Gender egalitarianism

[ruby sparks]

Oh I didn't mean it HAS to be expressed in egalitarian terms, I just meant it could be. When it can't be, that's a sign of straying off course into some sort of prejudice or bigotry.

I would definitely not agree with that last part (in my bold) and tried to explain why above.

Though I'm not sure what you mean by 'can't be'. Don't you mean 'isn't'? I'm not sure if anything much 'couldn't be'.

You should be able to switch around the genders or the races and still make equitable sense. And I would also add that speaking in an egalitarian way does keep this fairness in mind as well as creating empathy making things relatable so I prefer to do it whenever possible.

For example, would you want to replace the use of the term, 'driving while black' as a way to describe a problem, with a version of your more equitable alternative?

Because it seems to me that saying it's otherwise straying into prejudice and bigotry is suggesting just that replacement, and is exactly the potential problem of 'glossing over' of inequalities which some critics make of egalitarianism, and I accept it. I would only say that it's not the way many egalitarians (perhaps especially women for one reason or another) actually express their egalitarianism. For obvious reasons, I have to steer clear of making a no true scotsman fallacy, but I might risk it by saying that it's not really very egalitarian (lol I've just infringed with a fallacy) to deny valid concerns and call the people expressing them bigoted, prejudiced, sexist or misandrist according to the context. And if one googles to see what's out there, away from internet discussion forums, it seems to me that there are lots of folk not seeing things that way.

 

[ruby sparks]

Guys (temporarily addressing the men here) this is not something that is being mainly driven by us. Like feminism also, it seems to me that it's being mainly driven by women. Women who, for one reason or another, don't want to identify as feminists. It's also, I think, a fairly recent-ish phenomenon and as such not really widespread or established or more to the point organised. Personally, I feel as if I am again more or less on the sidelines, but in theory willing to join in, which is not something I've felt about feminism.

It's my gut feeling that if you had a conversation with one of these egalitarian women who express themselves online and said that you think any issue expressed in terms of women is necessarily sexist, a lot of them might disagree with you. And in my personal opinion, there needs to be more of an acceptance of women's issues without the citing of reverse issues which are, by and large, less frequent or pervasive. And saying 'you are being sexist' to a woman who voices a women's issue from a female pov or only citing adverse outcomes for women is, I think, on the verge of effectively trying to disqualify it in some way.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Guys (temporarily addressing the men here) this is not something that is being mainly driven by us. Like feminism also, it seems to me that it's being mainly driven by women.

There is no reason not to be egalitarian about egalitarianism. Male and females can both be egalitarian and both should be listened to.

It's my gut feeling that if you had a conversation with one of these egalitarian women who express themselves online and said that you think any issue expressed in terms of women is necessarily sexist, a lot of them might disagree with you.

I would join in their disagreeing with that as well.

If you say "Women should have the vote" that can be quickly and easily translated to "Persons, regardless of gender, should have the vote", unless you mean to imply that men shouldn't have the vote.

Some issues can only be expressed in regard to women, such as "Birth Control / abortion costs should be included in universal health care coverage". It is egalitarian because if a man somehow magically got pregnant, he'd be included too.

But if you say "The state should provide scholarships for women (and not men) to enter engineering programs" that can't be translated to an egalitarian footing, because its sexist if men don't get the same opportunity.

And in my personal opinion, there needs to be more of an acceptance of women's issues without the citing of reverse issues which are, by and large, less frequent or pervasive.

If "reverse issues" (what do you mean by that?) are relevant to the conversation, then why not cite them?

And saying 'you are being sexist' to a woman who voices a women's issue from a female pov or only citing adverse outcomes for women is, I think, on the verge of effectively trying to disqualify it in some way.

Agreed, so long as the woman is indeed not being sexist.

And if a group of men protested or tried to shut down a feminist meeting at which women were expressing their views on women's issues, that would be wrong.

Most women I know who identify themselves as "egalitarian" instead of "feminist" do so because they feel the word "feminist" has been lost to the second type (toxic type) of feminism I wrote about in the 2 kinds of feminism thread.

 

[Politesse]

Surely you have encountered this problem. Anyone protesting a specific instance of gender inequality in a public forum can simply expect to be accused of espousing sexism themselves, usually by people who claim to be "feminists".

I'm not sure how many of them self-identify as feminists.

I do agree however that the reverse charge of feminists being sexist (or worse, misandrist) is way over-used, on public forums at least, and possibly elsewhere. It's already, imo, turned up in this thread:

If a feminist can't phrase what she/he is advocating for by appealing to egalitarianism, then that's a good way to identify them going to far and into misandry. Same for men's rights advocates; If they can't advocate by appealing to egalitarianism that's a good hint of misogyny.

I can't go along with that, even with the equity of the mra counter-example, and imo it is sadly too common on the thread discussions I have been part of.

So I can take your point, especially in light of my experiences on public forums. But 'out there', perhaps especially among young women, as on youtube, for example, there is evidence that discussions and reactions to feminism among mainly men on a mostly-male public discussion forum is not necessarily representative of egalitarianism.

I am of course not dividing the issue by gender. I'm only generalising. In my time online, I have come across negative reactions to feminism from women also, and support for feminism from men.

We are not, I think, in general disagreement here. I'm sure there are plenty of "gender egalitarians" who do not engage in these behaviors. Indeed, naming feminism "feminism" and thus connotatively suggesting an exclusively female focus, may always have been something of a mistake, and I honestly wonder whether the movement was more named by itself or named by others, in the final analysis. Another truth is that neither egalitarianism as a social philosophy nor feminism as a political movement could possibly be understood in isolation from the other. They are profoundly interlinked: historically, socially, functionally.

But I was hoping to explain why someone might, especially if they have spent some time in the trenches on feminist issues, look upon the term egalitarian with a suspicious eye. I do not think I am going out on a limb to suggest that both terms have been, at times, abused. Heaven knows "egalitarian" has a complicated history in my home discipline of anthropology, and we were the ones who coined it in the first place. Not everyone agrees that it is meaningful in its original context (social economics). But I'm sure there are many here who would be more than happy to supply examples of "feminism" running amok as well.

 

[ruby sparks]

We are not, I think, in general disagreement here. I'm sure there are plenty of "gender egalitarians" who do not engage in these behaviors. Indeed, naming feminism "feminism" and thus connotatively suggesting an exclusively female focus, may always have been something of a mistake, and I honestly wonder whether the movement was more named by itself or named by others, in the final analysis. Another truth is that neither egalitarianism as a social philosophy nor feminism as a political movement could possibly be understood in isolation from the other. They are profoundly interlinked: historically, socially, functionally.

But I was hoping to explain why someone might, especially if they have spent some time in the trenches on feminist issues, look upon the term egalitarian with a suspicious eye. I do not think I am going out on a limb to suggest that both terms have been, at times, abused. Heaven knows "egalitarian" has a complicated history in my home discipline of anthropology, and we were the ones who coined it in the first place. Not everyone agrees that it is meaningful in its original context (social economics). But I'm sure there are many here who would be more than happy to supply examples of "feminism" running amok as well.

I wouldn't begrudge a feminist being suspicious about gender egalitarianism.

As I have said, it seems to recently-ish have become a label used more by women who want to distinguish themselves from another label. I wouldn't call it a movement yet, but I think it's on the up, and if it were to become more popular because of espousal by freely-thinking savvy young women, for example, then I would hope there's a lot less to worry about than if it were something being espoused mainly by either men or what I might call 'conservative' women.


And it might also be said that it's a very 1st World development and has emerged from a situation of improvement that was earned by feminism.

Personally, I think it's the 'next step'.

That said, maybe I just personally like it.

 

[ruby sparks]

If "reverse issues" (what do you mean by that?) are relevant to the conversation, then why not cite them?

I suppose I mean mainly 'men's issues'. In principle I'm fine with bringing them up, but it's been my experience at least online for many years that they are brought up too much in discussions on the topic. As in being out of proportion. Threads on feminism, for example, have a tendency to morph into anti-feminism or 'what about the menz' too much. I think what tends to happen is that feminist and/or female perspectives get sidelined. Granted, most people like a lively debate and threads tend to last longer if there's a bit of a ding dong disagreement going on. Threads where people generally agree tend to die an early death. Granted also that this forum like most secular/atheist forums is predominantly male.

I wonder if it's also true that there aren't many women here who have many problems with feminism, or who might, if asked to express a preference, be ok to call themselves egalitarian instead?

 

[Politesse]

Honestly, the widespread perception that only women are feminists (or that all women are feminists ) is one reason why I would not personally be quick to disavow the term. I think it is overall a good thing if society sees a lot of men who are willing to stand up for women and women's rights publically. Men's and transgendered rights are also very important, but I can fight more than one cause at a time.

 

[ruby sparks]

Sure. I only hope you don't think that that is my perception, that only women are feminists. I have at times, broadly generalised, that's all.

 

[Politesse]

Of course not, you've noted the contrary elsewhere in this very thread. It's out there though, the tendency to reflexively refer to feminists as though they correspond to a particular stereotype of femininity. I have an ethnographer friend who for two decades fought the "feminist anthropologist" label that got routinely attached to her work simply because she and her principal informant were female (her actual area of research was religion). She eventually gave in to the inertia, realizing that if just writing about female lives apparently made one a feminist in the eyes of others, then maybe she was willing to die on that particular hill after all, as she wasn't about to stop doing so!

 

[ruby sparks]

Sure. I agree.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think most men, and I certainly include myself, have some difficulty reacting non-emotively or in some other non-neutral way to feminism, and sometimes, as you say we can mistake someone raising women's issues or even just taking that perspective as being 'feminist'. It's as if we all have our own horse in the race.

How the average female non-feminist reacts to feminism I don't know, but if asked to guess, I might wonder if it's easier for them to be more neutral, or less threatened if you like. As for other genders or orientations, again, I wouldn't know. Do gay men find it less threatening, I wonder, for example?

 

[ruby sparks]

I think I can even understand why someone, even after accepting all the fair points that egalitarianism has to make, might still want to self-apply the label 'feminist'. I think I touched on this in my OP.

 

[ruby sparks]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI2WSmZi8Uw[/YOUTUBE]

I picked a very short one (only 23 seconds long).

Pity about the screen title, imo, 'Women against feminism'. 'Women for egalitarianism' might have been better.

I am sure that such a simple statement of her personal reason is open to being challenged. For starters, one could say that feminism is not about only improving the outcome of woman and girls. 'Mostly' might have been better than 'only', imo.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

"Feminism" has a branding issue that is mostly created by the toxic type of feminist giving the good progressive type a bad name by association, but also some of that branding issue comes from the name alone.

As Karen Straughn puts it "they name everything good after the feminine and everything bad after the masculine (patriarchy)"

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

"Feminism" has a branding issue that is mostly created by the toxic type of feminist ...

Evidence that this is created mostly by feminists themselves and not detractors and masculinists?

 

[ruby sparks]

Quite surprising (to me) results of a recent (2018) UK survey on the popularity of feminism. Survey carried out by The Fawcett Society (described as a leading Feminist Charity): https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/fawcett-staff



"When split out by gender, women were more likely to identify as feminist, with nine per cent using the label compared to four per cent of men."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/only-7-per-cent-of-britons-consider-themselves-feminists/

"But men were more supportive generally of equality between the sexes - 86 per cent wanted it for the women in their lives - compared to 74 per cent of women."

Only 9% of women surveyed identified as feminist?

I don't even understand the second one. How could more men that women say (and of course it's only a verbal response, not an action or a commitment) that they want equality between the sexes?

And how about this:

"Sam Smethers, the charity’s chief executive, said: “The overwhelming majority of the public share our feminist values but don’t identify with the label. However the simple truth is if you want a more equal society for women and men then you are in fact a feminist."

Really, Sam? You're telling people, including me, that we are, factually, feminists?

Mixed news about younger women:

"Younger women were more likely to call themselves feminist, with 19 per cent aged 18-24 using the word, but they were also most likely to oppose feminism."

And finally,

"But if we want to secure lasting change in our society we need to bring that mainstream majority with us. As feminists, the challenge comes back to us to include those women and men who want to achieve equality but who do not readily identify with the term.”

Hm. Partly right, imo. It's not just the label. That said, it would probably help if there was a different label. I can think of one.

Imo, a change of label, plus some changes to the aims and philosophies, perhaps also the language, to make them more inclusive of/to both sexes and all genders, is all that would be needed.

I am not vouching for the article and I know that newspaper articles don't necessarily reflect the complexity of the results of studies etc. My first thought, on reading it, was 'I wonder if this was written by a man?' But no. Writer of the article is a young female journalist. The newspaper is a generally well-respected broadsheet, albeit conservative (and Conservative). I was also tempted to think, 'there's something wrong with these figures', but they are (apparently) being presented by a pro-gender equality organisation.

I have also read of a 2016 American poll (by the Kaiser Family Foundation) in which 60% of women and 33% of men identify as feminist. I think the gap between 60% and 9% (in the case of women) is far too great to be explained by cultural differences. Perhaps the questions were asked differently in each poll. I think I might hold fire on them both. The figures for self-identifying feminists are a lot higher in one and a lot lower in the other than previous polls I've read of.

Kaiser Family Foundation poll was by telephone and involved 1,610 (US) respondents. Fawcett Society poll had 8,000 (UK) respondents, I don't know the methods in this case. I don't know the questions in either case.

Washington Post report on the Kaiser Family Foundation poll here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/feminism-project/poll/

From the headline:

"A national survey by the Washington Post and Kaiser Family Foundation finds 6 in 10 women and one-third of men call themselves a feminist or strong feminist, with roughly 7 in 10 of each saying the movement is empowering. Yet over 4 in 10 Americans see the movement as angry, and a similar portion say it unfairly blames men for women's challenges."

 

[ruby sparks]

"Feminism VS Egalitarianism (Equalism) - Why I Prefer Egalitarianism"

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHwrkqcz5lM[/YOUTUBE]

This sort of what I might call selfie-monologue is fairly typical of the sort of thing that comes up if you google, 'Why I am an egalitarian'. She seems intelligent and thoughful, though on the flipside her opinions are not based on a prior immersion in study, more on what she got from going on tumbler when she self-identified as a feminist.

To be fair, there seem to be as many similar videos titled, 'why I am a feminist not an egalitarian', which I suppose might back up the Fawcett Society finding (previous post) that there are more young women, as a percentage of age group, supporting feminism, at the same time that there are more young women opposing it.

At about 4:39 (I think) she opines that 'egalitarianism includes feminism', which I confess I liked, as a phrase, but then I'm biased, and I could understand if it made a typical feminist feel like a takeover is being suggested, or that feminism is being usurped, or lessened

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I could understand if it made a typical feminist feel like a takeover is being suggested, or that feminism is being usurped, or lessened

By changing a term? If somebody is that attached to semantics, I don't know what to say to them. And honestly, I have very little respect for any feminist who would say they are not egalitarian. "Egalitarian includes feminist" is a good line.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If a feminist can't phrase what she/he is advocating for by appealing to egalitarianism, then that's a good way to identify them going to far and into misandry. Same for men's rights advocates; If they can't advocate by appealing to egalitarianism that's a good hint of misogyny.

This actually is far broader than you are using it here. It makes a pretty good test of fairness--if you flip the situation does the evaluation of whether it's right not change.

 

[ruby sparks]

I could understand if it made a typical feminist feel like a takeover is being suggested, or that feminism is being usurped, or lessened

By changing a term? If somebody is that attached to semantics, I don't know what to say to them. And honestly, I have very little respect for any feminist who would say they are not egalitarian. "Egalitarian includes feminist" is a good line.

I guess it depends. I'm not, myself, in favour of separate groups lobbying for their own agendas (eg Feminists and MRAs), or should I say I prefer the idea of groups where both sides work together under a common agenda (and banner), but at the same time, the former is valid. So, if for example there are or have been 'Blackist' groups out there (to analogise with racial issues) who are, by their own valid admission, working for blacks..... I might think it wasn't the best solution, or I might think it ran the risk of being biased, but if (if) there were specific issues, I might not put the boot in either, because maybe it would work. Take, for example, the campaign, 'Black Lives Matter'. I'm ok with that, pretty much.

I guess I meant more than just a name change. I think elsewhere I mentioned an adjusted philosophy and language too.

But even on the name change, well, I can understand why some would rather stick with the term 'feminist'. There is a perception among some, I think, not unjustifiably that 'egalitarian' sacrifices too much of what's important. That it wouldn't have the same 'cutting edge'. After all, it's been Feminists who have made most of the ground so far. I reckon some would be reluctant to disown it. Also, I do suspect that the term 'egalitarian' has been used by people who are basically anti-feminist.

That said, I think I would agree with you that I would find it difficult to warm to a feminist who said they weren't also an egalitarian. Are there any of those? I don't mean those who say they prefer the label 'feminist' and dislike the label 'egalitarian' (for various reasons). I mean are there feminists who want women to have advantage over men (ie not equality)? I guess there's bound to be a few. There's always 'a few' in any sphere of human activity. I can't say as I've come across many (or any) yet though.