> I dont need to be tagged a feminist to make my way in a mans world

> am I a feminist, no

> But I need my husband to be my friend and complete my life so i am no feminist

see, i think you don't really understand the concept of feminism. by simply believing in equality for women you are a feminist, you don't need to campaign or be an activist, you certianly don't need to not want a man to feel fulfilled- i know i certainly feel more fulfilled with liam than i did without, which is less to do with him being a man than him being him (but thats just my view).

i like it is anyone, male or female, holds a door for me, and i do the same, i really could not live without a bra and i wouldn't choose particularly feminine furnishings or decorations for a shared place with liam because its not to his (or really my) taste.

> I think a bit of give and take will get me a lot further than being antogonistic.

i agree, but i think the give and take should be equal between the genders (though of course each personal relationship differs for different reasons)

from the description you've given i think you sound like a feminist, and a good one! :) your a woman, you enjoy being a woman, you enjoy the complimentary relationship you have with a man, have enjoyed the benefits of being a woman in having children but have also chosen to do what you desire in life. you seen to respect that men differ from women but still see them as equal.

> i really could not live without a bra

Me neither I would be tripping over my n**s, and running with the dogs....... well black eyes are so last season !!!

Um I had not thought of that as a concept. I know Im equal but I do respect the differences.

> Um I had not thought of that as a concept. I know Im equal but I do respect the differences

lol, not thoguht of what sorry, twas a long post! :)

Concept that you can be a feminist and still in a relationship with a man and admit your need of him. I thought a feminist was equal and not admitting to any "need" of a male.

Men can be feminists too - Barak Obama and David Cameron (as well as my OH !) all say they are feminists.   To be a feminist one believes in social, financial and politicial equality.  Plain and simple.

When one remembers that in the mid 60s, a woman who worked in a bank would not work on the front counter (men only) - and had to leave when she was pregnant enough to "show"..... and would certainly not get her job back after her baby was born.   In the (all-girl) school that I attended in 1950s/60s married women teachers were few and far between - but even so, career advice was absymal - best careers advice came from a geography teacher - "gels, join the civil service - you will get equal pension rights with men"!

We have made progress - but it would seem that too many young women today would opt for "being famous" or marrying a footballer to creating a career.

> I thought a feminist was equal and not admitting to any "need" of a male.

well why can't you be equal and need someone? i'm sure he needs you to, so is equal :)

i think i need my friends, i need my family and i count liam as family so why not need him? it doesn't matter what gender the people you love are.

its not very feminist to wander around when single saying "i am nothing without a man to define me!!" but you have tried a few different men and have had a successful life with and without them but you need this person to be fully happy, it doesn't matter if that person is a woman or man.

To cut to the chase: I think many still believe feminist equals lesbian, and a man-hating one at that. There was an unfortunate chapter of feminist extremism in the late 70's early 80's, when such fears may have had some grounds, but that was long, long ago and all part of the growing up and learning curve.

Today, in our culture of diversity and equality I believe it to be true that most lesbians like men ( just as most gay men like women) and many-the lesbians that is- wear lipstick and high heels too. As for bra-burning Germaine, well the irony is she just loves men and, with or without her bra, she always appreciated a well endowed chappie (whether cerebrally or otherwise).

I think any modern gal, mothers, workers and both, who likes to make up her own mind about things, is a feminist with a small f, whether she admits to it or not.

> but it would seem that too many young women today would opt for "being famous" or marrying a footballer to creating a career

very true

> Men can be feminists too - Barak Obama and David Cameron (as well as my OH !) all say they are feminists.   To be a feminist one believes in social, financial and politicial equality.  Plain and simple.
>

this is something people also struggle with. men most certainly can be feminists, the person who first educated me about feminism (well, officially, i was brought up with it without realising) was a man, he's a staunch feminist and encouraged my research on it for my dissertation.

i'm really encouraged by how many posters do count themselves feminists! i thought the misunderstanding in society ran deeper.

worryingly though it seems its women of my age group (24 and lower...) who don't really get it. i suppose its because to a certain extent its taken for granted that equality exists, because for the most part on paper in this country it does, though in reality its an on going battle. i suppose a lot of young women don't know the sort of women who fought for our rights- i was lucky to know my grandmother very well whos mum was a midwife who educated women about contraceptives (very out there at the time!). my gran also insisted my mum follow her desire for a career despite having my sis and i. she and mum were also the driving forces behind my sis and i's career ambition.

she's also the one who taught me to cook :)

> I think any modern gal, mothers, workers and both, who likes to make up her own mind about things, is a feminist with a small f, whether she admits to it or not.

true :)

A feminist is 'an advocate of the claims and rights of women'. I don't think the 'claims and rights of women' are any more important than 'the claims and rights of men' - because I believe in equality. I don't want to be labelled a 'feminist' or 'non-feminist' or whatever.

I don't believe in these labels either. I am female, I was an engineer - 1 of 10 girls in a class of 200. I am perfectly capable of doing the same job as a man, and I have had to stick up for myself in truely sexist arguments. I have been told at interview that I will leave as soon as I get a boyfriend, that 'all the men are married here - so don't get any idea's ' , that I would stop working as soon as i had kids etc, etc, etc. There are laws to stop this type of questioning at interview now but believe me, the average, white, middle aged men still think these things. Sometimes I wish we could go back to the day when a women gave up work when the children were born, it would have made my life a heck of a lot easier :-D. But i also remember my mum having to get my dad's signature to get a store card at a shop :-o , who needs to go back to that? Having said all that, I still do not believe that women should serve on the front line in the armed services - does that make me not a feminist? We need to see people as people not as jobs, or roles or whatever. I now teach computing at College, I have classes full of men, women rarely apply. There are less women in engineering courses now than in the 80's when I did my degree. If equality means being able to sink as many pints as a man in the pub then who needs it? I'd rather look down from my superior position, I don't need to sink to be any man's equal :-D :-D

> A feminist is 'an advocate of the claims and rights of women'. I don't think the 'claims and rights of women' are any more important than 'the claims and rights of men' - because I believe in equality. I don't want to be labelled a 'feminist' or 'non-feminist' or whatever

being a feminist does not mean you don't advocate for the rights of men, or children, or gay people, or minorities or anything else, its simply a term for one of those beliefs, whats wrong with that?

> I don't believe in these labels either

but then you say

> I am female, I was an engineer

these are both labels. we are human and the way our brains work is to label things.

> There are laws to stop this type of questioning at interview now but believe me, the average, white, middle aged men still think these things.

i do believe you, i know thats true, thats why i think feminism is still important and that women behaving like its a bad thing to be a feminist makes it seem that thoses ideas might somehow be ok.

> Sometimes I wish we could go back to the day when a women gave up work when the children were born, it would have made my life a heck of a lot easier :-D. But i also remember my mum having to get my dad's signature to get a store card at a shop :-o , who needs to go back to that?

i think its the right of any parent, father or mother, to decide as a couple to give up work. of course that depends on whether its financially viable. i certainly would not want to be expected to give up work, thats my decision.

> Having said all that, I still do not believe that women should serve on the front line in the armed services - does that make me not a feminist?

i suppose that depends on why. i don't believe they should either as i have seen articles that examine the negative impact it has- male soldiers will go back for fallen female comrades in situations they should not, it endangers the whole unit.

as i only believe in wars for very important reasons i wouldn't want that jeopardised by that impulse.

> have classes full of men, women rarely apply

interesting, there are tons in college here and at uni. less than men though across the board despite better school performance by women. we are not there yet.

Actually I also dislike labels, life is about shades of grey, not black and white. However, I think feminism (with a small f) underpins our lives and our freedoms. I want men in my life (so dull without them) however, I do not want to be wholly dependent on them as a gender- I have a choice now, but that was not always the case. The rights and claims of men have never really been in question historically. I think the House of Commons, the hub of our democracy and government, demonstrates that is still really the case.

So I don't go around with badges or introducing myself with ists or isms, but I know what I owe to recent history and I feel unable to deny the women that won the choices I now enjoy.

>being a feminist does not mean you don't advocate for the rights of men, or children, or gay people, or minorities or anything else, its simply a term for one of those beliefs, whats wrong with that?

It's limiting. it suggests that I think the rights of women are of greater significance than the rights of men, or children, or homosexuals or anyone. I'm far more than just a 'feminist', and find being categorised like that slightly offensive. JMO.

fair enough, but i disagree with your assesment. i don't believe my being a feminist makes me limited, i am not any less likely to participate in the gay rights debate, or stop me campaigning to aid child soldiers etc.

i'm a woman, i'm a brunette, i'm a graduate, i'm a customer service manager, i'm pagan, i'm a dog lover. all labels. just because i am these things it doesn't mean i'm anti man, against blondes, school leaver heating, christian bashing or cruel to cats lol. i don't think it suggests you think those rights are less important, its one aspect of a complete, nuanced person. no one is one thing.

> but then you say
>
>> I am female, I was an engineer
> these are both labels. we are human and the way our brains work is to label things.

Astarte, I don't see either as a label - one is the poster's gender the other her career, not quite the same thing IMO

[ist]
An adherent or advocate of a specified doctrine, theory, or school of thought

[ism]
Informal, often used to show contempt of a doctrine, system, or practice, esp. one whose name ends in -ism


Hmm, think I'd rather just be seen for what I am - an individual.

You referred further up the thread

>i think if more 'normal' women applied the word to themselves this idea would change.

my initial amusement turned to despair when I read that.  Pray tell, just what are 'normal women' exactly?
On second thoughts, spare me the dissertation!

> Astarte, I don't see either as a label - one is the poster's gender the other her career, not quite the same thing IMO
>

but they both are labels. they are words that give a brief idea of what someone, in part, is.

> Hmm, think I'd rather just be seen for what I am - an individual.
>

its possible to be an individual and also belong to a group or an idea. we are all individuals but we all also think of ourselves as parts of different groups.

> my initial amusement turned to despair when I read that.  Pray tell, just what are 'normal women' exactly?
>

i used the '' to try and indicate that i was not really applying an abnormality to anyone, sorry if you chose to read it as otherwise. i was refering to women who did not meet the traditional feminist stereotype.

> On second thoughts, spare me the dissertation!

if you feel that way why ask the questions?

> against blondes

Oi, I'm blonde with blue eyes. :)

Oh and very femine by the way would walk my dogs in my heels if I could.

>> Oi, I'm blonde with blue eyes. :-)

lol, not against blonds dear, your fine, be golden and sunny :)

> Oh and very femine by the way would walk my dogs in my heels if I could.

theres an image lol

LOL :)

>> On second thoughts, spare me the dissertation!
> if you feel that way why ask the questions

I could lob that one right back LOL - probably because your own initial questions when answered in terms which don't meet your 'personal' ideal seem to get short shrift and you appear to feel the need to stereotype and/or convert everyone to fit the mould which you have been indoctrinated into believing is gospel.

I prefer to develop my own opinions based on wider ranging experiences :)

>fair enough, but i disagree with your assesment.

And that is your right as an unlabelled individual. :-)

at which point did i give short shrift to anyone? i have been trying to answer peoples points fully. if i have at any point it wasn't my intention.

> you appear to feel the need to stereotype and/or convert everyone to fit the mould which you have been indoctrinated into believing is gospel

i don't feel the need to stereotype anyone, and whats wrong with trying to persuade people to your opinion- isn't that what all of us do during any discussion? i have not pretended anything is gospel, i have given established theories and terms their proper meanings. if people misunderstand the meaning of a a concept like feminism i don't think its wrong to explain the actual meaning.

> and whats wrong with trying to persuade people to your opinion

> people may still have a totally incorrect view of what feminism is

Persuasion is totally different to telling someone out right they are wrong which is how this thread started :)

> Persuasion is totally different to telling someone out right they are wrong which is how this thread started :-)

i said someones interpretation of what feminism ment was wrong because it was. feminism has a specific meaning. when i mentioned persuasion i was refering to other areas in which i voiced opinion, which of course is something that everyone has differences of.

Gillian just answered for me - ye gads, spooky or what :-D 

I'm going to try biting my tongue (or perhaps better still heading for the toffee cheesecake) and watching Ulrika's interview as I really don't want to argue over this :)

No it was a direct quote you said nothing about interpretation and it came across fairy agressively and arrogantly. These are not quantifiable concepts being discussed  however accepted by the theorists they maybe.

i'm sorry if it came across that way, it was not ment to. this is a subject i am passionate about and if that passion was misrepresented i apologise. However, feminism has a specific meaning, as stated by several posters on the thread, and that was what i was trying to clarify, and that many women who seem to take against the term for whatever reason do actually comply with the basic meaning.

> this is a subject i am passionate about

That is obvious :-D

However what it all comes down to in the end is terminology or "labels" what does it really matter if someone chooses to call themselves an equal opportunist rather than a lipstick feminist ?

>many women who seem to take against the term for whatever reason do actually comply with the basic meaning.

To promote out female rights (as feminism defines) immediately and simultaneously diminishes male rights, which is the antithesis of equality.

interesting points about being labelled

i would tend to agree, i find it very annoying

however, i note from the past that a few people on here call themselves christian

> To promote out female rights (as feminism defines) immediately and simultaneously diminishes male rights, which is the antithesis of equality.

I think only if women are promoted to supremacy which, apart from a few whacky extremists :-), is not the aim of feminism I would think.  Certainly the OED defines it as striving for equality.  I think I would subscribe to those aims. 
We have come a long way from being goods and chattels but whether the differences now between us and men in the corridors of power, for instance, is down to inequalities of opportunity or simply lack of desire by women for these things I am not so sure but I do think the choices should be there for those who want them.  I know I rather enjoy living in a more traditional womans role.
I don't think it should make men feel limited in their ambitions and desires.  They have to compete with other people anyway for many of the things they want so equality should not present any new difficulties.  I would say the present fear of "paeds" is proving more limiting for them in functioning normally in families and society.

What a great thread.
I say Viva la difference!

Karen :)

I've trawled through this post with a mix of laughter, little chuckle to full on 'screen spray', clapping my hand over my mouth, clapping my hands over my eyes... to thankfully finally just clapping (raptous appluase for Teri,Gillian & JG)
only to get to the end and find Karen... you took the words right out of my mouth!

Vive la difference! :)
(and a big 'Viva la Diva' to Breehant! :-D)

> however, i note from the past that a few people on here call themselves christian

Not quite the same is it krusewalker?

I've never read a post here where anyone celebrating a particular faith or freedom from one has told everyone feeling differently that they are wrong, through ignorance of the true meaning or inability to comprehend the concepts and placating their own lack of comprehension about the subject by preaching that everyone else is somehow a 'closet christian' just waiting to discover their inner self .....

Lol @ screen spray (thank goodness I wasn't at work today) :-)

Isabel,

Well said.

I say Viva la difference!


In total agreement. :-D

Don't we have all this sorted already, we don't need women with clip boards marching around banging on for legal rights today still do we? These strong women did their job years back, **Thank goodness for them** we have equality in everything as far as I can see, the choice of job, the choice of staying at home to parent, the choice of paying our own way in everything.

To be honest, if I met someone and they introduced themselves as a feminist, I'd probably duck and dive and escape their company.

I like to have my choices in life, I'm a business woman, a parent, I certainly pay my own way, love treating my man too, but boy I like to be feminine and have my man pamper me and treat me like a lady, open doors etc, not like one of the guys. I think it is a horrible thing for me to be labled as a 'lipstick feminist' Yuk! What a horrible phrase, I don't think that is what feminists going back in the day would have liked either.

Viva la difference, is an excellent quote and I agree with it wholeheartedly.

I'm me, no labels pleeeeease.

> Isabel,
> Well said.

Thank you and at the danger of sounding like a mutual appreciation society I think you have made a couple of very good posts yourself! :-D

see, i think you don't really understand the concept of feminism. by simply believing in equality for women you are a feminist, you don't need to campaign or be an activist, you certianly don't need to not want a man to feel fulfilled

Just spotted this bit, you may well be right in your concept of what a feminist is or rather I would say was.

Re: Your age, you are lucky enough to already be born into a world of equality for women IMO so, if someone said to me "I am a feminist" to me they would be portraying that they are fighting for something, actively involved in something.

As I myself am happy with the role a female plays in society today, i.e free choice, then why is the word feminism still being banged around, if we do push things further we would have to become men, I don't want to be a man, I like being a woman and having my feminine charms. :-)

So, the answer that I would give to you is there are now no feminists (or no need for them) as we have nothing more to fight, if any man, company etc appears to be anti women, actually anti anything they are taken to court and tribunals, we have the law, now we are just all people. The feminists can go to another country to fight for their rights, here we don't need them, IMO :-)

    however, i note from the past that a few people on here call themselves christian

Not quite the same is it krusewalker?

I've never read a post here where anyone celebrating a particular faith or freedom from one has told everyone feeling differently that they are wrong, through ignorance of the true meaning or inability to comprehend the concepts and placating their own lack of comprehension about the subject by preaching that everyone else is somehow a 'closet christian' just waiting to discover their inner self .

you are right

Carrington, very well said.

And I apologise for opening a can of worms lol!

>> To promote out female rights (as feminism defines) immediately and simultaneously diminishes male rights, which is the antithesis of equality.

i don't believe it does, it promotes equality of rights for both sexes because that does not currently exist. the only way it could dimininsh male rights is any right that men held over women.

> what does it really matter if someone chooses to call themselves an equal opportunist rather than a lipstick feminist ?

in my view it perpetuates the idea that feminism is somehow wrong or other. i also think it can only be applied if you are in fact an equal opportunist for everyone, not knowing every aspect of each posters politics i can't say if they are or not.

i am an equal opportunist as i believe in general civil rights, gay rights etc but am also feminist.

> you are lucky enough to already be born into a world of equality for women IMO so

it is definately not a world of equal rights for women, even in the western world it isn't yet, not really anywhere near it.

> As I myself am happy with the role a female plays in society today, i.e free choice, then why is the word feminism still being banged around, if we do push things further we would have to become men, I don't want to be a man, I like being a woman and having my feminine charms. :-)
>

i love being a women and enjoying feminine things to but we are far from equal in our society today and the false idea that we are is perhaps the most important reason for continuing to campaign for equality. there are still enormous divisions between the sexes (not to the extent of making us men) that are yet to be addressed, mainly the far tougher things to challange, such as stereotypes, in ground socialisation etc that can't be changed by additions to the statute books (helped, but not changed)

> We have come a long way from being goods and chattels but whether the differences now between us and men in the corridors of power, for instance, is down to inequalities of opportunity or simply lack of desire by women for these things I am not so sure but I do think the choices should be there for those who want them.  I know I rather enjoy living in a more traditional womans role.
>

quite, there is much debate about whether it is through desire or socialistion that women undertake certain roles. i think it boils down to free choice though.