Femin--What? · 5:28pm Mar 8th, 2016
one that asserts that feminism and egalitarianism are the same thing (they are, by the way, look it up)
O-Okay.
Can someone just tell me how these two words are exactly the same?
Feminism: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
Egalitarianism: is a trend of thought that favors equality for all people. Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status.
Like... how? I don't see the same definition. One focuses on gender, the other focuses on the basic principle of humanity that we all "ideally" get the same treatment. That's not how the world works, but it is a great ideal principle of philosophy (egalitarianism).
Feminism on the other hand just seems odd. I mean, don't get me wrong, feminism has some (like one-eighths of the whole) merit, but...
When people use it as an excuse because they're not getting enough pay or because boys are being ridiculed for liking "girilish" things?
Eh? It just seems unrealistic to have everything equal based on gender. If that's what feminism does, then it appears as another ideal philosophy based on gender. If you want equal treatment, then earn it. Don't focus on every problem as a "gender issue". There's a more definitive reason for problems then just gender. That's why gender studies majors also dual major in cultural studies or even minor in other humanities. Why? Because focusing on gender for every problem doesn't make sense.
>Just sayin'.
Saw this on this blog and had to respond to that little piece of misinformation.
Won't be doing a blog on this subject again though. Just wanted to politely respond.
Oh, and if you wanted entertainment:
Button Poetry needs to do more of these. Mother protecting her children from everything (even tornadoes). Moving poems are best poems.
Also, tornadoes need rights.
Kek.
Oh and I forgot to mention, last night, after eating, I felt sick and couldn't return to my stream. So sorry about that.
>Just if you all were wondering.
All this gender bullshit nowadays. I identify as a Mi-26 Russian Battle Hind. Check your Antiaircraft privilege.
Even if they're not the exact same thing, it's a fundamental fact that you can't have egalitarianism without things like feminism or male rights activism as they are in fact key parts of egalitarianism.
Of course there are right and wrong ways to go about the issue like #blacklivesmatter and #whitelivesmatter respectively. Of course much like the issue with feminism these days, there are trolls, cyberbullies and sensationalistson both sides, taking advantage of the situation because of the internet.
3797674
3797677
3797676
Not exactly.
This principle has been in effect long before those movements (feminism and men's rights groups) even came to being. I can say nowadays they do have an influence over some aspects of society, but neither group hold firm groundings on any issue.
Plus, look at the wiki. Nothing referring to either group at all. Egalitarianism has been grounded in different ideologies instead of straightly gender-based thinking.
3797692
"instead of gender-based thinking."
I don't think you read that article at all. Literally the second and third points in that article deal with gender-based thinking.
"Equality of men and women in rights and responsibilities
An example of this form is the Tunisian Constitution of 2014 which provides that "men and women shall be equal in their rights and duties."
Equality of men
The slogan "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" was used during the French Revolution and is still used as an official slogan of the French government. The 1789 Rights of Man and of the Citizen French Constitution is framed also with this basis in equal rights of men, but not of women. This was satirized by Olympe de Gouges during this time with her Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen.
The Declaration of Independence of the United States is an example of an assertion of equality of men, but not of women, under natural rights, with its language "all men are created equal"; John Locke is sometimes considered the founder of this form.
Some of the framers of the United States Constitution, most notably John Dickinson, refused to sign the Declaration of Independence in part because of this use of "rights of man" rather than "rights of person".
Many state constitutions in the US also use "rights of man" language rather than "rights of person." See, e.g., the Kentucky State Constitution."
The supposed modern interpretation of feminism, if such an ideology is possible, is that it promotes equality for all. Unfortunately, we haven't decided to formally change the term, and I prefer the word "equality" to it anyway. Makes life easier.
3797703
You didn't read my comment. >Straightly gender-based thinking.
Yes, gender has a foot in the door in these issues, but it should not be the defining factor to solving our problems.
Unless you can argue that point, then I don't see a point in the existence of these gender-based groups. They are both fighting for equality, right?
3797711
You do realize that even the so-called "feminazis" care more about just gender right?
Another thing you seem to fail to understand is that someone can be a part of multiple activist groups.
Trying to solve all the equality issues at once is a logistical nightmare anyway when you think about it. It's nothing as so simple as demanding to our governments that everyone should be equal, because that's not how most modern governments work.
If anything, instead of equality issues, people should be looking to restructure most modern governments because the way they currently work is a way that often works against the people as long as it suits the interests of corporate lobbyists.
I'm going to ask that a minute be taken to stop and think and go back to the source of this. Are you arguing against a title, or the person? Are you fighting over what the person calls themself, or the actions they take?
3797676
You're a fuckin idiot, guy
3797740
It seems clear enough to me it's about both the labels and the actions.
I have very, very, very strong opinions on this matter. But I prefer to keep the pony fan-story site about pony fan stories.
3797921 Basically this,
My entire argument/question can be summed up with calling it feminism sounds like shooting yourself in the foot since it seems to imply, whether it actually does or not, that it doesn't care about men which aleinates half of your potential supporters. Why not call it egalitarianism if the goals are that similar.
Labels.
You gotta be careful with those. A lot of them comes with a lot of baggage, and gender-labels seems like the most stuffed ones around right now.
But how this relates to ponies: FiM seems really socially conscious to me. Seems like it doesn't pour oil on any fires, and encourages people to learn about and accept their fellow... pony. Also: Female leads with lot's of different personalities, a lot more of them than other champions of progress and equality and stuff often shows (I'm looking at you, Whedon).
I told myself not to respond to this. This attitude is part of what drove me to quit the PCARG chat. But, there was one thing I had to confront.
No. No, no, no. Sorry, but this is "Russian international incident apologetics" levels of bullshit.
If you want to know why feminism is necessary for egalitarianism, that thing you just said is why. Right away, you're basically admitting that women are in an inferior position, and apparently, they deserve that. If they didn't deserve it, then why would they need to earn a better position?
And how are they supposed to earn equal treatment, anyway?
By campaigning for equal treatment in the work force and an end to objectification? That kind of sounds like feminism, which you apparently oppose. So what other recourse do they have?
And hey, let's extend that statement into a general sentiment. Did those African-Americas who fought in the Civil War deserve human rights more than the slaves who were freed afterward? What should they have done to earn their equal treatment?
How did women, or African-Americans, earn equal treatment in the civil process?
Or maybe we should take it down to a more personal level.
As a bisexual, what must I do to earn people accepting my sexuality as an actual preference, and not just dismiss me as a closeted homosexual?
As a transexual, what must Zoey do to earn being accepted as female, and not just a confused, perverted, or gay guy?
Really, I thought Social Darwinism fell out of favor in the 40s.
3798418 Can I, as someone who just happened to observe this, suggest that all parties elaborate what exactly they mean with the term 'equality'? Most, or perhaps everyone, might assume that it explains itself, but it's a pretty broad term when you think about it.
I'm just saying this because I've seen people get angry when walking past each other so may times before, I've had a lot of laughs at it, but It might actually be pretty novel with some clear communication for once.
3799101
But feminists do. It's out there. And pretty consistently. It's about having equal opportunity, equal say, equal potential. It's about coming to the table and knowing that your voice will be heard and considered. It's about knowing you can have a family and not be punished monetarily (for women) or with the expectation of being disconnected from the family (men).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bonniemarcus/2015/03/31/true-feminism-is-about-equality-for-both-genders/#713116fa3a9c
3799139
Do what?
Anyway, do feminists want what's best for everyone, and am I part of this 'everyone'?
Can't read the article, Forbes won't let me. Like this very site it says that I'm using an ad-blocker when I'm really not.
3799179
Do elaborate on what equality means. Feminists (and I don't mean the fringes or extremists) want a society where you can come to the table and be heard in equal weight on a topic, whether your male or female, black, white, purple, or etc. Where your worth is based in your field is based on what you bring to the job, not on a perception. Where we're all encouraged to ask for pay commiserate with our ability and not be told that asking for a raise makes us seem bitchy. Where childcare is treated as an essential part of a family for both men and women. Where our entertainment preferences aren't looked down upon as being wrong because it's for the other gender ;)
Feminism may be focused on women, but that's only because that's the side the inequality is on. It doesn't negate equality for all, and a lot of the goals benefit men as much as women.
3799197
Sure, I was just suggesting that all parties involved could clarify with what they mean with the word, and that there's a big risk of people talking past each other if they don't. Like, I don't have any more rights on paper than, say, John Carpenter, but that man is a god, or something close to it, and would never consider myself his equal. And so we see how easy it is to misinterpret simple words.
I may have fundamentally misunderstood the whole thing, but aren't you describing 'egalitarianism'?
Edit: or simply a 'live and let live'-attitude? I hope so, because I think I've got that part down
So I've heard it said before. I've just never seen it personally. I've never even heard of anyone denying someone a job or a raise because of their gender.
3799214
It's not being denied a raise, it's the results thereof: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitate
A woman asks for a raise commiserate of her work like a man would, she's seen as being bitchy, pushy, unfeminine. By both men and women. This further affects her in the workplace because now she's an "outlier". This could mean she's passed over for opportunities in terms of contracts or projects or judged more harshly at evaluation time.
That's what feminism wants to address. The idea that one set of standards/behaviors is ok for one gender but not another. And yes, some of this is a society wide issue, but some things you have to hit in smaller parts in order to effect wider change.
3799225 Again, I've never actually seen this. I've never seen a woman hesitate more than a man to ask for a raise, or anything, really.
So what would that make me, if I don't ask for a raise, either?
3799279
I'm going to drop this in here since it's the same basic answer: http://www.robot-hugs.com/harassment/
And here’s the thing, there's studies that show that there's no major adverse effect to a man not asking for a raise. But a woman who doesn’t won't get near the same amount of money in the long run. But if she does, then she risks damaging her upward mobility. And therefore her earning potential.
And I think it's great you work in an environment where you've never encountered it personally! I haven't either (but then again, I've primarily worked retail which only gives bare minimum raises anyway), but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen elsewhere or in other fields. Again, that's what feminism strives for: a time where we can say it doesn't happen anywhere.
3799292 And I will assume that all those studies take into account all factors, such as working overtime and flexible hours, and not taking parental leave, eagerly or otherwise.
But let's say I work for a small construction company. There's a boss, and he has a small fleet of office-workers, and he has a somewhat larger fleet of builders. The builders are all men, very polite against all women-folk in the office, while not always as polite to each other out on the sites where schedules are tight and physical pain is the norm, rather than an exception. They're also paid less than people at the office, and have longer educations.
Tempers occasionally flare, both in the office, and on the sites. When it's women in the office that's at the center of drama, the affair is always handled cordially by the boss, who is very understanding. When it's the men from the sites, though, there are stern talks, quick warnings, and the occasional sacking. The women at the office can act quite insufferably, and still keep their higher-paying jobs, all the while avoiding the slowly building chronic pains and physical maladies that comes from hard work, decade after decade, whether it's in the sleet of winter or scorching sun of summer.
Would it be understandable to someone who's seen this to be skeptical about claims that women have it so tough at the workplace? And that the majority of all resources should be spent on female victims (and aren't they already)?
As for the comic: '"You know, he was just trying to compliment you" vs "that sounds creepy, are you okay?"'
Eheh, yeah. I'm not such a fool that I believe observations OR sympathy, by me, solicited or otherwise, would be appreciated by anyone
But here are two questions: Is the label of 'feminism' better than 'egalitarianism'? And do you believe that it's a small, but vocal minority of men that behaves in the way depicted in the comic, or a majority?
3799317
They do try to. And that last point is actually part of the issue: unfair allotment of paternal leave (men, in a lot of companies, are allotted a significantly less amount of time for parental leave based on unfair gender assumptions).
Understandable, but that still comes back to feminism. Feminism is saying that a boss shouldn't treat the two groups differently except for where their jobs differ. Like it wouldn't be fair for the boss to get mad at a woman in the office for not being able to lift the same amount as a man in the field because they have different job requirements. Feminism is also saying that there isn't a reason why a woman can't be out there in the field with the men or a man can't be in the office. It's saying that both groups should be treated with the same respect and expectations as set by their jobs. So if you have documentation that one woman in the office is a consistent shit stirrer and doesn't get her work done, then guess what? She needs to be gone because she's not conducive to your working environment.
Again, feminism isn't saying that there aren't fields where you see a reversal or that there isn't equality out there. It's that there was, and still is, a greater inequality towards women in society as an aggregate. That's why stats and trends are important in the discussion. That's why society is important. Why discussions like these are important. It says that here are places we can address to make better for everyone.
I don't believe either is particularly better than the other: they simply define what you're focusing on. I focus on women's issues because they're important to me and because I can see how they will promote a more egalitarian society. I do think the consistent hairsplitting and misdirection is harmful because it seems to detract from the fact that the reason why there is a focus in the first place.
There's a good analogy here: Your family serves dinner to everybody but you. When you ask for your share, you're told that everybody has to get their share, it's not fair to focus on your share only. Pointing out the fact that you didn't get your share doesn't negate that everybody deserves their share, it's just pointing out that you still need to get your share.
As to the second, I believe that it is a shrinking minority in the Western world. But it is still a prevalent force, particularly in other nations. In fact, another site I'm on had a thread shut down on a similar topic in which a guy was insisting that it was perfectly fine for him to leer at women even after they've asked him to stop. And this again comes back to the feminist fight: the more we stand up for our right to be seen as people and not just as things, the more we can have these kinds of civilized conversations, the more we can see how treating other humans as less than for whatever reason, the more we can get closer to the larger ideal.
3799338 Well, if feminism isn't superior to egalitarianism, then I don't see a reason to brand myself as one. Especially since I believe that not only do women on the whole in western society get their share, they often get more than their share. But I'm not gonna try and stop them from getting more than their share, because I don't feel the desire to stop women from doing things. I'm also not sure if this is human nature, or if it's me licking my finger and feeling the wind and concluding that when feminists are on the warpath, it's best to stay out of their way.
Ah, but like how a woman shouldn't walk up to the boss and ask for higher pay, a man shouldn't walk up to the boss and tattle on a woman, it could inconvenience her. A behavior deeply rooted in the male psyche that I'm sure is becoming more and more rare for women to exploit, if it was even common to begin with
But hey, what do I know? I'm a Caucasian male. I'm the enemy
3799505
And that’s fine. The only problem arises is when we have hairsplitting like in the OP where we're trying to negate the concerns of a concentrated movement simply because we don't personally understand their concerns or care.
Not idea on this one. I grew up among brothers and male cousins, my first job was at a Boy Scouts camp. Tattling, as you say, was a normal across gender.
But it still stands that feminism is about the idea that it is perfectly fine for you to be able to take your concerns about your coworkers, male or female, to your boss without repercussion.
Not true! But I'll leave you with a better spokesperson than I on that one: http://www2.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2014/9/emma-watson-gender-equality-is-your-issue-too
3799526
I'm not sure I'm hoping whether that behavior reflects the behavior of them as adult, or not. But now that I think about it, I'm probably wrong. It can't be part of men's nature to assist women, that's probably a part of the patriarchy that I've fooled myself into thinking is something else.
Eeh. I've seen Miss Watson's speech, and I still can't help but feel like I wouldn't be welcome
3799572
I'd like to point out that none of your links are in direct reference to either Miss Watson or the HeForShe movement. If we're correlating all feminism as one, then we must also correlate all Christians to the Westboro Baptist Church, all Muslims to terrorists, all atheists to Richard Dawkins, etc.
You've been invited to join as an ally. In what form is up to you. As long as your goals align with our own, we welcome you under any label.
3799572
Actually, yes. Well, not men's "nature" as that implies a basic, instinctual drive, but rather men's societal roles. You have to remember that outside of basic physical differences like genitalia, bone structure, and muscle mass, most of the "natural" differences between, and roles of, men and women are actually a social construct.
Men are expected to assist women because women are the "fairer" sex. Society expects women to be weaker and less capable.
Looking back through other topics in here, and bringing up popular men's rights talking points, a number of injustices against men are actually rooted in patriarchal society.
Men are called to war and not women because (1) fairer sex again, and (2) women are nurturers, and needed to birth a new generation of soldiers. This is also why men are frequently seen as the "expendable" sex in emergencies.
Men don't get paternity leave because women are nurturers, men are providers, and it's the man's role to care for his wife while she cares for their child.
Men usually lose custody battles because women are the nurturers.
Women tend to have an advantage in divorce proceedings because it's expected her man was taking care of her.
Men are expected to pay for dates because, again, providers.
And going back to the women's side, one thing needs brought up: Women earn generally less pay and fewer promotions because (1) they ought to have a man to take care of them (women being less capable again), and (2) the company never knows when this woman they've put in a vital position will suddenly vanish for months on maternity leave.
So, most of the advantages you perceive as being granted to women to place them above men, are actually in place because (in the generic, sociological sense) men think women are weak, incapable, and only really good for making babies.
3799612 I guess this is a problems that outsiders and lurkers like me often have with movements and organizations. I gotta admit, a lot of these things looks similar and I do often have problem telling them apart.
Who are the ones that insists that men are all worthless and incompetent and women are all strong and independent? Because if that isn't the heforshe-movement, that would clear up some confusion of mine.
3799661 Aaah, now it's starting to sound more familiar. Yes, 'men think women are weak, incapable, and only really good for making babies'. 'Men', as in all of them. And since gender-roles is a social construct, and not rooted in biology or instinct, we can even assign blame!
Can I guess which gender makes up the guilty party? 
I wonder if I can escape punishment by not having any desire whatsoever in reproducing? Probably not
3797711 Good to see YOU know how logic works.
3799869
Are you trying to insult me or are you trying to defend me?
3799860
"Men shouldn't be put down for being timid or passive and women shouldn't be put down for being outspoked or aggressive" sounds the same to you as "HAH HAH, I BATHE IN YOUR EFFEMINATE TEARS, COCK-BEARERS #allmenarerapists"?
Well, so long as you exclude the part where I specifically stated "in the generic, sociological sense", because when talking about prejudice and bias, obviously the generalizations used are not going to apply to 100% of every individual. If I say that "whites tried to justify slavery by arguing that blacks were subhuman", I'm not claiming that there were no white abolitionists. Just like pointing out the overall social environment's biases is not claiming that all men are sexist.
What I'm talking about here are societal trends, tradition, and inertia. Those beliefs may have fallen out of favor, but they established traditions. Those traditions still impact society. The "guilty party" died anywhere from 2,000 to 10,000 years ago, depending on where you want to argue certain cultural norms first originated (or around 100 years ago if you want to blame those who carried on in these beliefs after industrialization made them completely antiquated). But society has carried on with the ideas they originally founded, and the structures that emerged were primarily to the benefit of men, and particularly so toward the result of keeping political power in the hands of men.
It's only in the wake of feminism that we've started to realize the harm that patriarchy causes men as well, however, yes, the onus falls just as much on men as on women to make change, if not more, because that system has put men into a position where they are far more capable of making those changes.
That's not the same thing as blame.
I'm not saying you're a rapist, or that you've intentionally taken advantage of privilege, or even that you're necessarily sexist. I'm not calling for you to be punished for anything. I'm just saying you live in a world that has been engineered, over the course of thousands of years, to unfairly favor men over women, and despite that, it causes men harm as well. I'm just trying to get you to understand this, and show you why the job's not done yet, the world is still unequal, and it's everyone's problem.
3799889 Defend.
3799902
*shrugs* Kinda, yeah? At least, I've seen both of those things said (or, well, mostly written) by people who call themselves feminists, and so I just sort of assumes that it all comes back to feminism.
I've just seen such compelling arguments that women gaining the rights they have today had very little to do with feminism and more to do with society in general simply deciding that it might be time to put the gender roles of the eighteen-hundreds agrarian society on the shelf.
I'm also not convinced that the patriarchy is real, because when I google the definition of patriarchy, it seems to me that if we lived in one, I could simply tell women to agree with what I say. Even if I was interested in doing so, I clearly cannot, and so I cannot see how we live in a patriarchy.
Here's an observation, despite how I earlier stated that no one would appreciate any of those from me
: People often see that the holders of (overt) political power are mostly men and simply say that men have the power in society. I, on the other hand, don't see men so much as rich people. If I were to switch places with a woman in the same societal class as me, I wonder how surprised she's be when she finds out that she has the exact same amount of political power as she always did. Unless, of course, she lives in a place where she suddenly has to sign up for military service before she can vote.
And here's another observation: You say that the world favors men over women, and I assume that by that you mean how women are sheltered baby-machines and men are expendable meat to be shipped to the front lines, or, could I assume that you're thinking that these days it's more along the lines of: women are expected to be kindergarten teachers and taking care of the kids at home while the men are... I dunno, assembly-line architects or something who earn the bulk of the income?
And if that's a bad thing, doesn't that suggest that designing assembly-lines is better and deserves more respect than taking care of children? I'm not sure it should be considered better. I mean, I respect that more, but I'm fascinated by technology, and why would anyone care about what I think?
What if a man wants to be a househusband? I assume that that's totally fine and not a step down in any sense. But if that's not any less desirable and worthy of respect, how can designing assembly lines be more desirable and worthy of respect?
What I'm getting at is that women and feminists now pretty much occupy the same positions as men have had, not rich and powerful people, men. And to me, many of them seem confused, and perhaps more than a little bit in denial, when it turns out that the throne was never so much a throne, as an old office-chair.
Isn't that... somewhat ironic? This is a site where grown-up men write and publish stories about My Little Pony. And you say feminism is nonsense?
3801668
Someone did not take the time to read the blog that was released the very next day.
Women are not inferior.
3802101
My feed didn't show me the blog post until now. I don't want to upset you, I really respect you as a writer. But saying women have to earn their equality comes off as... somewhat ignorant. Respect has to be earned, but equality should be a given nowadays.
Like I said, I don't want to anger you in any way. If I did it anyway, I appologize. But you phrased your sentence... impolite enough for me to tell my opinion.
3802875
Oh no, I agree. My wording was off in this post, and you do have all rights to say what you want to say. This is the Internet after all, but I did have a counter post the day after to specify why I said what I said. Do I believe that women need to earn their "rights"? No, but what I meant by that phrase was that everyone earns their respect and status (not economic but social status) through actions based off demeanor and beliefs. That's why I look up to my sister for her "can do it" attitude.
"You want it? Then earn it. The grade isn't there for me to just hand it to you. Do the work to allow me to give you the grade you deserve."
[she said this by the way]
>Hence why I said what I said.