Why some women don't identify with feminism

Hopeforthebest - IMO feminism is a belief. A belief that men and women are equal. I can hold this belief quite happily without signing a petition or marching or taking any action unless and until I see something worth acting on. (For instance, signing up to the MN Let Girls Be Girls campaign, or emailing the Today programme to protest against their dim editor who thinks women just can't cut it as journalists.)

I think I live as a feminist - I act as a human being who is equal to anyone else, treat everyone else as my equals, and occasionally make a noise when I register something that is wrong.

HopeFor, I have started doing small things. I'm setting aside a couple of hours every week to write letters (eg as part of Amnesty campaigns or most recently emailing my parliamentary candidates to ask them to sign Object's Women in the Media pledge. I'm talking about it with my DCs, DP and other family and friends (lucky them, I hear you cry ). I'm reading books, blogs and generally trying to learn as much as I can about the relevant issues. I'm taking part in the discussions on this topic to learn more and to be heartened by the words of other women who feel as I do. I plan to do a lot more than this, but it's a start.

It is a word that has become besmirched so I cannot see much point in using it or arguing over it. I am certainly favour of fairness. Most of us have an innate sense of fairness whether male or female. Having read on here recently that it may have to be (a) against pornography and (b) socialist or even (c) keeping men out of the house that makes me even less likely to use the term but like hs I do point out sexism where I can as some people just don 't notiec it or allow it to happen and it's only by intervening that you make others aware they may be taking a sexist stance.

I don't look down on male nurses either. Why would I?

Not a cause? How do inequalities get addressed then, if not by people actually trying to do something about them?

I don't see myself as a feminist, I see myself a beliver in equal right, and equal expectations, for and of everyone. Because while for some men things are great; they have the higher-paid jobs and a little woman at home looking after the house. But some mne don't want that. They would love to be a SAHD, and not be mercilessly mocked by their mates over it.

Who among us can honestly, hand on heart, say that we don't look down slightly on male nurses because it's not a man's job.

Of course the balance is skewed much more negatively towards women, but the real solution, to my mind, is to have true equal opporunities for all. Such as equal paternity leave for men, and equal pay for women.

We need to erase this expectation that women are the home-makers and the child-rearers, while men are the workers in the jobs. We need to erase the idea that care-based jobs such as nursing, or even teaching, are 'women's work'.

So I don't believe in women's rights, on their own. I believe in individual rights, for everyone, to earn as much as they are worth, to be free to hold whatever job they like without anyone thinking it's in any way inappropriate for their gender, I want to see it impossible for anyone to be tied to the home by expensive childcare because their partner 'earns too much'. So many sterotypes need to be broken down on both sides of the fence for men and women to truly be on a level playing field.

If I were asked I'd say I was a feminist and I'd explain all it means is equal rights under the home and fairness at home. I don't consciously think I've suffered sex discrimination but I may be wrong. I've also used my sex where I can for gain so if there have been negatives I think there have been positives too so if anything it's pretty balanced and all evened out in the wash in my case. I would prefer men to be forced to have children 50% of the time after divorce - that would be a feminist change I'd support.

I was asked about violence? Who is in favour of it? Human beings can be pretty nasty to each other. There are also a lot of men who are subject to domestic violence but not as many was women, certainly.

It's certainly never felt a problem for me asking for more pay. If someone can't afford me that's fine. I'm the best. They can get cheap and nasty elsewhere if they choose.

I label myself as feminist, despite being told not all of my views are feminist enough.

I can well imagine that I'm not the only one to have come across that particular attitude, and can understand why other people would distance themselves from it as a label. Seems a lot of hassle to keep having to defend the choice of word.

Also, not labelling yourself a feminist doesn't mean that you don't try and do anything to improve the way women are treated.

I think the problem about using the word "oppression" is that a lot of people immediately react to it by thinking "Well,I'm not oppressed".
That is my reaction too.But that doesn't mean you are not experiencing adverse effects in your life just because you are a woman.

Kat Banyard's book quoted an experiment which showed that in an interview situation men who negotiated for more money were looked on favorably - women were penalised.The deduction made was that women can choose to push for more money,and be seen as "less nice",and therefore risk losing out in the workplace,or they can play nice and therefore end up earning less than their male counterparts.
So I would disagree with you,HFTBETW when you say your life hasn't been affected directly - it is quite likely that it has,but possibly not in such a way that you feel oppressed!

Xenia, what are your thoughts on violence against women? The low conviction rate for rape, for example?

dittany, I read about the 'nappy headed hos' incident () in that Kat Banyard book - didn't know about Jesse Jackson's and and Al Sharpton's comments on it - perfect example.

The idea of a political movement fighting on behalf of all oppressed groups sounds great, but in a sense, the women's movement, civil rights movement etc are just that. They're not really 'single issue' movements because their impact goes way beyond those within that particular oppressed group.

Another example that springs to mind is the politicizing of miners' wives during the miners' strike in the 80s. Ostensibly they were fighting alongside their husbands for a particular cause, but this led to a sharpening of those women's political consciousness which led some into other areas of political activism like feminism. Similar to this, I was listening to an interview with Nancy Fraser and she spoke about how the women's movement grew out of the 'New Left' in the 60s. Many of the 2nd wave feminists were politically active in other areas - opposing the Vietnam war, for example - but their experience of sexism from their male colleagues led to their involvement with/formation of the women's movement (PS I'm sure this is a little too simplistic and there were other routes into the women's movement, but it is another example of one cause interacting with others).

If you belong to a relatively powerless group in society it takes a lot of will and energy to fight that oppression, which tends to come from a direct, personal experience of being oppressed. A generalized 'let's stop all oppression' movement would never generate the necessary anger and coherence to get off the ground. So for that reason I think it's a cop out to reject feminism on the grounds that it's too narrow in scope and somehow entails a lack of concern with any other oppressed group.

I'm not opppressed. But then I never iron - see comments above. Is this our key issue - real women and feminists would rather enter the gates of hell than wield an iron?

Why is the woman above ironing the shirts and not the man? How bizarre in 2010. Doesn't he have arms?