Why 'Egalitarianism' Makes No Sense As A Movement

I think it's about time I address something that really requires some sort of analysis. When I first became a feminist a year ago, I was a bit oblivious to how many diet civil rights movements had come up. You have the ever so infamous Men's Rights Movement which basically provided an echo chambering circlejerk for traditionalist misogynist scum, and now you have these people called "equalists" or "egalitarians". And to be quite blunt they're rather obnoxious in their crusade for "equality". 

Let me tell you what egalitarianism is. The dictionary definition of the word is the idea that all people of any race, creed, gender, or sexuality deserve equal rights and opportunities. Now I'm not gonna stand here throwing the argumentum ad dictionarium fallacy around the whole time since using a dictionary definition to describe a movement is a bloody stupid idea. What I AM gonna do is talk about how this doesn't work at all as a movement and why it should stop being considered a movement. 

I'll start with the obvious. The most egalitarians you'll find are people discussing gender politics. People like Shoe0nHead, Armoured Skeptic, and Chris Ray Gun identify as egalitarians because they believe that "focusing on the rights of one gender is a stupid thing to do", but let's get real here; they're doing it to stick it to feminism because apparently that hasn't been done enough. This makes no sense since they tend to neglect the issues of women, ethnic minorities, and the LGBT community and primarily coddle the feelings of straight white men. The Amazing Atheist identifies as a "universal human self-determinist" because "you can't be for the rights of one or the other". Did you guys know that TJ blasted a female rape victim and trivialised her tragedy and mocked the Flint water crisis when a black woman spoke up about it? Yeah, some "humanitarian" he turned out to be. The vast majority of TJ's videos are him shitting his nappy over male victims of rape and abuse. I wouldn't have a problem with that if he didn't have such disgusting double standards and wasn't a complete fuckwit. 

There's really no either or situation when it comes to rights. You can be for equal rights and still focus on one side because surprise surprise, not everyone is oppressed equally. Also, how come it's wrong for feminists to do exactly what they set out to do yet a so called gender neutral movement is allowed to focus on one side? If you're an egalitarian, you'd have to incorporate everyone's rights in society without any sort of bias. A feminist egalitarian is a feminist who firmly believes in equal rights for women. A black egalitarian is a black activist who believes in equal rights for black people. I could go on, but hopefully you get where I'm coming from by now. 

You can't just apply egalitarianism to one specific topic. Sure, gender egalitarianism is a thing, but they almost always end up being MRAs trying to not reveal their toxicity. You'd have to be for the rights of ALL people. A real egalitarian is someone like Frederick Douglass, who challenged the idea that those who deserve rights are to be judged by their race or gender, a "no one gets left behind" type of thing. Egalitarianism does not mean to encourage discrimination all around like the internet would have you believe it is. So enough with the whole "I believe in equal rights for all" cop out argument against feminists and actually start acting like who you claim to be. You know, without making it sound like its about letting discrimination go every way it can but to consider the majority's feelings.