• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Gender egalitarianism

 
 
 
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHDY06s-x-4[/YOUTUBE]

I find this video disheartening, because it seems to be yet more evidence of the 'bad name' egalitarianism has somehow earned. Personally, I don't think she's got egalitarianism right at all (starting at about 3:30). But maybe it's already a term that means something to many people which imo it shouldn't.

She seems to think egalitarianism means 'treating people equally' as in 'not addressing inequalities'.

Luckily, I'm far from convinced that this is what many actual self-identifying egalitarians would say (it's certainly not what I would say, nor what others I've watched online say, and there are a few comments in the comments section which suggest that some others think she's got it 'wrong') but the video does suggest that there's a fair amount of what I am going to call confusion and possibly mistaken views on it. I don't know how it could have gotten this tag of 'not being about addressing inequalities'. Any ideas, anyone?
 
That reminds me of a frequent reaction to saying you try to be "colour blind". Its not enough to treat people equally or as individuals apparently. You need to make group level assumptions about them because of their skin colour. Its identity politics.
 
Last edited:
ruby sparks said:
the video does suggest that there's a fair amount of what I am going to call confusion and possibly mistaken views on it. I don't know how it could have gotten this tag of 'not being about addressing inequalities'. Any ideas, anyone?
Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like being a "feminist", actually.
 
Jolly_Penguin said:
That reminds me of a frequent reaction to saying you try to be "colour blind". Its not enough to treat people equally or as individuals apparently. You need to make group level assumptions about them because of their skin colour. Its identity politics.
Click to expand...

There is a time for being colour blind, imo, and a time not to be. Imo, anecdotally, saying that we should be colour blind (or gender blind or whatever) seems to be one of the most common faux-progressive ways to implicitly ignore inequalities, by saying we should not talk about them as if they had anything to do with certain groups being disadvantaged.

One of the things I do take away from feminism is the asking people to try to be aware of and acknowledge their sometimes hidden or invisible privileges. That many feminists don't ask women to do this very often might be an issue. :)

- - - Updated - - -

Jolly_Penguin said:
Two types of Egalitarian? But what is the bad type? How can being egalitarian be bad?
Click to expand...

Um...does there have to be a bad type? Did anyone say there was? :)

On second thoughts, there might hypothetically be a bad type, a type that would be superficially adopted as nothing more than a cover for anti-progress.
 
It seems to be hard to find pro-egalitarian material online that is not also expressing what is wrong with feminism. I'm not entirely sure why that would be. But anyways, here's another:

"Is there still a place in modern-day America for a gender-equality movement? I think so. Work-family balance remains a real and complicated challenge. And there are gender-based cultural biases and pressures that still exist — though, in 21st century Western countries, they almost certainly affect men as much as women. A true equality movement would be concerned with the needs and interests of both sexes. It would, for instance, advocate for all victims of domestic and sexual violence regardless of gender — and for fairness to those accused of these offenses. It would support both women and men as workers and as parents.

Should such a movement take back feminism — or, as the new egalitarians suggest, give up on the label altogether because of its inherent connotations of advocating for women only? I’m not sure what the answer is. But Women Against Feminism are asking the right questions. And they deserve to be heard, not harangued. As one of the group’s graphics says, “I have my own mind. Please stop fem-splaining it to me.”"

http://time.com/3028827/women-against-feminism-gets-it-right/
 
ruby sparks said:
certain groups being disadvantaged.
Click to expand...

Groups are not disadvantaged. Individuals are. Sometimes that disadvantage is because they face discrimination based on traits that numerous others also face discrimination on. Small distinction I know, but one that shifts away from identity politics and towards fair treatment of individuals considering the whole person and their particular circumstances. People should never be treated as indistinguishable representatives of a group just because they share the same gender, race, etc. To do so is prejudice.
 
ruby sparks said:
It seems to be hard to find pro-egalitarian material online that is not also expressing what is wrong with feminism. I'm not entirely sure why that would be.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people use "egalitarian" to set themselves aside from the "new" or second type of feminism, and that these same people would still consider themselves Feminists in the type 1 sense, if they were making the distinction between the two types. Problem with "Feminism" is that many don't make that distinction, and the type 1 Feminists suffer under wrong assumptions against them made because they are associated with the same label as the type 2. I think that drives a lot of type 1 to call themselves "egalitarian", and also often to vent on "feminism" giving up the label and applying it to the type 2.
 
Jolly_Penguin said:
Groups are not disadvantaged. Individuals are.
Click to expand...

To me that sounds awfully like the faux-progessive cover I mentioned above. I absolutely do not think it stands up in practice. Group inequalities exist and they can be targeted for reform. And no, it isn't prejudice. It's social justice. I think you are basically an inequalities-denier.

Jolly_Penguin said:
Sometimes that disadvantage is because they face discrimination based on traits that numerous others also face discrimination on. Small distinction I know, but one that shifts away from identity politics and towards fair treatment of individuals considering the whole person and their particular circumstances. People should never be treated as indistinguishable representatives of a group just because they share the same gender, race, etc. To do so is prejudice.
Click to expand...

Ok so that sounds like a mealy-mouthed way to dress up the first bit.
 
Jolly_Penguin said:
I think a lot of people use "egalitarian" to set themselves aside from the "new" or second type of feminism, and that these same people would still consider themselves Feminists in the type 1 sense, if they were making the distinction between the two types. Problem with "Feminism" is that many don't make that distinction, and the type 1 Feminists suffer under wrong assumptions against them made because they are associated with the same label as the type 2. I think that drives a lot of type 1 to call themselves "egalitarian", and also often to vent on "feminism" giving up the label and applying it to the type 2.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that recent trends towards egalitarianism are a move away from feminism. That said, I would not divide it (feminism) up into 2 types the way you do.
 
ruby sparks said:
Group inequalities exist and they can be targeted for reform. And no, it isn't prejudice. I think you are basically an inequalities-denier.
Click to expand...

I don't care what you think I am.

Prejudging that somebody has a attitude, circumstance, insecurity, inequality, benefit, privilege, etc because they belong to a particular racial or gender group is prejudice. That's how it works. And it works in all directions.
 
ruby sparks said:
That said, I would not divide it (feminism) up into 2 types the way you do.
Click to expand...

So, are you then ok with poisoning the well of the type 1 feminists with the type 2? Do you realize that is why so few today call themselves feminists? Do you realize it is why so many people are anti-feminists?
 
Jolly_Penguin said:
ruby sparks said:
That said, I would not divide it (feminism) up into 2 types the way you do.
Click to expand...

SO you are ok with poisoning the well of the type 1 feminists with the type 2? Do you realize that is why so few women today call themselves feminists? Do you realize it is why so many people are anti-feminists?
Click to expand...

I just don't think it splits into 2 types, Jolly.
 
Jolly_Penguin said:
Well as pointed out in that thread, it splits into more than two. But those are the constructive and toxic, the latter giving the former a harder road than necessary.
Click to expand...

I think it's a false dichotomy.

Especially coming from someone who 2 minutes ago said we should treat people as individuals not groups.
 
ruby sparks said:
Especially coming from someone who 2 minutes ago said we should treat people as individuals not groups.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right there. I should have said "Feminism" instead of "Feminist". And as I said above, its actually more than two types, but I am pointing out the toxic form (which yes has variants) to contrast it with the constructive form (which also has variants). And also, yes, individual Feminists should be addressed on their own particular custom view of it so far as it is made clear what that is.
 
Jolly_Penguin said:
So, are you then ok with poisoning the well of the type 1 feminists with the type 2? Do you realize that is why so few today call themselves feminists? Do you realize it is why so many people are anti-feminists?
Click to expand...

Setting your '2 types' thing aside, I did come across another pair of statistics to go with the ones I cited above, for women who self-identify as feminists. 18% in the USA and 7% in the Uk. Feminism is not particularly popular, it would seem. Even the Chairperson of The Fawcett Society seems to agree. She says that if you believe in equality for women, you're a feminist. Well, that doesn't wash.

In other words, yes, at least some of the recent developments in egalitarianism do seem to be a reaction away from feminism.

- - - Updated - - -

Jolly_Penguin said:
ruby sparks said:
Especially coming from someone who 2 minutes ago said we should treat people as individuals not groups.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right there. I should have said "Feminism" instead of "Feminist". And as I said above, its actually more than two types, but I am pointing out the toxic form (which yes has variants) to contrast it with the constructive form (which also has variants). And also, yes, individual Feminists should be addressed on their own particular custom view of it so far as it is made clear what that is.
Click to expand...

Right. But you're still putting people into groups.
 
ruby sparks said:
Right. But you're still putting people into groups.
Click to expand...

I'm outlining ideologies. That's a little different than discriminating and prejudging people based on physical characteristics.

Its also why it is more excusable to make statements about "Muslims" than it is about "Hispanics", because the former is an ideology (though not well defined so its still not perfectly excusable) and the latter is not.
 
It doesn't wash. It's impractical to not group.

- - - Updated - - -

Jolly_Penguin said:
ruby sparks said:
Right. But you're still putting people into groups.
Click to expand...

I'm outlining ideologies. That's a little different than discriminating and prejudging people based on physical characteristics.

Its also why it is more excusable to make statements about "Muslims" than it is about "Hispanics", because the former is an ideology (though not well defined so its still not perfectly excusable) and the latter is not.
Click to expand...

That does not compute. So you think it's ok to say muslims this and muslims that?

I mean, I am ok with that, within reasonable limits (ie not overlooking that an individual muslim is an individual) but how can you be? Saying it's ok to group people under ideologies but not inequalities doesn't sound convincing.

Look, I think that when someone advocates measures to address a group issues, it's a bit unreasonable to automatically claim prejudice.

And saying that Groups are not disadvantaged is rubbish.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom