Can you be for gender equality but not a feminist?

"a lot of feminism these days seems to be largely about perception, since in this country for example there are already laws which supposedly (although not in practice) guarantee equality."

This is contradictory. On the one hand you suggest inequality is a figment of feminists' imagination ("all about perception") but on the other hand you acknowledge that inequality exists ("laws which supposedly - although not in practice - guarantee equality"). If inequality exists (which it does), it's not just about perception, is it? It's about enacting the social change to ensure equality exists in practice as well as in theory.

The issue and debate about consent is not "crap". I think that teaching men and women about consent is beneficial to both. To me it's pretty obvious that with alcohol there reaches a point at which someone is too drunk to consent. They might have passed out, they might be semi-conscious, or conscious but not fully processing what is happening and whether they want it to happen. I find it abhorrent to think that anyone would WANT to have sex with someone who is not able to consent and actively participate. So does that make me a man-hating feminist? Er no. It makes me someone who will teach any future sons about consent.

TERFs are in the minority and are vastly outnumbered by more moderate feminists.

And no I wouldn't presume to call myself a gay rights activist because I'm not gay and I don't get involved in gay rights campaigns, but I do support them.

OK, I can accept the bit about fighting for abortion rights etc, but a lot of feminism these days seems to be largely about perception, since in this country for example there are already laws which supposedly (although not in practice) guarantee equality.

The feminist discourse I have "ishoos" with is stuff like female only train carriages, the advice you see from women who call themselves feminists that basically tell men to constantly be aware that women are scared of them. If you (a man) have drunken sex with a consenting female, and she is also drunk then technically you raped her etc. Now i had plenty of sex when i was younger whilst drunk, at no point did i feel i had been raped or that the person (also under the influence) was a rapist. There appears to be serious thought given to an alcohol limit beyond which women are no longer able to legally have sex. I regard this sort of crap as at odds with reality and would not be happy with someone lobbying and attempting to legislate on behalf of me, as a women, along these simplistic lines.

Another example would be the whole terf stuff, which group of women, both claiming to be representative of the interests of women, and have the same name for those positions, really has my back ?

Do i get to adopt a position that i alone feel would help gay people for example, then label myself a gay rights activist ?

Itll-
Can you say what bits of the feminist discourse you find difficult as the mother of sons?

"Interesting. For me, solidarity is an important part of feminism. I believe in supporting other women; I think that's both part of the feminist cause and instrumental in achieving feminist aims."
I agree.

merrymouse
"There may be groups and individuals who feel that equality can only be achieved through women's solidarity, but that is not the same thing as feminism."
Interesting. For me, solidarity is an important part of feminism. I believe in supporting other women; I think that's both part of the feminist cause and instrumental in achieving feminist aims. I think we're stronger if we work together and support each other - not that we always have to agree with each other, but it's important to find common ground where we can.

Well said uglyswan.
For example, as a feminist I will fight for a woman's right to access contraception and abortion, her right to autonomy over her own body and her right to make her own reproductive choices. In fighting for those
rights, I don't claim to speak for the women they belong to. If a woman doesn't want an abortion, that is her choice, but it doesn't give her the right to stop another woman getting an abortion.

I don't want to get into a debate about abortion rights, by the way - I'm just trying to use it as a example of one way you can support someone's rights without speaking for them. In the same way, I can support same sex marriage without speaking for gay people.

The basis of feminism is achieving the goal of equal opportunities and rights for women.

There may be groups and individuals who feel that equality can only be achieved through women's solidarity, but that is not the same thing as feminism.

Oh come on, liberation is hardly the same thing as representation, is it? You can have an interest in providing other people with the tools to liberate themselves without claiming to speak for them. The basis of femininity is solidarity, not representation.

Tying myself in knots? I don't see it, but then I would say that, wouldn't I?!

Feminists can't win, can they? You criticise feminists for speaking for all women, when women have different experiences and views, and you criticise feminists for NOT speaking for all women. You just dislike feminism and are looking for new reasons to criticise it every time your reasoning is challenged. I'd say you're the person tying yourself in knots.

There's a difference between a political party, which is meant to represent its members, and has policies the members broadly agree on, and a broad political movement like feminism, which has a whole range of people and organisations aligned to it, and may have key themes and views that are shared by most feminists, but it doesn't have a leader or a manifesto.

I think you're tying yourself in knots Emma. What is the point of a liberation movement that does not care whether it represents those whom it aims to liberate ?

"I would rather discuss the point about the name (which suggests "speaking on behalf of and for global womanhood")"

No. That is not the dictionary definition of feminism. It is NOT defined as a movement which speaks for all women. Racial equality campaigners don't claim to speak for every single person in a racial minority or oppressed race, do they? I'm sure the vast majority of feminists would be appalled at the idea that they are speaking for all women. I am a proud feminist and adamant that there is no way I speak for all women.

Or did they take a man and a women who made EXACTLY the same decisions, had EXACTLY the same work experience, Exactly the same education, and EXACTLY the same position.

You have heard of those experiments when the EXACT same CV was sent out. Only difference being that one applicant was called 'John' and the other one 'Jane'. I think in the latest one I read, it was (again) found that John was a lot more likely to be hired, considered more competent and offered about 20% higher salary..

AnotherEmma - I could certainly do that, however I would rather discuss the point about the name (which suggests "speaking on behalf of and for global womanhood") for now, if that's OK.

@bertrand - sorry, didn't mean to be snippy, I aplogise.

It was clear to me that Bertrand wasn't being sarky at all. She was just sharing her view.

Can you give us some examples of this "feminist discourse" that you find so offensive?

Ididn't mean to be sarky. I thought I was being vaguely flippant.- and the other poster would come back with "yes, I don't like X, Y and Z" and then I could reply..........and we would have a conversation about parenting boys. It's a subject that occupies quite a lot of my thinking. But if I got it wrong, I'm sorry.

bertrand - so - as discussed the fact that you have women telling you that they struggle with feminist discourse yields a sarky reply rather than admitting that it's a problem having many women object to the existence of a movement that claims to represent their interests ?

The reason no one takes MRA seriously is because no one thinks they actually represent the opinions of many, let alone most, men. Feminism on the other hand....

"But I'm a mother of boys so I also struggle with the tone of much feminism discourse."

Really? So am I and I don't!

Correction: admit that's why

I think people are reluctant to call themselves feminists because of all the mud that's been thrown at feminists and feminism. It's a threat to the status quo, and some people don't like that, so influential people spread damaging lies about feminists being "bra burners", "man haters" and so on (whatever the latest criticism is). The fact is, feminists have different views, and there are different interpretations of feminism just as there are different interpretations of religions (as the PP said, we accept that not all Christians have the same views about everything), different political views among members of the same political party, and so on. The difference is that there's no real stigma attached to being a Christian, or being a Labour voter, etc - whereas many people feel there's stigma attached to being a feminist. But if that's why you don't want to call yourself a feminist, at least admit that's way - don't use the excuse that a feminist said something you disagreed with once.

Well, a bit late to the game, because I consider myself to be a women who is interested in equality and the removal of barriers women face entering certain professions and all the rest of it. But I'm a mother of boys so I also struggle with the tone of much feminism discourse.

If you have a movement which states as it's aims "women's rights" then implicit in this is a definition of what women's rights means. When DAvid Cameron goes off to Brussels to get "what's best for britain" many British people are sat at home going "He doesn't speak for me and I totally disagree with him". The same criticism of feminism is brushed off and sneered at in a way that says "I don't really care whether you think we speak for you or not". This is a problem.

Whereas everyone (even men?) agree about the basics, there is a great amount of disagreement about the rest. Perhaps what's needed is something more like the christian church (without the patriarchs) where they all agree about Jesus but not a lot else, but still get to call themselves Christians.

So you agree with hundreds of things that thousands of feminists believe- then one on one thread says something you don't agree with, and so you're not a feminist?

Do you not think it's helpful to try to find out why people do the things they do? Or do you think that trying to explain bad behaviour automatically meand condoning it?

I can't comment on this because I wasn't on the thread- but are you really saying you don't want to call yourself a feminist because you disagree with what a feminist said? Surely not?

I don't want to call myself a feminist if it means aligning with that mindset. No one else on that particular thread seemed to have a problem with the view expressed.

Uglyswan sums it up very well in her posts. It seems to me in the same ballpark as the infantilisation of not conceding women make autonomous decisions when choosing to behave violently or criminally.

I agree that our choices are heavily influenced by societal norms, but socialisation and influence are not the same thing as conditioning. Your DH doesn't really have the option of wearing a skirt, so it's not really a choice. But I can wear a skirt and my choice to do so or not will be influenced by a number of factors, but I am in a position to consider these options and ask myself "what's in it for me?". We do "perform" societal roles, but I think our performances are a result of a certain amount of negotiation and an attempt to pursue our own interests within these roles. "Conditioning" implies that there is no choice and no thought behind how we choose to embody and present the roles available to us.

There's got to be a spectrum though? My DH is "influenced" not to wear a skirt because it would never occur to him (or most English men) to do so. Is putting on trousers/shorts an involuntary response? Perhaps not, but it's a considerably more socially influenced decision than, say, picking up or not picking up litter.

I personally never use "performing feminity" so won't die in a ditch over it; however, don't we all "perform civilisation" (by which I don't mean it's involuntary but is strongly socialised) when we are polite, helpful, judgemental of wrong doing etc?

WomainInThe Wall: "more about the things that influence those choices"

Well, precisely! But that's not conditioning. Conditioning implies that we are unconsciously "trained" to make certain choices (which would mean that they are not choices at all). Saying bless you is a conditioned response, you do it before you have the time to make a conscious decision. Choosing and (apologies) performing an identity is not the same type of mechanistic, predetermined response and I can see why someone might find that suggestion insulting.