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?

Seeker "That's why you can't say "I am a feminist - I CHOOSE to be a submissive wife" for example." You have just articulated what I have needed to say to someone for quite a few years now. (Bit late now but oddly, I feel better just knowing I would know how to put it if needed!)

SGM, what you're saying about choice. I think human beings have always known that choices are constrained by circumstances- until that so-called choice feminism was invented. Constrained choices has been the theme of so much literature.

What I mean is, I am that some guy (Was it Lauber?) now thinks he's invented the concept of constrained choices, when I think women are all born into having to accept this very concept. I just get annoyed when some guy points out the obvious and women are thinking 'I could have told you that for free'

I'm not Feminist or Equalist. I'm Rationalist.

How does rationalism relate to feminism? TCNY? Not being arsey, genuine question!

You see that's a great example of why equalist is problematic. The implication in that post is that feminist or equalists aren't rational. So when someone says they are an equalist, the implication is that feminists don't care about equality. Thanks for the example coalition.

AliceWorld - No it's not.

IWouldNotCouldNotWithAGoat - I'd say that Feminism is a natural result of a rational utilitarian world view. If people are not able to achieve to their potential that clearly impoverishes society in general, so preventing women from doing this is irrational.

Ah, OK. I was thinking of rationalist more as in 'I don't believe something exists if it can't be proven'.

No it's not what? The author doesn't own the implication of what they write.

Rationalism does not exclude feminism. That would be like saying I am a positivist/ critical realist/post-structuralist/structuralist/existentialist/constructivist etc not a socialist/libertarian/anarchist/conservative/neoliberal etc. They are not equivalents. One is a epistemological position, the other is a political one.

IWouldNotCouldNotWithAGoat - Well yes, but not to the point of solipsism.

Beleiving in things that there is no evidence for is irrational though.

AliceWorld - It doesn't imply anything. It says that I define myself as rationalist rather than a feminist or an equalist. There is no explicit or implicit statement made about the rationality or otherwise of Feminism.

AliceWorld - That errant space in your post has had me trying to find out what "Neoli Beral" politcs might be...

I think people are too worried about public opinion to be feminists..........my journey has not been my whole life, but people still when I say I am one....in fact I say it first before mother or wife nowadays!

Have you never heard of the Neoli Berals? They are a nasty bunch. They said something about the Endo Fhis Tory and they're big on the Mar Kets.

So much sense, dittany,.

Hear, hear, Dittany.

For me, it is a question of priorities.

put these in order of importance to you

discrimination against black people
discrimination against women
discrimination against disabled people
(short list for ease of explanation )

Now to me, a feminist will say well, number 1 is discrimination against women.

That's what makes someone a feminist.

The very act of categorising yourself as a feminist means, surely, that you have ranked the above and found discrimination against women to be the most important thing to you?

Whereas me, I can't put them in order. Because they are equal to me. And that is why I do not identify myself as a feminist.

I know that when I have tried to explain my pov before, I have been poo-pooed and sneered at and it has been said feminists care about all these other things tooooo.

But. to call yourself feminist clearly says you have ranked groups and placed one above another.

Otherwise, it would make no sense whatsoever for you to choose the label fem inist. iyswim.

I have a disability. My husband is black. Our children are mixed race.

I cannot and will not say that one is more important than the other and more deserving of my giving a 'title' to myself to show support of it.

However, I would hope that my posts speak for themselves on my views re discrimination in all its forms!

Well I can think of quite a few black feminists who wouldn't see it that way.
And you can call yourself a feminist and anti-racist and work for both; I know plenty of people who do. It's not either/or; different labels are useful because there are different types of discrimination and different tactics to be used in dealing with them.

errr no I don't agree that it's a case of priorities.

What is it then? If all causes are equal and a person assigns no erm, 'structure' to them, sees no one area as more 'important', more 'them' than another, what makes someone call themselves, first and foremost, a (since we're talking feminism) feminist?

that's what I don't understand. And it is not knocking it, it is simply - not understanding because there seems, to me, to be a clash in the - logic? the argument? the statements? - all causes are equal. I am a feminist.

Am I explaining myself clearly?

So. What you are saying is that all discrimination in all its forms globally exists because men have power and control and if we remove the control that men have, all inequality will cease? Because men cause discrimination? If women had power instead of men, there would be no discrimination in any form anywhere in the world?

Sorry for seeming stupid. I am trying to understand.