AIBU to wonder why any woman would identify herself as....

[seeker]

.....not a feminist?

"Thinking like a victim and hating the menz simply isn't good enough"

No it isn't. And that isn't the way most feminists think. However it should never be denied that men have often over the millenia treated women as second-class citizens and prevented them from fulfilling their potential. And sadly so have other women at times because society has been built in mens' image. A lot of men are vicious, self-centred, over-entitled shits - and society goes out of it's way to excuse and permit that. Just because many women are fortunate not to encounter the extremes of misogyny that doesn't mean that others don't. And sexism is present all around us - we just choose to ignore it or accomodate it because it's easier that way.

I am not going to bring my DD up to be a victim, afraid of every man she meets. But I am going to teach her that she doesn't have to accept the pigeon holes that society will try to fit into and that she doesn't have to have a man to live a full life. And as for marriage...she is certainly going to know that it's not bloody hard work and if she does it she must do it with her eyes wide open.

BTW I intend to teach my sons the same things more or less. Pigeon holes are just as constricting for men as they are for women.

Know, you're just saying "I don't like using labels on people."

It's like saying, "I like a cup of tea in the morning," or, "I don't like baked beans." It's just an opinion, not a label.

Just like, "I believe that everyone should have equal rights." You cuold be labeled as a feminist. You could be labelled as a gay rights supporter, or various other supporters of prejudism. Your opinions all add up to make you unique. Our opinions should have to be in boxes. Otherwise:

Everyone who thinks women should have equal rights goes in this box, over here. Let's put you in a separate forum where you can argue amongst yourselves and leave everyone else alone.

No, I don't think that. But that's where putting everyone in boxes ends up. In separate boxes.

I think what we are arguing here is semantics, which does us absolutely no good. These types of categorizations are moot when it comes right down to it, and you know it. This is one of the reasons I suggest the move to meritocracy when it comes to the issue of misandry or misogyny. To make things simple, I propose that we leave this in two camps when dealing with this so-called feminist divide. They either express misandrist attitudes and/or support institutionalized misandry, or they do not.
That it. Two kinds of people. How simple is that.

Of course, many people's first instinct is to be wary of anyone labeling themselves as feminists. It's the same kind of wariness a feminist would have concerning labeling ourselves as an MRA or non-feminist. Unfortunately, the term MRA or non-feminist equates to misogyny or inequality in their eyes just as much as as their label means misandry and inequality in others'.

To be perfectly frank about it....it is about equal treatment under the laws of the countries we reside in. This is what it comes down to. No matter anything else, achieving that is all that needs to be achieved.

Semantics aside, I do think there are a few women out there who use the label of feminist who are not in fact misandrist in their outlook. Would they be more apt to fall in that direction under pressure? Well, it depends upon how weak they are...how morally bankrupt they are inside. And that my friends is the true test of one's character.

We can say the same thing about any human being when it comes to a supposed set of beliefs. What this becomes is a matter of separating the wheat from the chaff

Let's keep the focus off the semantics. Let's identify those radical feminist groups that hold a silenced population of good women and men...and let's help encourage them to become outspoken in their thoughts about equality under the law. We need those women and men to fight beside us. We need them to speak against misandry and misogyny. We need them to be brave enough to fight for their brothers, fathers, and sons when it comes down to a radfem sense of female supremacy.

see I didn't want to kill my friend when she left the Radical Feminism Collective, but the others made me.

they held me down and cut all my hair off too. I think the truth needs to be told.

Targelor wrote - "To make things simple, I propose that we leave this in two camps when dealing with this so-called feminist divide. They either express misandrist attitudes and/or support institutionalized misandry, or they do not."

What is "institutionalised misandry"?

Targelor wrote - "Let's identify those radical feminist groups that hold a silenced population of good women and men...and let's help encourage them to become outspoken"

The silence on this thread is deafening.

Sybil.

Targelor, you said there are a few women out there who use the label of feminist who are not in fact misandrist in their outlook

The majority of feminists are equalists, not misandrists. The feminists who make the most noise about "being a feminist" are the extremists. As others have pointed out, that's true of pretty much true in every group.

Who's Jamez? Never heard of Her/him (delete as appriate).

On that subject, do we really need to identify a person by he or she? Why isn't here a neutral word for when you don't know or just don't really care in the context of the sentance? Something like shim or herm or something. Perhaps if we stopped making so necessary to identify oneself as one or the other all the time it wouldn't be such a big deal and therefore would make equality easier?

have a lovely biscuit, James

TAB - the shakesville site use ze for he/she and hir for him/her, but I haven't seen it anywhere else.

Targelor What the bollocks are you talking about?

"It is a horrible and shocking statistic that two women a week are killed by their partners. But telling women to avoid men is not the answer. Challenging social norms and gender stereotypes is"

Absolutely. But isn't that the patriarchy?

I don't think it has to do with the patriarchy. There are just some really bad people out there.
I grew up in an abusive home. Both my mum and grandmum would beat me for very little reason. They left marks that would last for days sometimes. It wasn't until a few years that my life outlook got better when I went to therapy. I just had to know that not all people were like that.

I believe that the majority of women here in the UK who call themselves feminists would say they are pro-equality for women, and also feel strongly about other social injustices and want a fairer more equal society - and further, there are still injustices to be fought - correct? That would most of the ones I've ever known. Rad-fems tend to go further, tend to stigmatise all men as either anti-equality, or dangerous, and hold beliefs about wholesale reconstruction of society and the family unit. I've met them, yes - and they probably make up a vocal minority of feminists.

My issue is that (probably) all the rad-fems and many of the more moderate feminists are not about equality, because they are concerned most with 'their team - women, and if there is an issue of inequality concerning men/boys - eg - some men having a terrible time seeing their children if they are divorced - say/think/type that's not my problem, I'm helping women... or men have enough advantages, I'm not interested... I will support the woman, whoever she is, the man must be at fault.

This isn't supporting equality, it's choosing a side and defending it, right or wrong. Male or female, I will try to look at the issue and see who is being treated unfairly. I will raise my children (one of each) to oppose both misogyny and misandry.

Seeker, could you define this patriachy? Just not sure what it is you refer to if that's the case. I thought you meant something about the governmnet being mostly filled with males, which may be the case, but we do have female ministers and have had one female prime minister. But your comment above says that you are actually referring in some way to a male attitude of domination in general. It's a term that gets used a lot in these discussions and I like to know what means exactly.

"This isn't supporting equality, it's choosing a side and defending it, right or wrong. Male or female, I will try to look at the issue and see who is being treated unfairly. "

Yes, that.

Atomic:
Patriarchy is a social system in which the role of the male as the primary authority figure is central to social organization, and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and is dependent on female subordination.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy

While UK laws no longer explicitly support patriarchy, in practice we do still live within a patriarchal structure. It is unfair.

MarySueFTW wrote - "My issue is that (probably) all the rad-fems and many of the more moderate feminists are not about equality... I will support the woman, whoever she is, the man must be at fault."

The vast majority of the feminists who I have come across do not think that.

I should say one thing for the feminist on Mumsnet, some of these are around here on this thread somewhere.

Although I don't normally venture in there, if I see a conversation going on in the feminist forum that really gets me interested, I have been known to post in therer from time to time.

Far from being treated like I'd just walked into the changing rooms, they were actually quite welcoming of a man's perspective on some issues. Only one refused to answer me on the grounds of having the wrong chromosone, and they were told off for it. Guess it shows that although there are some obnoxious people in there (as in all walks of life), most of them aren't that bad.

I still don't see it as a patriarchy. My husband's ex was able to get him arrested and thrown out of the house over a false DV charge easily. It turns out she she hit herself to make it look like he had hit her, then called the cops on him. They didn't even try to sort it out, they just took him to jail. On top of that, when they went to get a divorce, she claimed he raped her! She finally told the truth, that she was just trying to get custody of the kids and the keep the house, but he was fired from his old job, his family disowned him, and he had to pay over a lot of money to lawyers.

I mean, if it was really a patriarchy, then why are can the court just let a woman almost destroy a person's life. The thing is, she didn't get in any trouble for causing all that, and she still has their children.

Thanks, Garlic. Not sure its quite as strong as everyone likes to make out. I mean, I own my house but it's under a joint name and is split 50:50. I wouldn't class myself as being the head of the house, and my DP is certainly not subordinate. I don't really see much evidence of it in everyday life. Yes, many laws against this. We may have some way to go, but the way the term is used it's like hearing a schizophrenic use the term "they", the unnamed "they" who control everthing.

Some men do still have a sexist attitude. No denying that. We still have a long way to go. But not everyone changes their views. As sad as it is to say it, we have to wait for sexist biggots to die out. Sooner or later they will. And just keep educating people. It's like racism. I hear more older people making racist observation than young people (may disagree, but IME, it's true).

It's not just about some men, though, Atomic.
It's utterly pervasive - from background hassle when you go shopping or into a pub, through social assumptions that 'she' does the housework, to judges making sexist comments about a rape victim's dress or drinking habits.
The real power is still in male hands: heads of corporations; the judiciary; political and military decision-makers.
The gender pay gap is still 22%, that's £6,600 on a £30k salary.
Businesses and public services are still structured as if for wage-earners with a non-working partner at home (assumed female).
I could go on ... it's real enough.