[[[results available]]] EPONA social policy poll (2016·07)

[Associate Justice PiT]

I'm greatly disturbed by the expedient addition of disparate groups into an identity politics snowball. I support human rights, including those of sexual minorities, but I don't support whatever identity politics alphabet soup du jour you're serving. Also, religious liberty is the foundation of all other freedoms, and must always be defended.

     I agree, and part of that is why I liked the question asking whether you supported or opposed various movements, in general. I am also supportive of the rights of sexual minorities, but I don't support quite a few of the line items that were listed under that designation. It is fundamental to recognize that we can agree on broad goals, while disagreeing on priorities or on methods of attaining those goals.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Christ, almighty, only in Atlasia would feminism get a 57-43 rating.

     Because, you see, Atlasia is not a country that needs feminism. If we were talking about promoting feminist reforms for, say, Afghanistan, I am confident the numbers in favor would be much higher.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Atlasia is not a country that needs feminism. If we were talking about promoting feminist reforms for, say, Afghanistan, I am confident the numbers in favor would be much higher.

The problem with this argument (apart, of course, from the fact that women still face huge barriers to achieving full social and economic parity, and that tending the flame of feminism is therefore of great importance) is that is could be used to justify opposition to any of the victories for human rights in this country since independence. For example, one could just as easily argue that

"Atlasia is not a country that needs republicanism. If we were talking about promoting republican reforms for, say, Afghanistan, I am confident the numbers in favor would be much higher."

See the problem?

     Women do face barriers, as do men. I reject the term feminism because the claim upon which it was founded, that women are systemically oppressed relative to men, is no longer true in our Republic. There is still more to be done, but I deny that it is so clear cut that we can just say "women are oppressed". I prefer the egalitarian label for this reason.

     As for republicanism, people are not using that label to advocate for certain radical ideals. My particular example would be abolitionism, a cause whose victory is even more uncontroversial today. When we have feminists advocating this, I take pause. This issue is self-reporting and you are free to do otherwise. There are certainly feminists out there whose ideas I take stock with, and there are many feminists throughout history who I admire. At the same time, I would rather differentiate myself from someone who blithely recommends sex discrimination. People of this sort are more common than I would prefer, unfortunately.