[Erttheking]

You're fighting for a world which does not exist, will not exist and should not exist.

Men and women will always treat each other with double standards, which is fine, because they are different. They expect different things from each other, and there are good reasons for that - both from a natural and a social stand point.

In any case, whats the worst thing your wife had to endure due to "equating female with male sexuality"? Just out of curiosity.

I will respectfully disagree, because your viewpoint is skewed and presupposes humans are only subject to natural impulses, which history shows is clearly false. Humans are fully capable of moving past their baser selves.

The thing is thats absolute trash. Humans don't even have free will, we just have the illusion of it, and thank god for that.

....What the frak is that supposed to mean? Free will is an illusion? Uh, not it's not. You weren't predetermined by fate to type that out. You did it because you wanted to. I just...that claim of yours is not rooted in logic in anyway shape or form! It makes about as much sense as when batman said that "Punk is nothing but death, and crime, and the rage of a beast" It's trying to sound deep, but it means nothing.

 

[Directionless]

Hey, second ever topic, and I chose a doozy. But hey, what else is there?


I make sure that I try to walk behind every woman on the street in a way that does not make me seem a threat to them. Because as much as I don't think I am, I might be to her. My 6'2" 300 pound fat frame looks ridiculous in the mirror, but to a 5 foot and change slim woman walking down the street, I am quite possibly a potential monster. I try to educate my friends about this, and slowly they are starting to see it. You might be correct, that some are simply getting upset at nothing. But you don't know if that's correct for all of us.

Oh jesus. This is just insane. Sure, i'm not going to walk behind people like a some shady character with a knife. But altering my walking-mannerisms to persuade people with some predisposed thought process of "Big man, must be a rapist" is not going to happen. This is NOT equality, and it creates a posionous implication. "Oh, i'm male, therefore i know you must think i'm a rapist"

Perpetuating this isn't fighting for equality. To be quite honest, i can't even categorise this weird type of action.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Hey, second ever topic, and I chose a doozy. But hey, what else is there?


I make sure that I try to walk behind every woman on the street in a way that does not make me seem a threat to them. Because as much as I don't think I am, I might be to her. My 6'2" 300 pound fat frame looks ridiculous in the mirror, but to a 5 foot and change slim woman walking down the street, I am quite possibly a potential monster. I try to educate my friends about this, and slowly they are starting to see it. You might be correct, that some are simply getting upset at nothing. But you don't know if that's correct for all of us.

Oh jesus. This is just insane. Sure, i'm not going to walk behind people like a some shady character with a knife. But altering my walking-mannerisms to persuade people with some predisposed thought process of "Big man, must be a rapist" is not going to happen. This is NOT equality, and it creates a posionous implication. "Oh, i'm male, therefore i know you must think i'm a rapist"

Perpetuating this isn't fighting for equality. To be quite honest, i can't even categorise this weird type of action.

You'll note that the OP didn't say anything about "must be a rapist" or "all men are rapists" or any such thing.

Women are told they are responsible for not being raped. If the OP did turn out to be a rapist, the victim would be blamed for not taking enough precautions. Rapists rarely go around with signs saying "I'm the one to avoid", women have to be careful of all men if they are to be careful of the ones that are rapists.

Yes, it's ludicrous, but unfortunately the attitude seems unlikely to go away.

 

[Directionless]

You're fighting for a world which does not exist, will not exist and should not exist.

Men and women will always treat each other with double standards, which is fine, because they are different. They expect different things from each other, and there are good reasons for that - both from a natural and a social stand point.

In any case, whats the worst thing your wife had to endure due to "equating female with male sexuality"? Just out of curiosity.

I will respectfully disagree, because your viewpoint is skewed and presupposes humans are only subject to natural impulses, which history shows is clearly false. Humans are fully capable of moving past their baser selves.

The thing is thats absolute trash. Humans don't even have free will, we just have the illusion of it, and thank god for that.

....What the frak is that supposed to mean? Free will is an illusion? Uh, not it's not. You weren't predetermined by fate to type that out. You did it because you wanted to. I just...that claim of yours is not rooted in logic in anyway shape or form! It makes about as much sense as when batman said that "Punk is nothing but death, and crime, and the rage of a beast" It's trying to sound deep, but it means nothing.

If you accept atomic theory, then you have to accept that people don't have free will. To believe there is free will in a universe where atomic reactions and subsequent actions take place, then believing that humans control the electrostatic atomic interactions in our head would be to believe that humans can control the atomic structure of the universe.

That said, we're humans. We can't be detached enough to accept that as the way of things, so just do what makes you feel good. That's all anyone can do.

@ theluikhain: He said he was a potential monster. IN this context, i'm quite sure he was implying that he believes himself to appear as a rapist. Or murderer. Which is even worse.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If you accept atomic theory, then you have to accept that people don't have free will. To believe there is free will in a universe where atomic reactions and subsequent actions take place, then believing that humans control the electrostatic atomic interactions in our head would be to believe that humans can control the atomic structure of the universe.

Hey? How does controlling interactions in their own heads mean they can control it throughout the universe?

 

[Directionless]

If you accept atomic theory, then you have to accept that people don't have free will. To believe there is free will in a universe where atomic reactions and subsequent actions take place, then believing that humans control the electrostatic atomic interactions in our head would be to believe that humans can control the atomic structure of the universe.

Hey? How does controlling interactions in their own heads mean they can control it throughout the universe?

Because electrical activity in the brain is caused by atomic reactions. The electrical activity makes up the brain activity, which is initiated by atomic reactions.

You DONT control the atomic reactions. The atomic reactions control YOU. The atomic reactions take place, well due to magnetic forces. Van der Whaals forces, electrostatic... It's a lot easier to understand once you have a grip on how atoms react with each other.