Theory #2: The Crumbling of the Monolith.

“You’re either with us, or against us”

It would be a fallacy to say, that all isms believe this, as would it be a fallacy to say that just because someone does believe this, their messages and arguments are validated, or void. Still, while in some situations the statement may hold some value, the way I’ve seen it and its extensions used was less than exemplary.

The two things in particular I’d like to change or reinforce your opinion about are:

  1. The idea, that agreeing with one facet of something implies agreeing with it all.
  2. The idea, that a group is defined by the definition of its name.



Theory #1: Why not equal?

Before we start, equality, as used in this text, is not equality of outcome, or solely equality of opportunity, but that coupled with equality of condition, forming substantive equality of opportunity. In other words, no one is given an outcome on the sole merit of being, there are fair competitions that determine what outcome who will earn, but, as some members are of no choice of theirs given a disparity of starting conditions, such as their parent’s wealth, and thus, in the example, a better chance at education, the field is to be evened to the degree it is possible to, without hindering the better off, but by elevating the worse. As Paul Krugman said: “If you admit that life is unfair, and that there’s only so much you can do about that at the starting line, then you can try to ameliorate the consequences of that unfairness.”

In theory, Equalitarianism is the trend of thought that favours all people equally.

In theory, Feminism, Masculism, Racial integration and others are sub-trends of equalitarianism, each with respect to a group within a community.

In theory, this means that a person that is equalitarian, is also all of the subcategories of it.

In praxis, there are differences between those movements, that shift with time. Sub-equalitarianisms are very active, with the trade-off of being more prone to being radical, to the point of not being equalitarian anymore. While there are people, who want equality for all people, there is also the raucous subset of those who want to advance its group without regard for other groups that may be harmed in the process.

Equalitarianism itself is a passive movement, within which people don’t act upon the ideals, but rather observe, and try not to step on the toes of others. In the good case scenario, a person concerned with and informed on the problems of others, in the bad case scenario, the metaphorical bystander in drastic events, not helping, just watching.