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

[garlicnutter]

... not a feminist?

Since I killed the old one.

I think that the patriarchy is a way of describing the status quo but from the viewpoint of feminists. The patriarchy is made up not just of individuals but of the institutions and attitudes (in the media particularly) that keep women where they are. I fail to see why any woman should be obliged by social expectations, to go to work or likewise to stay at home. I fail to see why women have to the primary carer if their inclinations and the throw of the economic dice make it better for them not to be. I fail to see why women have to be pretty and slim and 'well-behaved'. I fail to see why women have to the 'fairer sex' and even less so the 'weaker sex'. Life is full of options - women and men should both be able to access them all.

I have no doubts at all that if society was entirely equal men would benefit too - remove the social stigma that makes SAHDs uncomfortable and, for example, unwelcome in mother and toddler groups (we've had threads on that here before now) and both sexes and children would benefit.

But to promote equalism at the expense of feminism is to ignore and brush under the carpet the history of male oppression of women and pretend that it doesn't matter anymore because by and large women in developed countries can earn the same as men and .. ooh look women can be prime minister/president/CEO delete as appropriate. Forgetting the fact that there are million of women whose lives are still misery simply because they are* women. How can any woman pretend that it doesn't matter? I don't understand that.

Why are the "anti-feminists" for want of a better term -allowed to be rude and offensive to feminists, but not the other way round?

Sometimes i wonder why the best person for a powerful job is nearly always a white guy from the middle or upper classes

Have there been any studies which explain why women, gay people, working class people, people with disabilities and those from ethnic minority groups are so uninterested in or too rubbish to hold power?

The alternative is really unthinkable, and could make me angry, which really eouldn't be nice

The Female Eunuch
Fat is a Feminist Issue
Delusions of Gender
The Equality Illusion
Living Dolls
Female Chauvinist Pigs

Read them, found them interesting and am not about to disagree that women are still disadvantaged in 2011. Perhaps not as blatantly as when I started thinking of myself as a feminist back in 1976.

I have seen rape apologists and domestic violence deniers on here - are we expected to accept what they say because "everyone's entitled to their point of view"?

Being part of those groups myself, I know that disadvantages exist. Doesn't mean that other peoples' opinions are invalid because I know more than them about the subject.

so how come white middle/upper class men are better than everyone else at pretty much everything? They obviously are, since they seem to run just about everything, and seem like they always have

I would be a lot happier accepting this natural order if only i knew what made them so amazing and so suited to rule

"But I don't think I've ever seen it used unjustly on the feminist boards. Sometimes, people are rape apologists without realising they are. I was myself, once. I had no idea that I was repeating rape myths until I educated myself about rape. I've only ever seen people being accused of being rape apologists, if they asserted rape myths. "

While in some cases people may be rape apologists, I know I have been called a rape apologist when I was not asserting rape myths. So it's not always justified.

"Am not entirely sure what equalism is tbh so it would be enlightening"

It's wanting equal rights for everyone. It's that simple really.

"But to promote equalism at the expense of feminism"

Who is promoting equalism at the expense of feminism?

In that case I don't see why equalism is different from feminism.

Feminism's just one strand of equalism it seems to me. Same as anti-racism is.

In a way, which is why I identify as equalist (if I identify as anything) rather than feminist.

You could try that idea out on the feminist board and see what the resultant discussions throw up, HerBex. I rather like that definition.

Might do but have laundry to attend to

There are a lot of really powerful posts here already - and some funny ones. To me, this is one of those times when Mumsnet is worth putting the rest of life on hold (though I do that too often anyway.) I've asked MNHQ to put the "not" back in the title.

Prompted by these discussions, I've done some lightning research on "Equalism" which, it seems, is now a proper movement with its own structures, etc. I found a primary difference from feminism, beyond the deliberately broader remit of equalism: equalists/egalitarians oppose affirmative action according to the 8 or 9 introductions I've just read.

I'm afraid I do support affirmative action - though it has to be sparingly applied, and with very much explanation. A good example is Nicola Horlick's campaign for mandatory board quotas on FTSE100 companies. There is no reason at all why fewer than 50% of them should be women. Many of these corporations are actually run by women, there's certainly an adequate supply of suitable females for the top posts. Same for black directors, though I'm unaware of the stats for racial misrepresentation there.

There has been ample time for corporations to sort their act out. It hasn't happened. The only possible reason is patriarchal obstinacy. So I'm in favour of enforced equality there.

I cannot, therefore, be an equalist. Bit of a shame; the word sits more comfortably with my mindset.

Laundry?
Not my area of responsibility in this house.

I agree with Tina - egalitarianism is a philosophy which impacts all aspects of life - why on earth would it need a separate section. As an egalitarian, I am secure in my principals, views and opinions and am happy to have a reasoned debate with anyone about them where they have appropriately come up in discussion.

Re:ElephantsAndMiasmas

"Well it's a pointless discussion if people who are self-proclaimed Not Feminists are just going to keep saying to self-proclaimed feminists that despite what we say (that feminism is about equality and does not mean we don't care about other groups) that we are wrong. Does disliking feminism somehow make you better informed about it?

Is it possible that because you don't like the idea of prioritising the cause of women, you savour the views of the feminists you don't agree with because it gives you grounds to nod and say you always knew we were a bad lot?"

Just because I do not self-associate as a feminist does not mean I think you, as a self-proclaimed feminist are wrong - it means I have a different philosophical and political view point. Sometimes our views will converge and meet, sometimes they won't. It is not as black and white as to say one group is right and another is wrong. The arguments are much more subtle than that and progress can only be made by having reasoned discussion and identifying and working on similarities before trying to find common ground and compromise solutions for the differences not by proclaiming that anyone who does not agree with you fully does so because they think the whole of feminism is wrong or because they just want an excuse to demonise feminists. It is not a personal crusade, it is a difference of opinion.

I have not said that feminists do not care about other groups - it is other feminists who have said that as feminists they look at things from a female perspective and leave the rights of other groups to others to fight for.

I do not 'dislike' feminism. I would never be so sweeping in my opinions to dislike the whole of such a wide and diverse movement. I dislike certain aspects of feminism - many of which sit in the radical feminism camp and which I have explained my reasons for above.

"Also, whilst I support the idea of people being equal regardless of sex, orientation, race, etc etc etc - that's why I am a feminist after all - I don't see the point of "equalism" if its only use is to be a sort of placebo. If it's only ever used in ooposition to "feminism" then it's not very progressive is it? Why not just say "I'm an equalist therefore I support feminism AND xyz"?"

Equalism only ever appears to be used in opposition to feminism by feminists. I have never seen an equalist who claims to be anti-feminist because that would be diametrically opposed to egalitarian philosophy, non-feminist yes, but not anti-feminist. Equalists, imo, just have issues with some elements of the political and activist side of some aspects of feminism and find the philosophy of it too narrow to be able to or want to self-proclaim as a feminist.

To use an example mentioned earlier up the thread re: environmentalism. Just because I am not nor claim to be an environmental activist does not mean I do not care about the environment. Equally, just because I do not claim to be a feminist does not mean I do not care about womens rights, it is just for me they are part of a bigger picture which I cannot reconcile with calling myself a feminist.

You say that you support the idea of equality in everything and therefore you are a feminist. If I say I support the same, you would say - ahh, well that makes you a feminist then. Equally, I could say to you that actually, it makes you and equalist, but I wouldn't say that because how you choose to self-identify is your business. The two are not mutually exclusive, and I'm sure that some people will self identify as both a feminist and an equalist, but for others, there are enough differences to want to self-identify as one, but not the other.

The only time I have ever seen discussions about Equalism as a philosophy is on threads like this - usually started by feminists who do not understand why a fellow woman who wants equal right does not call themselves a feminist and in articles about feminism. When we try to explain why, we are told that we are deluded, haven?t read enough, don?t understand, or worse are anti-feminist, rape apologists or misogynists. Feminists should not ask the question, if they are not willing to at least make an attempt at understanding the differing viewpoints.

People who say that they are non-feminists keep getting told to read this, or read that by those who claim to be feminists, while the feminists who are saying it are quite happy to pass off equalism as a placebo or straw man while admitting that they don't really understand what it is.

It?s a big world and there is enough room for all of us who want to make it better, even if our philosophies do not agree, many of our practical aims and wants do, and that should be the starting place, not name calling and sulking over the differences.

HerBex - sorry just seen your post -

I don't lose any sleep over the gender of politicians tbh - I also don't care what women decide to do with their education. Maybe these highly educated women marry rich bankers and are happily bringing up Felix and Poppy from their mansion in Surrey. Why should I feel sorry for them?
You can't possible know the reasons why women aren't fulfilling their 'potential' - maybe they don't want to work a 80 hour week and be burnt out by 40. And who could blame them.

"Oh but feminists aren't ruse and offensive, merely misunderstood"

What's the anti-feminist's excuse , then?

I should stop posting, lenak keeps showing me up!

I have seen people say they do not like the feminist section, they do not agree with all feminist POV's, and that they do not get on with all feminists. I haven't seen, in either of these threads, anyone saying that the dislike or disagree with feminism as a whole.

"What's the anti-feminist's excuse , then?"

What anti-feminists?

"Why are the "anti-feminists" for want of a better term -allowed to be rude and offensive to feminists, but not the other way round?

Oh but feminists aren't ruse and offensive, merely misunderstood"

I was responding to this post and counter post!

"There has been ample time for corporations to sort their act out. It hasn't happened. The only possible reason is patriarchal obstinacy. So I'm in favour of enforced equality there."

This is where what I was saying earlier comes into play - we really need to understand more about the biological and instinctual differences compared with the social and cultural issues before that sort of enforced equality could be applied without causing inequality in a different way.

Can you say with 100% certainty that if we waved a magic wand and tomorrow, women and men would all have a genuine choice (without guilt, social or economic constraints) as to whether to have a top flight career or stay at home and raise their children that a large proportion of mothers would not choose to stay at home and raise their kids or work part time to achieve balance, thereby removing them from the marketplace for those sort of positions?

I don't know for certain, but I suspect that natural instinct would mean quite a few women would prefer to be with their kids, because in the natural world females overwhelmingly have the instinctual inclination to nurture their young.

If that were the case then in order to meet the enforced equality rules, as the workforce would be made up of less than 50% women, women would have to be over-represented.

I would prefer to continue to fight for real choice and equality and not some imposed quota that could be met, giving the impression of equality, while hiding underlying and continuing social and cultural inequality and prejudice.

Also, what about 'best person for the job'. We live in a capitalist society where the success of these big companies has a massive impact on all of our lives. I'm sorry, but I would rather the best person to do the job be appointed to the top jobs in those companies whether they be male, female, black, white or martian not the person who happens to meet some arbitrary, socially constructed quota requirement.