CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Feminism/Egalitarianism, Feminazi, Etc.
Whether you put Feminism with Feminaziism or Feminism with Egalitarianism, I have an option for you!
I consider myself an Egalitarian. Why?
- Because Feminism has a bad rep.
- Because Egalitarianism literally means equality for all rather than prefering one gender.
- That's it.
Feminism isn't really needed in America as much as Anita Sarkeesian would make it out to be. Same as blacks, we have it pretty easy compared to several hundred years ago. But there are other countries all around us you could help if you insist on being oppressed.
I am not afraid of saying "Feminazi". I am not comparing them to the Nazis. It's just a way people say "Extremist Feminist". You can think of it in an offensive way if you'd like, but I don't want you attacking me for it.
The problem with using egalitarianism as a replacement for feminism (or any other specific advocacy philosophy) is that it is too broad to function effectively in that capacity. Yes, feminism as a label has a bad reputation with some people (although, so does egalitarianism if we are being honest) but that does not necessarily outweigh the benefit of identifying with the term. If one identifies themselves to others as an egalitarian that tells them exceptionally little, whereas stating that one is a feminist communicates your particular interests and passions much more precisely. A more specific term also has the power to frame issues in ways they might not otherwise be phrased - abortion is not just a medical issue, it is a women's issue - which can create a dialogue that empowers your voice in ways it might not otherwise be.
Egalitarianism is the idea that everything/everyone should be equal. This includes all identities, including ones which may not be as relevant to the advocate in question or even to the situation at hand. It is an umbrella term that can include so many different views, ideologies, and philosophies that it is practically meaningless to tell someone that you are an egalitarian.
Egalitarianism is so broad and uncontroversial that nobody could consciously refer to themselves as anti-egalitarian, unless you think slavery was cool and women belong in the kitchen. You would probably even then consider yourself egalitarian. The founding fathers did it. "all men are created equal"
An astute observation, but not one I would entirely agree with. I think one can be anti-egalitarian without necessarily supporting slavery or overt sexism. For example, I favor an equity of opportunity system over an equality oriented system, and would therefore describe myself (not inaccurately in my view) as being anti-egalitarian without supporting anti-equity systems such as slavery.
You make a fair point. I would like to know what you believe is a market of equal opportunity. It seems to me that despite this ideal, the opportunity is based on purchasing power. This purchasing power is limited by ascriptive discrimination.
Although we live in a society which claims equal opportunity due to a free market, i know of one example that leads me to question this. A close friend of mine's grandfather was a carpenter, and was paid half as much as his white colleagues. The phenomenon of the cycle of poverty means that despite the fact that this occurred in the 50's, it has had resounding implications generations later. This restricts opportunity on a racial basis, even if it is partially removed from the source.
I actually view equity of opportunity as an unattainable ideal, something to direct ourselves towards while understanding that it will never be fully realized (though it has better odds than equality oriented approaches).
I think a predominantly free market economy is problematic for a number of reasons, with non-equitable starting opportunity being one such reason. Individuals start with what they inherit from their predecessors, which goes beyond accumulated wealth alone and include educational opportunities and socio-economic networks. Your example demonstrates as well why addressing economic inequity of opportunity is fundamentally inadequate since social attitudes and discrimination also factor heavily. My view is that those issues have to be addressed as well, towards creating a more equitable society; we are not there yet, obviously, and will not be for some time I suspect.
I was actually unfamiliar with those arguments until you brought them up, but I was curious so I did a bit of research myself. What I found:
If I understand their argument correctly, it is that racism and other inequality has actually been defended using egalitarian arguments. The best example I have found pertains to affirmative action, with the privileged group (e.g. whites, cisgender people, etc.) arguing that these programs are unfair to them because they create an unequal advantage for blacks, transgender people, etc. This strikes me as possibly being an issue with departing from actual egalitarianism and hiding behind the philosophy rather than applying it accurately. So the argument is less against the philosophy itself and more against how it is employed.
There may also be a valid point to be made, though, that the egalitarian philosophy inherently lends itself to this abuse; it can only be applied incorrectly because it does not account for reality. Even if equality can be accomplished within a group of people there have always been limits to how far that equality extends to others. The problem this philosophy runs up against is that humans seem unable to exist without creating social hierarchies, and the incentive towards equality seem greatly diminished outside of our immediate social groups. Which makes egalitarianism an arguably limited philosophy in terms of what it can actually accomplish. It becomes a label that people can use to make themselves look more moral and compassionate, without really causing much risk that they will actually lose any of their privilege. Rather than an incentive to end racism or discrimination against transgender people it becomes an excuse to not really do anything about either.
Interesting reads that go into this in more detail, if you are interested: 1, 2
I'm not really all that interested in the links you sent me... for now. I don't understand how being all for Equality just under a different term makes you racist and hate transgender people. It makes no sense to me at all and I must say I am not like that at all. Only a fool will say that about me without knowing me and I've met many.
Just to let you know, I read everything you said and I don't fully understand it all so I tried my best to stay with you.
It is entirely possible that I did not explain those views particularly well, since they are not views I personally hold or consider legitimate. I think the basic argument is that egalitarianism has been used by people to act like they are "good" even as they do "bad" things (i.e. "but I can't be a racist... I'm an egalitarian"). It seems absurd to conclude that some one is racist/transphobic/etc. because of a broad label they happen to use.
I consider myself egalitarian as well. And although it is a broad term, this allows you to keep an open mind on various different issues. You don't look at anything from one perspective or the other and you are able to keep an open mind. I'd even say that feminism is a sect of egalitarianism, but they focus on gender issues with the perspective of Women. If you consider yourself feminist, it's clear where your mind set is. If you're a woman and a feminist, usually you support various gender issues through the world view of women. You don't take the time to understand the male perspective or the perspective of the people in the middle. If you're a man and a feminist, you're also supporting gender issues through the view of women or what you perceive what the view of women to be. Also in some instances it's just to be on "the good side" of women. If the latter is the only reason then it's kind of detrimental to the whole movement.
I agree especially with your last statement. I think there is some need on the part of the feminist movement to consider men's views. However, it is important to realise that the patriarchy negatively affects all sexes and genders, and that the feminist movement has more to offer to men than many realise.
Equality for EVERYONE, not just women. There is nothing wrong with supporting equality for men and women, but there is a problem with calling everything sexist and hating all men, which is what modern feminism is.
Radical feminism has it's place in philosophical thought and should never be equated to extremist feminism. Radicalism is based on the thought that appeasement will never be effective in reaching equality across the gender spectrum. Extremist feminism reaches for violence to propagate its ideas, and while those ideas are often radically based, there is no reason why a radical system of thought should be weighed down by the actions of a minority. A radical feminist may choose not to shave, but only an extremist would behave in a verbally or physically violent way against someone who chooses to shave.
One important distinction to make is the division between traditional and sex-positive feminism, most clearly exemplified in the tension between performance artists Selena Gomez and Lorde. Selena Gomez would be an example of sex-positive feminism, and Lorde more of a traditional stance, where overt sexuality is not considered self-respecting and caters to a patriarchy.
"Feminazi" behavior (I will put this in quotations, because I do not condone the use of the phrase but understand its significance) tends to be physically or verbally aggressive in terms of hatred towards those who don't fall in line with these ideas, but should not then also be equated with misandry, which extends this aggression to hatred of men. None of this has much to do with what feminism really stands for.
Egalitarianism is essentially feminism under a different name, and in referring to yourself as such you essentially undermine the efforts of feminists and protofeminists throughout history by distancing your ideas from them. This delegitimises your own argument, and results in a general weakening of the movement's basic ideals.
By distancing yourself from the feminist argument, you're saying that feminism doesn't stand for all of the same things that egalitarianism does. I didn't mean to say that your argument is less valid than if you were to say it as a feminist. The reality is more subtle- both arguments are equally as valid but undermine eachother by saying that they're the only truth. Maybe an analogy would serve me well here; let's say that two people come forward, and one says "There are ten dimes in a dollar" and the other guy comes forward and says "Guy 1 is wrong. There's 20 nickels in a dollar". A dollar's a dollar, right? But by claiming that it's anything different and that Guy 1 is wrong for a perfectly reasonable statement, it makes Guy 2 seem that much less credible. The same goes for Feminist and Egalitarian ideas. Equality is equality. A dollar's a dollar.
Aye. But I don't want to be associated with the modern day feminist (no offence) --> the ones who hate men, lie about rape, etc. I don't see why we NEED feminism anymore if women are no longer oppressed. But I call myself an Egalitarian to let people know I support equality without complaining about one gender. When I say "Feminist" I don't usually mean "Wanting equality for all" no do I hear that from others. Feminist was originally for women anyway. Hence the word "Feminine" in it.
But just to be clear, I am not against all Feminists and Feminism. Just the majority of the modern ones because that's all I see.
There is no singular group of modern day feminists. There are some rather vocal, hostile feminists that adhere to multiple forms of modern feminism that are as you have described, but this recent trend of associating feminism and misandry is based on ignorance regarding the vastly differing forms of feminism.
I don't see why we NEED feminism anymore if women are no longer oppressed.
We need feminism because women are indeed still oppressed, albeit it in somewhat different ways. Just because women are less oppressed and discriminated against doesn't mean it is gone altogether.
But I call myself an Egalitarian to let people know I support equality without complaining about one gender. When I say "Feminist" I don't usually mean "Wanting equality for all" no do I hear that from others.
There are egalitarian forms of feminism. In fact, the most prevalent forms of feminism are egalitarian.
Feminist was originally for women anyway. Hence the word "Feminine" in it.
It has been a long time since the most prevalent forms of feminism was against egalitarianism.
I must say, I really appreciate your calm, kind manner.
"We need feminism because women are indeed still oppressed, albeit it in somewhat different ways. Just because women are less oppressed and discriminated against doesn't mean it is gone altogether."
Okay, and as a young woman myself, I would like to know what ways we are oppressed because I haven't noticed. Unless being expected to look a certain way, either being a slut or a Goody-Goody, and needing to cover up or else I'll get raped or something is part of it...
"here are egalitarian forms of feminism. In fact, the most prevalent forms of feminism are egalitarian."
Oh, cool. So I can call myself Egalitarian?
"It has been a long time since the most prevalent forms of feminism was against egalitarianism."
Ah, I see. It's just a minor amount now. That's what I get for being home-schooled XD But to be serious, I really did do better home-schooled at the time. I was having issues...
Okay, and as a young woman myself, I would like to know what ways we are oppressed because I haven't noticed. Unless being expected to look a certain way, either being a slut or a Goody-Goody, and needing to cover up or else I'll get raped or something is part of it...
There's quite a few ways. Many industries still have a rather substantial pay gap (you'll notice I am referring to individual industries, seeing as how claims about a national pay gap gets a bit murkier). There's still the societal issues with gender norms, such as people insulting mothers who continue to work (as well as belittling stay at home dads). There's the college sexual assault trend, which I am referring to as separate from "rape" as a whole since most of the time rape is more about power and violence, rather than sex.
The ways women are being discriminated against and oppressed are nowhere near what they used to be, or what they are in many other parts of the world, but they do still exist. To give you a personal example: When my wife was in law school, she had an event where all the students did tons of interviews all at once. The school told all of the men to wear suits, of course, then told the women that they are expected to wear dresses or skirts, and that many firms simply would not consider them if they went to their interviews wearing pants. Is that equivalent to the days of women not being allowed into college? No. But it is still a problem.
Oh, cool. So I can call myself Egalitarian?
Yeah, but you could also refer to yourself as a feminism and they wouldn't be mutually exclusive.
Wow. I had no idea! Thanks for the enlightenment. I don't really know what to add now so if you wanted to say anything else on this topic and just didn't have the chance, now's the time.