Can you be for gender equality but not a feminist?

[TanithDaUnicorn]

I am completely for equality of all people ragardless of gender, sexuality, race, etc. But I don't like being a "Feminist" Mainly because in my opinion it focuses on Gender above anything else, and the fact that there are a lot of double standards when it comes to it.

What is your opinion? Am I sexist simply because I don't want to be considered a feminist?

At the end of the day a lot of the misrepresentation of feminism is wilful.

Even over the sex attacks in cologne, where the right wing fascists' interests are for once aligned with feminism, they cannot bring themselves to agree with us and blame us for letting migrants in.

People look for holes because they want to pick something apart.

"At the end of the day a lot of the misrepresentation of feminism is wilful."

Or starts that way and rapidly becomes mainstream. I blame Viz!

I am so old I remember the days when "bra burning" was the accusation- "Well, I can't be a feminist, I like wearing a bra"

At least that one has been laid to rest..........

Lass at my school, in the late 80s early 90s, I was discouraged from doing Physics A level because the particular teacher who taught it was horrifically sexist. No girl had done Physics A level the whole time I'd been at the school. I'd suffered my GCSE physics lessons where he would never direct a question at any of the girls, didn't care if we weren't on task, and didn't bother if we didn't come over to watch the demonstrations. It was blatant. Fortunately I had enough self confidence to barge in amongst the boys and force him to acknowledge me, but none of the other girls did. The thought of putting up with that for two years of A level was enough to put me off, sadly. I sometimes wish I'd been up for that fight too, but at 15/16 I just wanted a teacher that actually appreciated me.

I'd be interested to know if you think I am wrong about this, and that this was not sexism or perhaps whether I am lying or exaggerating? Or if you think it's sufficiently long ago that it couldn't possibly happen today, and therefore it's irrelevant? (That particular teacher has retired so at least he won't be doing it any more.)

Freshwater - I don't think my friend would disagree at all with you.

In fact she feels very conflicted. She agrees with everything you said but the evidence is there of what happened to her career and almost all of her high flying female contemporaries who began careers in the City in the 1980s and were eventually forced out while male contemporaries went on to have promotions and mega bonuses.

She knows that her daughters will face the same discrimination and never make the levels of pay and career they deserve with their qualifications that they are working hard for rigt now. In truth she has a great husband and her daughters will do very well compared to the vast majority but she is very unhappy with the career she was forced to settle for and works for a fraction of what she should be earning. She feels very cheated and sees women who did nothing for the wealth and lifestyle they have other than marrying well.

Really,she is despairing that marrying well can still 'earn' a woman more than she can earn for herself.

I know Xenias posts very well - everyone's life is different but on average women still marry 'up' for a good reason. Every woman that marries 'up' is enjoying the benefit of her husband being paid more than he should because a woman earns less or has her job taken away all together. If women were allowed to compete fairly men would earn less on average.

Economically, equality means that men would earn less and women would earn more. In practice, th eeconomy would benefit by having the best people doing the jobs on offer - but men would lose out and that is a very hard political message to sell.The majority of people believe deep down that to make society function men should have jobs and earn more than women.

Lass: "I hate the term "performing femininity " I expect it will be patiently explained to me it's not meant to be offensive,it's just a means of explaining conditioning."

I can't patiently explain anything as I don't know what the offensive part is. As I understand it, the concept merely suggests that an individual's gender identity can be conflicted and unstable and that we all engage in actions that obscure this instability and produce the impression of a single and unified gender identity.

"Conditioning" imo has nothing to do with it. I do realise that some people do take this behaviourist view of identity and gender identity in particular, but I don't think the idea that we are so overexposed to incredibly circumscribed gender roles that we are no longer able to make choices for ourselves is a particularly helpful one. I think it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that.

Back to an earlier discussion, Selective Service registration is not tied to voting in the US. Voting is mainly a matter of state law (subject to constitutional and civil rights protections); Selective Service is federal.

Swan, surely it's not about not being able to make choices and more about the things that influence those choices?

I could choose not to say bless you when someone sneezes but my conditioned response is to do so. The sneezer usually then says thank you. Even though we are often both atheists!

WomainInThe Wall: "more about the things that influence those choices"

Well, precisely! But that's not conditioning. Conditioning implies that we are unconsciously "trained" to make certain choices (which would mean that they are not choices at all). Saying bless you is a conditioned response, you do it before you have the time to make a conscious decision. Choosing and (apologies) performing an identity is not the same type of mechanistic, predetermined response and I can see why someone might find that suggestion insulting.

There's got to be a spectrum though? My DH is "influenced" not to wear a skirt because it would never occur to him (or most English men) to do so. Is putting on trousers/shorts an involuntary response? Perhaps not, but it's a considerably more socially influenced decision than, say, picking up or not picking up litter.

I personally never use "performing feminity" so won't die in a ditch over it; however, don't we all "perform civilisation" (by which I don't mean it's involuntary but is strongly socialised) when we are polite, helpful, judgemental of wrong doing etc?

I agree that our choices are heavily influenced by societal norms, but socialisation and influence are not the same thing as conditioning. Your DH doesn't really have the option of wearing a skirt, so it's not really a choice. But I can wear a skirt and my choice to do so or not will be influenced by a number of factors, but I am in a position to consider these options and ask myself "what's in it for me?". We do "perform" societal roles, but I think our performances are a result of a certain amount of negotiation and an attempt to pursue our own interests within these roles. "Conditioning" implies that there is no choice and no thought behind how we choose to embody and present the roles available to us.

I can't comment on this because I wasn't on the thread- but are you really saying you don't want to call yourself a feminist because you disagree with what a feminist said? Surely not?

I don't want to call myself a feminist if it means aligning with that mindset. No one else on that particular thread seemed to have a problem with the view expressed.

Uglyswan sums it up very well in her posts. It seems to me in the same ballpark as the infantilisation of not conceding women make autonomous decisions when choosing to behave violently or criminally.

So you agree with hundreds of things that thousands of feminists believe- then one on one thread says something you don't agree with, and so you're not a feminist?

Do you not think it's helpful to try to find out why people do the things they do? Or do you think that trying to explain bad behaviour automatically meand condoning it?

Well, a bit late to the game, because I consider myself to be a women who is interested in equality and the removal of barriers women face entering certain professions and all the rest of it. But I'm a mother of boys so I also struggle with the tone of much feminism discourse.

If you have a movement which states as it's aims "women's rights" then implicit in this is a definition of what women's rights means. When DAvid Cameron goes off to Brussels to get "what's best for britain" many British people are sat at home going "He doesn't speak for me and I totally disagree with him". The same criticism of feminism is brushed off and sneered at in a way that says "I don't really care whether you think we speak for you or not". This is a problem.

Whereas everyone (even men?) agree about the basics, there is a great amount of disagreement about the rest. Perhaps what's needed is something more like the christian church (without the patriarchs) where they all agree about Jesus but not a lot else, but still get to call themselves Christians.

I think people are reluctant to call themselves feminists because of all the mud that's been thrown at feminists and feminism. It's a threat to the status quo, and some people don't like that, so influential people spread damaging lies about feminists being "bra burners", "man haters" and so on (whatever the latest criticism is). The fact is, feminists have different views, and there are different interpretations of feminism just as there are different interpretations of religions (as the PP said, we accept that not all Christians have the same views about everything), different political views among members of the same political party, and so on. The difference is that there's no real stigma attached to being a Christian, or being a Labour voter, etc - whereas many people feel there's stigma attached to being a feminist. But if that's why you don't want to call yourself a feminist, at least admit that's way - don't use the excuse that a feminist said something you disagreed with once.

Correction: admit that's why

"But I'm a mother of boys so I also struggle with the tone of much feminism discourse."

Really? So am I and I don't!

bertrand - so - as discussed the fact that you have women telling you that they struggle with feminist discourse yields a sarky reply rather than admitting that it's a problem having many women object to the existence of a movement that claims to represent their interests ?

The reason no one takes MRA seriously is because no one thinks they actually represent the opinions of many, let alone most, men. Feminism on the other hand....

Ididn't mean to be sarky. I thought I was being vaguely flippant.- and the other poster would come back with "yes, I don't like X, Y and Z" and then I could reply..........and we would have a conversation about parenting boys. It's a subject that occupies quite a lot of my thinking. But if I got it wrong, I'm sorry.

It was clear to me that Bertrand wasn't being sarky at all. She was just sharing her view.

Can you give us some examples of this "feminist discourse" that you find so offensive?

AnotherEmma - I could certainly do that, however I would rather discuss the point about the name (which suggests "speaking on behalf of and for global womanhood") for now, if that's OK.

@bertrand - sorry, didn't mean to be snippy, I aplogise.

Or did they take a man and a women who made EXACTLY the same decisions, had EXACTLY the same work experience, Exactly the same education, and EXACTLY the same position.

You have heard of those experiments when the EXACT same CV was sent out. Only difference being that one applicant was called 'John' and the other one 'Jane'. I think in the latest one I read, it was (again) found that John was a lot more likely to be hired, considered more competent and offered about 20% higher salary..

"I would rather discuss the point about the name (which suggests "speaking on behalf of and for global womanhood")"

No. That is not the dictionary definition of feminism. It is NOT defined as a movement which speaks for all women. Racial equality campaigners don't claim to speak for every single person in a racial minority or oppressed race, do they? I'm sure the vast majority of feminists would be appalled at the idea that they are speaking for all women. I am a proud feminist and adamant that there is no way I speak for all women.

I think you're tying yourself in knots Emma. What is the point of a liberation movement that does not care whether it represents those whom it aims to liberate ?

Tying myself in knots? I don't see it, but then I would say that, wouldn't I?!

Feminists can't win, can they? You criticise feminists for speaking for all women, when women have different experiences and views, and you criticise feminists for NOT speaking for all women. You just dislike feminism and are looking for new reasons to criticise it every time your reasoning is challenged. I'd say you're the person tying yourself in knots.

There's a difference between a political party, which is meant to represent its members, and has policies the members broadly agree on, and a broad political movement like feminism, which has a whole range of people and organisations aligned to it, and may have key themes and views that are shared by most feminists, but it doesn't have a leader or a manifesto.

Oh come on, liberation is hardly the same thing as representation, is it? You can have an interest in providing other people with the tools to liberate themselves without claiming to speak for them. The basis of femininity is solidarity, not representation.