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

[seeker]

.....not a feminist?

Empusa I should start this post by pointing out that I am not a self-appointed spokesperson for the feminist section of MN, and I am definitely not the best read in that section, so I am only speaking for myself and if I confuse things even further with this explanation it's not my fault

Feminist theory starts with the premise that women are still not considered equal to men. While women have pretty much the same legal rights as men these days, and rape and domestic violence is illegal, feminist believe that women have not achieved cultural equality (as evidenced by gender breakdown of occupations, pay gap, domestic violence figures, etc etc etc). Therefore, when people talk about an equal society, feminists would believe that people who believe society is equal do not see the true picture.

Therefore, when someone says they are an 'equalist' there is a tendency for me as a feminist to assume they are saying: "I think men and women have it equal now, therefore I am only interested in human rights from a non-gendered perspective." Which I have interpreted as anti-women because it denies that women still have greater disadvantages than men.

However, the eco-friendly/environmentalist explanation someone gave has made me totally reconsider that and realise I have put my own interpretation on it.

Does that help?

GN, I have agreed or disagreed with you as often as I have agreed or disagreed with the people you have mentioned!

Interesting post, sunshine. I get what you mean, but your interpretation is based on your academic understanding of ONE word. Academics use words in mighty peculiar ways, especially in social sciences - I learned on the Feminist section that women are a minority, despite being a mathematical majority

To prejudice your reading of another person's views on the basis of YOUR eccentric understanding of a word, instead of listening to what that person is actually saying and adjusting accordingly, is startlingly dense. You aren't dense by any stretch ... so I question the meaning in your post?

:) Milly! Lurve & glitter. Cider?

"with regard to the burlesque comments, shouldn't posters be allowed to say what they think, as long as they are not personally attacking other posters?"

I was mainly using the Burlesque example to illustrate the point where people are talking about how they are actively working against women being demenaed on their image alone, and then going on to make comments which are personal and intended to be nasty.

"Empusa, I don't think the intention in making the comment is to celebrate burlesque, being fat or being a goth. I think the intention is just to be matter of fact about what burlesque is. "

I can guarantee that the comment I'm referring to wasn't intended in a matter of fact way, it was definitely intended to be an insult.

"Therefore, when someone says they are an 'equalist' there is a tendency for me as a feminist to assume they are saying: "I think men and women have it equal now, therefore I am only interested in human rights from a non-gendered perspective.""

Ah, I understand now. It's interesting, as I say "equalist" to mean things aren't equal, there are imbalances on both sides. Admittedly in most things the women are faring worse. But I'll fight for both to be equal.

I've seen the light! I'm just not academic enough to be a feminist!
Of course, if I were an academic, it'd probably be obvious why it's not insulting to call someone a fat goth, as long as they are a fat goth, neither of those adjectives being remotely subjective or defamatory to a feminist academic.

Got it! Finally!

But lots of posters say insulting things. Margaret Thatcher is the target of many insulting comments. As long as people aren't insulting individual posters, isn't that just freedom of thought? Radfems hold opinions that you may not agree with. They are entitled to give their opinions. If you disagree, you have to counter their arguments.

I think you're reading too much into my intelligence there GN

I don't normally go round assuming that people know the meaning of discipline-specific jargon, but then most discipline-specific jargon tends to sound like goobledegook unless you're in that field yourself. That's the trouble with the word 'equality' - it's such a normal-sounding innocuous word that is used in everyday life.

MAybe when you've been spending a lot of time talking about equality on a board where that word is understood to have specific meanings you forget that it isn't meaning the same things to other people.

"But lots of posters say insulting things."

Yes, I get that. But it's a little bit hypocritical to say,
"it is wrong to judge women and put them down based on their appearance"
then to use a woman's appearance as a way of putting her down.

sunshine.

the word 'equality' - it's such a normal-sounding innocuous word that is used in everyday life.

You know what? It is!
:)

Gn, in terms of the people on the feminist section, or any section of MN for that matter, I generally don't remember which person holds which opinion about which issue.

I generally just like to read what points are being made, without feeling a need to agree with any particular person. If somebody makes some kind of personal remark or is obviously trying to wind me up, I try to avoid engaging in it because it detracts from the purpose of concentrating on what people are trying to get across.

There can be a difficulty if somebody wants to look at things from a certain perspective and almost everybody else has a perspective that is far removed, because you can't then talk in any detail about your points because nobody cares about them! I have that issue when I want to think through things about how women dress. I feel where I was brought up women's dress is within a tradition of camp and is not predominantly about either sexiness or sexism, but I can never really get into that conversation because nobody else thinks that.

So I think you can sometimes have that experience as well, GN, that you are being talked over because there isn't somebody else coming from a similar perspective to talk to about a particular issue.

yes I agree with you. That is hypocritical. But people are hypocritical and do say contradictory things, just look at Gordon Brown.

He told Mrs. Duffy she was a "good woman", and two minutes later he was calling her a "bigoted old woman". Should MN posters in the feminist section be held to a higher standard than the former PM?

claig I've no idea what you are on about tbh. No one should be hypocritical, especially about something they claim to hold highly, and then not expect to
a) get pulled up on it
b) lose their imagined moral high ground

Lots of people are hypocritical, it's not a big deal. If they are and you object to their description of burlesque, then you should by all means pull them up on it and say that they are being hypocritical. No one is perfect. If they are hypocritical, then point it out at the time on the thread. Slating a whole section of MN just because some people are hypocritical is a bit unjust.

claig I didn't slate a whole section of MN, in fact if you read the very first line of my post you'll see that. I was just pointing out that it was something I had come across more than a few times, and felt it was one of the things that (for me) made it difficult to engage with people.

Poking fun at New Labour progressives is always funny

Empusa, I get what you are saying, but you have to engage with people who have different views. Lots of people are bemoaning that radfems have fixed opinions and can't see other's points of view, but you are in danger of doing likewise. I have to engage with progressives and counter their claims that global warming exists. It's difficult, they often try to engage in mauling tactics, when I quote from the Daily Mail, but it's something that is worthwhile and needs to be done.

What sums this up to me is the Dominique Strauss Kahn thread on the Feminist section right now. He is, of course, totally guilty of rape according to the feminists on the thread - just see the laceration of the poor saps who argue that he is innocent until proven guilty in law ( never mind dare to say he may, just may, have been set up ).

Don't get me started Omigawd.

That's an excellent point Omigawd. It's one that really needs to be addressed. It comes down to the basics of a victim ideology. All these "strong" and "empowered" people chose to maintain a victim status at the expense of others. Then the moaning begins about how "unequal" it all is and how those "evil menz" must be guilty...Even if DSK went to trial and was found not guilty it MUST have been the courts, or his money, or some patriarchal conspiracy, or just plain old male "privilege" that let him walk a free man. Never mind the fact that he was judged by a jury of his peers. Never mind that anyone prosecuting these cases looks better with the more cases they WIN...not lose.

Most of these people have no idea they are just patsy's of state control pushing to pass the next level of state control. It's veiled as equal rights...that's the stinker of it. It's nothing more than socialism and communism...except instead of a "rich" and "poor" class distinction...it becomes men and women.

Quick! Put it back in Feminism...