'Feminism is dead - long live Equalism' - What do you think??

[PacificDogwood]

I consider myself a feminist, but a rather uneducated one - I have never read any specifically feminist literature, mainly out of fear I might combust with frustration and rage and denial is how I keep going.

So, I heard the above statement on the radio this morning. Apparently it was said by a 19 year old woman and the person on the radio (her mother, I don't know whether she was 'somebody') felt that a new generation of young women (and men) will be true post-feminists.

I like the idea and can see that it might sound less exclusive/threatening/hardcore to some (men, mainly, but also woman who do not consider themselves feminists for whatever reason), but clearly we are way, way, way off equality.
Doesn't mean it is not a good goal to trive for - so is the movement/philosophy that is femisism due a rebranding? Or is this all just spin of the worst sort??

I can't make up my mind. Please share your thoughts.

Spin of the worst sort IMO.

Equalism is a term which means "Let's all pretend everyone is equal now and go into denial about the obvious inequality around us."

Whereas feminism is about coming out of denial IMO.

Yes, I can see that.

But if feminism is about achieving equality for both genders then it just does not seem like a bad name for a movement that thrives for equality - and, no, no argument here that equality has most certainly not been won.

I hear the argument 'feminism is not anti-men, men can be feminists' etc, but IME an out-there male feminist is a rare bird indeed. Whereas signing up to being an equalitist (sounds odd ) might be more palatable??

I'm sure it would be more palatable to people who deep down don't believe in equality.

My impression is that men who say that they support equality but not feminism, mean that they are prepared to tolerate women in the world as long as they don't upset them or inconvenience them or expect them to change their world.

They are utterly unaware of the fact that the world has been designed only for them and their needs and that women have been deliberately excluded from those parts of that world which have the most status, riches and fun. And that the only way we can get into those bits of that world, is by changing the whole structure of the world and they are not prepared to do taht becuase it works very well for them, thank you very much.

Not my idea of equality, but it is many people's idea of it. And they are all wrong.

Oh, I love a good gavel - clears everything up, nice and simple!

The same could be said about woman who are 'not feminists' - surely if you have a vagina, you must be interested in woman's rights and thereby, by definition, are a feminist, non?

Ok, so equalism is a watered down, vanilla version of feminism, not as irksome.
And the world continues to require to be bovvered by angry woman . I love middle-age, so liberating to be an Angry Hag!

LOL at angry hag.

But equalism is IME only ever used by people who deep down, don't believe in equality.

The term equalist actaully covers the whole spectrum, not just gender, it is a term that basically means 'I support equality across the board regardless of gender, age, race, religion etc.'

It's a 'one size fits all' term.

You can be a feminist AND an equalist. That's how I view myself.

I've never heard it used like that Hatterbox.

I've only ever heard it used by those who say: "I don't agree with feminism, I'm an equalist" - in other words, they're not using it as a positive, I believe everyone should be equal term (who doesn't FGS, if you're not a member of the BNP?) they're using it in opposition to feminism

It was on Radio 2 Scotland . In the car. On the way to toddlergroup - oh the glamour of my life!

The subject was all about 'can women have it all' yadda yadda, and to be fair, a number of callers made the point that it is not about women haveing it all (ie career and family), but about men and women or rather families trying to combine both. A male caller actually asked 'Why does no-one ever ask a new father how he is going to combine fatherhood with working'.

Hatterbox, equality sounds better again as you explain it...

And why do woman at times find it so hard to be equalitarian to other women: fellow MNer with work dispute after returning to work following mat leave, overheard her (female) union rep saying to her (male) boss after she had been angry in a meeting 'Well, you know how women can get after they had a baby' ...

x-post, HerBe, really, in opposition??

Yes. Because they've got this pig-ignorant idea in their heads that feminism is all about women being "on top" and men being "done down".

Idiots.

It's a term that's been hijacked by anti-feminists.

It was first used as a more 'user friendly' term for egalitarianism, coined from the fact that égal is the French word for equal.

Gender equalism/gender equality is the term applied when referring specifically to the issue of gender.

I certainly find it easier to say "I'm an equalist' rather than "I'm an egalitarian."

If I say egalitarian, most people have no clue what that means.

Equalism is different from sex related political groups it is about interest in all forms of discrimination which involves both sexes.

Yes that's exactly it proles.

It's a real resentment of pointing out that women are one of the groups who are systematically disadvantaged and need specific analysis and measures to overcome that disadvantage.

Perhaps an alternative way of phrasing it would be that egalitarianism is the aim and feminimism the route?

Interesting though that other systematically disadvantaged groups don't have a specific name for their route to quality, unless I'm missing something.

Gay liberation?
Black power?

Also groups can define themselves as being against something. EG anti-racism.

Feminism is a positive concept, bound up in women's liberation, not just a negative anti sexism movement.

I like the quote I read recently:

"I'll be a post-feminist when there is a post-patriarchy."

I can't remember who said it, but to whoever it was, thanks.

I don't think re-branding of feminism would help much. It's the aims and ideas of feminism that count, however it is branded. You either agree with them or you don't.

Non-feminists dislike the aims of feminism more than the brand. Anti-feminists have done a brilliantly effective job of re-branding feminism as all sorts of things it isn't. Not only do we have the "man-hating, ugly, hairy, lesbian feminazi who will take all rights away from men" cliche but also, according to some men's rights activists, feminists already control the banks and governments and feminism is a communist-inspired plot to destroy society, etc., etc., etc.

For me, feminism is
a) obtaining rights that women do not have that men already have,
and
b) protecting those rights that women already have that anti-feminists want to remove.

As women have a lower social status than men, equality can be achieved only by raising women's status (feminism) or lowering men's status.

"Equalism" can be a way of maintaining the existing differential between men and women, which plays into the hands of anti-feminists. If society gives both men and women a new right, that's fine in itself, but what about addressing the existing other inequalities? A bit like flat-rate taxes. Everyone pays 20 percent VAT but that does nothing to lift the poor closer to the levels of wealth enjoyed by the rich.

Feminists are often criticised for not campaigning for more rights for men (although feminists have played a key role in paternity leave campaigns). Feminists know how hard it is campaigning for women. I am envious of the high energy levels and time-richness that equalists will need in order to fight for both women and men.