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?

Feminism benefits men because it is a viewpoint that strives to improve the situation in which we all live. The fact that it benefits men doesn't mean it is for men, it just means it isn't a shit system that privileges one group over another.

Well, I I agree with some of that, cailin. There would be some benefits for men under a feminist system. But those benefits would be a by-product. And they wouldn't benefit everyone to the same degree. And they wouldn't fix the things I see as being a priority. I wouldn't expect it to cater for my needs and concerns, because that is not it's purpose. If I want to fix the things I see as wrong in our society, I should get up off my arse and fix them.

Agreed Grimarse. I'm referring to the fact that Lass pointed out how men benefit from feminism and I'm saying, like you, that it's a by-product and it's a result of the fact that the aim of feminism isn't to crush men, it's to make a fairer society, which in the long run will genuinely benefit everyone. It won't benefit everyone to the same degree, no, and the people who benefit from the suffering and subjugation of others will lose out but I can't really find it in my heart to be too sad about that.

When I talk about not benefiting everyone to the same degree, I am thinking specifically of women. There will still be a North/South divide. My daughter will still be at a disadvantage compared to the daughter of a Mumsnetter in London and the affluent south-east. All feminism will do is ensure that she still has the same disadvantages as northern men. That may well be a leg-up on her current position, but the underlying inequality remains in terms of education, job prospects, quality of life, longevity etc etc.

Feminism intersects with race, class etc and of course those problems need to be dealt with too.

The subject of intersectionality came up on another discussion thread recently - I think it was about the use of PC language and violence, which was a product itself of another thread about the assaults in Cologne on NYE.

There seems to be a problem with feminism and intersectionality. If I understood the gist of it correctly, it was that too many 'good causes' either diluted feminism, or silenced it altogether. What I took from it was that trying to fix too many issues meant that very little would actually be accomplished, and I could envisage that even a triumphant feminist movement could easily still leave us with a metropolitan elite looking after the southern half of the country.

Perhaps. Intersectionality is a definite issue, and one that I haven't addressed enough personally. The 'good causes' argument IME refers to the fact that women are so often expected to put themselves to the back of queue in favour of other things that are 'more important,' and there is a frustration with that. The response can be to simply discount other causes which I don't think is the right approach but the question of diluting the message is a relevant one.

The subject of intersectionality came up on another discussion thread recently - I think it was about the use of PC language and violence, which was a product itself of another thread about the assaults in Cologne on NYE.

There seems to be a problem with feminism and intersectionality. If I understood the gist of it correctly, it was that too many 'good causes' either diluted feminism, or silenced it altogether. What I took from it was that trying to fix too many issues meant that very little would actually be accomplished, and I could envisage that even a triumphant feminist movement could easily still leave us with a metropolitan elite looking after the southern half of the country.

Sorry - Windows crashed and I have double-posted.

I was just reading this on purplesagefem's blog and thought it fitted quite well here. She's talking about feeling that you have to label yourself as the "flavour" of feminist you are, and how it's actually not constructive to be too prescriptive about what behaviour and beliefs should or should not be "correct" feminism.

"... But I haven’t been interested in reading up on the theories and beliefs behind these labels so that I can choose the right label for myself. That would be missing the point. Feminism isn’t a movement to evaluate your beliefs and then decide on the right label, it’s a movement to liberate women from oppression. When you scrutinize your beliefs and feelings in order to make sure you are applying the right label to yourself, that’s identity politics. You are welcome to explore your beliefs and apply a label if you want, but that doesn’t really accomplish anything"

she continues:

"In the feminist groups that work well, women are allowed in based on some general shared beliefs, such as for example, the belief in women’s humanity and the belief that we are an oppressed class under patriarchy. However, there is still room for respectful disagreement, and it is not required that women embrace a certain label or that their personal lives fit certain criteria."

In fact, I'd recommend a read of the whole thing : purplesagefem.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/a-big-tent-radical-feminist/

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.

A political movement by definition must have amongst it goals changes to governance and laws. Since no one is talking about excluding men from positions of governance, how can you have one body making and determining what the laws are, and another who are merely required to enforce it ? Obviously that is purely theoretical at the moment but you see the point hopefully.

Regarding consent etc and workshops, I somehow doubt that if a 15 year old Ched Evans had bothered to attend he would have a better attitude towards women. Such attitudes come sadly from the fact that he has probably had women fling themselves at him as soon as it emerged he was very good at football. I've seen this depressing behaviour before, and the entitlement it breeds. Presumably he would still claim that the workshop doesn't apply to him anyway since she was "up for it". That sounds a bit defeatist I accept.

"Regarding consent etc and workshops, I somehow doubt that if a 15 year old Ched Evans had bothered to attend he would have a better attitude towards women. Such attitudes come sadly from the fact that he has probably had women fling themselves at him as soon as it emerged he was very good at football. "

He may not have done. But maybe not so many people would have supported him, or abused his victim.

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

I take it you mean it's unfair from a capitalist/socialist viewpoint?

I'll put on flame proof clothing but I don't particularly want to change the political and economic system. Western liberal capitalism suits me.

I suppose my "feminism" stops at equal opportunities in education and the work market (and what I've already said re abortion, "sex work " etc which I don't think are particularly feminist views as opposed to just being a decent human being views)

Itll, not sure what you mean? Feminism doesn't have governance. It's like environmentalism in a way - there are some prominent activist organisations with different methodologies (Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace), a political party (The Green Party) etc but there's no governing body!

I think itwillbefine means exactly what you say.

Lots of people looking to change the way things are governed. Not just one lobby group.

That's a really good Blog Selkie thanks a lot for posting it.

I found myself nodding along to most of it. The part about being accepted where we are, as long as we understand that some things we do support patriarchy was especially helpful.

From that blog

Radical means root, and all feminists should be attacking patriarchy from its roots. All feminism should be radical. All workers are oppressed by capitalism, so if feminism is going to liberate women it needs to liberate us from capitalism

That's interesting. That resonates with me as to why I am not a feminist. I'm not anti-capitalist. Socially liberal capitalist societies might not be perfect but they are better than anything else on offer.

But if a woman is actively working toward women’s liberation and happens to also like wearing mascara, I’m not going to kick her out of the movement—that would be counter-productive. We need to put forth an analysis of why our personal behaviours support patriarchy, and we need to change our personal behaviours where it is possible to do so, but change can sometimes take time and we can’t expect perfection of everyone

Well that's big of her- although she would kick me out for not being anti-capitalist. Personally I would have thought the lack of availability of abortion and contraception in many parts of the world (something I do care about and actively assist with donations to appropriate charities) was far more important than fretting about whether or not mascara is an instrument of the patriachy.

Any political party comes up with policies that are a compromise. And I doubt the WEP or the Green Party will ever "govern"; hopefully they can get mainstream parties to debate and adopt some of their agenda though.

You repeatedly state you're not a feminist, Lass, so why would you care if someone else would consider you to be in or out of the movement? You seem to want an analysis from other people that declares you to be a feminist so that you can triumphantly kick against the traces and shout "hah! am NOT!". I don't get it, other than just contrariness.

Woman I'd say that that is probably the main purpose of those kinds of fringe or protest parties. To change debate and reframe ideas.

Having said that, the SNP and Plaid Cymru were, until fairly recently, similarly 'protest' parties which have managed to accomplish huge amounts. So there's always hope!

No one would "kick you out", Lass (not least because you have manifestly no interest in being "in", as Selkirk says)

The Labour Party no doubt contains people who would believe the railways should be renationalised and people who do not. In the words of Christopher Brookmyre, if you expect to agree with a political party on everything, then the
Membership will be one - you.

So it goes with environmentalism, feminism and other socio-political movements. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have very different approaches. The Woodland Trust and the WWF have very different focuses but both come under the environmental umbrella.

Why is it only feminism expected to be one thing to all women?

"Regarding consent etc and workshops, I somehow doubt that if a 15 year old Ched Evans had bothered to attend he would have a better attitude towards women. Such attitudes come sadly from the fact that he has probably had women fling themselves at him as soon as it emerged he was very good at football. "

Okay... But most rapists aren't millionaire footballers.

It's well documented that European countries with better sex education correlate strongly with lower rates of teenage pregnancy. Why so adamant that consent education will make no difference? And it would be one or two sessions in PSHE where teens are already learning about condoms and sexual health. Why so vehemently anti?

And agree with Bertrand that better consent education would have helped many understand why that was rape.

And it might have helped Ched Evans to choose to go with one of the willing and enthusiastic sexual partners he apparently had on tap that night, instead of going uninvited to the room of a naked, incapacitated, female stranger and raping her.

why is it only feminism expected to be one thing to all women?

The thread is about whether one can be in favour of equality and not be a feminist. That blog is a perfect example for me that yes one can. I was trying to explore why I have such a deep antipathy towards feminism and that blog reinforced it.

Re the Greens - that's the party advocating legalising prostitution?

I find you incredibly tiresome Lass. You're like the person who turns up at a rock concert only to bleat on all night about how you hate rock.

We get it, you are not a feminist. Great. Move on with your life for god's sake.