'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.

If the term equalist is used correctly, it is far from meaningless.

I want a world where we are all blind to gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion, disability etc. Therefore I am an equalist.

I continue to say proudly I am both a feminist AND an equalist.

I don't want to be blind to anything.

Sorry, I was off on the school run.

It's the 'rebranding' aspect of feminism I was pondering.
If so many people have some kind of problem signing up to feminism, no matter how ill-considered these objections might be, then some kind of PR campaign seems in order.

And to my ears equality does not = maintain the status quo, but stive to achieve a situation where there actually is equality.

strive, even, doh

Gender equalism??

Yeah, but so is 'sex'.

You can't rebrand an idea.

The reason people hate feminism, is not because of what it is, but because of what they think it is and also because of the lazy assumptions that they have without being aware of it and then fact that any engagement with feminism will force them to examine those lazy assumptions, which makes them uncomfortable.

Any re-branded version would make them feel exactly the same and would quickly be perceived exactly the same way feminism is now.

I think we should concentrate on re-asserting the message, correcting perceptions and not bother tying ourselves up in trying to re-brand an idea the mysogynists in the media are always goign to misrepresent, however it's branded.

'Equalism' strikes me as being a word that people will hid behind. People who don't want to look like misogynist twats, and who may be prepared to admit that SOME INDIVIDUAL women get a hard time, but who secretly think that it's all gone too far, and women are their own worst enemies, and lots of men are terribly disrciminated against, and don't you know there are evolutionary imperatives which totally explain all seemingly sexist behaviour and you canlt fight the way we evolved blah di blah di fucking blah.

Look, if you believe that things aren't equal and women get the rawer deal, call yourself a feminist. if you don't, then we're having a different conversation anyway.

The only exception would be women of colour wwho feel that mainstream feminism has maginalised them in a racist way, and who may feel comfortable using a different term. I'm not going to tell them how to feel.

Agree with HerBeX and Prolesworth. What's wrong with feminism? It's a proper word for a start - unlike 'equalist'.

'The only exception would be women of colour wwho feel that mainstream feminism has maginalised them in a racist way, and who may feel comfortable using a different term. I'm not going to tell them how to feel.'

isn't the word 'womanism' used quite a bit by people who feel like that? I have never come across 'equalism' being used in that way though as you say, that would be up to them.

Yes seth - I wsa thinking of 'womanism'.

Prepared to be corrected but I never came across the phrase "equalism" in the work of bell hooks, angela davis and other Black feminists or in critical race theory when doing this (admittedly many years ago) at Uni.

There are some examples of men being discriminated against which in turn gives women a hard deal ie maternity/paternity leave. I know there are now tentative moves affoot to address thise (not sure how far-reaching these changes are going to be, mind), but until now there really only was maternity leave for those families who felt they wanted to look after their own v young babies. 2 weeks for fathers is a fairly recent concession. And no, men can not BF, but can do all the other parenting once the offspring has left the womb.
For most family this arrangement has ment that father's remain in work, mothers stay at home with all the consequences that causes.

Also, I deeply dispise the recent trend in making fathers/husbands in ads look like cute little boys who need to have their hair ruffled and be otherwise condescended to by their strong, confident and oh so superior wives.

I don't think that this does feminism any favours... maybe that's the point??

Tondelayo, it is when I lurk stalk you all on the feminism boards that I realise how woefully badly read I am wrt feminism.

Didn't make the Jan book club either, won't make the Feb one - back of a cereal box is the height of literary delights for me.

I have never heard of the expression 'womanism'

Then complain to the men who commission and make the ads.

These ads which show men being infantilised and patronised, serve 2 purposes:

1. Men can whinge about how they are portrayed in the media and blame feminism for it, even though most of the media is run by anti-feminist men

and

1. It re-inforces the idea that the home is woman's domain, where men are dependent on women to tell them what to do and don't have to take any responsibility for the housework at all, as obviously that lies with the woman of the house. Where they come into their own, is in the boardroom, in the sports arena - they aren't portrayed as being infantilised in those important, high-status areas are they?

dittany, oh yes, of course there is far more and more degrading portrayal of women in advertising/film/media in general.

What I ment was portraying the other sex in such a way is just as wrong. And not an achievement IYKWIM.

To me it smack of 'what do you little women want, look, rather than having buxom blonde barely-legal girl advertise airfreshener, we are patronising a man. Haven't you come a long way'

Fair point, well made, HerBe, particularly 2.

OP have a look at any literary festivals near you, mine is Bath and we've got Finn Mackay on a panel debating 'the rebranding of feminism'...Tis the same day as the March in London, which I can't attend as I've got tickets for the boys to see Steve Backshaw live.

No, feminists don't think those things are an 'achievement' of feminists - but it gets paraded about as a 'look how far you've come, in my day that kind of disrespect would not have been allowed' claptrap.

And, no, I wouldn't want to distract from what feminism is all about - but it got me distracted, didn't it ? So, as a tactic, works a treat...