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

[seeker]

.....not a feminist?

I hadn't forgotten about 'anything good' atomicbum, as the point I was making was that there are different strands of a political movement, and you may agree with some factions and views and not others. Also that a political movement can evolve over the years.

I've known one escort and a couple of strippers - all were a little out there... but if they had been abused as children (not that I know of with these three) and gravitate to sex work as some kind of therapy (not saying that's true of all, but can believe it is the case often) - they seemed happy -and rich - enough, why is that not a good method of self-healing, chosen by themselves? What is the alternative for some of these women? Working in Tesco and betting counselling for being a victim? Some women/people don't work that way. And some women are just damn exhibitionists and they love it. Good luck to them!

Stripping and porn has been aroud for a very long time - there are those that regret they did it when they retire - just as some 'good time girls' who turn back into near virgins and become Christian as they hit 30 - but the mental health wards aren't full of them are they? Most seem to adjust. Their life, their choice. It;s not like the world isn't full of people regretting their life choices anyway, is it? Seems part of life, and growing.

It's probably not so much therapeutic, marySue, as acting out internalised values. By a similar process, I chose partners who despised and hit me because that's what I raised for. It was a very long time before I even found out that not all men hit their wives. When sex workers post here about their successful businesses, they do tend to make "all men ..." statements as fact. This leads me to suspect they've had no opportunity, at any time of life, to find out that not all men are like their clients or pimps.

Hmm, well these girls seemed to understand that not all men were like some of their punters - they all seemed to like (most) men fine. They may be unrepresentative, and I think the important thing to remember is that there is a huge difference between a desperate street walker and a escort or a stripper or porn actress in a safe environment, and their attitudes about a lot of things will probably be different. Which is why I am for legalizing prostitution and just making sure as many of these as women as possible are physically safe.

MarySue what do you mean ' But to me the word feminism came just after all the important stuff had been done'? The word has been in use since the 1890s or earlier.

what is a "sex-positive feminist"? Saw it in an ealier post and do not know what it means

catgirl1976 - the term is from way, way, way back (1970s), when some feminists were seen to be very critical of straight sexual relationships (I think Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin were e.gs...?)
So then there was a counter wave of feminists who had to make the point that they actually quite liked sex (yep, even with men!)

Thank you!

I do still label myself as feminist in real life. I've given up on here, it's frustrating to have my feminism devalued by the self-appointed arbiters of Mumsnet feminism.

You have put into words what I couldn't express properly-it is so nice to find that I am not the only one.

Tchootnika, really? I think of it as coming to prominence after 'women's libber' went out of fashion - and that was a silly term. Even so, since the seventies the rise of 'radical feminism' seem to have a more extreme agenda than mere equality - and as well as berating some women/feminists for not being 'real feminists ie traitors to their sex' because they don't think the whole 'Patriarchy' needs destroying and don't think men sit around bemoaning women's empowerment and wish they were all barefoot and pregnant again (and these women are not a media construct, sorry, I've met them, known them and so have many women I know) - is clearly putting off many women/would-be-feminists.

If a new term like equalist doesn't suit these women, they seem to need to say 'I'm a feminist, but not one of those radical man-hating ones.' Not an ideal situation but I do think there's a problem that needs addressing.

The word feminist was first used in 1887 in the Bury & Norwich Post: "The question over which the fight arose was the admission of male delegates, and after a very close vote the Liberalists beat the Feminists." The Athenæum, in 1895, wrote: "Her intellectual evolution and her coquettings with the doctrines of 'feminism' are traced with real humour."

Interesting - but it doesn't change my point that the term now is problematic for lots of women and possibly counter-productive to women's needs. It's like we are using the same word 'socialist' for those who believe in fairer taxes and also for anarcho-communists. I think the word is at a tipping point, as women gain more power, the catch-all term 'femisnist' has become a hindrance - except to the rad-fems who often seem are just itching for a fight.. when most want men and women to sort out these issues together - a, I believe, they mostly have. Maybe there are a few, maybe more in small towns or certain areas of the country, of 'get back in the kitchen types', but I think that the vast majority of men, especially those who grew up in the last 30 years, are all for female equality. And if I say that to some people they laugh at my hopeless, brainwashed, naivety. Which is annoying.

On the surface most men probably are. But scratch the surface and you'll find all the sad statistics - you know them already, about the two women a week killed by their partners or ex-partners, about the woeful conviction rate for rape, about sexual harassment not even being perceived as wrong in schools, let alone being reported in the same way as racism, about women still earning far less than men, about the pathetically low rate of women in the Cabinet, in the judiciary, as company directors and chief executives, in any positions of power.

On a domestic level, most men are fine until the point at which a couple turns into a family. And then somehow it's the woman who sacrifices her career and her pension and ends up living in poverty if the relationship breaks down. (And all too often still does the lion's share of housework and childcare.)

So something is still wrong. There are still plenty of battles left to fight. Most of them not against overt discrimination of the 'we'll pay you less because you are a woman' type but of the more subtle 'golly, it just so happens that the best person for the highest-paying job is always a man' type.

I think most modern men believe strongly in fairness and equality. And some are assholes. But the point is, is using the term feminism going to solve these problems, when the rad-fem faction are putting women off from labelling themselves this? If we need labels a catch-all term that was more about equality and fairness would represent what more men could agree with, and more women would be happier to use. I don't think a gender war is good for children - the main issue concerning the nature of this site.

And it's no use expecting men to all accept 'feminism means equality' when they are increasingly aware of how many rad-fems genuinely view them.

I hate it when my female friends tell me they would never be a feminist or even that they hate feminism. When I quiz them, it always turns out that their reason is their view on feminism itself, which is the media-made image of the shouty, unreasonable, fem-suprem bitch.

They end with "I'm not a feminist - I just think that everyone should be equal". To which I respond- "Then you ARE a feminist!"

InPraise - you make a very familiar argument. But it is completely invalidated by your belief that those 'shouty, unreasonable, fem-suprem bitches' are just a product of the media.

Feminism does not just equal equality - radical feminism and much of current feminist ideology is espouses views on men and women that many people do just not agree with, and berates anyone male or female who does not agree. At times it is like a fundamentalist religion. It is not the media that makes people believe that, its what some feminists actually do and say. All the people in this thread uncomfortable with rad-fems are not brainwashed by the media - or are you saying they are?

There were radicals in the fight against racism, too. But unless I've missed something, no-one ever used that to invalidate the cause itself. If anyone proposed the motion that 'we should call people who fight against racism equalists because otherwise it might look as if they are horrid to white people' they'd be laughed at. But someone the fight for women's rights is always undermined by people saying 'you are just being nasty to men' or 'if I join up, people will think I'm just being nasty to men'.

There are several reasons I wouldn't class myself as a feminist. That doesn't mean I'm insupportive of gender equality and it certainly doesn't mean I'm uniformed. In fact, it's precisely because I'm interested in achieving equality that I don't support feminism as it currently stands.

If someone says they believe in equality, no one will say 'you must hate men,'

If you say you are a feminist these days, that is the danger. Again, either all the women in this thread (reflecting a wide trend in the country) who have expressed that opinion are have been brainwashed by the media, or made a rational decision based on the genuine behaviour of many rad-fems. Which do you think it is edam?

Sorry, that should say uninformed...slightly oxymoronic

No but in fairness it did bring about a lot of negative connotations for black power groups and black interest groups.
There were clear divergences in from groups like the black panthers or Malcom X's nation of islam group and other groups such as supporters of Martin Luther King but the term "black power" became largely associated with the fanatics and peaceful or rational black interest groups did begin to focus more on emphasising that they were equality groups.
It is arguable that similar has happened for feminism.

"There were radicals in the fight against racism, too."

Actually that's an interesting example. As far as I'm aware, there is no named movement against racism. It was just people being anti-racism, semantically feminism isn't the same. If it was being called anti-misogyny then the comparison would work.

Anti-misogny can only really mean one thing, same as anti-racism. However if there was a word associated with anti-racism, especially one that contains an element describing the people who are being oppressed then it can be seen as being more than just opposing a type of oppression.

Mayor, that's an interesting question. I wish feminism was at the point where people didn't use the existence of radicals to disown the whole movement. People didn't stop fighting racism because Malcolm X existed...

MarySue, nice try but I'm not falling for it. I don't agree with your description of the problem, nor your attempt to suggest that there are only two possible answers.

I don't think there is or has ever been a movement in which you could say 'I agree with absolutely every other person involved'. I know full well there are lots of feminists who I wouldn't like, and lots of people who vote the same way as me that I wouldn't like, and so on for every ruddy issue. Because they are people in all their infinite variety. And plenty of feminists and fellow voters that I might like. So what? If you had to wait until 100% of the people who might support the same cause are in perfect sympathy with each other, nothing would ever get done.

The only qualification needed to be a feminist is the belief that women are equal to men. Luckily there are plenty of people who share that belief. So it's odds-on that some of them will be annoying, or find me annoying. So what?

"I wish feminism was at the point where people didn't use the existence of radicals to disown the whole movement. People didn't stop fighting racism because Malcolm X existed..."

I'm not sure people have stopped fighting sexism, I think that now they just don't do it under the feminism banner.

"I wish feminism was at the point where people didn't use the existence of radicals to disown the whole movement. People didn't stop fighting racism because Malcolm X existed."

No but I think Empusa has hit the nail on the head. Because people did very much rally against specific interest groups such as groups under the banner of "black power groups." becuase they became associated with the fanatics rather than people who believed in equality/anti-racism.
It can be very hard for a white person to support black power groups or specific interest groups when they feel demonised by such groups or as though they want some form of preferential treatment. So you have leaders such as Farrakhan disparaging white people as the sub-human devils, Malcom X giving similar speeches and Muhammed Ali attending a Klan rally. Or you have things such as black only colleges or groups where a whites only one would not be allowed. You end up splitting off from the original argument of equality into how it should be implemented etc. This is an argument for another day, and it can be argued that certain short-term minor allowances for the oppressed group are necessary to redress the balance of years of oppression. But what is clear is that the fanatics of these focussed arguments will always attract the most attention and headlines.
So You had white people who most certainly believed in equalit and most certainly didn't stop fighting against racism as you say but they disagreed wholeheartedly with specific black power groups because of the radical element.
I think that a refocussing of the goals may also be needed for the feminist movement/discourse among the public. Nobody I know would say that they honestly believe that inequality is a good thing, yet plenty of women I know would claim they aren't feminists etc. and I have received shocked looks/laughs from women I know when I have stated that I'd consider myself a feminist because the association is with a form of radical feminism and because I'm a young lad who has an admittedly appallingly un-pc sense of humour.