I am distrustful of anyone who says they prefer the label “humanist” to “feminist.” You’ve heard the argument before. It’s an attempt to downplay oppression against women and avoid acknowledging male privilege. “Humanist” is taken. It has a definition. It’s a life philosophy that affirms humans’ ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment guided by reason and compassion rather than supernaturalism. Many humanists are feminists and vice versa but “humanist” isn’t just a word you made up, bub.
Co-opting “humanist” is disingenuous and lazy. Not all humans are on a level playing field. There is inequality between men and women (and among women), and the feminist movement seeks to rectify that. It was called the “feminist” movement for a reason.
Thank you,
The Language Police
*applauds* Thank you, Sarah, for this! I had gotten into a argument with a man over this very topic. He wanted to know why I identified as a feminist and not as a humanist. When I broke it down for him, he swore up and down that I was wrong. Fifteen minutes later, I scowled, snatched up my wineglass, and stomped away. This ignorant grasping of ‘less offensive’ terminology for a battle still raging today drives me absolutely insane!
Exactly. I couldn’t agree with either of you more!
Oh for Gods’ sake. I can’t say I have heard this before, but it’s inane and dishonest.
However, I’d be amused to hear people substitute the phrase ‘secular feminist” for “secular humanist”.
I haven’t heard people try to use it as a substitute, but yeah, it’s definitely worth calling anyone on it who does. I do, however, often point out that humanism really doesn’t work well without feminism.
Patti Smith said this very thing (she’s for her daughter and her son, and therefore she’s a humanist not a feminist) and it was totally disappointing. Warning to feminist fans–enjoy the music and don’t investigate beyond.
Oh, Spark.
Sad that Patti–or anyone–would think that being FOR women means being AGAINST men.
It’s a classic, and deeply irritating, maneuver in a debate: “BUT WHY DON’T YOU CARE ABOUT THIS OTHER THING?”
I just wound up in this discussion with a bunch of women the other night. We were trying to figure out why so many women, who are clearly feminists, refuse to embrace the word. They instead call themselves humanists because, “We like men!”
I chalk it up to lack of ability to think critically…
Harpies – Don’t kid yourselves, you’re hard on men around here and feminism is a bitter pill for men to swallow. It’s not much of stretch to figure out why many people think that feminism is anti-male when you have derisive and mocking tags like “what about the menz?” If you went to a site where someone nailed your ass to the floor about your race privilege you would leave thinking the site was anti-white.
Who said anything about the harpies, Hill Rat? I am not talking about people’s perception of us. I am talking about co-opting a word that already has a definition in order to avoid acknowledging male privilege!
Do you want to comment on that or just continue insulting this blog?
Arggg TVille! What they are saying is that they don’t believe in god. That’s basically it. Which is fine, but in the context of gender relations it’s meaningless. Please print this out and tape it to your friends’ doors.
I can do both at the same time.
Language is constantly evolving, the meanings of words continue to change and grow over time. Fifty years ago the word “gay” meant happy, now days the word “gay” could be used to mean happy but the overwhelming likelihood is that it means homosexual. Forty years ago “Dick” was a common nickname for boys named Richard, but I can’t remember the last time I heard “dick” used as anything other than a substitute for penis. I could go on, but I think you get my point. Why can’t the word “humanist” undergo a similar transition or addition to its definition?
Curious that you got so defensive when I mentioned this blog’s author’s race privilege.
I did not get defensive when you mentioned our race privilege. I got ANNOYED when you made two rude, unnecessary comments in a row (on this post and PSoul’s).
The definition of “humanist” has not evolved, though. It described a secular life philosophy. What is the new definition? It hasn’t been given one. It’s just being used by people who don’t want to do any hard anti-oppression work or self-examination.
@HillRat: I don’t think she got very defensive at all.You’re original comment was sort of wildly off-topic.
your! sorry
Yeah, I’m not clear on the adoption of humanism as the alternative to feminism. Because, SarahMC, as you point out – humanism is an entirely different bird.
HillRat – is feminism a bitter pill for men to swallow, or is the pop-culture image of feminism as anti-men difficult? Actually, maybe a better question is one more open ended; what is difficult for men about feminism? (I ask genuinely interested as I’m about to have a son, whom I want very much to raise consciously, and even feminist.)
TVille, I’m gonna let you take the convo in that direction because perhaps the answer will be useful to you.
But Hill Rat’s first comment boils down to “Y’all ARE man-haters so what do you expect?”
“What about the menz?” mocks the tactic of changing a conversation about the conditions of women’s lives to one about the conditions of men’s lives. It doesn’t mock menz themselves.
SarahMC – Yeah – I got that vibe from the first part of HillRat’s comment too…
I am curious though – generally – when men suggest that feminism is hurtful to them, or a difficult thing for them to wrap their brains around, why?
Of course, I should ask the women claiming humanism as feminism the same question.
I guess, in my world view, feminism and being a feminist, and owning the label should be givens. And I find myself increasingly curious – the more I move out of academia and into rural geographical areas, what forces have influenced people so they see feminism as bad.
The definition of “humanist” has not evolved, though. It described a secular life philosophy. What is the new definition? It hasn’t been given one.
Words don’t get re-defined because a bunch of grammarians get together in their pointy hats and decide, “Hey we’re going to change the definition of gay from ‘happy’ to ‘homosexual’.” It happens because people start using words in different ways than they have been traditionally defined and eventually the guys (the use of guys is intentional) in the pointy hats are forced to make changes to the dictionary to deal with new realities.
Isn’t feminism a secular life philosophy? Could it not fit under the banner of “humanist” in the broadest possible interpretation of the word “humanist”?
It’s just being used by people who don’t want to do any hard anti-oppression work or self-examination.
That statement discounts the possibility that perhaps “humanist” is a stop on the journey to “feminist” or maybe vice versa. What the Harpies seem to forget is that feminism is a big scary monster to most people, when really it’s more like a fierce (but gentle at heart) guard dog that you just need to make friends with.
HillRat, the people “redefining” humanist don’t know what it means in the first place. The meaning isn’t evolving because they don’t care about the meaning. Which I resent. They can’t “evolve” humanist to a new definition because I’m still using the old one. I’m a secular humanist and a feminist. I acknowledge they’re related, but they aren’t the same thing.
Thank you, Av0gadro!
Hmmm . . . . I would just add that Kurt Vonnegut was a “humanist” and we all know how “feminist” he was. Since man has largely been a synonym for human and vice versa, it seems like humanism is more of the status quo.
Also, if you can’t get behind feminism, even though you agree with everything it says, because it has a feminine name, then you obviously don’t get what the whole deal is about anyway.
Now, we could take time out of our busy schedules to hold men’s hands and lead them gently through the intellectual briars and brambles and introduce them softly to the realization that women are people, but how is that any different from men asking women to do their work for them, for free, and to be grateful that we’re given that chance? It’s not.
@TVille said:
is feminism a bitter pill for men to swallow, or is the pop-culture image of feminism as anti-men difficult?
Both. The caricature of feminism as anti-male is a huge initial barrier to deeper examination of the actual philosophy that most people don’t make it past. Andrea Dworkin and her apocryphal statement about all heterosexual sex being rape is the best example I can give.
Actually, maybe a better question is one more open ended; what is difficult for men about feminism?
The hard truth for me as a man is that feminism requires me to constantly examine and re-examine much of what I previously thought defined me as a man. It’s a lot of fucking work to have to start parsing your words and actions all the time after a lifetime of kinda just saying and doing whatever you wanted to with no regard for whether or not you’re reinforcing a system of oppression.
@Av0gadro
Well put, but the unfortunate truth is that people looking things up in dictionaries and using words correctly are generally in the minority. I would point you to the wide spread use of the “word” irregardless as evidence.
You acknowledge that secular humanism and feminism are related, would calling a feminism a “denomination” of secular humanism be a fair comparison?
Hill Rat:
It seems that you are saying it is hard for you, and by extension other men, to be good and thoughtful people. And you’re right, it’s hard for humans to be good and thoughtful people. But why should feminists be responsible for making this easier for you? We’re spending our time fighting the same battles for ourselves . . .
@bellacooker
I’m simply explaining why people shy away from the word “feminist.” I don’t think I ever said that feminists were responsible for making my life easier. In fact, in the situations where I would most like to enlist feminist’s help (when it’s just me and the boys) they can’t help me. It’s just me and a butter knife fighting a Panzer division of patriarchy.
Wow, Hillrat, are you honestly saying you don’t like feminism because it’s hard? Because you’re too lazy to look at the world from someone else’s point of view? I mean, if that’s true, I appreciate your honesty, but wonder why you even bother to get out of bed everyday, if you’d rather keep your established notion of the world. I mean, why go on the internet, read a newspaper or watch the news if you don’t want the messy world getting in the way of your pat little ideas?
Oh, I see. You’re playing the whole “my friend” game. You’re trying to pretend you’re “one of the good guys” while at the same time defending these strawmen anti-feminists. The two ideas are mutually exclusive, unfortunately. Either be a good guy and stand up for what’s right (even if it’s hard or your friends laugh at you) or shut the hell up and go kill me a wild boar or whatever it is Real Manly Men do.
Hillrat:
You said that we’re hard on men, feminism was a bitter pill to swallow, and that feminism is a big, scary monster that we should make sure is hand-tamed.
To me that reads: Don’t be so hard on men, give us some sugar, and I like fluffy puppies more than powerful bitches. Please excuse me if my interpretation was incorrect.
Also, and I only offer this because men supposedly like concrete solutions, have you thought about finding new boys?
Bella
@westvillagegirl incorrectly surmised:
Wow, Hillrat, are you honestly saying you don’t like feminism because it’s hard?
Go back and read what I wrote, because I said nothing of the sort.
Now I find myself jumping in to defend Hill Rat. I think he is answering TVille’s question, not speaking for himself. Those are some reasons why men won’t get on board with feminism. I think he is just telling it like it is (and it’s nothing we don’t already know, really).
I am confused about the comment about the boys though.
And to answer one of your questions, Hill Rat, humanism and feminism aren’t directly related. I am both, but many feminists are spiritual or religious. I think secular humanism could lead some folks to feminism but one does not necessitate the other.
Apologies, SarahMC!
I know that’s not what you said. You were saying that that’s why people don’t like feminism. But, as you’ll see in my later comment, what I was trying to say is that it sounded like you were speaking about your own difficulties via the proxy of “what society thinks.”
I mean, if you’re a feminist, why even come here to complain about feminism? If you’re enlightened enough to understand it’s not about man-hating, then what is your original criticism even about?
Sorry that comment was directed at Hillrat, if that wasn’t obvious.
“It’s a lot of fucking work to have to start parsing your words and actions all the time after a lifetime of kinda just saying and doing whatever you wanted to with no regard for whether or not you’re reinforcing a system of oppression.”
Boo fucking hoo, buddy. I have to think about my race privilege and my cis-privilege and my straight privilege and my educational privilege Western privilege, et cetera. If you–or your boys–actually give a shit about other people, it’s really not that hard. It’s a habit, and it’s a process, but it isn’t that hard.
She ain’t heavy; she’s my sister.
@westvillagegirl
Analysis of a phenomenon does not equal endorsement. I can break down something while disagreeing with it.
@bellacooker
You’re way off in your interpretation.
I said the Harpies on hard on men and IMHO that’s true. Whether or not easing up a bit would bring more people into the fold is up for debate. I think it would, but it ain’t my blog. I respect their decision about how they’ve chosen to spread the word about feminism and appreciate the work they do here, but that doesn’t mean that I give up my own opinion. I’ll quote a guy I follow on Twitter who says, “Just because we argue doesn’t mean we’re not friends.”
Yes I said feminism is a bitter pill to swallow, but I’m a big boy and I take my medicine regardless of how it tastes if it’s good for me. I think feminism not just makes me a better person, but a better man. It gives me new ways to think about things and handle situations, so I keep gagging this shit down.
As for the scary monster bit, I should have been more clear in saying that’s how it is seen by most people. I don’t see anything wrong with comparing feminism to a fierce guard dog that you need to make friends with. A guard dog is supposed to be fierce but it also has to know who it is protecting against. A guard dog that mauls the mailman isn’t a very good guard dog.
Finally, when I say “me and the boys” that means anytime there are no women in the room. I can’t do much past saying, “Excuse me, I don’t think that’s very appropriate” when I’m in a meeting with senior managers and someone starts up with some bullshit. Socially, I don’t have really have any more friends that are with the retrograde nonsense and those that are keep it away from me because they’re tired of getting lectured. If you think I’m wordy now, you should see me when I get a couple of bourbons in me.
I have to think about my race privilege
That’s a load of shit, if you were really that worried about it you wouldn’t be writing for a blog that’s written exclusively by college educated white women.
I mean, if you’re a feminist, why even come here to complain about feminism?
Because my feminism is a work in progress, no matter what PhDork says, it’s not easy to be a male feminist. I come here to challenge and to be challenged.
@HillRat: Feminists criticize individual men (when they demand it) and men as a class or construct. When feminists say men, they generally don’t mean every individual man ever in existence.
Hillrat:
I’m glad that you enjoy being challenged, because you are being challenged now. Something in your discourse has struck an unpleasant chord today. Either you are speaking from a place of privledge and need to take a step back and see why the reaction you are getting is different than usual. Or everyone who has been reacting strongly to you is wrong . . .
@bellacooker
Thanks for the kind words and advice. No doubt, I hit a sour note today.
But something about this post annoyed me and I didn’t bother to soften my language before my initial post. So I’ll concede the point that I was speaking from a place of privilege.
The thing is, Hill Rat, I still don’t know what you found annoying about my post.
Hill Rat, no, I don’t think it’s fair to say that feminism is a denomination of Secular Humanism. They’re related for me because Secular Humanism says that we have a responsibility to ourselves to behave ethically and I believe feminism is ethical. But it’s certainly easy to be a feminist without being a secular humanist, there are feminists of every religion. And it’s certainly easy to be a secular humanist without being a feminist – there are plenty of secular humanists who don’t think feminism is ethical (you can be a secular humanist and a sexist). So I think they’re related because they’re both about being ethical, but not everyone would think the same way.
Also, writing for a blog that doesn’t include any people of color or non-college educated women is hardly proof of lack of concern for people who aren’t just like the authors.
You’re not alone, Hill Rat. I found the tone annoying too. Considering that the word “feminist” was “reclaimed” for the purposes of the movement, I’m unwilling to begrudge anyone who wants to reclaim “humanist” to mean “I believe in supporting and fighting for the rights of all humans, regardless of gender, sexuality, race, income or education level”. Which is how the people I associate with have been using the word.
I think picking fights about how people label their commitment to human rights is counterproductive. There are simply more important discussions to be had.
@SarahMC
There’s a whiff of thought police to it that I find off putting. It’s like the Harpies think their way is the only way and everyone else is an apostate. My takeaway is that you’re saying, “Use the words I say use to describe your philosophy or fuck off.”
@Av0gadro
Also, writing for a blog that doesn’t include any people of color or non-college educated women is hardly proof of lack of concern for people who aren’t just like the authors.
No, I guess it’s not. They’re concerned about the monochromatic nature of their blog, just not concerned enough to do anything about it. Looks and sounds like a fuckload of white privilege to me.
Maybe I should have used the word “alternative” rather than “substitute?”
Because the people I am talking about do not use “humanist” to describe a commitment to human rights.
@beth – I’ve never heard anyone say they were a humanist in response to any other movement. It’s not like people say, “I’m not anti-racist, I’m a humanist” or “I’m not a GLBT activist, I’m a humanist”. And perhaps that’s just my experience. But if this is just about gender, then it is an important conversation to have: why are people reluctant to identify themselves specifically as allies of women who fight for equality?
Moreover, reclamation of a word is mostly a good thing when the word is either a) used offensively or b) no longer in use. The denotative meaning of “humanist” is neither of these things. From a purely linguistic standpoint, giving it another meaning is confusing and messy.
People say humanist because it SOUNDS like an alternative to feminist, you know, if you want to sound like you care but don’t want to be controversial by caring about women. Not because it’s evolved into some other (vague-verging-on-meaningless) usage.
This is a blog maintained by a few individuals who are friends. If this were a big media/political website, I’d understand HillRat’s criticism. But if they weren’t all white, then they’d all be from the US, or all around the same age, or something else. As a reader, I don’t expect them to represent every POV. The harpies are up front about the perspectives they bring and the ones they don’t.
@Hill Rat: For me, the sour notes arose from statements like, feminism is a bitter pill to swallow for men, and working at being feminist is like choking down a horrible tasting medicine.
Is it really like choking down a bitter pill to embrace and live according to the principal that all people – black, white, purple, pink, male, female, cis, trans, whatever – are equally deserving of dignity, respect, opportunity, etc.? If so, that’s more than a sour note, it’s a depressing statement on the human race. I acknowledge that bucking the system can be hard; my own experiences with learning to stand up to racist family members tells me this. But I think you made a poor choice of words on several occasions.
I also think that you, perhaps unintentionally, belittled the consequences of misogyny for women by comparing them to the consequences you face in combating sexism as a man. What if I couched in similar “bitter pill” terms my efforts to confront and combat my white privilege? Do you think that any of the hardships I may encounter in doing this are somehow more bitter, more difficult to swallow than the repression POC live with every day because that privilege exists? Of course not. Similarly, however hard it may sometimes be for you as a male feminist, your hardships are simply not on par with those that woman face every day because of misogyny. Whether you meant to or not, your comments made it sound otherwise.