Feminists? Any here?

[OakLeaf]

I wonder what is the "White equivalent" of wanting African-American people to have equal rights?

[Pax]

Focusing solely on women for one brief thread on a web forum doesn't have to constitute the creation of a battle line. It simply means we had a discussion about women, by women. We don't have to feel bad or that we've excluded others or think it means we're not for equality. If we can't first ground ourselves in who we are and what our needs are then we approach the other half of the population lacking clear insight, again (as is so often the case) looking to their needs and responses first.

[lph]

Well, speaking for myself I truly am more interested in rethinking and reinventing roles for both genders than I am in focussing on just women. No offense at all to those who are staunch feminists, and yes, I know full well that much of my freedom to do this was bought by diehard radical feminists, and I deeply appreciate that.

But I feel it's too one-sided to focus just on giving women more options and raising consciousness around their roles, especially when it comes to family, if men don't change their roles. Both for their own sake - after all they're half the population too ya know , but also for our sakes. It seems a lot more constructive to me to make this a joint effort to encourage/nudge/challenge both men and women into rethinking their options and making freer choices. And I am not comfortable calling this just "feminism".

Besides, rallying on one side does have a nasty way of creating battle lines that don't have to be there.

One of my pet peeves. A girl acting boyish is called a tomboy and is "cool". Lots of bonus points for getting her hands dirty and being macho. A boy acting girlish is a figure of ridicule. Classic feminine behaviour is accepted in a girl, but is still less acceptable in total than classic masculine behaviour, which has higher status.

eta: the OP asked who would call themselves "feminists", and from that the discussion evolved via those who wouldn't (and why) as much as those who would. So I don't agree that this discussion was "only" women and womens issues.

[ilima]

A boy acting girlish is a figure of ridicule. Classic feminine behaviour is accepted in a girl, but is still less acceptable in total than classic masculine behaviour, which has higher status.

In response to an article about gay marriage (I think), a gay man wrote a comment that he had been encouraged by a woman to fight misogyny instead of just focusing on gay issues. She argued to him that, at its core, discrimination against (stereotypically acting) gay men was a form of/dervied from misogyny.

As to the rest of your post, I totally agree that if you are striving for 'equality' for women you must include men in the equation. The expectation of husband as major breadwinner needs to be relaxed. Men shouldn't be stigmatized in the workplace for staying home with a sick kid, picking the kids up from school, etc. And every family needs to be able to figure out the balance on their own.