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?

". 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 think I agree with you, but I thought from an earlier post you thought "conditioning" and "performing feminity" both meant lack of active choice.

@TheWomanInTheWall

See this is an example of where our life experience must differ, since i believe there to be absolutely no point in teaching all men that they shouldn't
grope someone who has passed out and wet themselves.

"I thought from an earlier post you thought "conditioning" and "performing feminity" both meant lack of active choice." Noooo! No, they are completely different concepts! Sorry if I hadn't made that clear!

My first post was in response to Lass' ire over the concept of performativity and, if I have understood her correctly, this is because we have completely different ideas of what it means. I find it a useful concept, loosely defined as "performing certain actions that create the impression of a societally recognised gender role because there are clear benefits in doing so" whereas (and please correct me if I'm wrong here, Lass) she defines it as "colluding in your own oppression because you don't know any better" - which a) would make me angry as well and b) is very close to equating performativity with conditioning, as both imply lack of active choice.

For what it's worth, I don't find social conditioning a useful concept at all - apart from being infantilising and plain rude, it's reductive, it denies agency and it doesn't really explain why certain behaviour patterns persist over a long period of time and others do not.

itllall, how then do we decide which men need to be taught not to grope passed-out women? Because passed-out women continue to be groped, and it's somebody's sons who are doing it.

reminds of that guy who was protesting about being sent to classes on consent as an requirement for continuing his degree, when the very fact that he couldn't understand why he should be obliged to because he didn't consider himself any danger to women, only highlighted why he was a person who most certainly needed them (because he apparently couldn't understand why his point of view wasn't the only point of view in the world).

"See this is an example of where our life experience must differ, since i believe there to be absolutely no point in teaching all men that they shouldn't grope someone who has passed out and wet themselves."
Remind me what that footballer was called?

But certainly ideas about consent have changed hugely since I was a young woman. Thankfully. Still a while to go- but maybe our sons will be the first generation to get it?

I can't imagine any intelligent man not being happy to discuss issues of consent in the same way that we are talking about them here. Certainly I would expect it to be a pretty run of the mill discussion to have with teenagers in school, as part of phse and as an adjunct to many other subjects.

At home there are enough news stories relating to consent for it to come up in discussion without having to find an opportunity to give a consent lecture.

If teenagers aren't intelligent enough to have that kind of discussion, then that's even more reason to spell out what consent means.

It's not even as though issues of consent only affect heterosexual males.

What happens now, is that women are already assumed to not know their own mind

And that is what I feel about being told I'm "performing femininity" especially when it's used in a sneering way to describe feminine women as worse than drag queens. Yes I'm harping on about it but most of you hate being called "cis" . And sorry but it does not come across in the neutral way suggested.

A great deal of feminist thought seems to be about telling women they don't know their own minds. It's no more appealing whatever sex is doing it.

There's the idea of "shared experiences of being a woman", but what if you don't feel those experiences are true for you, i could go on but probably should stop

This too. I am not part of a sisterhood.

I think the Ched Evans jury decision was a landmark.

"And that is what I feel about being told I'm "performing femininity""

In what context were you told you were performing femininity?

I think everyone should be educated about consent: girls and boys. We should teach consent to the whole class as part of sex and relationship education. It's important everyone will learn what is and isn't ok, whether they will be a perpetrator, victim, witness - or friends with someone who is one of those.

Thanks swan, that makes sense now!

Baffled by anyone who thinks it's a bad thing to teach teens (girls and boys) what consent means! We teach our children that taking another child's toy is wrong (stealing), or lying about an incident (perjury), or fighting in the playground (assault) - why wouldn't we point out what sexual actions are wrong (criminal) ?

Steubenville was broadly that, wasn't it - a group of college students assaulting a young woman who was barely conscious. Did anyone ever tell that group of young people about consent and capacity?

"And sorry but it does not come across in the neutral way suggested." That's a pity. Analytical concepts shouldn't be used as terms of abuse. I think we can do better than sneering at each other.

As a man I am totally for gender equality but I'm not sure I would have the right to call myself a feminist.

I've used this analogy before. Think about apartheid South Africa. You could be white and want an end to race segregation but your experiences are totally different. Your education is better. If you attack someone of a different race you will be believed and they will be punished. If you go to prison you will be treated better, you have better job opportunities and will be paid more for the same job, better contacts and overall an easier life.

I prefer the term 'ally' for all of the above, you cannot experience what it is like to be a woman but you can see discrimination and believe it is wrong and work against it, but you still have life 'on the easy settings'.

On a bigger scale, SA was ostracised for treating people differently because of how they look. OTOH the west doesn't seem to care much for countries that discriminate against half their populations.

OP

I see feminism as looking at equality from a female perspective.

Eg there used to be separate men's and women's police forces. When they were combined in to police forces the women basically had to start to do men's jobs. Anything the women's service had done, no matter how successfully, was abandoned.

Women's forces had better connections with prostitutes, they could locate runaways through links with other forces. Who knows what else they did well.

A feminist version of amalgamating the two forces would look at the best from each and attempt to keep the best from both sides.

Are educational attainment and wages for young women surpassing men in the UK now? I thought there was still a pay gap, although narrowing? And I'm not sure about educational attainment either?

From the 1950s educational attainment for women has surpassed men when they are given access to the same curriculum / subjects. They are still paid less though.

"There's the idea of "shared experiences of being a woman", but what if you don't feel those experiences are true for you"

Isn't this a bit the same as saying "I don't agree with everything all feminists say, so I'm not a feminist"? You don't actually have to have experienced everything that all other women have to say you have a shared experiences, or to have solidarity with other women, I've never been raped, or been in a violent relationship, but I can imagine what that must be like, and show solidarity with women who have.

I wouldn't feel that I felt more solidarity with somebody who had been raped because I was a woman or, not having had a similar experience, that I had a shared experience. I don't think I would necessarily feel more sympathy or compassion than a man.

In terms of shared experience I think there are far greater differences between me and many other women than me and many other men.

However, I believe that women suffer discrimination, do not have equal opportunities and rights and need people to advocate for those rights, therefore I call myself a feminist.

Again, I respect people who have a different viewpoint about solidarity and suspect different perspectives might be down to different personalities. It sounds a bit too touchy feely for me!

However, being a non touchy feely pragmatist, I think we have more chance of achieving equality between the sexes if we are both inclusive and clear about exactly who is suffering discrimination.

As a man I am totally for gender equality but I'm not sure I would have the right to call myself a feminist.

Why would you want to? Feminism is a political movement, by women, for women and about women. It will not represent you, fight your Causes (if you have any), or listen to you, and that is fine. If men want to do something about the concerns that feminism has, we should start another movement - 'Men Against Violence", or 'Men for Equal Parental Rights', for example. But for god's sake, let us leave women alone to run their own affairs. We are neither wanted nor needed.

"As a man I am totally for gender equality but I'm not sure I would have the right to call myself a feminist."

I' not sure you have, either- I've been thinking about this a lot recently, since my ds challenged me about it. I think feminist ally is a fantastic term, actually.

merry
"I wouldn't feel that I felt more solidarity with somebody who had been raped because I was a woman or, not having had a similar experience, that I had a shared experience. I don't think I would necessarily feel more sympathy or compassion than a man."
I feel differently about this. I haven't been raped but I know that statistically I am more likely than a man to be raped. As a woman I can imagine how a woman might feel about being raped. So I do think being a woman makes it easier to empathise with female rape survivors. Of course, I would also feel compassion for male rape survivors, but I find it more difficult to imagine their experience.

That is fine another Emma, we don't have to agree.

I think that equality of opportunity and rights will do something for men. It will make the lives of their daughters, friends and partners better, and by extension their lives. It doesn't help a man at all if his partner is paid less because she is a woman. Why on earth would he want his daughter to have fewer rights and opportunities than his son?

I think we have gay marriage now because the heterosexual majority were persuaded by the logical argument that it was unfair and obsolete not to allow gay marriage, and the emotional argument that led them to feel that they were more similar than different to gay people.

Apartheid ended in South Africa because it had become unacceptable to white people as much as black people.

I think it is very difficult to argue for equality if you 'other' many of the people who you are going to rely on to achieve equality. A movement that is only by women, for women and about women might be fun to join, but I don't think it is as effective as a movement that is about women, but for everyone, and by everyone.

Totally agree with all that!

Why would you want to? Feminism is a political movement, by women, for women and about women. It will not represent you, fight your Causes (if you have any), or listen to you, and that is fine

Not necessarily my views but I often see on here that the patriarchy hinders men too.

For example in making it more difficult for men to work part-time /job-share which is relatively easy / expected for women (see thread about "Why is it always expected women will go part -time")

"Not necessarily my views but I often see on here that the patriarchy hinders men too.

For example in making it more difficult for men to work part-time /job-share which is relatively easy / expected for women (see thread about "Why is it always expected women will go part -time")"

It does. So men should be fighting the patriarchy too. Instead of fighting feminism, as so many (NAMALT) do.

I'd agree with that, Lass. The current system, which I personally think of as a patriarchy, rather than ^The Patriarchy', is an unfair system. As a northen UK male, if I want to change it to something that is more fairly aligned to my goals, then I should either start a movement that represents me, or join one that already exists. I shouldn't join a movement that sees me as an add-on, and expect it to understand my issues.