AIBU to wonder why any woman would identify herself as [2]

[garlicnutter]

... not a feminist?

Since I killed the old one.

exotic - and your boys are happy well-adjusted men yes? Well there you are. There are plenty of men out there that aren't. Hence the current DV stats. I wasn't suggesting that all boys go to private school - but there are plenty of ways of instilling 'manliness' without paying to attend a boarding school hence the mention of boxing as an example. You only have to walk around the council estate near my house to see them - shaved heads, scary dogs on leads with little mini-mes walking next to them. Nature may provide so much - nurture can do a lot more and much of it is really damaging. Gender differences don't need to be emphasised.

"I've heard of egalitarianism. Is equalist a dumbed down form of the same thing or an MRA type movement?"

Equalist is just a more modern, easier to say term than egalitarianism - it is not dumbed down, they mean the same thing and are often used interchangeably.

"Do I sense an assumption that feminists (or anti-racist activists or LGBT rights activists or disability rights activists etc) only give a shit about one type of oppression?"

Only because you choose to read something that isn't there. Feminists often self define their beliefs as seeing things from the female perspective - it was done on the first thread wrt education when a feminist poster said they will look at things from a female perspective and leave arguements around boys eductaion to mens rights activists. Dittany said it earlier on this morning in relation to improving rights for mothers in the workplace ("Do we really need to be nice to people with a father's rights agenda..").

As an equalist, I would argue that from my perspective that is too narrow. I care about eductation for children, I will not narrow my perspective to focus only on my gender. I also believe that if you want to fully achieve equality for mothers in the workplace, then yes, you do need to work in partnership with the fathers rights agendas because the only way that you will ever achieve true equality for women is if men a not treated as inferior for wanting to stay at home and raise their kids while their wife works.

Some feminists such as Trillian said they saw their idea of feminism as encompassing equal rights for both genders, which is great. But for me, and many other equalists, too many feminists do choose to focus purely on female gender issues for me to be comfortable calling myself a feminist.

There are also differing viewpoints around whether equality should be about tackling the situation today or righting past wrongs (the old "men have had it easy for too long arguement, who cares if they lose out a bit now") and over issues such as affirmitive action / positive discrimination.

"You talk about equalism as if it's an established political ideology/movement. Is it?"

Mostly it is a philosophy, but it is starting to gain ground as a political movement - it is still in it's infancy.

However, I am not sure of the value of a full blown political movement given the amount of crossover with established political movements (feminism, gay rights, race relations etc) which it would be more productive to work with rather than set up alongside and split issues on which we basically agree. Perhaps we need a mini movement to deal with the issues and points where we differ.

'actually I thought I coined the term but apparently not'

my guess is an MRA coined it.

A female poster on yahoo answers has got the MRAs and their equalist trick sussed.

She posted this 3 years ago (so they have been spreading their trick for quite a while now) in reply to one of their propaganda posts on yahoo answers

'No since the majority of feminists are equalists as well. Please show me some proof that they are not. I don't want you to post your opinion or the opinion of the other women bashers here but actual recent concrete proof. That is another of your favourite tactics providing proof from twenty or thirty years ago.
How many account do you have now? Is that not a sign of defeat when you need to cheat to get your point across.'

What all propagandists fail to realise is that their propaganda is transparent, and that apllies to progressives just as much as to MRAs and their equalist Trojan Horse. Once the propaganda has been unveiled, their desperation and deceit becomes transparent and all good people ignore their siren song.

I agree with Orm. And even if nature is a biggy, it can be channelled.

It would be interesting to measure testosterone levels in men. Them chemicals have a lot to answer for too.

Sorry, have to crash this. Did anyone else click one this wondering why a woman would identify herself as [2] from the active conversations list, or was it just me?

Lenak, feminism also runs through all areas of life - that doesn't mean there aren't threads specificially about feminism.

I'm not sure how points from a thread entitled - Feminism is dead, long live equalism is really going to justify that equalism is being used on this forum for reasons other than debating with feminists. I don't see why threads about equality would go in the feminist section when most of us are happy to use any aspects of the board and will want to talk about equality issues from other perspectives than a feminist one.

There are lots of issues that do come up on MN that are mainly about something other than the rights of women, where minority groups are discussed in the most vile terms and where a bit of posting from some people interested in egalitarianism would be really useful.

For that reason, I think you need a lot more threads to organise yourselves and discuss your approach - as it would benefit MN hugely. I am sure many people on the feminism section would like to join in with that, and not neccessarily while wearing a feminist hat, because many people from the feminist section do post about equality issues other than women's rights.

MillyR, it's a concerted trick. They might as well set up an MRA section on Mumsnet. Then at least we wouldn't fall for it and could ignore them.

I disagree Claig - I think MN would benefit from people coming together to discuss equal rights for a variety of groups. There are threads all the time where, for example, people make incredibly homophobic remarks and are not really challenged.

If equalism is not an MRA trick, then there should be some threads about it where people actually start talking about wider equality and diversity issues rather just complaining about feminism all the time.

Some links which explain it better:

What is equalism - Carol Wohlfeil - From a Feminism and Womens rights blog

[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.

I repeat - Equalism is the same as Egalitarianism, it is just a modern, short hand version of the same.

Some people may choose to use and abuse the term for their own selfish or political motives and if you choose to brand all people who claim to be equalists as MRA's in disguise who just want to undermine feminism and ignore the fact that it is just another term for egalitarianism, and dismiss it out of hand rather than engaging and working together on areas of common ground to achieve change it is your perogative.

However, imo, it makes you no better than those who judge all of feminism based on the extreme views of some of the radicals at its fringe.

"However, I am not sure of the value of a full blown political movement given the amount of crossover with established political movements (feminism, gay rights, race relations etc) "

i think the reason Equalism and similar are becoming more popular is its clear the older single-purpose movements have won major battles (or the world has moved on) and now just create special lobbying groups, rather than a way of solving the larger problems.

Which is why (IMO) the Activists in these single issue groups are having to campaign incraesingly on minor issues, with more and more stridency, and are thus losing the support of the larger populations.

'Feminism IS equalism, sillies!'

'No it's not. Feminism is primarily concerned with women's issues, and it's main concession to men is that they will be happier when the Patriarchy has gone too.'

'That's true! They will be free of their brainwashed false identities and socially constructed masculinity.'

'Ok. But I don't think like that, and my main concern is fairness. Feminism worries about women first, doesn't it?'

'Er... Look over there! Its The Patriarchy! runs away

If you want to read about equalism (notice not egalitarianism) then go to the MRA's favourite website antimisandry.com. There are loads of equalists on there and loads of discussions on it. That's because the whole point of equalism is to be in opposition to feminism. But some of the MRA on there are even bolder, they say they aren't equalists, they are supremacists.

"That's because the whole point of equalism is to be in opposition to feminism"

That is ridiculous and offensive. It is no different from someone saying "The whole point of feminism is to deride and put down men"

It is also ridiculously ignorant to say "If you want to read about equalism (notice not egalitarianism)" because they are the same thing

'If equalism is not an MRA trick, then there should be some threads about it where people actually start talking about wider equality and diversity issues rather just complaining about feminism all the time.'

Exactly, but that won't happen, because it is an MRA trick. The whole point of it is to compalin about feminism all the time. That is its only purpose. That's why this thread has started by attacking some feminist posters and then moved onto discussing the merits of "equalism" and presenting it as fairer and more progressive than those nasty radfems and their MN feminism section. But hidden beneath its fluffy exterior is an attempt to undermine feminism.

Having gone and read about Equalism, I would still identify myself as a feminist not an equalist.

I'll try and explain why by putting it into the context of work. At my work place we have an equality and diversity policy that states that everyone should be treated the same regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, disability, age and so on.

Now that's great, but what it doesn't do is address how people come to the jobs they have in the company. Saying that you will not make sexist remarks in the work place is not the same as looking at why you are not making sexist remarks to a room full of female administrators rather than female managers, as realistically that is what you are likely to find.

Not discriminating against people because of their race, age, gender doesn't redress the balance between how women are disadvantaged because of their gender from birth.

That is why I am a feminist and why being a feminist doesn't mean I can't also agree with equality.

Equalism is a tool to make even the most moderate for feminists look extreme "Look, here is this new movement we can all join that promotes equality for all. You don;t want to join? Oh, you must be one of those rabid radfems then".

Equalism also suggests that white men are jsut as disadvantaged in UK society as any other group.

Which is patently absurd.

I've just done an MN search for egaliatarianism, and it is barely mentioned apart from in criticisms of feminism. So while I agree that it is incredibly important that people should be promoting in it and believing in it, I don't see much evidence of it on MN.

'Which is why (IMO) the Activists in these single issue groups are having to campaign incraesingly on minor issues, with more and more stridency, and are thus losing the support of the larger populations.'

It's a trick to undermine activists fighting for their rights on so-called "minor issues with more and more stridency". Hey, why not join the equalist movement instead and forget about your "stridency" and your "minor issues", the equalist movement is interested in bigger, loftier goals.

Stop your struggle, stop your fight, put down your arms, just unite, you know it's right. Let the equalist movement control the agenda, there'll be no more stridency and they'll make no more strides for your rights.

It just goes to show, Ormirian, that they are the very people who would benefit from the book or from parenting classes and yet they are the very people who won't do either.
I don't think that anyone is actively wanting to raise a thug with a vicious dog-other than thugs with vicious dogs. I think that girls have been made a special case and they have made huge strides. There is, to my mind, a a need to look into the education of boys. We should be able to take the 'male attributes' (sorry-searching and failing to find the right word) and use them in a positive way so that mothers,in general, don't get disappointed to have one-or think that with 3 DSs I am 'missing out' and I must secretly have wanted a DD.
We also ought to make equal in that men can do the traditional female jobs. They can do them, male nurses are just as good. There will be inequality while people wouldn't think of having a male nanny and don't want a male nursery worker taking their 3 yr old to the toilet. Equality works both ways.
Lots of men like working with DCs and want to put something back into society by being youth leaders (and good role models) and yet they are frightened of coming forward because this simple ideal is viewed with suspicion.
Men are told they should do this, this and this- but women then view them with suspicion when they do it!

"That is why I am a feminist and why being a feminist doesn't mean I can't also agree with equality."

baby - no you're right - it doesn't and I honestly think its great that feminism works for you. Equally, just because I choose to identify as an equalist / egalitarian rather than a feminist does not mean that I can't agree with (some aspects) of feminism.

The equalism is not more progressive or 'fairer' than feminism, it is just wider and has certain points of difference.

Unfortunately some feminists refuse to accept this and instead choose to feel threatened by equalism and accuse it of 'trying to undermine' them because they choose to see what they want to see and not listen to what is actually being said. It is a classic fear reaction.

It's a shame - as I've said previously, there is a lot of common ground, but some will always choose to attack rather than engage.

It's why I avoid the feminist section because despite a lot of reasonable and lovely posters who I feel I could engage with - many of whom have engaged on this thread - Milly, Lenin etc being over there, I can't be bothered with constantly trying to defend my position to those who are unwilling to listen, who constantly deride and ridicule rather than discuss, debate and engage.

Therefore, I will stop posting on this thread for the time being, unless the discussion moves away from the bitchfest it has become, in which case, I may come back.

It was interesting and constructive for a short while yesterday. Oh well - ce la vie

All boys things have to be open to girls and yet girls keep their own. If you complain you are told, it has to be that way or some cultures wouldn't send their DDs. The culture of UK is equality-why are we playing into inequality?