why is it so wrong to call yourself an equalist instead of a feminist?

[IWouldNotCouldNotWithAGoat]

I have heard it quite often here that people are quite scathing of those who choose to call themselves equalists or humanists rather than feminists. Can I ask why?

It's hard to imagine how (broadly) everyone could not benefit from a more equal society. Am quite interested in the studies that go into levels of stress hormones in people in obvious hierarchies and how those effect things like depression in children.

See,I find that really interesting as well. Why is feminism something to be proud of but not socialism? I would have thought that some of the stated aims of the feminist movement eg more state-funded childcare would involve aspects of socialism? Or have I got it wrong?

See,I find that really interesting as well. Why is feminism something to be proud of but not socialism? I would have thought that some of the stated aims of the feminist movement eg more state-funded childcare would involve aspects of socialism? Or have I got it wrong?

See,I find that really interesting as well. Why is feminism something to be proud of but not socialism? I would have thought that some of the stated aims of the feminist movement eg more state-funded childcare would involve aspects of socialism? Or have I got it wrong?

'Why is feminism something to be proud of but not socialism?'

you would have to ask the socialists why they feel the need to constantly rebrand themselves and change their image to appeal to the public. Why do they do this? I think it is to hide the truth. I think it is a losing strtategy and an admission that they have something to hide. I think it would be a mistake for feminists to copy the socialists and rebrand feminism.

Depends what kind of feminist you are. Lots of feminist are socialists. You've not got it wrong Icouldnot.

People who are against feminism will make all sorts of claims, just like those being made against socialism.

I don't think I could be prouder of being a socialist (not a NewLabourite).

Unprune, good for you. People should be proud of their beliefs. I guess it is the leadership who change the name to New Labour and are constantly rebranding themselves, not the socialaist voters.

Quite so.
Socialism is an economic and philosophical movement, not a political party.

I don't think the Labour Party has ever been a socialist party, though happy to be proven wrong! My understanding was that it was a trade union party, and some of its members happened to be socialists.

'The Labour party hasn't been a socialist party for donkeys years. I'm not entirely sure why you keep bringing it up claig.'

Ok so it is not socialists rebranding themselves, but the Labour Party rebranding itself. I bring it up because people always ask the question should feminism rebrand itself to remove any possible "negative" image that has been ascribed to it by its opponents/ The most obvious example of rebranding is the use of the latest term "progressive" by the Labour Party. I use that as an example of failure and why feminism should not rebrand itself.

Also SGM, thank you for your post, this is exactly the kind of thing I am thinking of. Is sexual inequality a necessary result of the current system, of which capitalism is a huge part?

But is capitalism perhaps born of society valuing traditionally 'male' traits over traditionally 'female' traits? eg lawyers, bankers, footballers, all the highly-paid roles seem to reward aggressive behaviour.

Stop me if I'm just talking shit here.

this is a great thread, people disagreeing & talking & listening.

If you are a feminist, everything you do and every choice you make is informed by the impact that your caction or choice will have on women or on society's perception of women. That's why you can't say "I am a feminist - I CHOOSE to be a submissive wife" for example. Because your choice is helping to legitimize the concept of a submissive wife, which in turn helpt to maintain the patriarchy, and the inherently mysogenist mind set in society.

The term "third wave" feminism etc. Is this a bit like New Labour. Is it splitting and weakening and attempting to rebrand and ditch the heritage of feminism? I prefer just feminism under one all-encompassing banner. I agree with the concept of no-wave feminism

It's time for no-wave feminism

Bloody hell herbeatitude! I did?

On the feminism topic too

Yes I think you are right. New Labour was a real change from old Labour, whether we like it or not, so it was not just an empty rebranding. In some way it did represent reality. Similarly feminism has many branches and third wave differs from second wave, so it is not just an empty rebranding. But I am still against an overall rebranding of the term feminist to equalist or any other term, because these types of rebranding only occur as a result of defeat, and are a sign of defeat.

"eg lawyers, bankers, footballers, all the highly-paid roles seem to reward aggressive behaviour"

Is that a chicken and egg thing though. There is no logical reason why any of those roles have to demand aggressive behaviour. But because they are male-dominated they have become so. The men involved might well be 'alpha males' and get involved in willy-waggling competitions and bingo! That profession is an aggressive and masculine one.

Quite possibly. I guess you could have a nurturing investment banker. It's just hard to imagine!