Comment on [pink] intersectional feminism stamp by popowski
What's the difference between feminism and egalitarianism?
scroll down. i have already explained this. thank you.
Still the question remains unclear. If Intersectional Feminism fights for the oppressed people, what makes it different than egalitarianism itself, since it also fights for equality for everyone?
First of all, it's not an exclusionary thing. Most actual human beings I know who identify as egalitarians also identify as feminists.
It's really all about analysis.
Throughout history, there have been plenty of people who call themselves egalitarians who have no problem supporting slavery, or the legal oppression of women because they lacked any kind of analyses that these things were wrong or perhaps denied that they were unequal (slaves have it pretty good, right? Sure, women are equal because they raise kids and leave politics to men, right?).
I have nothing against egalitarians. It's a fine enough description, though egalitarians aren't exactly known for pushing to change things and create equality as a group.
More often, on the internet, anyway, it's a description used by people who want to be seen as "neutral." Maybe that's just my experience, though. So egalitarianism doesn't really "fight for equality for everyone" so much as it just sits there.
Feminism includes an analysis that our society has tremendous gender inequality problems that hurt both men and women - keeping women mostly shut out of the most influential political and economic positions and creating gender roles that lock men into particular roles as well.
Intersectional feminism fights to eliminate sexism, but also notes that there is a complex landscape of other people also combating inequality related to race, class, sexual identity, and more. We can fight sexism while also being a good ally for example, to the Movement for Black Lives. And that's a much more thoughtful way to fight sexism than a narrow focus on just white, straight, middle class Feminists. We can push ourselves to be more thoughtful about the struggles of others even as we're fighting our own.
Does that make sense?
I appreciate your curiosity.
It's really all about analysis.
Throughout history, there have been plenty of people who call themselves egalitarians who have no problem supporting slavery, or the legal oppression of women because they lacked any kind of analyses that these things were wrong or perhaps denied that they were unequal (slaves have it pretty good, right? Sure, women are equal because they raise kids and leave politics to men, right?).
I have nothing against egalitarians. It's a fine enough description, though egalitarians aren't exactly known for pushing to change things and create equality as a group.
More often, on the internet, anyway, it's a description used by people who want to be seen as "neutral." Maybe that's just my experience, though. So egalitarianism doesn't really "fight for equality for everyone" so much as it just sits there.
Feminism includes an analysis that our society has tremendous gender inequality problems that hurt both men and women - keeping women mostly shut out of the most influential political and economic positions and creating gender roles that lock men into particular roles as well.
Intersectional feminism fights to eliminate sexism, but also notes that there is a complex landscape of other people also combating inequality related to race, class, sexual identity, and more. We can fight sexism while also being a good ally for example, to the Movement for Black Lives. And that's a much more thoughtful way to fight sexism than a narrow focus on just white, straight, middle class Feminists. We can push ourselves to be more thoughtful about the struggles of others even as we're fighting our own.
Does that make sense?
I appreciate your curiosity.
But one thing that just gets me is the word "feminism". The word itself has female qualities in it, but yet feminism fights for the equality of both sexes. It just seems kind of weird to me that the name embodies one sex when it means fighting for two.
And neutrality of itself encompasses everything. It's the perfect middle ground. Just because something is neutral does not mean it is inactive. It doesn't give any more attention to one specific thing than to another. It is a whole. Now I'm not saying movements focused on one thing entirely is bad at all. If you want a movement focused entirely on racism, go for it. If you want a movement advocating solely for women's rights, go for it. Just don't claim it advocates for everyone when actions tend to speak otherwise.
And neutrality of itself encompasses everything. It's the perfect middle ground. Just because something is neutral does not mean it is inactive. It doesn't give any more attention to one specific thing than to another. It is a whole. Now I'm not saying movements focused on one thing entirely is bad at all. If you want a movement focused entirely on racism, go for it. If you want a movement advocating solely for women's rights, go for it. Just don't claim it advocates for everyone when actions tend to speak otherwise.
As you can see on here, I work actively for women's rights and men's rights and I fight racism. I'm no where near perfect, but solidarity is important to me. So no, I don't want a movement focused solely on anything.
Again, it comes back to analysis.
If you want to be the kind of firefighter that sprays water at all the houses equally or none at all, you can do that.
But if it's your analysis that it makes more sense to spray water on houses that are actually on fire, you'll do a better job at making the world a safer place.
Right now, women are raped in much larger numbers, aren't well represented in many corporations, don't have much of a voice in government, and get paid less money than men for the same work. It makes more sense to address those problems and create gender equity instead of standing aside and calling yourself "neutral."
Again, it comes back to analysis.
If you want to be the kind of firefighter that sprays water at all the houses equally or none at all, you can do that.
But if it's your analysis that it makes more sense to spray water on houses that are actually on fire, you'll do a better job at making the world a safer place.
Right now, women are raped in much larger numbers, aren't well represented in many corporations, don't have much of a voice in government, and get paid less money than men for the same work. It makes more sense to address those problems and create gender equity instead of standing aside and calling yourself "neutral."
What I meant when I said neutrality as whole, I meant fighting for all the problems present. Not everything that does not need to be addressed at the moment. It just seems more fitting to have something that addresses all the problems that arises. I just hate when movements that have meaning get warped and turned around by idiotic fanatics into something that no one wants to be apart of.
I hate to tell you, but people on the other side are going to try to warp the meanings of any movement.
If you want to fight gender wage gaps, there are plenty of people who will fight against you and call you names
If you want to fight for women to be allowed in military combat units, there are plenty of people who will fight against you and call you names
If you want to fight rape, there are plenty of people who will fight against you and call you names
If you want to fight slavery, there are plenty of people who will fight against you and call you names
If you want to fight gender wage gaps, there are plenty of people who will fight against you and call you names
If you want to fight for women to be allowed in military combat units, there are plenty of people who will fight against you and call you names
If you want to fight rape, there are plenty of people who will fight against you and call you names
If you want to fight slavery, there are plenty of people who will fight against you and call you names
View all replies