From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Study section[edit]

The quality of the study seems suspect if the students were simply GIVEN money to represent EARNED income. I don't understand how that is supposed to show anything, other than the willingness to give up money that had little real value to them (because it was had without effort or perceived right.) Maybe it makes sense to someone who thinks money is distributed at random in a normal society, but that's not how it works. (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Article requires serious attention[edit]

This article is of pretty poor quality currently and could use a complete revision. The division of the notion of "egalitarianism" into three categories, political, philosophical and religious, is questionable: why are these three fields the relevant fields? I suggest scrapping that distinction or at least moving it to a position of very low importance within the article. Similarly, the reliance on Kristoff as an authority of egalitarianism in Islam is incredibly weak. The "religious" overtones of the article remain entirely too prominent. Further, the article as a whole does very little to illuminate the meaning of the term 'egalitarianism.' Surely we can do better! Jon EP1 (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I am inclined to agree, this article is hard to understand and follow in a few ways. I don't offer the answers, as I don't have them. But for example in the concepts of equality in every society, of my knowledge, particularly in bible and Christian teachings for example, I see we are taught that all men (women included) are created equal, but no where do I see the suggestion that this equality can not be lost, or ceded by and individual, or group. In all societies serious crime conviction carries a probability that some equality will be lost, or impaired either permanently, or for a time. The Bible does not preclude this treatment at society's behest, merely that the judgement process be fair and equal for anyone so convicted. Likewise wealth accumulation is only precluded where breach of other's equality is involved in the process. Likewise a person is equally free to dispose his income as he pleases and that is an equal principal universally applied. So if one skimps and scrapes, or excells in labor output, education, investing skills etc, or shere lucky break, why not be unequal from the persons who are boozing gamblers, irresponsibly disposing of ever penny he gets? I could say more but the contributors should have my drift here, and I claim no specific wisdom otherwise on the point. I opened the article to better acquaint me with its meanings and leave none the better informed. --Robbygay (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some POV campers on this article. That will be the first barrier. Basileias (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I think a mention of the areas where egalitarianism is applied may be relevant in the intitial description for the purpose of expanding the definition and use of the word. For example, "The areas that the egalitarianist principle are most commonly applied to are socially, politically, or economically related sciences that affect a group of people." I see how those areas can be excluded and there still be a crisp definition ("Egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal, meaning "equal"), is a principle based on the philosophy that all people are equal within the sphere that the egalitarian principle is being applied.
The use of the Declaration of Independence may have [1], but it is not an example of a document that embraces social egalitarianism.
My question is should the initial introduction of a word, subject, principle et. al. be restricted, if possible, to simply a definition with no distinction between why a user might search an encyclopedic reference as opposed to a dictionary?
I have another question: I may be looking at this wrong, but it would seem to be appropriate to, as a minor issue, note any examples of societies or groups that have attempted to create a climate of egalitarianism either socially, religiously, politically, or within some other context. Do you agree?LovinItAll (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't studied the article in great detail but was offput by the initial sentence, calling egalitarianism a "trend of thought." To my horror I see the same phrase is used in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The phrase seems both amateurish and judgmental. Surely an -ism in the political/philosophical realm should first be defined as a "belief" or "doctrine" of some sort. Whether it is trending or not, and in which direction, can be dealt with (and debated) elsewhere. Frappyjohn (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There is also apparently an issue with maintaining an understanding of what the difference is between 'equality of opportunity' and 'equality of outcome' which shows most in the Randian quote, which is clearly talking about the latter. The supposed opposing view is discussing equality of opportunity, which actually is likely perfectly fine from a Randian viewpoint. In fact, it might be best if the article is ultimately rewritten with a short summary of the types of equality and different schools of egalitarianism--with links to the articles on them, where such exist--with a discussion of general criticism & the introduction covering the general concept behind egalitarianism before discussing its different forms. (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the article does need serious attention. The entire reception section is based on the notion that no state exists, which is not true at all. Equal opportunity exists when there are fair rules for the social contract between the individual and the rest of society. Most of the article completely avoids most social theory, which is precisely what the concept is trying to describe! Tyraz (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I think that Equality of treatment should be merged with this article, as it is essentially the same thing. Do people agree? Tkn20 (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Equality of treatment" has never had references; I'm redirecting it to this article. -Yamara 06:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Equality of treatment is not synonymous with egalitarianism. Equality of treatment is essentially a matter of equal political rights (including civil rights and economic rights). Egalitarianism is a political philosophy that emphasises the equal distribution of wealth among the population. The paradigm of an egalitarian society is one where every person receives identical income or has identical wealth. BlueRobe (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Christian Egalitarianism is too prominent in this article[edit]

This article should focus on egalitarianism as a system of thought/philosophy. Christian egalitarianism as an example within this should be less prominent than it is here (or possibly removed completely) and the use of passages of scripture to support arguments should definitely be removed since they are not authoritative and simply incite the kind of futile religious argument we see in the next discussion topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flaky Pastry (talkcontribs) 04:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree -- egalitarianism in western culture precedes Christianity and is firmly rooted in classical antiquity. Placing "Christian egalitarianism" or indeed religious egalitarianism in a prominent place in the article emphasizes religious understandings of society at the expense of other points of view.

Jon EP1 (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Christian egalitarianism should be simply mentioned here by way of referral to its own article by that title. Some time ago we split it into two so that this one could be secular egalitarianism from a philosophical viewpoint and Christian egalitarianism could specifically represent non-egalitarian Christian viewpoints such as Complementarianism and Patriarchy. I will be glad to begin work on moving in that direction unless we have valid objections. Thanks for pointing this out. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it isn't prominent enough. Man's view of his fellow man is never going to ascend further than what he comprehends of his creator's view of his fellow man. I would be curious to see the position of more other faiths in this area (though I laughed at the notion of Islam being egalitarian - wasn't I taught of the "brother against brother" motto?); Christianity is likely the most in flux on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MathInclined (talkcontribs) 05:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree ""inalienable rights endowed by their Creator," in the moral principles by which they lived, and which formed the basis for their legacy." for example is exclusive to Christian egalitarianism. As an atheist i cannot agree on this yet call myself egalitarian. Also Christianity is not as "in flux" with this issue as Buddhism, for example. There is nothing in Christianity that dictates all peoples equality, yet in Buddhism this is the fundamental core - that all living beings is connected and equal. Yet i oppose to subscribe to the idea that a religious adaption of this idea, makes the idea religious. There are a lot of secular ideas in religion and this is one of them. Religion may add the "created by god" argument. Yet the opposition claims that man was created different and that treating man equal is in defiance of this. If that is true, than i am happy to defy god. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the article about SECULIAR Egalitarianism, as explained above. How does this debate have any relevancy? Christians should go to the Christian Egalitarianism article and debate there. This is not the place to discuss this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Why did Jesus consider Gentiles to be DOGS if there is Egalitarianism in Christianity?[edit]

I do think sometimes that Wikipedia is a Christian Missionary free encyclopedia to evangelize the mass, my I remind you that,The gift of god Jesus Christ say in Matthew 15:22-28

Dumb statement. You are an anti-Christian bigot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC) "I was sent [ONLY] to the lost of the house of Israel." .......It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs

Is This Egalitarian statement? Calling Gentile Dogs not even Human?

The Sad Part Here Is That Jesus Agreed To help This Poor Women ONLY After She Agreed To Accept This Insult From The Mouth of Jesus.

She said: Yes, Lord: but even the dogs take the bits of food that fall to the flood from under their masters' table.

This Poor Women, At The Hands of Jesus, Had to Crawl and Accept This Insult before He Decided To Help Her.

Let Us see what Paul says

{Now I want you to realize that the head of every “Man” is “Christ”, and the head of the “Woman” is “Man”, and the head of “Christ” is “God”. [1 Cor 11:3]} where is the Egalitarianism ?

I am also left wondering as to whether the Bible even makes any explicit promises to its female adherents.

I am unaware of any, and raisethis in light of for example the following Biblical statements:

A man …. is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man. ….. Neither was man created for (the sake of) woman, but woman for man”. {1 Corinthians 11:7-9}

The Bible further emphatically states (contrary to your passionate wishes) that a total of:

“ … 144,000 men … who did not defile themselves with women” will ultimately be with Jesus. (All of whom being exclusively from the 12 tribes of Israel). {Revelations 7:5-8, 14:4}

This is in line with Matthew 19:28 which again clearly indicates that in the Hereafter (as on earth (Matthew 10:5-7; 15:24, 26)), Jesus’s role is exclusively associated with the 12 tribes of Israel.

I am unaware of any Biblical passage which specifically promises “any of the gentiles”, whether males or females (even those ‘undefiled by women’), “that they will actually enter Paradise”.

This comparative Biblical silence on these crucial issues is ‘spiritually deflating’, and strongly indicates that there is actually “no reward in waiting” for gentiles who adhere to the Israelite’s exclusive covenant (viz. the Bible Isaac and his Blood line alone GEN 17:19)).

There is NO Egalitarianism in Christianity,Please correct me if I am wrong by providing Biblical proof which explicitly states otherwise.

This whole (above) discussion is completely irrelevant.BlakeAllred (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC) (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well you might check Christian Egalitarianism. I'd say it would be getting pretty quickly into original research trying to deny it here. It's certainly not accepted amongst all Christians, but here is a verse that is hard to parse any other way.
'There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus'
– Galatians 3:28 (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus says NOTHING Galatians 3:28, it is word of Paul the DEVIL ROM 7:21

Jesus says to his Followers { Those who LOVES Me Follow my TEACHINGS}John 14:24 ....Not paul's peter or banana....... but ONLY his own teachings.... I was sent[ONLY]to the lost sheep of the house of “ISRAEL “….. It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the “DOGS."Matt 15:22-28 ..


Notice also that [[[ The word is ISRAEL blood descendants of man named Jacob……… NOT JEWS...coz there are always GOY fake Jews whom are NOT blood related to Jacob, like TODAY ASHKINAZI,or Sephardic JEWS ]]] (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC) _________________________

An encyclopedia should be based on absolute undisputable fact. Since the bible is not fact and can not be proven referencing it in whole or in part, should be dissallowed in an encyclopedia. (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The question posed ignores the context and tone of Jesus's statement. He exposes an existing cultural bias held by the religious leaders at the time; it exposes the prejudice before a mixed crowd... kinda like talking about the elephant in the room. If a preferentially-classed person mentions the elephant, would you automatically denounce him as a racist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MathInclined (talkcontribs) 05:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Egalitarian societies[edit]

Should this be its own article, or should the section here be expanded and elevated in the article hierarchy? The fact is that, apart from ideology and utopian movements, the question of whether or not human societies have been egalitarian, and how egalitarian should be defined (scientifically, as applying to an observed phenomenon) has been a matter of considerable debate. I am willing to work on it, although not a lot right now. My question though concerns the structure of the article. If what I propose to add (for example drawing heavily on the works of Morton fried, Eleanor Leacock, and Elman Service) goes into this article, then the introduction would have to be rewritten to say that "egalitarianism" refers both to an ideology and to a kind of political system. As I suggested, the alternative would be to have a completely separate article, in which case the paragraph in this article, referring to anthropology, should just become a link. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest creating a new article, assuming a variety of egalitarian societies would eventually be discussed. Modern hunter-gatherer groups, if seen as mini societies, would fit in perfectly. --Scandum (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Unconscious racism[edit]

Studies have shown that much racism is unconscious and that many people who perceive themselves to be egalitarian can often secretly or unconsciously harbour racist attitudes. This could maybe be included on an eventual criticism section in the article. [1] ADM (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality of Criticism[edit]

User Mtcruitt gave an out of place comment calling into question the validity of the criticism section (please see I believe the first two paragraphs give a neutral description of contrary thoughts of Egalitarianism. Granted it is tamer than 'Criticism' sections I've read for other topics, but I think this falls within WP:NPOV. If I were to take criticism to strictly mean 'adverse analysis', then I might agree with Mtcruitt, and would see about better presenting the 3rd paragraph.

What do you think? --FuturePrefect (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, given that the current title of that section is actually "Criticism and support", that third paragraph doesn't appear to be particularly out of line. However, since ther is an entire article on the subject just above that, I feel the "support" part is kind of unnecessary and should be limited just to criticsm. I don't know if there's any Wikipedia standard on the subject. If it were reduced to just a criticism section, that third paragraph should probably be removed althogether as it's more in favor of egalitarianism than anyhting. Perhaps if we still wanted to include it, it could be moved to another section.
To go off on a slight tangent, I'd call into question the legitimacy of any study that claims to connect egalitarian views, environmental policies, and premature death rates. It seems like it might have ulterior(sp?) motivations. But that's more of a personal gripe than anything. While it does appear to be a correlation/causation issue, I haven't studied the source and have no real evidence against it. (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Christian Eg...[edit]

The last sentence under this heading on the main page seems to be a little off grammatically. Also it seems to be non NPOV. Am I wrong here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Religious Egalitarianism[edit]

I suppose I could edit the article myself, but I'm no expert on the subject, and don't plan on becoming one any time soon, so here are some notes for future editors:

Under the Christian Egalitarianism section, no sources are cited, and there are multiple spelling and grammar errors that need to be rectified. Also, I would question the author's full neutrality or knowledge on the subject: how the "church" deals with these matters can be called into question based on the fact that there are many Christian churches (ie. Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, etc.), and they may differ substantially in their "interpretations of scripture". Also, I would shy away from using the term "in scripture", because a non-Christian or even a non-practicing Christian may be confused by the term (which has as many meanings and morphs as their are churches).

Secondly, although I can neither refute or approve the section to do with Islam, the section might be re-arranged to place the historical ("mysogenistic") content before the "modern-day" context, so as to be less confusing in its intent. Also, the "objective" parts of this article are uncited, while the "subjective" parts of the article are cited. If somebody could verify these bits and add some citations and specifics ("some people" is just not good enough), and maybe flesh it out a little bit more, that would be darn handy! Cronanius (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


We should put in something about Georgism which is a philosophy that states that everything in nature is a common good, and should be treated as though it belongs to everyone equally. Not only is this linked to political egalitarianism, but it is also analogous to other justifications for Egalitarianism. Egalitarianism might be defined as "either we all own rights, or none of us do, **but either way we are equal**." Just a random thought from a student. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Mad Buck Gibson[edit]

This user has been banned as a sock of banned User:Grundle2600, and I have reverted his changes because banned users just don't get to post. I have no opinion on the merits of the changes. PhGustaf (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

potential resource[edit]

The Age of Equality: The Twentieth Century in Economic Perspective by Richard Pomfret, Reviewed by Richard N. Cooper November/December 2011 Foreign Affairs (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Merrian-Webster definition misread?[edit]

Merriam-Webster might have been misread to imply that the third definition only applies to the early Christians. The "<" and ">" symbols are simply used to enclose an example use, the examples are not intended to be restrictive. (The OED, however only has two definitions.) Since any change might involve some article restructuring, I'll just make the comment. Leptus Froggi (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Strangely Ahistorical[edit]

An article about a doctrine should focus on the history of the doctrine. There is no attempt at that here. I came to this page wanting to learn about the history of egalitarianism, and see nothing. Rlitwin (talk)

Should certain studies be included in this article?[edit]

There is currently a disagreement as to whether certain studies which do not mention egalitarianism by name, but nonetheless appear to discuss the same subject should be included in the article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

If it actually is on topic then reliable secondary sources will cover this aspect. Hcobb (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I dont quite understand, two of those studies do appear to mention egalitarianism by name? Thom2002 (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi -- I have not edited this article but ran across the RfC on another page. I looked at the "Sprit Level" book, which contains at least 15 mentions of the word "egalitarian", and seems to be talking directly about both the economic and political forms of egalitarianism discussed in the article. The citation is definitely relevant. The NPR cite regarding the Swiss study is definitely relevant -- it mentions the word egalitarianism explicitly. I couldn't see the full Nature article, but the summaries in the press make i sound relevant. It would seem to me that removing these on the grounds of irrelevance is mistaken. Reading the section that was removed, I think the editor who removed it may have seen it as somehow not integrated with the rest of the article. And it wasn't integrated, though it easily could be. First, I think the subtitle of the section "Studies" was a little vague and made it hard to understand what was supposed to be in the section, what it was supposed to become. It looks like the section was supposed to discuss how the sciences (social sciences, biology, etc.) look at these philosophical ideas. The section could have been called "Science research concerning egalitarianism," and that might have made more clear what it was for. The Spirit Level book appears to use techniques from the social sciences to answer the question of whether or not greater egalitarianism would help human societies achieve certain goals. The other studies are using experimental techniques from biology and the social sciences to determine if people have a tendencies to act in an egalitarian way. These are all legitimate subjects to include in the article. If I could make a suggestion, the article could also benefit from a section on attempts to apply egalitarian principles, such as the Federation of Egalitarian Communities, or more mainstream attempts, such as are described in "The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism" By Robert William Fogel. This might fit into a "History" subsection, of the sort which is a part of many "-ism" articles. (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Egalitarianism is self-contradictory[edit]

All egalitarians are essentially liars because they say that they want equality but in fact they want to be in a position above non-egalitarians and able to enforce egalitarianism upon non-egalitarians. Which is a hierarchy and thus itself non-egalitarian. Hence "Egalitarianism is self-contradictory". LeapUK (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Of course, all those who say Wikipedia is not a discussion forum are liars, because in saying that they are discussing your post. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

New Testament[edit]

Shouldn't it read New Testament, not the Bible in general? The Old Testament was hardly advocating egalitarianism. I would also like to point out that it's great to see that the article has been hammered out a bit more to being well rounded out of different belief systems, although shouldn't there be a secular view point? (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Egalitarianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


This section was added by an anonymous editor, totally uncited and with no summary. Nevertheless I think it's salvageable as part of the article but A) the claims in the new section need references and B) the citation of the term equalism in the introductory sentence of the article should contain a cite for the claim that the words are synonyms, not a cite that equalism is an alternative to feminism. Awarenode (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The edit seems a poorly-veiled attack against feminism, which experiences no such broad turning to "equalism" to the best of my knowledge. I suggest that "Equalism" merely cite or refer to the Wikitionary definition. If one really wants to press the issue, "sometimes offered as an alternative to for instance 'feminism'" could be a more neutral phrasing. At any rate, much better citation is needed. Desolationofsmug (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I just created an account to completely rewrite this passage because it was SO bad. I personally don't think it should be on this page, and it probably should be mentioned under criticism or something on feminism. I added a few citations, but it's very hard to find any meaningful sources for pro-equalism. They seem to be either very wishy-washy and don't really explain why Equalism is a meaningful change from Feminism or they're extremely anti-feminist and make rambling accusations of cultural Marxism or homogeneity of violence, etc. This is my first ever edit to a wiki, let me know if the tone is inappropriate or something. MVHVTMV (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the section completely though I still believe anti feminist egalitarianism is relevant and should probably have a mention. The section still just felt out of place and rather biased as a whole so I removed it for now. My suggestion for adding an anti feminist egalitarian section would be to find examples of these people who are prominent or who have actively created some kind of platform for this. My problem in finding such a platform or example is that there does not appear to be anything outside of the internet about Anti Feminist Egalitarians. I am biased in this as I am more on the feminist leaning side, but I do think it is possible to write in a less biased way.Repeatingbeingfunctional (talk) 02:26, 28 December 2016

Is 'gender egalitarianism' specific type of egalitarianism?[edit]

Is it correct to list 'gender egalitarianism' as a specific type of egalitarianism? Following excerpts from scholarly articles shows that the term is not used to refer to specific branch of egalitarianism:

  • "High gender egalitarianism societies have characteristics such as..."[2]
  • "...use of active sexuality as a strategy for gaining gender egalitarianism"[3]
  • "By strong gender egalitarianism we mean a structure of social relations in which the division of labor around housework and caregiving within the family and occupational distributions within the public sphere are unaffected by gender"[4]

The suffix '-ism' doesn't always used to form a system of theory or practice, religious, ecclesiastical, philosophical, political, social, etc.

One site claims that 'gender egalitarianism' is a type of egalitarianism, and also suggests "Zygarchy" as a synonym, but the FAQ of the site says the author has no official training in philosophy. I also found that there was a Wikipedia article named 'Zygarchy' but the article has been deleted since there were no reliable sources.

Please also note that neither SEP nor IEP mentions 'gender egalitarianism' at all.

--SuyookTang (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Equality of Men[edit]

The entire section is misleading. Prior to the late 1960s the term "man/men" was taken as synonymous with "human" (philosophically, equivalent to Greek "anthropos"). It is only a hyper-correctism where "man" is taken restrictively for "males". Many instances still exist in the English language--"mankind" still means both males and females, "God created 'man'" ("anthropos"), "one small step for a man (here a 'male'), one giant leap for "mankind" (all people). Distinctions in the social rights of "man" (e.g., by age, birth order, physical/mental abilities, property ownership, etc.) does not imply that "man" was not taken as generic for all people. Of course, those who were (are) against any distinguishing social construct, e.g., segregation by sex, would argue that separate treatment is inherently unequal (cf. Earl Warren, "Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal"; although segregated athletic programs, prisons, etc., are still not). The contention here is that by "man" only "males", even for those born after the contemporary shift in the usage, is an historical inanity at best or manipulatively feigning ignorance at worst, that does not stand up to a reading of literature from prior to the mid-20th century. Tachypaidia (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)