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

[seeker]

.....not a feminist?

"I hate that there actually has to be a label of Feminist. I hate that there is an idea that women were ever considered so inequal to men that there has to be a 'movement'."

I was hoping that's what you meant! Think we're all agreed on that one

Christ that was hard work

Thank you Empusa

Djaaa...
This is the thing...
I know what you mean re. prescriptive dickheads, worra... but they are not feminists, they are sad cases who need something to shout about (obviously they are not feminists, because if they were then they would listen to other women and appreciate that one size doesn't fit all, iyswim...).
Not the same thing.

The joys of the internet, it's never quite as easy to get a point across as you expect.

Be prepared for others to flame you before they've read the more understandable post though

????
Goodnight, y'all.

I'm prepared Empusa, it's that pesky missing semi colon. If only I'd listened properly during English Grammar.

Fair point Tchootnika and their are 'bullies' in every walk of life I suppose..but sometimes if people looked at 'how' they put their point across they might not get so many backs up and win more minds over.

I'll just stick to being an 'equalist' if that's a real word (spell check says no)

I deplore discrimination, whether it be based on gender, sexual orientation, race, religion.... I am a successful, independent black woman. I have had to fight twice as hard as my white male counterparts in my industry to get where I am today because of my colour and my gender. I continue to fight on behalf of the girls I mentor, I want them to be given an equal chance to achieve to their potential.

I have had many a discussion with women who adhere to the radical feminist ideology and I have felt they can be as intolerant and oppressive as some of those abhorrent misogynists I have the misfortune of encountering.

I am not a feminist, but nor am I anti-feminist. I believe in equality and freedom of choice.

Bollocks to this thread and have a OP.

I have never understood why people think other people should identify themselves as anything.

I hate people who have this expectation of women when it comes to feminism. Do they not fathom that being critical of a woman for not labelling herself as feminist, and thusly taking on all that that label entails, is equally as oppressive as any other expectations placed on the shoulders of women by society at large?

Can a woman not be free to simply be a woman in her own definition of what that means? Especially in this day and age.

I believe and strive for equality, but no, I am not a feminist. Feminist, is an umbrella term for many sub groups of feminism anyway, simply saying "i am a feminist", wouldn't be adequate anyway as different sub groups and individuals follow different ideas of what it is to be a feminist.

But believing in equality is being a feminist (and was a very radical idea not so long ago).

YANBU. I wonder why. I want the best life for me and my DD's and to do that I have to be a feminist and lobby for equal rights. I wonder why anyone wouldn't want to be? Surely the connotations of old are long gone (or at least mostly gone)?

MIL once said to me "Feminism is the worst thing that could have happened to us". I wanted to scream at her all the things you would say to that statement along with the fact she has a daughter and granddaughters but DH stopped me and she would just have gone wuiet and hated me more.

I dislike my MIL but for actual reasons. Like fucking stupudity.

This is exactly what I mean, no it doesn't male me a feminist. I believe in equality bug why should I be a feminist because of it? Because someone else applies that label.to me, not because I have chosen that label.for myself. That is oppressive and surely against what feminism is about.

Make, not male. Typing on phone, not freudian slip

Oh goodness that whole post is full of spelling and grammar mistakes. Bloody phone.

"But believing in equality is being a feminist"

Not sure I'd agree with this. I'd describe myself as egalitarian... and whilst that may entail I believe men and women should be treated equally, the Oxford English Definition of a feminist is the "advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of the equality of the sexes." As an egalitarian, I would oppose inequality and fight to oppress it, but that does not mean I would necessarily support women's rights per se. That is why I am an Egalitarian and not a feminist.

Oh and

"The idea of 'equality of the sexes' only exists because of feminism"

Is that really true? Again, according to the OED (But correct me if I'm wrong) feminism developed in the late 19th Century - but John Stuart Mill et al, campaigned for equality for women (and others) in the mid 19th century - 30/40 years before 'feminism' started. So surely the idea of equality was there first?

I think I'm a feminist- Have been told I'm not though on the feminist board. Maybe that's why? I think the few hardline (loudest) feminists who constantly tell everyone what a feminist should think do make people feel as though there thoughts aren't right because they don't agree on everthing that they aren't feminsit. Therefore people think they don't identify when in fact they probably do.

But feminism just means you believe in equality between the sexes and think there should be more of it.

It's just a label. A rose by any other name etc. Why not embrace the label, instead of tying oneself up in verbal knots to say the same thing?

And loads of substrands within it that not everyone agrees with.

I don't know about the egalitarian thing Mowlem, if you want equality between the sexes you would either have to advance women's rights or roll back mens'. I go for advancing women's rights, to catch up.

"But feminism just means you believe in equality between the sexes and think there should be more of it."

Sort of. I mean, it does, but in some people's eyes it's more than that. Which is why there's so much reluctance around it. If it were as simple as working for equality then there'd be less resistance to it.

But that's a misconception. It's like saying all environmentalists live in trees with crusty hair when all they do is put out their recycling and turn off the taps when they brush their teeth. Most people don't bother pandering to stereotypes, why allow it when it comes to feminism?

Its more all the things I have to hate/be against (starting with men, it often seems) to be a (radical) feminist and I just don't.

From my point of view I can either
a) do whatever I can to help get equality under the label of Equalist and get little to no argument/controversy
b) do it under the banner of feminism and have to argue with people who either assume I think things I don't, or try and persuade me I should think those things

For me, option A makes more sense. From talking to others I know I'm not the only one.

Also, due to how feminism is viewed by some people, if they know you are approaching something from the perspective of feminism (or just a different view of feminism to them) then it can cloud their views of what you are trying to achieve.
Making it harder to achieve those aims.

It would be great if the label hadn't gathered stigma, but it has.

I suppose that makes sense.
But if too many women identify as equalists and work under that banner that'll get slandered and debased too. It's what happened to Women's Lib in the 70's and they had to change to Feminism. Because there seems to be a resistence to women not just shutting up and smiling, no matter what label they operate under.

And you definitely don't have to hate men. Most of the feminists I know are in happy relationships with men. And I never hear feminists say All men are bastrds, or He's a man, what do you expect either seriously or jokingly.

It is a problem, unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any real solution as yet. I guess once we reach a point where the label doesn't have all the stigma attached we'll know we've achieved our aim though.

Unfortunately some of us have heard "feminists" talk about all men being bastards. I'll get told off for this now, I always do, apparently I've imagined these people as I can't provide a signed and dated transcript

Mowlen you are correct about John Stuart Mill. He wrote The Subjection of Women in 1861, a brilliant and important work in terms of advocating equality for woman. His contribution to the 'movement' has largely been ignored by the modern feminists as have important contributors such as Thomas Wentworth Higginson or, earlier still, Martin le Franc (15th Century?). These men are incredibly important historical figures in the struggle for equality but I would not class them as feminists.

I agree equality is not the same as feminism.