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?

Hecate, I think you have probably internalised the negative image of feminism which is pushed by its opponents i.e. that being feminist means you are anti-men. You care about your disabled sons, and that is rightly your number one concern, and you possibly see being a feminist as being in some way in opposition to that. But being pro-women and women's rights is not being anti-men, it is just being pro justice.

But I think you ask a very good question i.e. why are there threads not asking "are you an anti-racist?", because just about everybody would agree and say that they are anti-racists. So it must be that being a feminist is not so clear cut and there are different views as to what it means. There is probably no clear understanding of what it means in the way that being anti-racist is clear.

You can be a feminist and many other things as well, being a feminist is not in opposition to many other beliefs.

Thirty years ago, before anti-racism as a cause was embraced by the establishment, identifying as an anti-racist would often provoke almost as negative a response as identifying as a feminist. You heard exactly the same objections, exactly the same hostility - the idea that people who were anti-racist were obsessed with colour, race etc., and didn't care about other stuff, didn't worry about the fact that poverty, violent crime etc, affected white people too, blah di blah.

No-one would say that now, becuase for at least 20 years the media haven't been banging that drum and have treated the idea of racism itself as outrageous and the idea of anti-racism with sympathy. People forget how negatively it used to be received, how extremist it was considered to label yourself as anti-racist.

Good point HerBeatitude. I didn't realise that. I can't remember the negative attitude to anti-racism but it very possibly did exist. Not sure why.

Well, because society is racist Claig.

And at the time, people who stood up and said racism is wrong, were demonised. People like Ken Livingstone and Diane Abbot were made out to be madly extremist for their anti-racist views.

Most people are probably less openly racist than they were three or four decades ago, but formally at least, the establishment now frowns on racism. Whereas it's still happy to accomodate sexism. And that's partly because opposition to racism, sexism, homophobia etc., mostly came from the left and the left was run by ... men, just like the right.

I think it was partly because racist jokes were common currency: Jim Davidson doing Chalky, etc. It was popular comedy. If you set yourself in opposition to what was the common, mainstream idiom, you would be attacked for taking yourself too seriously. Oh come on, relax - everyone knows it's just a joke, I'm not a racist. It's political correctness gawn maaaaaad etc.

Maybe some of the opposition was because the campaigners were nearly all left wing, and some people may have felt that the left was using it to increase its leftist agenda rather than because it was for anti-racism per se?

Yes good point Unprune, there were a lot of racist jokes in sitcoms etc. at the time, and people did say things like "relax, it's only a joke" etc.

I think that was part of it Claig yes, almost definitely.

But it was also because racism, homophobia etc. were simply a lot more socially acceptable then, as sexism is now.

yes you are right, attitudes have changed since that time, thank goodness

What intrigues me (since we are talking about labels) is the groups that people 'like' on Facebook.
'We hate paedophiles'
'Racism is bad'
that sort of thing. I just think - yes, but that's a given. I had an aunt who invited me to the anti-paedophilia one. I couldn't work out if not accepting meant she'd think I was in favour of paedophilia.
OTOH if people are happy to label themselves with something positive, that's quite a change in society, isn't it? Compared to a couple of decades ago.

Feminism needs to push itself a little more, I've met many a young woman recently who were really interested in feminism but had no idea how to find out more or to join a group.

Great thread.

"equalism" does not object to patriarchy; it just allows women to join in on men's terms. Feminism requires a re-examination of society to include a feminine and a women's perspective

That's a jolly good way of putting it pointissima.

Doesn't that equate equalism with liberal feminism? I thought that was what liberal feminism was about (eg a being more equal but not changing the underlying structures), whereas what you've described as feminism is radical feminism?

Which, to my mind, highlights the limitations of liberal feminism.

I have said before that IMO liberal feminism works not too badly for a woman (if we lay aside the rather massive subject of sexual assault) up until the time she has a baby.

For me the sexual assault bit is a deal breaker with patriarchy and therefore liberal feminism.

(Am absolutely not saying that liberal feminists support sexual assault! Just that I don't see how useful change can be made within the current system with regards to sexual assault and maternity in particular.)

I so agree Beachcomber.