to not understand the words "I'm not a feminist"?

[bushymcbush]

I've seen this countless times on MN and I really don't get it.

Actually I've heard it quite a few times in RL too.

So, to those of you who are so keen to communicate your non-feminist standing, could you please explain to me which part of 'total equality between the sexes' you disagree with?

Alternatively, you could (gently) explain to me which part of that generic description of feminism I seem to have misunderstood?

Well surely it has to be one or the other?

Either feminists kill, etc just like the IRA/terrorists/etc and therefore put other women off identifying with feminism.

Or they don't kill, etc but put people off feminism by saying stuff and this is comparable to the actions of the IRA/911 bombers.

Otherwise why bring the IRA and 9/11 bombers into it in the first place?

Did anyone say "feminists kill" at any point?

Am I reading a different thread to you turnips?

Listen to Catgirl-she is very reasonable

No dear feminists don't kill LOL

Now about that typo in chat...

It's much easier when you live next door to Saudi, nobody is embarrassed to call themselves a feminist.

Ebook, yes, but how did we reach those misperceptions in the first place?

iyswim - it's not that we are secretly desperate to defend the patriarchy and suffocate any threat to it.

It's because a lot of us have experienced a kind of 'feminism' (or people claiming it's that) which ultimately put us right off it.

Maybe this isn't true feminism. But there seem to be so many people who act in a horrible, aggressive, militant way and say, this is feminism. And a lot of us don't know enough to say, no, it's not you're not a feminist, that's not what it represents.

AbigailAdamsMon 15-Oct-12 07:47:39

Yep Worra, all those radical feminists bombing and killing innocent civilians. I can totally see why you don't want to associate yourselves with feminism.
___

does this help, Worra/Turnips? It's the only reference to bombing that I can find on the thread and I read it as sarcastic.

My mum who wore boiler suits in the 70s (and is ace by the way) now can't switch on the tv without her man. She spent most of her adult life alone and is now enjoying an EQUAL and LOVING relationship. Surely that is all that we are looking for? Whether the love of her life was a man or a woman, aren't we just seeking freedom and individualism?

No catgirl - I don't think anyone said 'feminists kill'.

Feminists putting women off feminism were compared to terrorists affecting how people identify with religion.

Feminists were compared to people who kill others in the name of a cause.

I'm now at a loss as to whether that is because;

a) people believe that feminists are terrorists

or b) if it is because they believe that saying stuff about women's issues is similar to killing people.

Not that it matters terribly I suppose, because a) is obviously not true and b) is obviously ridiculous.

Oh sorry, ignore me...just found Worra's post.

I'm floundering, need to catch up.

No, it does help SeveredEdMcDunnough. It seems that AbigailAdams saw it the same way as me.

That it is fair enough to want to disassociate oneself from terrorist feminists.

I just don't think there are any!

It's understandable Ed considering the tangent the thread has taken....

"So why do feminists get irritated that women are saying they are not feminist if they are making feminist choices? Living feminist lives and raising their children with feminist ideals even if they shun the label?
Does it matter?"

I asked that earlier Woffling, no reply though.

Turnip............

I think Worra was saying that extremism can give a movement very bad PR which can put people off from becoming involved / identifying with it / finding out more, be it political extremism like the IRA or religious terroism like 9/11.

She wasn't saying that feminists are comparable to terrorists.

And I am totally reasonable, as endorsed by Theo

Ebook, yes, but how did we reach those misperceptions in the first place?

Some of it is to do with myths and exaggeration. For example feminists are often called "bra burners" but no early feminist demonstration actually involved burning bras.

It's also to do with the media having perpetuated anti-feminist myths over the decades, with put-downs and stereotypes of women who wish for equality. For example the Daily Mail often has an anti-feminist slant. And there are many who are quite ready to believe the articles.

Maybe some Feminists are terrorists. People who are against animal testing or GM or air travel become terrorists to make their point. Surely terrorism is an action rather than a label. I have a vague recollection of my mum's friends meeting about bra advertising and they were fairly militant. I think (don't want to libel her but..) my aunt once shoplifted a whole shelf of "cross your hearts" and they had a ceremonial burning on Dorchester High Street.
Now meeting your mum in those circumstances on the way home from school IS embarrassing and enough to make you want to go out in full regalia every day, lace and ribbons and all!

Ebook, agree that the media is often anti feminist but not just the Mail. Actually the Guardian comments are often quite sniffy, especially when a woman is writing about a woman.

Catgirl does it again

Was it you that sorted out the multitude of misunderstandings the other day, as well - with me and Shirl?

Or maybe it was someone else. I thought it was you.

Sure, it was just an example.

I see what you mean, ebook - I like to think I can see beyond that stuff though, and I still don't want to call myself a feminist.

I mean the mail isn't just anti feminist, it's totally anti women.

Guardian writers often start with the caveat "Now I am not a dyed in the wool, bra burning dungaree wearing Feminist BUT..."
I don't care if they are wearing Vuitton sling backs, their writing is often as skewed and anti women than anyone elses.

and I don't read it.

I think it might have been...

I'm on a roll........maybe the UN could use me in some way?

Tell you what, let's try rephrasing Worra's post in a way that cannot possibly be read as likening extreme feminists to killers. Seeing as Worra had a very good point, which has got lost in this bizarre tangent.

How about, some people will refuse to call themselves Catholic, despite agreeing with the core beliefs, because they don't want to be associated with the more extreme view of homosexuality needing to be cured.

Or, my own personal example, I refuse to call myself Wiccan because I don't want people to assume I agree with the more nutty extreme views. So instead, if I have to choose any label, I go for the more general label of Pagan.

So for me it is more like this..
Equalist is to Feminism like
Christian is to Catholicism or
Paganism is to Wicca

While in each of those examples the core beliefs are exactly the same, identifying with the more general label cuts out having to explain to people that you don't agree with the more extreme beliefs.

So rather than me saying "I'm Wiccan but I'm not one of the people who believe fairies faeries exist", I can just say, "I'm Pagan".

And as for the "If you don't call yourself Feminist why are you against equality for women?" argument, it's as nonsensical as saying "If you don't identify as Catholic then why don't you believe in God?". Because it is making an assumption that if you aren't part of a sub group then you can't possibly be a part of the larger group.

Yes they probably could CG