The New Egalitarianism

“All human persons are equal in fundamental worth”

After finishing Ariel Levy’s Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture and New York Times’ columnist Maureen Dowd’s Are Men Necessary? it occurred to me that I have never defined egalitarianism for my readers.


Egalitarianism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is the belief that “all human persons are equal in fundamental worth or moral status” [i]. In religious terms, it means that God loves all human souls equally.


In my research on Egalitarianism I found a lot of web sites bashing feminists. One letter sent to MensNewsDaily.com argued that Egalitarian Feminism was a myth and that women’s rights had to be earned and not included in the rights of man established in the American and Canadian constitutions. This man went on to argue that “nice” or egalitarian feminists “are feminist apologists”[ii] who make excuses for the fundamentalist feminist plan to take over the world.

Egalitarian feminism and its devotees do exist but like moderate conservatives, we are constantly lumped in with bigots by other bigots, so our pleas go unheard.


Egalitarian feminism, also known as Liberal Feminism, has equity as its goal, especially in politics and education. We believe that women’s status can be improved through legal action and social reform, and that males as a group need not be challenged.


Egalitarians look to altering existing laws and beliefs instead of doing away with the current system of civil society. The goal is one of complete legal and social equality with men. That means equal pay for equal work (something that exists in North American law but not in practice). It means an end to the distinction between men and women’s work, and a guarantee of reproductive rights.


We do not hate men.


More specifically, we do not hate ALL men.


We hate those men who continue to pollute society with notions that a women’s presence and contributions have less value than that of males.


The ranks of such pitiful members of humanity include Jerry Falwell, Osama Bin Laden, Pope Ratzinger—or rather, every Conservative clergyman in the Catholic Church, the male population of Bountiful BC, a few powerful businessmen I dare not name, the male population of Saudi Arabia, and the entire Conservative Wing of the Republican party (in case you were wondering what all these people had in common). They argue that such female problems like childbearing and menstruation are examples women’s inherent weakness and deny their contributions to society outside the home, no matter their significance.


They maintain that women are meant to be seen and not heard. Their job is to produce and care for offspring, and be obedient to men. If a man does wrong it is because a woman tempted him, and feminist is synonymous with destroyer of the family.

The reason we are perceived as such is because we mean not to destroy the family, but to alter the balance of power within it so that a marriage becomes a union of equals in which no party holds dominion over the other. This exists in theory, but not in practice.


No spouse has the right to enslave the other, or shift the balance of power in their favor by abusing their mate. Many will argue that their religion favors one gender over the other, or that because they make money, it is their right.

Your spouse is your equal, and you treat them as you would treat yourself, with equal respect.


Such a concept may seem difficult to grasp, particularly for those in favor of legalizing polygamy.

The recent debate in North America about Gay Marriage has led to discussions about the legalization of polygamy, another unorthodox form of marriage.


The Egalitarian Feminist believes that any discussion as to whether or not to legalize polygamy, defined as the practice of one man having multiple wives, cannot occur without discussing polyandry, the practice of women having multiple husbands.


I am not going to bash polygamy because I recognize that there was a time when taking multiple wives was necessary. The passages in the Koran allowing for polygamy were drafted to make sure that women and children were cared for in areas where the male population was depleted in wartime. However, in countries such as China, where a combination of selective abortion and child abandonment has drastically reduced the female population, it would seem perfectly rational to allow polyandry, and yet, no suggestion to that effect has been made (for the same reason so many female fetuses are aborted to begin with).


Polygamy is practiced illegally throughout the United States and in Bountiful, British Columbia where women as young as fourteen are married off to men three times their age in polygamous marriages. The latter is currently under investigation by the B.C. government on a number of charges, including polygamy, and teaching women to be subservient to men in government subsidized schools [iii].


In a North America where the male to female ratio is roughly fifty/fifty, polygamy is a matter of choice rather than necessity. If men want the legal right to have a harem of women, a woman should have a right to a harem of men.


Polygamy cannot exist in a liberal democratic society without polyandry; it’s that simple.

The double standard, in which men can be promiscuous in marriage and women cannot, is something to be rubbed from the face of history. The influential majority, currently made up of aging baby boomers, continues to foolishly maintain that a woman must have a clean sexual slate while the man is free to do as he pleases because i.e. he can’t control himself, he’s a man and he has needs etc. . Under such circumstances, the double standard seems ideal in most political marriages (see “The Clintons”). Nevertheless it is just as sexist towards men as it is to women because it writes them off as being sexual deviants incapable of faithful relationships with the opposite sex. Anyone with a loving father, husband, or boyfriend knows this to be false.


Not all men are pigs.


Responsibility for child rearing falls on both parents.


In many marriages, women still assume the majority of the responsibility for housework and child rearing, even in cases where she is the sole income provider. It all goes back to the bullshit notion that a man’s house is his castle, and in exchange for his “protection”, members of the household owe him complete and utter obedience and servitude. The egalitarian maintains that having a job does not exclude someone from doing his share of the work.


A husband should not be made to feel like less of a man for deciding to stay at home and take care of his children and a woman should not be ashamed of choosing to be a housewife. A husband should not forbid his wife from working, and a wife should not try to keep her husband in the home (though I imagine that the latter is extremely rare).

I have heard successful businessmen with whom I am personally acquainted openly discuss why they will not hire women. They argued that women of career age were not worth hiring because they’d just get married, get pregnant and go on maternity leave. I have chosen not to name names here, but suffice it to say these sexist pigs thought their discriminatory hiring practices were fully justified by their knowledge of ‘typical female behavior’.


Egalitarianism demands that a profession be equally available to both genders without worrying about a glass ceiling or hill. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, THE GLASS HILL is the practice of sending someone to the upper levels of a profession and then deliberately setting them up to fail in order to make a point about the whole gender/ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation etc.. It is therefore no surprise that you’ll find most, if not all Egalitarian Feminists on the front lines beside their gay brothers and sisters, fighting for gay rights as well as their own. As far as the Egalitarian is concerned, if the person qualified for a job, regardless of whether its entry level or upper management, they should have a chance at it without discrimination.


In terms of the abortion and birth control debates, the Egalitarian line as I understand it, is as follows.


The use of abstinence only education to reduce cases of teen pregnancy and STDs, now prominent under the Bible banging President Bush has proven time and time again to be both ineffective and a form of institutionalized misogyny.


In 2004, Senator Henry Waxman of California published his report on abstinence only education, and found that said education wasn’t educating.


Waxman’s report found that the so-called facts taught in abstinence only education programs were “misinterpretations of publicly available data” [iv] and in some cases “presented subjective opinions of scientific facts” [v].

In Female Chauvenist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture, Ariel Levy describes her visit to a mandatory teacher’s conference on abstinence only education. The state sponsored methods she describes for teaching abstinence present the notion that women become hideously grotesque once they have engaged in sexual activity. The notion that a woman is spoiled once she has sex is a concept now being pushed in state funded programs. It makes unmarried non virgins look like whores, a concept that has been around since the Middle Ages in order to keep women in their ‘proper place’.


Do you hear that thumping sound?


It’s Betty Friedan turning in her grave.


We are FOR sex education because we recognize that teenagers want to experiment sexually. It’s human nature. When we mature and become capable of producing offspring, our bodies begin to want the act that results in them. It’s why we want sex, and why pleasurable sex is most conducive to conception.


I’m not knocking self control here, I’m just being realistic. Hard wired to want sex, TEENAGERS ARE GOING TO HAVE IT and there is nothing we can do shy of slapping chastity belts on everyone, to prevent it. All we can do is teach teenagers about the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and the use of birth control and hope they act responsibly.

For anyone ready to brand me a horrid baby killer, I have done a lot of research on the abortion debate during my academic career, and have drawn the following conclusions.

Those who are against abortion often treat a pregnancy like its no big deal. They don’t realize that it involves nine months of swollen ankles, back pain, mind numbing nausea, and having to pee every five minutes. For some women, it’s even worse, and carrying a child to term can mean months of painful, agonizing bed rest, at the end of which is extensive surgery and even death.


These same people often make the mistake of thinking that it’s the woman’s fault for getting pregnant, and forcing her to carry the baby to term is the perfect way to make her take responsibility for her actions.

It takes two people to make a baby; pills can fail, condoms can break, and children can be conceived through acts of rape and incest, none of which are voluntary.

The abortion decision may be cruel, selfish, and against whatever edict God issued, but it’s a woman’s decision, because it is her body.


It’s not the state’s place to legislate.


And speaking of the right to do what we want with our own bodies, most Egalitarians are in favor of legalizing marijuana and prostitution.


Prostitution is one of the oldest professions.


Some of Civilization’s greatest heroines, from Rahab to Mary Magdalene (in the Judeo Christian Bible) were prostitutes, and there was a time when they were afforded the utmost respect as those who taught men to be great lovers. Keeping prostitution illegal favors men over women, because it helps to readily excuse violence against women on the basis that ’she was just a whore’, and therefore, less than human.


The Egalitarian believes that if women have to wear cumbersome, uncomfortable clothes for the sake of modesty, men should have to do the same. If the law says a woman can’t show her hair in public, a man shouldn’t be able to show his hair or beard in public either. If a woman can’t wear tight clothes or expose her limbs or face, neither should men.


If the law says that a woman engaging in premarital or extra marital sex can be killed for it, a man should suffer the same punishment, with equal ferocity.


This practice is commonly known as “Honor Killing”.

Honor Killing is when “men kill their female relatives for activities in which the female dishonors the family reputation for perceived misuse of her sexuality” [vi]. Men in some Muslim and Sikh families kill innocent women in order to redeem the family’s reputation by destroying the source of the so-called ‘dishonor’.


Women have been killed for such ‘offenses’ as “infidelity, flirting, or any other instance perceived as disgracing the family’s honor” [vii] including rape, which anyone with a fraction of brain knows is NEVER a woman’s fault (anyone who thinks otherwise should be neutered with an olive fork, but that’s another story). This sort of killing happens all the time, even in North America where authorities have done everything they can to stop it.


According to Wikipedia.com, honor killings have occurred in developing countries like Bangladesh, Iran, and Iraq. Men guilty of such crimes in North America and the UK either go to jail or high tail it to back to a country where the authorities won’t condemn them for it because political livelihood depends on a misogynistic, dictatorial clergy that supports honor killing. The theocracy in Iran, for example, can disallow political candidates based on an arbitrary notion that the politician is not Muslim enough, and anyone who speaks out against such practices can be banned from power. It is a practice that hurts only women; because it creates an environment where they live in fear that anything they do will be deemed an indiscretion that will condemn them to death.


I am not in favor of honor killing for both genders. I merely present the idea to reinforce the egalitarian creed that the genders should be treated equally.


And speaking of equal treatment for both genders, Egalitarians also want to put a stop to Female Genital Mutilation. This is a practice common in African and Muslim cultures, involving the subjection of unwilling girls to the amputation of parts of her genitals in order to ensure her purity. This is a practice generated by men and women alike; the latter who have been deluded into thinking the practice is just.

Some might argue that the Egalitarian should shut up about female genital mutilation because young boys are circumcised all the time. Buddy, a circumcision is not the equivalent.


You want to come up with an equivalent procedure for men?


Here’s what you do:

And now that you’re all cringing…


Some will argue that Female Genital Mutilation is an intrinsic part of certain cultures and that it is not the place of others to pass judgment on and work to stop it. There are a lot of cultural and religious groups that stopped practices believed to be intrinsic to their identity when authorities recognized their inhumanity. No one is burning people at the stake for heresy, and executing women for pre-marital sex, despite interpretations of Christianity that demand it. If such practices can be stopped for humanitarian reasons, it isn’t too far a stretch to stop mutilating women’s genitals.

Female Genital Mutilation is cruel and inhumane. It endangers a woman’s health and that of her unborn children by leaving an opening too small to pass a child. Every act of Female Genital Mutilation is an open declaration against a woman’s right to physical pleasure, and a violation of basic human rights. It must be stopped, and women seeking refuge because their home country would have them mutilated against their will should be given asylum.


There’s another school of sexist thought that claims misogyny as being beneficial to women. It all goes back to the notion that women need to be protected, and circumventing their rights is a way of saving them from abuse. It is a concept that was presented to me several years ago by the founder of Montreal’s Hare Krishna community who told me his religion was not sexist, and yet believed that “women need a protector” (namely, a dominant male). I know this to be concept that holds in many other communities, though it isn’t openly admitted to.

The notion that one’s rights must be circumvented for one’s own good is identical to the one employed by autocrats and dictators, who excused oppressive measures on the basis that they were saving the people from themselves. By this measure, depriving women of their rights is a way of protecting them from the ‘anarchy’ that would ensue if they were free to do what they wanted. Unless someone is handicapped (gender is NOT a handicap), or so young that they cannot defend themselves, they do not need a protector. I believe it is not a woman’s right, but her responsibility to learn to defend herself physically, mentally, verbally, and emotionally.


The world is a twisted place, and women need to be smarter, stronger, and tougher than ever. In addition to the continuing discrimination of old, we have to deal with the challenges of finding a career and a mate who’ll fuck us hard, love us harder, and support the decisions we make.

In my first article on feminism, I pointed out that most women identify with the feminist creed but are so afraid of being branded man haters and destroyers of the family that they begin feminist statements with “I’m not a feminist but…”. If, be you male or female, are terrified of identifying with the feminist label but agree with anything I have written here, I offer you an alternate badge you can wear with pride. If someone asks you if you’re a feminist, puff out your chest and say “I am an Egalitarian”.


An Egalitarian Is a Feminist


An Egalitarian is a feminist, but most people are so stupid they won’t make the connection. So grab on to this label, and wear it with pride. Join us in our fight against practices that make men into hateful, domineering, sexual deviants, and women into vapid receptacles of human life, and perhaps one day we can achieve the equality we seek.


Together


——————


[i] Various Authors. “Egalitarianism”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. As Cited on: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism, January 30th, 2006.


[ii] Sobolewski, Mark. “Letters to the Editor: The Myth of Egalitarian Feminism”. MensNewsDaily.com. As Cited on: http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/letters/03/reader080803.htm, January 30th, 2006.


[iii] Branham, Daphne. “The Secret Lives of Bountiful’s Wives”. The Vancouver Sun. August 7, 2004.


[iv] Conolly, Ceci. “Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says”. Washington Post. Thursday, December 2, 2004, pg A01.


[v] Ibid.


[vi] “Honor Killings—What You Need to Know About Honor Killings”. About.com: Women’s Issues. As Cited On: http://womensissues.about.com/cs/honorkillings/a/honorkillings.htm, November 4th, 2003


[vii] Ibid.

2 Responses to “The New Egalitarianism”