posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
benlehman at 03:37pm on 20/11/2003
benlehman at 03:37pm on 20/11/2003I have, internally, phrased my political beliefs as environmentalist egalitarian libertine conservative, in roughly that order. Recent events have gotten me thinking about what, exactly, I mean by "egalitarian" and how it relates to social equalities and inequalities present in our country.
This particular angle of thought was spurred by the discussion of feminism at Nebel's journal (links availible in Friends). I have always considered myself a feminist, in that I am fully supportive of gender egalitarianism -- treating people equally with regard to personal ability rather than gender.
I have begun to realize that the statement "I believe that all people should be equally treated, regardless of gender" is very different from the statement "men and woman should be treated equally," and that I believe in the first, and am wildly opposed to the second, up unto the point where I believe that thoughts like it may have already fractured civil society. I believe that most civil rights groups are focused on one or the other, and that the represent a split in activist discourse which is pretty much acknowledged, but undiscussed.
What do I mean by that? If you take the second as a core of a feminist philosophy, the following quote (from the ensuing discussion on nebel's post) makes perfect sense, and is rational and fair:
"maybe it's even: women get raped more often than men (unless the underreported rape of men is actually 50%), but when men do get raped, no one takes them seriously"
makes perfect sense. Both sides, taken as a whole, are being treated equally. (For those who, like me, think in Calculus: the integral of misery over male rape victims and female rape victims is roughly equivalent.)
From the perspective of the first quote, it is monstrous.
I would be interested to hear other's thoughts on the subject.
This particular angle of thought was spurred by the discussion of feminism at Nebel's journal (links availible in Friends). I have always considered myself a feminist, in that I am fully supportive of gender egalitarianism -- treating people equally with regard to personal ability rather than gender.
I have begun to realize that the statement "I believe that all people should be equally treated, regardless of gender" is very different from the statement "men and woman should be treated equally," and that I believe in the first, and am wildly opposed to the second, up unto the point where I believe that thoughts like it may have already fractured civil society. I believe that most civil rights groups are focused on one or the other, and that the represent a split in activist discourse which is pretty much acknowledged, but undiscussed.
What do I mean by that? If you take the second as a core of a feminist philosophy, the following quote (from the ensuing discussion on nebel's post) makes perfect sense, and is rational and fair:
"maybe it's even: women get raped more often than men (unless the underreported rape of men is actually 50%), but when men do get raped, no one takes them seriously"
makes perfect sense. Both sides, taken as a whole, are being treated equally. (For those who, like me, think in Calculus: the integral of misery over male rape victims and female rape victims is roughly equivalent.)
From the perspective of the first quote, it is monstrous.
I would be interested to hear other's thoughts on the subject.