White middle aged middle class cis straight able males tend to call themselves egalitarian. — Banno

I'm neither white, nor middle aged, nor do I subscribe to the cis label but I am a male. Let me explain my position on egalitarianism:

As far as acting as an egalitarian, I am neither an actor nor subscribe to any form of art school to learn how to act. I'm an egalitarian philosophically because I believe all humans ought to have all rights equally through socio-political and economic opportunities. I'm also an egalitarian because I belonged to a historically oppressed group and I've seen how generational oppression can blind people of said demographic to the point to where blanketed statements and accusations have been made and judgement and sentences have been met. Therefore, in order to mitigate the evolutionary process of going from one extreme to another, I am therefore egalitarian.

I'm neither white, nor middle aged, nor do I subscribe to the cis label... — Anaxagoras

Sure, but I am. Mostly.

My point is the simple observation that treating everyone equally serves only to maintain existing inequities.

If there's an injustice which needs redressing, — S

Depends on the (supposed) injustice, but I don't believe there's any injustice here (obviously).

People as a whole would benefit from displacing hyper masculinity and fragile masculinity.

My point is the simple observation that treating everyone equally serves only to maintain existing inequities. — Banno

Can you elaborate? I'm curious about your comment.

People as a whole would benefit from displacing hyper masculinity and fragile masculinity. — Banno

To supplant humanism or egalitarianism with gender based equality called feminism?

Can you elaborate? — Anaxagoras

Why? Is there something problematic or unclear here?

I don't believe there's any injustice here — Terrapin Station

And this is for you to judge?

Why? Is there something problematic or unclear here? — Banno

As I said:

To supplant humanism or egalitarianism with gender based equality called feminism? — Anaxagoras

How is egalitarianism a form of hypermasculinity?

For a personal question to you as a black man who has lived under the oppression of systemic racism (in the early portion of my life) which benefits white men and women, how does feminism affect my social experiences as a black male? In addition, how does the adoption of feminism address those issues that I have dealt with?

I'm sorry excuse me for reminding people of the exordium of introducing how the pot met the kettle. Of course I think being killed for your sexual orientation, race, religion, disability, gender, or species for extremist views is morally wrong. I want to also apologize further because in addition to that, I work in a hospital and most of my time is done in the emergency department where people of homosexual orientation as well as encountering those in the prostitute profession are assaulted daily. Of course being killed is worse than a beating, but the fact remains that being assaulted for the aforementioned identities period is bad. — Anaxagoras

You address a bigger problem by talking about a different, smaller problem. Thats not the pot and the kettle. False equivalence.

You seem to see feminism as antithetical to humanism and egalitarianism.

I don't.

how does feminism affect my social experiences as a black male? — Anaxagoras

That's not for me to say. I don't know about you.

No. I was saying that its a double standard to look at Muslim cultures when it happens all the times here in the States and in other western countries. I think what you're hell bent on is seeing it in the news as proof of a daily occurrence and if that is true then that is another animal to discuss especially when it comes to what the media wants to highlight and doesn't. I'm merely looking at it from a general issue not specifics. — Anaxagoras

No, its not a double standard. The standards are different between the two cultures. One is much worse on the gay issue. Clearly, much, much worse. Its not even a part of the culture in the west, its bad actors who are actively condemned by the culture who do it. In many Muslim countries it is supported by the culture, or a blind eye turned. Russian culture too. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.

My point is the simple observation that treating everyone equally serves only to maintain existing inequities — Banno

Isn't the argument: "the reason why we have persisting inequality is because people are not treated equally"?

Fortunes are not completely static (they rise and fall); you seem to be suggesting that there's no economic mobility whatsoever.

That assumption seems to hold more true when we look at extreme wealth disparity (the super-rich), but then we're inherently not talking about racial demographics.

Under your apparent suggestion, we ought to create a few extra black billionaires, and add more black families to the lower-middle class as opposed to strictly lower-class. Problem is it might not be long before the bulk of the middle class joins the rest of everyone who live paycheck to paycheck.

You seem to be promoting proportional symmetry (an aesthetic value), not equality or an equitable minimum for all.

You address a bigger problem by talking about a different, smaller problem. Thats not the pot and the kettle. False equivalence. — DingoJones

Nope, I didn't.

I see it as part of the umbrella but not THE umbrella.

That's not for me to say. I don't know about you. — Banno

Thus is my point about feminism..

Isn't the argument: "the reason why we have persisting inequality is because people are not treated equally"? — VagabondSpectre

Is it?

Dealing in terms of equity seems to me both an over-simplification and a cloud of ambiguity. How would we tell that folk were treated equally?

A more appropriate approach would be to to look at the fulfilment of capabilities.

Thus is my point about feminism.. — Anaxagoras

That's an odd comparison - an individual to a movement.

I don't know what capabilities you have that might have been frustrated; fatherhood, caring, family role, employment...

So I can't judge for you.

And that's rather the point of feminism; that gender ought not frustrate one's options.

And that applies equally to males and females.

Hm. So long as the umbrella keeps the rain off, I don't see much point in the distinction.

Its not even a part of the culture in the west — DingoJones

And neither is it in all 50 Muslim countries or Muslim dominated countries. All Muslim countries have various laws both from the local governments and federal governments. Although Shari'ah Law embodies most of them, some laws based on for example which province you live, there are laws based on social conduct. Not all laws concerning homosexuality are based on the laws as you see in the news like Saudi Arabia or Iraq or Iran. If you're going to examine and critique the Muslim position regarding homosexuality and the Islamic opinion in relation to its jurisprudence, its better to have a general understanding of the different laws in those Muslim countries because there is no universal consensus.

In many Muslim countries it is supported by the culture, or a blind eye turned. — DingoJones

Which countries?

Sorry if that offends your sensibilities. — DingoJones

I'm not Muslim, it doesn't offend me. What offends me is people who aren't learned in Islam or Islamic culture have a general consensus of what its like and their only recourse is the news media.

A more appropriate approach would be to to look at the fulfilment of capabilities. — Banno

Each to their own? :wink:

I think that the forces keeping poor people poor have more or less managed to spread out evenly across all racial and sexual divides, and at the end of the day this the ultimate problem I would seek to remedy. The system we live in demands us to continuously produce wealth, but most of the profits are now deftly scooped up by a tiny fraction of equity holders. I can see the logic behind compensatory treatment designed to eliminate economic disparities, but once we're all equally poor (and there are a few extra Oprahs), what then?

Poor people will still be poor, we'll just be poor in equal proportions. Therefore, what you're proposing is not an actual solution, it's really just an aesthetic correction in pursuit of equity over equitable minimums. On the other hand, if the average (poor) citizen is given a greater chance at upward economic mobility (and all the other capacities that come along with that), not only will the poorest among us have a better standard of living, economic differences between various demographics caused by our discriminatory past will also fade.

Yeah, sure - the usual vaguely Marxist analysis in terms of class.

The Capabilities Approach is more about justice than equity. Equal is not fair.

We're talking about adult humans with equal capabilities though, aren't we?

P.S, I'm not exactly advocating marxism, but laissez faire capitalism is definitely not my cup of tea. Universal basic income is something i support. Does that make me a Marx luver?

That's an odd comparison - an individual to a movement. — Banno

No it's not. Let me help you.

For example I believe any social movement that develops from the oppression of a minority group, that movement is speaking for that group, and any support of that social movement is basically a declaration of alliance of said movement. So when a feminist says "feminism is egalitarianism" it is not. Feminism addresses the social and economic oppression that WOMEN experience. Egalitarianism addresses EVERYONES oppression and experiences and seeks to create a system to rectify oppression of EVERYONE thus addressing everyone's experiences.

This is why I made the point that feminism doesn't address the issues of black Americans or even black people in the diaspora. If you learned the history of feminism it didn't arise from the civil rights movement or from black women, it came from disgruntled, disillusioned, white women who sought to address their social issues in society. Thus is why there is no feminism (per se) there is white and black feminism because the general feminism does not address the double oppression women of color face. This is why I believe egalitarianism prevents the splintering or schism of ideas within feminism. So instead of calling it a black feminism or feminism (which is indirectly white feminism) feminist feminist movement, why not call it a movement that seeks to address the oppression of all women in all facets of society which is why I think naming it egalitarianism ought to solve that.

I don't know what capabilities you have that might have been frustrated; fatherhood, caring, family role, employment... — Banno

Right, and I can't say the same for a woman or any woman. I can only ally myself with the goals of women which is social equality, but I cannot experience what they've experienced nor do I wish to impart what I think what they experienced and address it with a male mentality, it is wrong in so many ways. This is why I think men's rights and women's rights are two sides on the same coin.

And that's rather the point of feminism; that gender ought not frustrate one's options. — Banno

Well I just disagree from an academic position, considering being heavily immersed in the writings of Mackinnon and Dworkin. I think on paper and in some lectures it would appear that way, but on the surface and as expressed (from my point of view) publicly, feminism is about achieving equality, but maintaining feminine identity. So long as problems remain feminine and masculine and not a human problem it will never be seen as equality.

adult humans with equal capabilities — VagabondSpectre

No.

Can you clarify?

What differences are there between the capabilities of men and and women, or straights and gays, or whites and blacks?

Hm. So long as the umbrella keeps the rain off, I don't see much point in the distinction. — Banno

Good point.

Is your argument that feminism does not effect you, therefore it is of no value?

I must be misunderstanding you.

I'm more impressed by Martha Nussbaum. It better reflects the view of justice over mere equity reflected in the picture I posted.

And this is for you to judge? — Banno

?? Of course. Why wouldn't it be for me to judge? Which judging individual am I supposed to defer to and why am I supposed to defer to them?