Why some women don't identify with feminism

HFTBETW - that's fine. No-one's forcing you to be a feminist if you don't want to be a feminist. But just because you don't perceive women's oppression as relevant to your life, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't a reality in others' lives.

weeonion, I am listening if you can elaborate on after existing systems are torn down it can be re-worked in a way that is viable as well as to the satisfaction of feminists.

That is the fundamental flaw in feminists' argument. Is there an alternative that works?

JMTPW, being a feminist doesn't mean that you prioritise the rights of women above the rights of any and all other groups in the world. I'm a feminist because I'm a woman. I'm a member of the oppressed group. So it affects my life directly. That doesn't mean I don't give a shit about other oppressed groups. I'm also working class and one of the reasons I've only recently engaged with feminism properly is that previously I've been more focused on class politics, in part because there's a tradition of class politics in my family and, more pertinent to this thread, because being a bit of a leftie doesn't attract the same level of hate that being a feminist does. I think feminists have to be bloody brave to constantly cope with being put down, as they are. It's very easy to say "oh, I believe in equality for all oppressed groups" - it's something few would disagree with and it's a seizure of the moral high ground. But all the gains that have been made for oppressed groups have been made by people within those oppressed groups getting together and taking political action. Luckily they didn't give up before they even started because they felt it was 'unfair' to fight for 'their' cause and not all causes. These groups don't operate in isolation either. The civil rights movement, the women's movement and other, similar political groups can and do interact and inspire each other.

"Personally, I have all the rights that I want, i.e. I am equal to anyone and can do whatever I please, whenever I please.
So what should I be fighting for? "

"A lot of so-called feminists give feminism a really bad name by trying to blame their own failings on men, rather than trying to become stronger human beings in their own right. "

These two statements seem to me to tie together. The idea that equality has been achieved, and if any women are not experiencing that equality, then they are doing something wrong.

I look at the gender pay gap. Is this the fault of individual women? How can they fight for what they deserve if they don't even know it's happening half the time? Is it really the case that the solution lies with one woman who finds out she is being cheated, rather than the huge powerful company who is cheating her?

Or is it a systemic problem in our society that should be tackled by our society?

The rape conviction rate is very poor.Is that the fault of individual women deciding not to report their attacks, for deciding not to prosecute in the face of unhelpful police and prosectors, for not being able to face teh trial and have her behaviour scrutinised? Or is it the fault of our society and police and prosecutors for failing women who report rapes (john warbouys type stuff).

And if these things haven't happened to you personally, is it really OK to just shrug when they happen to other people.

I'm not gay, I don't shrug when I read about a homophobic attack, and say "well gay people are accepted in our society, that gay person muct have done something wrong". When women (or anyone for that matter) read about other women being conned, cheated, beaten, raped and so on, can they really just shrug and turn away?

blueshoes - women's work in home and hearth will not be valued under our current neo classic economic approach . I dont agree with this dominant view that this work is @valueless@ in economic generation terms. maybe only when we have a total rethink of the systems will this work then be recognised and valued.

Happysmiley, I have to say I do read some of these feminism threads, and find them interesting.

I don't contribute because I don't really have anything to say.

Perhaps because I think there are valid reasons why women's position is such in the current (male dominated) capitalist society. And that there is no viable alternative to the current position that would not swing too far in women's favour.

I will continue to scour the feminism threads for a solution as to how women's work in the home and hearth can be valued in a way that is economically workable.

I buggered off to do the ironing but have found myself thinking about this the whole time!

Am I right in thinking that it's me that's being referred to with the "one person was nasty to me so I think all feminists are.." stuff?

If so, that's incorrect, because my posts clearly give the information that this is something I have encountered more than once.

Plus, I don't think it is unreasonable to judge a belief, a group, a movement, based on the people we encounter who declare themselves to be part of it. I certainly do that for all groups. I take a person who presents themselves as representing a group, to be representative of that group. And judge accordingly.

But back to the OP question, which I've been thinking about while I burned all my husband's shirts I am shit at ironing ..

I think I am not a feminist because I do not prioritise the rights of women above the rights of any and all other groups in the world. By that I don't mean that women who do think that women are more important than other groups, just that their focus is more on women than other groups.

I say this based on my understanding of feminism as the belief that women are all oppressed and the desire of a feminist to fight to change that.

I believe that yes, there is inequality between the sexes that needs to be addressed. Yes, women in some areas of the world are oppressed. Yes some women in all areas of the world are oppressed. But also, black people in many areas of the world are oppressed and not treated equally. People with disabilities face discrimination. In some parts of the world you try being openly gay and see how long you live!

I see feminists as people who focus on women, (not saying they don't care about other things, other groups, clearly they do, deeply, but to identify themselves as fighting for women's rights as opposed to fighting for human equality they must surely have female oppression as their main focus?) whereas I focus equally on humans who for whatever reason - suffer oppression, inequality, danger.

'feminists have dared to suggest that women are human too' - cant quite remember who said that but i think it gives a reminder of why feminists currently seem to rank at the bottom of what women aspire to be. It depresses me greatly to read that more women would want to be classed as a MILF (or GILF) than a feminist. enlightened sexism grows.

Also, I think the BNP gets slagged off almost as much as feminists, so at least we are not alone in being considered contemptible.

Bit late to this debate but, I a fairly sure the "women should not get the wote as the working class woman couldn't cope with it" was the stance taken by anti-suffragists.

Gertrude Bell's mum (I've forgotten her name) wrote quite eloquently on the subject. There was a view that if you gave women the vote it would overburden working class women who had more than enough to cope with bringing up 14 children in 2 rooms on 2p a week. This neatly gave a gender debate a class slant...good old England, eh?

I always found it deeply ironcic that those who said don't give these poor women the vote could not see that, if the poor women actually had a vote it was more likely someone would be elected who might alleviate their poverty and misery.

And the suffragettes were the middle and upper classes generally as they had the time and money to access books on the subject and discuss ideas. Working class woemn being too worn out to even think about things.

That said,it was mainly middle class and upper class women and men who argued against slavery, campaigned to have children outlawed from working under the age of 9, campaigned for stiopping children and women working in coal mines...I don't think somewone's class should be used to attack their moral stance.

No one said "well Martin Luther King was essentially middle class so he can't really speak about racism" or "the Dalai Lama comes from peasant stock so really can't comment on equality".

If soemone is trying to fight for the under priviledged their class is irrelevant, surely?

I'm very much a feminist, but I don't engage in a war of the sexes - I'm not a man hater or a victim of a patriarchal world. A lot of so-called feminists give feminism a really bad name by trying to blame their own failings on men, rather than trying to become stronger human beings in their own right.

Last night we had some friends round for dinner. We unusually ended up discussing men and women and one of our friends (male) firmly stated he believed that women were equal to men, until it comes to decisions in politics and global issue. He believes that only men should make those decisions as women are incapable of being logical due to their lack of emotional control.

Needless to say myself and his partner spent the rest of the night putting him right!

Great posts blackcurrants (and lots of other great posts too but I really enjoyed the one I got a jaffa cake for at the end )

Completely agree with your point, dittany, about opinionated women. Robust debating gets characterised as 'fighting', as if women shouldn't or aren't capable of holding a rational political debate.

This 'sterile academic debate' accusation is annoying as well. I'm not saying these don't exist, but on this thread the only bit that strikes me as 'sterile academic debate' is the quibbling about whether absolutely all rapists/sexual abusers are men. As if the tiny, tiny percentage who are women nullifies the whole debate about violence against women.

FFS

It's actually OK to be fucking pissed off about this stuff. I don't understand how anyone can not be angry about the 6% rape conviction rate. That's 94% of cases reported to the police never leading to a conviction. That makes my blood BOIL.

BelleDameSansMerci, regarding your post "...I have zero patience with that attitude (in case that wasn't obvious) and think it's an abdication of responsiblity ie I won't fight for my rights because I know someone else will do it for me...", what rights are you fighting for, pray tell?
Personally, I have all the rights that I want, i.e. I am equal to anyone and can do whatever I please, whenever I please.
So what should I be fighting for?

and why nurses/child care/respite carers is so low paid (high proportions of women) Because women are supposed to take care of others.

"Yes there are some unfair inequalities remaining but I do think women who want to succeed seem to have no problem climbing to the top of the career totem pole or making their presence felt in political circles, and that has been true for years already."

That is empirically NOT true. Representation at board-room level, at the partnership level of major professional service providers, in the judiciary, the clergy, the forces, academia (almost every walk of life you can think of) is extremely limited at senior levels. Less than 10% of the boardroom population are women and that number is mostly made up by non-execs.

It's not that women don't want to get there. Many can and do and just give up trying. We simply don't have gender equality in economic terms. And this is one of the most liberal environments for women.

It's interesting why women don't like to identify themselves as feminists. A lot of it is to do with living in a patriarchal society, a lot of it is to do with feeling threatened. Feminism gets a bad press.

yes - that seems right to me. The moment women start talking about women's rights, there's a man somewhere not being taken! care! of! and goshheavensabove, we can't have that.

It IS amazing any of actually get this far. But thank heavens we have done. It really wasn't fun being female before we were recognised as people rather than chattel.