I have been following this thread for a few days now - read the first few pages, missed a bit in the middle and have been catching up since yesterday.
Yesterday afternoon, I typed quite a long post with my views only to press post at the exact time it moved and the whole thing went up in smoke! However, given what occured after the move, I'm sort of glad it didn't go on. Having just read to the end from the move, there was a definite (not nice) change in tone while it was in feminism! I never thought a thread would get more reasoned debate in AIBU 
.
I won't rehash what I tried to say yesterday. HRH has said most of it probably in a much more elegant way than I ever could, but I do want to make a couple of points:
I do not identify as a feminist. It is not because I do not think that there are still equality issues for women, it is because I choose not to associate myself with only one school of thought in the fight against inequality. I also disagree strongly with some of the more radical feminist views. Some feminists try to argue that feminism itself is about equality for all, not just women, but in my experience and opinion I find that is simply not the case.
Catitainahatita summed it up in two of her posts:
Feminists focus on the ways women suffer violence and will try to understand why women are themselves violent. They say studying the same phenonoma in men is not their business.
and
... as a feminist I care that boys are not always well served by the current education system. However, as I have said before, my interest as a feminist is to promote girls' rights and leave the promotion of male interests to male action groups.
Now I understand that this may be her particular brand of feminism, but from everything I have read, both on MN and academically, it is a fair summation of feminist thinking.
For me, I do believe that understanding male suffered and perpetrated violence is as important as understanding it from the female perspective because I believe that the only way it can be reduced is understanding the complete picture. I also disagree with promoting girls rights and leaving the promotion of male interests to male action groups when it comes to education because I believe that we should fight for the rights of all children regardless of gender.
I want inequalities addressed wherever they appear - regardless of gender, race, physical disability or sexual preference. I do not value one group more than another, I will not fight for one group more than another and that is what egalitarianism (or equalism) is about.
sunshineandbooks Sun 03-Jul-11 23:48:32 said:
"...the "I'm an equalist" explanation always makes me feel like those who say it are in denial of the fact that women still face a lot of (often unseen) disadvantages in life (though I am prepared to admit that I may be interpreting that denial unfairly BTW, as the word 'equality' has heavy connotations in feminist theory). Perhaps I have unfairly been labelling the "equalists" with faults they don't have and that's good to know.
This idea that someone who calls themselves an equalist must not accept that there are still inequalities for women, seems to be a myth that is largely perpetrated by the feminist movement. Being an equalist does not mean that I think that equality has been achieved, it simply means I believe that everyone is equal. Not that they are currently treated that way, but that they should be.
Some links which explain it better:
What is equalism - Carol Wohlfeil
[Equalists] do not believe that equality can be achieved if changes are the product of accountability for past wrongs.
Wiki Egalitarianism page
Its general premise is that people should be treated as equals on certain dimensions such as race, religion, ethnicity, sex, political affiliation, economic status, social status, and cultural heritage. Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status.
Urban Dictionary definition
One who believes all posses certain rights. The most basic of these rights being: life, possession, expresion. These rights are limited by the rights of others.
A person who doesn't believe that males or females are superior, but rather that both genders are equal to each other and acts upon that belief.
There is a lot of (gender) equalism thinking that is similar to feminist thinking, there may also be differences. Why can't (some) feminists accept that just because a woman does not wish to self-identify either personally or politically as a feminist, it does not mean that they disagree with the whole of feminism or are opposed to feminism. Calling oneself an equalist certainly does not mean that the status-quo has been accepted (as some feminists suggest: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1155502-Feminism-is-dead-long-live-Equalism-What-do-you-think.
You do not have to call yourself a feminist to be in support of equal rights and just because you do not self-identify as a feminist does not automatically make you an anti-feminist as some of the more radical feminists (at least on MN) would like people to believe.