Gender egalitarianism

[ruby sparks]

So,

Gender egalitarianism (and/or its aims) is/are very, very similar to gender equality. The only subtle difference is that the second word in the former might allow us to get away from the idea, or arguing somewhat pointlessly about the idea, that men and women, or people of any gender, can ever be truly equalised. So imo it better allows, in principle (and semantically) for differences in kind whilst still aiming for fairness of value.

Do we need another term to add to feminism (and masculinism, aka Men's Rights Activism)? Imo, it might be good in many ways as we go forward, and is of course already in use, 'out there' (for example I read a few years ago that the Swedish Minister for Equality said that she was an egalitarian, not a feminist).

Will it ever catch on, as a term? I don't know. Maybe it will maybe it won't, but to me that's separate from whether in principle it might be a good idea. And googling 'I'm an egalitarian not a feminist' does throw up some interesting viewpoints.

When I have posted about gender egalitarianism before, on other forums, there has generally been a positive response. The main criticisms seem to have been either (a) that it'll not catch on as a term or a movement, or (b) that it won't achieve anything new, anything that is not already being achieved (or pursued) by existing advocacies, or (c) that it is essentially flawed, in that it seems to either imply that there aren't significant inequalities at the outset or that these won't be acknowledged and addressed.

Regarding (a), I accept that. I'm not starting a new movement. It may even be (although I personally don't think this) that existing groups incorporating more egalitarianism into their views would be just as good as a new grouping.

Regarding (b), I also accept that this might be true. Perhaps a neutral grouping or mindset cannot or would not sufficiently understand, appreciate or address the issues of subgroups as well as the subgroups themselves might. In that sense, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with, for example, women getting together separately or men getting together separately, as a preference. Of course I am also aware that neither Feminism nor MRA groups need to be for women or men exclusively, obviously, but in practice, I don't think either has been particularly successful in bringing the other 'side' on board. I'm also allowing that opposition can be an effective means (see: politics in the UK and elsewhere). I don't know how many readers here are familiar with politics here in Northern Ireland, but there are essentially two strong opponents, Unionism and Nationalism, and there is a smaller Party more or less in the middle called The Alliance Party and that's who I vote for. I still understand and accept the reasons others might have for voting for one of the two main opponents however.

Regarding (c), this, it seems to me, is the most profound and common objection. It seems (and I can accept this) that many people, perhaps especially women, perhaps especially feminists, feel that egalitarianism does not or would not acknowledge that there is and has been inequality or widespread discrimination against women, as if egalitarianism might imply a metaphorical handshake on the basis that both 'sides' (or better to say all sides) have suffered similarly or equally and/or that their complaints are equivalent in validity. Whilst this fear might not be unfounded (there might indeed be many people, perhaps especially those from a generally more privileged sex/gender, unwilling to acknowledge certain things) it may equally be awry, imo. To analogise with a related issue, the goal of racial equality does not, nor does it have to, assume that for example black people have not and do not continue to be treated more unfairly than say white people (generalising here). Also, and to me this is a very significant point, a movement calling itself 'Blackism' might not be the best way forward from today. Which is why I have reservations about the term Feminism. In a nutshell, the playing field and the rules of the game have changed a lot in the last 100 years, and imo, the term 'Feminism' may no longer be as useful as it was (even when it explicitly states that it seeks only equality and even when this is completely true, as imo it almost always is) especially in societies where progress has been made, at least on paper. I'm not suggesting someone (man or woman) should not be a feminist, or an MRA, I'm just expressing a personal preference. Voting Alliance.

One final thought: even the words feminine and masculine, whilst useful in a general sense, and biologically-derived and influenced up to a point, might be considered at least partially a false division, and they probably both have cultural aspects which are arguably ripe for reassessment and deconstruction, especially as they apply to individuals. See also: men who supposedly have a 'feminine' side.

Your thoughts welcome.

I'm not trying to replace the recent thread on masculinism, by the way, or any on the topic of feminism. I just started this thread so as not to cause a derail in any of those other discussions.

 

[ruby sparks]

ETA:

I'm going to indulge in a spot of speculation about responses, based on past experience.

To those who might say, 'it's just a word' I'd say yes, it is, but since we often think and communicate in words, words are important. Plus, it's arguably also a mindset, or at least a word which implies a slight shift of emphasis.

To those who might say, 'I'm already an egalitarian, but I'm also a feminist (or an MRA)' I say, fine. Personally I think egalitarian is a better term, and I hope you can see why I would say I'm not a feminist, I'm an egalitarian.

To those who might say, 'I'd join an egalitarian movement, but there isn't one yet and feminism (or MRA) is the nearest and most effective one for my aspirations' I say fine, but imo that shouldn't stop you from agreeing in principle or encouraging change, if you agree with something.

To feminists (male or female) who might say feminism is best I'd say that I respect that, but that if you really want to bring more men on board, there are things about feminism which might be delaying that, despite your best intentions.

To those men who instinctively flinch, recoil or react adversely to feminism at times (as I do) I'd say, be more prepared to accept that the complaints might be more valid than you might think, and if you can find a way to be more supportive, and avoid the temptation to merely counter with mens' issues, you might get more back in return, plus you might also be given more leeway to raise your own concerns and have them more freely acknowledged. I'm no saint. I seem to have the typically male aversion to either being criticised or having my gender criticised, or even the patriarchy criticised, partly because it feels like it's still me (indirectly) that's being critiqued and partly because ideas about patriarchy are often vague, and often presented and thought of in simplistic terms, and/or it's often ideological, not empirical. As a philosophy, it seems to me that Feminism is essentially Continental, not Analytic (to temporarily cite the two major types of Philosophy). That gives it both strengths and weaknesses, imo.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I like it. I always have found the word "feminism" unsuitable when talking about egalitarianism. As Karen Straughan puts it, we hear "feminists" complain about gender biased words like "mankind", "fireman", etc, but we then hear them name all things good Feminism (after the feminine) and all things bad Patriarchy (after the masculine) and they insist on those terms and fail to seen the hypocrisy.

 

[ruby sparks]

'Bump'.

Perhaps I need to say something more controversial to get more interest?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You need to reply or make an interesting point folks want to comment on or explore. Doesn't have to be conflict but when we all agree and there isn't much more to say, threads fade away.

 

[ruby sparks]

You need to reply or make an interesting point folks want to comment on or explore. Doesn't have to be conflict but when we all agree and there isn't much more to say, threads fade away.

Yeah. I had sort of hoped that someone would maybe....want to offer a critique, or maybe just a disagreement, or a question.......

I guess I'll just have to take it that everyone thinks GE is a flawless idea.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You need to reply or make an interesting point folks want to comment on or explore. Doesn't have to be conflict but when we all agree and there isn't much more to say, threads fade away.

Yeah. I had sort of hoped that someone would maybe....want to offer a critique, or maybe just a disagreement, or a question.......

I guess I'll just have to take it that everyone thinks GE is a flawless idea.

Its kinda like asking "is fairness good?"... I don't think you will get many people saying no.

 

[Politesse]

I wouldn't have a problem with egalitarianism in theory. In practice, when I find someone insisting that equality should be one's only goal, they are usually trying to shut down feminist critique of men, masculinity, patriarchy, etc. This will not actually lead to an egalitarian society.

Suppose you were trying to put out a wildfire, and you knew that there are no wildfires when conditions are dry but cool and without wind, regardless of the current amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. You therefore object whenever someone suggests applying water or foam to a fire, since it connotes an unnecessary bias against oxygen. The problem SHOULD be able to solve itself without unfairly singling out oxygen as the problem, so we should avoid doing so. The ideal conditions, after all, would permit both oxygen and vegetation to exist in perfect harmony without risk of fire.

I think the mast majority of feminists have an egalitarian society as an ultimate goal, we just realize that this can't possibly happen without targeted criticism of toxic masculinities, toxic femininities, and unequal systems of power and representation.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I wouldn't have a problem with egalitarianism in theory. In practice, when I find someone insisting that equality should be one's only goal, they are usually trying to shut down feminist critique of men, masculinity, patriarchy, etc. This will not actually lead to an egalitarian society.

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 think the mast majority of feminists have an egalitarian society as an ultimate goal, we just realize that this can't possibly happen without targeted criticism of toxic masculinities, toxic femininities, and unequal systems of power and representation.

I don't see why that couldn't be done in the name of egalitarianism.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The two types of gender egalitarians...

 

[Politesse]

I don't see why that couldn't be done in the name of egalitarianism.

Which is why, as I said, I don't think anyone disagrees in principle. The problem is one of use and association; most people agree with equality as a goal, but that doesn't mean being cool with the way it is routinely used to dismiss justifiable critique.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I don't see why that couldn't be done in the name of egalitarianism.

Which is why, as I said, I don't think anyone disagrees in principle. The problem is one of use and association; most people agree with equality as a goal, but that doesn't mean being cool with the way it is routinely used to dismiss justifiable critique.

Maybe you could give some examples to illustrate your point?

 

[Politesse]

I don't see why that couldn't be done in the name of egalitarianism.

Which is why, as I said, I don't think anyone disagrees in principle. The problem is one of use and association; most people agree with equality as a goal, but that doesn't mean being cool with the way it is routinely used to dismiss justifiable critique.

Maybe you could give some examples to illustrate your point?

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".

 

[Harry Bosch]

Maybe you could give some examples to illustrate your point?

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 really don't see many instances of this. Maybe an example of this are the French actresses protesting the metoo argument? Might that be what you are talking about? Please keep in mind that I don't watch fox news or listen to Rush!

 

[ruby sparks]

I wouldn't have a problem with egalitarianism in theory. In practice, when I find someone insisting that equality should be one's only goal, they are usually trying to shut down feminist critique of men, masculinity, patriarchy, etc.

I understand the concern but I Dunno. If you google 'I am an egalitarian' and peruse the articles and videos on youtube (which I would urge you to do) you can find many examples of on-screen monologues delivered by women who are not trying to "shut down feminist critique of men, masculinity, patriarchy, etc". They may be questioning some of it and they may prefer different emphases or approaches. I did not do a thorough search but I only came across videos by women, who by and large agreed with many things about feminism, but because of perceived shortcomings in it, preferred to call themselves egalitarians instead.

I am of course not dividing the issue by gender. I'm only generalising.

This will not actually lead to an egalitarian society.

I agree that shutting down feminist critique of men, masculinity, patriarchy etc would not lead to an egalitarian society, but that may not be a fair representation of what egalitarians actually say or do. There may nonetheless be differences of emphasis and approach between egalitarians and feminists, and of course feminism itself is open to criticism. That said, I would not like to merely go down the road of 'what's wrong with feminism'. I would rather emphasise the comparative benefits of egalitarianism or if you like the 'what's better about egalitarianism'. But since feminism is currently the better established ism, it is probably unavoidable to make comparisons too.

I think the mast majority of feminists have an egalitarian society as an ultimate goal, we just realize that this can't possibly happen without targeted criticism of toxic masculinities, toxic femininities, and unequal systems of power and representation.

Gender egalitarianism does not rule out and in fact would still rule in such targeted criticisms.

However, I can see that your concern is not in principle, only that in practice you see.....egalitarianism being used merely to shut down feminist arguments, and so I suppose I am saying that I don't think that is necessarily the case.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

 

[ruby sparks]

I wouldn't have a problem with egalitarianism in theory. In practice, when I find someone insisting that equality should be one's only goal, they are usually trying to shut down feminist critique of men, masculinity, patriarchy, etc. This will not actually lead to an egalitarian society.

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.

Up to a point, maybe (though I would not use the word misandry so readily). But on the other hand it can still be valid. It isn't necessarily sexist to bring up an issue from the pov of one side or indeed to bring up the one-sided aspect of an issue. So for example, by analogy, if a black person raised a valid issue regarding blacks, from a black pov, it seems unreasonable to call them racist, because a pro-black complaint can be valid in and of itself and is not necessarily anti-white, even when the cause of the problem is said to be white.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Example? I can't think of any that can't be expressed in egalitarian terms. Take "driving while black" for example. A person should not be singled out and pulled over by police just because of their race.

 

[ruby sparks]

I didn't say it couldn't be expressed, or expressed better, in egalitarian terms. I just said it wasn't necessarily invalid or racist to express it in terms of its affect on one group or side.

Whereas you seemed to go more or less straight there (to sexism in the relevant sphere, even citing misandry in fact).

And this is something that seems very common to me. I might even be guilty of it myself.

I'm not saying that feminism or a feminist complaint or something said by a feminist would be necessarily not sexist, just that imo it's an overused response to call it that.

I'm guessing that it's pretty much related to what concerns poli, for example, who I therefore at least partly agree with, while hoping to also make the point to him that there's more to egalitarianism than that, and not just in theory or according to me, but that actual self-identifying egalitarians out there do not merely do the things that concern him.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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. 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.