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
>>why are people reluctant to identify themselves specifically as allies of women who fight for equality?
I think HillRat addressed this–because whether we like it or not, the word “feminist” does and continues to have negative connotations. Most people who technically are feminists, but balk at the idea of identifying themselves as feminist, don’t define it as “fighting for women’s rights”. Rather, they see it as something else altogether. It’s unfortunate, but the word itself carries a whole slew of additional baggage with it, and to be perfectly frank, I don’t think most contributors to the feminist movement are doing a great job changing that impression.
As far as I can tell, the people beginning to use humanist as an alternative are actually trying to rebrand the idea of fighting for equality–as one that isn’t exclusive, but welcomes and supports everyone. So I guess my question is, if you believe feminism is already for everyone, what are you doing/what can be done to encourage that perception?
@HillRat:
I’ve stayed out of this thus far because I think other people are getting it right on the whole “humanist” vs. “feminist” thing.
One thing I am going to jump on you about this:
“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.”
Speaking strictly for myself, I am not “concerned” about this. I write from the perspective of a white educated woman because that is the ONLY one I can write from. For me to try to co-opt someone’s else’s perspective or experiences would be dishonest and ridiculous. Surely that’s not what you’re suggesting?
Secondly, WTF constitutes “do anything about it” in your mind? We can’t stop being white–and Jewish and Canadian and Native American, etc–so what kind of solution would you propose? Bringing in another writer just so we can have a non-white person’s opinion? That’s the worst kind of tokenism.
There’s certainly no shortage of intelligent, eloquent commentary by women of color in print and in the blogosphere–if you want that, you know it ain’t here, so don’t give us shit about it.
@beth – I believe anyone can be a feminist. I don’t believe feminism does or should welcome and support everyone. I don’t believe feminism should welcome or support people who are anti-choice, or rape apologists, or rapists for that matter, or the Saudi government, etc.
I also don’t believe that feminism is trying to end all oppressions. Feminism is trying to end gender-based oppression. It shouldn’t do so by perpetuating racism or cissexism or homophobia or what have you, clearly, but the priority of the movement is addressing gender-based oppression. Oppression works on many axes and in many ways and I think that having different movements address different oppressions is a good strategy because it allows for deeper analysis and specialization than would be promoted under a single movement. Moreover, let’s be serious, if there was one unified anti-oppression movement, it would end up being led by straight white men. Liberation movements must be led by the victims of oppression, and not by the oppressors. I’m not saying that all humanists so called are male, white, straight, etc. but rather that white women tend to lead feminism, black men tend to lead anti-racism and so on — oppressions perpetuate themselves in microcosm. Creating one unified movement would only serve to enable that.
What I don’t understand is, if humanism is supposed to be about combating all oppressions and not just about copping out of feminism, why can’t you be a humanist and a feminist? Why exactly is it an alternative?
>>why can’t you be a humanist and a feminist? Why exactly is it an alternative?
I can’t speak for anyone who identifies by saying “I’m not a feminist, but I am a humanist”. The people I’ve interacted with have been using the word “humanist” as an umbrella label–so instead of saying “I’m a feminist, GLBT rights activist, pro-immigration and concerned with class disparty”, they just sum it up with the one word. It’s not so much a replacement, as it is a broader explanation of who they are.
One part of the frustration with people (often men) who say “Can’t I just use the word ‘humanist’?” is that that isn’t what humanist means.
But OK, language can evolve, whatever.
It’s come up a lot in this discussion that the word “feminist” is scary because it has negative connotations–which is precisely why it is important people (especially men) identify using precisely that word. If your perception of a feminist is, whatever, someone who doesn’t shave her legs and is a lesbian (but not the sexysexy kind!) and never laughs at anything or whatever it is people think about feminists these days, then that sucks. And that perception is going to be challenged when your coworker or son or tennis buddy says he’s a feminist.
And that’s important.
@beth – Ah, see, this is exactly what I mean. If as you say humanism so called applies to every oppression and accepts and supports everyone, then for anyone to rightfully claim the name humanist so defined they would need to be concerned with all oppressions. ALL of them. Class, race, gender, orientation, gender identity, body size, ability, religion, and those are just the big ones I can think of off the top of my head. I don’t know a single person who is an activist in all of those communities. I don’t know a single person who doesn’t have some blind spots. And I know a lot of activists. Defining humanism as being actively against all oppressions and claiming oneself as a humanist when one is not actively against all oppressions is dishonest and silencing to the oppressions that such people are not actively against. I identify as a feminist — that doesn’t mean I’m not also trying to be anti-racist, or an ally to the queer community. And when the situation arises for me to wear those hats, I do. But I am not so arrogant as to claim that I have the intellectual or emotional capacity to strive against all oppressions with equal, or even comparable, enthusiasm. If you know people who do have that capacity, then great, but you must know some people with superpowers.
@baraquiel: I agree that humanism can’t and shouldn’t be a substitute for feminism for all the reasons that you, and others, have set forth. But there is a subset of people that Beth’s comment alludes to that your response doesn’t cover: those who may very well understand that humanism isn’t a real alternative to feminism, but who nevertheless accept the compromise to avoid dealing with the negative baggage that the term “feminist” carries (e.g., “feminists are all a bunch of angry man-haters.”)
Beth goes on to say, “to be perfectly frank, I don’t think most contributors to the feminist movement are doing a great job changing that impression.” She then asks what can be done in that regard. The reality is, that image is out there and it affects both men’s and women’s perceptions of the feminist movement. I think that’s something worth discussing (maybe not here, though, because this post is on a different topic).
HillRat, like Sarah I’m not sure what annoyed you about this post particularly. And I would say, unlike Becky, it does bother me, sometimes, that we are of similar backgrounds, although as you yourself pointed out elsewhere today, that hardly means we agree with each other. But we cannot be all things to all people, and as a result, we try not to claim to be. If you feel we are doing otherwise, and then I would agree that any hint of that claim is dishonest, feel free to tell us how and where and why. If what you’d like is that we go out and find someone who isn’t white to blog here, I’m not sure that even that would get us towards such a standard.
I kind of feel like you have a bee in your bonnet (omg gendered metaphor) today and that’s okay, everyone gets to be annoyed sometimes. But dude, it’s hard for you to make out a case that we’re the standard bearers for how not to Convert People to the Cause when you’re in here doing the very same thing you’re accusing us of doing, although in your case it’s feminists and not men who are being reduced.
@tallgirl – Right, which I get. But the “feminists are a bunch of angry man-haters” thing is a misconception based on feminist backlash. Dworkin never actually said that all heterosexual sex is rape, for example — what she said was that heterosexual PIV intercourse is positioned as a way for men to dominate and control women in our society. But what she actually said is more complicated than what people think she said, and what people think she said is a great argument for discounting every statement ever made by a feminist. The whole “feminists are angry man-haters” trope is based on a set of fictions that act to invalidate feminism as a whole. It doesn’t take a lot of effort to find that out, nor does it take a lot of effort to debunk the trope when anyone who’s reasonable presents it. I tend to think that anyone who doesn’t know that such talk is false is either uninformed or intellectually lazy, and that anyone who knows that it’s false and wants to work against gender-based oppression but still doesn’t want to deal with claiming the name “feminist” is cowardly (note: not talking about womanists here, that’s a totally different issue). Beth doesn’t think that we’re doing a good job in changing the perception, and why is that? Because, honestly, all that I’ve seen is people like the Harpies and like Jessica Valenti and even like some of the Jezebel writers talking about themselves as feminists in all their complexity — which includes loving men sometimes — and getting called man-haters for spurious reasons. People are going to backlash against feminism. We can’t do anything about that but debunk their arguments and keep on doing what’s right. What else should we be doing? Throwing “We love men!!!” parties?
(I’m not ranting against you, although it might come off that way (sorry!), but against the concept, which is a super-annoying one.)
Baraqiel, thanks for saying that about Dworkin. I was going to address that but forgot about it.
>>But I am not so arrogant as to claim that I have the intellectual or emotional capacity to strive against all oppressions with equal, or even comparable, enthusiasm. If you know people who do have that capacity, then great, but you must know some people with superpowers.
I do, but that’s beside the point. ; ) I realize you’re saying people don’t realistically have enough time or emotional energy to be full-time activists for all the causes the humanist umbrella attempts to support–but most of the feminists I know aren’t actively doing much beyond speaking out when possible, and trying to live a feminist lifestyle. They don’t have to be full time feminist activists to call themselves feminists, so why does a humanist need to devote equal time to everything they stand for?
@baraqiel: No worries, I didn’t think you were ranting at me. I don’t have time to get all my thoughts on this down, but quickly, my experience has been that when I spend a lot of time on feminist websites, I start feeling like, hooray, the word is out, people get it, down with the myths and backlash! Unfortunately, that doesn’t transfer over to day-to-day life as often as I want it to. A lot of people, intelligent people, seem to have this negative impression that is hard to erase. And I recall reading something recently about the fact that a lot of young women today do not identify as feminists, in part (not wholly) because of the negative connotations the term has been saddled with. (I could be remembering wrong…) Whether it’s intellectual laziness, ignorance, or whatever, it’s out there, and my impression is that it’s more prevalent and hard to shake than I wish it was.
Of course, my experiences are anecdotal. Maybe I see this as a greater issue than it actually is. (I hope that’s the case!)
@baraqiel – Thanks for the bit you wrote about carrying on doing what’s right in the face of backlash. I went to a workshop titled “Confronting the backlash against feminism” yesterday which was utterly misnamed and addressed nothing of the sort – but I think your answer is best, so I’ll carry on as I was, debunking myths along the way as you’ve all done above.
I’ve had the “but I’m a humanist” argument often, which I find doubly frustrating because I *am* actively humanist as well as actively feminist, and the people who claim they’re humanist actually have little interest in ethical secularism. You’ve all reminded me of a couple of arguments I can use next time I hear this – thanks.
This is probably not the right place for this, but I have been thinking about it for a while . . . .
I hate men sometimes. Not individual men, but “mankind”. I know that there is a lot of talk addressing the man-hating feminist trope by pointing out how we love men, and there are certain men who I adore. BUT . . . men, as a class, benefit enormously from the oppression of women, as a class. They could end a lot of the suffering of women just by deciding that they don’t have the right to make women suffer. Full stop. And there are times when I do not feel generous enough to be the bigger person.
@beth – Because humanism so called is a much more ambitious claim than feminism. Claiming to be a feminist means you at least devote more than 0 time to thinking about/working against gender-based oppression. Claiming to be a humanist so called means that you at least devote more than 0 time to thinking about/working against ALL oppressions. It’s not that people who claim to be humanists have to spend equal time, it’s that they have to spend any time on every oppression, and I just don’t believe that there’s anyone who does that.
Moreover, I think humanism so defined is dishonest in another way. I fully claim the title of feminist, and wear it proudly, because I am a woman and I understand my own oppression. But when I say that I am anti-racist, I also say that I work on racism within myself and that it’s an ongoing process — I acknowledge that I am part of the problem and that I have to grapple with that and figure out how to lessen my own negative impact. In other words, there’s a significant difference between the way in which I’m a feminist and the way in which I’m anti-racist (or a queer ally, etc.). Putting all of these efforts under a single label erases that difference, which I think is an incredibly important one.
@tallgirl – No, I think you’re right, it is a pervasive misconception. But other than correcting people when it comes up and offering counterpoint, which I see a lot, I don’t know what else we can do. It’s not reasonable to hold feminists responsible for the propaganda used against us. (Not that I think you are.)
@bella: Don’t be too hard on yourself. We all feel that way sometimes. I would argue that what you’re describing is more hating the Patriarchy or hating masculinity/machismo than simply hating humans who have penii, but yeah, when you read the news on a daily basis, esp. from other parts of the world where women are so brutally victimized and oppressed, it’s hard not to have those moments.
Bella, you’re not alone. I feel that way too sometimes. Not, I hate every man. But, I hate “men,” the class of people who has power over women, as a class.
I don’t blame members of oppressed classes for hating their oppressors. I hate my own oppressor class sometimes too.
@beth: I have to say I don’t really understand what your problem with the post was. As I read it, SarahMC was pointing out a particular annoying tendency some people have that when the subject of “am I a feminist” is brought up they answer with, “no I’m a humanist.” No one is asking someone to label themselves a feminist at the exclusion of all other humanity. The word “feminist” directly applies to woman and the particular problems they face in this world. Its the appreciation and study of those problems which are different than those faced by other oppressed classes (not more oppressed just different). People of color, women of color, homosexual, etc…all face very different challenges in our society. what is so wrong with facing that fact and giving consideration to each group rather than labeling it as one big “humanist” cause that over generalizes and oversimplifies?
I think the popular misconception of feminism is exactly why it is so damned important for women to own the label.
The backlash against feminism is just another tool of oppression. “Hey, all you women out there who want to advocate for women’s rights – good luck with that! Because if you do, we’re going to make everyone think you’re ! I’m Rush Limbaugh, and I know that the fastest way to crumble a movement is to start name calling; it will fall apart on it’s own.”
You want change? Then, dammit, own a little of the discomfort that comes from being part of change. Be a feminist. Don’t water it down to make everyone else like you.
First time post here- to observe that, as a guy who has tended to consider himself a humanist in support of what I recognize as feminist ideals rather than identify personally as a feminist, in my experience, there were reasons other than negative association in play.
For me, it had specifically been an effort to avoid the co-option of feminist dialogue that would prevent my claiming to officially be a feminist, just as I would for any dialogue exclusive to any other racial, national, sexual, or otherwise distinct identity seeking social inclusion. To the extent that I don’t identify as female, I presume feminism doesn’t “need” me to identify as it’s constituent- out of respect for feminism being a dialogue inherently separate from anything in my direct experience. I can agree with feminists, I can empathize, I can respond to questions about feminism with my point of view, I can advocate feminist goals, but I cannot claim the legitimacy to actually articulate feminism- a prerequisite, I would think, to being a feminist.
I took the original post to be about SarahMC’s irritating experience of having had a guy inform her that her choice of the feminist label was synonymous with being “humanist“- and that I don’t buy any more than to saying I should stop specifying I’m from New York rather than say just say “American” to identify myself. But there’s an aspect to this thread that suggests the humanist label could *only* be opted for in order to dilute feminist language.
If I were to say that I were a humanist, despite the existence of people I am comfortable calling bad humanists for their oppression of female human beings, there’s an implied framework for agreement on specific feminist ideals, right? Not synonymous, but syncretic, at least. Maybe it’s an umbrella label, but as far as actual political activism goes- is that a bad thing? I’m sort of in favor of any form of inclusive, non-divided, liberal consensus that could constitute a majority, and then engaging in the way that most practically empowers that.
I’m open to persuasion if this seems too nuanced, but to illustrate what I mean, let me tell you about an actual incident. One time two well-meaning male friends of mine, both married, very cutely got matching teeshirts that read “Feminist Hubbies of Brooklyn” that I agreed with in principle, but struck me as somehow problematic in reality. I think potentially *patronizing* is what came to mind. It caused me to remember stories from feminists I had known in college who described “weird guys” who would come to their various meetings, I’m guessing with mixed motives, and it was then that I assigned myself the “humanist” label.
Anyway, reading this, maybe “pro-feminist” is more what I was looking for- but I just wanted to mention this aspect of the issue.
@baraqiel: “But other than correcting people when it comes up and offering counterpoint, which I see a lot, I don’t know what else we can do.”
Before I start, please note I am speaking only about me, not anyone else! Also, I haven’t worked all the way through this issue and I have no answers; these are just some thoughts bouncing around in my head right now.
I correct and offer counterpoint. But sometimes, I let the anger get to me and instead of reasonably debunking the myths, I explode. I mock. I shame. It shocks me sometimes how often I employ those devices when discussing feminism with men because I firmly believe that you cannot mock or shame anyone into changing anything.
Now, there are some guys who are perfectly aware of their privilege and their interests lie not in changing things, but in keeping the status quo. I don’t feel bad about going off on them because no amount of calm reason is going to change their minds.
Nor do I feel bad blowing off steam with my girlfriends, or even with my bf who thankfully gets it more often than not.
But there are other guys who understand that something is wrong, but because they were raised steeped in misogyny, they harbor a certain level of ignorance, they don’t always get it, they need help. And along the way they fuck up, they say stupid shit, they stumble. And, in my frustration, I jump down their throats. I don’t think they deserve a cookie or a medal for trying to do the right thing, but they don’t deserve to be mocked or shamed for messing up, either. Yet I do that more often than I care to admit. And I fear that these reactions drown out what feminism really means.
I struggle with, as bella put it, being the bigger person. It’s only human to express anger, and the anger is legitimate. Sometimes it’s even quite useful. But other times, those reactions born of anger can muddy the water because it’s just as human to push back when confronted with shaming, even if that means you’re pushing back against a cause you logically embrace.
@Satirus – Thank you for your post, it was illuminating.
I will say this: there are feminists who believe, as you say, that men cannot truly be feminists. That argument has philosophical merit, as you point out, but I don’t think it has political merit — by which I mean, it does more good to the feminist political cause to have men identify as feminist than it does harm to the feminist philosophical cause. Saying that you’re pro-feminist is effectively just as good, I think. When only women identify as feminists or invoke feminism, the marginalization of gender-based oppression as a “women’s issue” is enforced and men often start feeling like they don’t have to deal with it. Claiming to be a humanist so called acts in these ways. By not bringing up feminism/gender oppression specifically, I believe that you’re allowing people to not think about it, even though that clearly isn’t your intention.
I’ve already articulated my problems with the label of humanist as you mean it, so I won’t reiterate them. I understand where you’re coming from on wanting an umbrella liberal label, but I don’t think that’s the right one. (Progressive, perhaps?)
@tallgirl (and bella) – Oh, I can totally relate to this. It’s a complicated issue. Women are generally taught that anger isn’t an acceptable emotion for us, so we’re often not taught how to manage it in a healthy way. And our entire culture has a lack of good conflict resolution skills, alas. Although I hardly have all the answers and am probably a little too high-tempered myself, this is how I deal with what you’re describing:
-With people who seem to just have some misunderstandings/misconceptions but are willing to understand, I try to be very patient and calm and rant later to friends/boyf/etc.
-To compensate, when people show signs of not having any intention of listening or understanding, I publicly mock their views in discussions so that other people understand that their positions are not legitimate.
This latter approach may sometimes be inadvisable as it can drum up sympathy support, but…it’s so fun…and I need the stress relief…so, yeah, I’m working on that.
My, we’ve been busy today. Curse gmail for crashing!
Ok:
Feminism=man-hating.
Abortion is murder.
Health care reform is evil.
Gays want to destroy marriage.
This is nothing but the appallingly successful right-wing rhetorical attack on ideas meant to reform society for the better and redistribute power and privilege. A hysterical slogan is more powerful to frightened people than a reasoned argument. So what. That doesn’t mean we should give up the argument. We have to make our point and say it over and over and over, as long as it takes.
I think that using “humanism” to mean “I heart everyone!” is weak-minded and lazy (besides being not the correct accepted meaning of the word). Every kind of bigotry has its own reasons, its own history and its own consequences, and to act like they’re all the same is to fail to address them effectively. It has nothing to do with nuance, Satirius. It has to do with accepting the differences human beings have and trying to respect them.
And I don’t know why men can’t be feminists. Remember the very best definition of feminism ever: Feminism is the radical notion that women are people. The men I respect, the ones I’m closest to are feminists, and proud to identify as such.
@BeckySharper
I actually read your comment last night, but was rendered speechless by your commitment to protecting your white privilege.
I understand it sucks to have to confront and, more painfully, acknowledge your own privilege. It is indeed part of what makes being a male feminist so fucking difficult, especially around these parts where people are quick to throw the bullshit flag. Dealing with your privilege is kind of like being an alcoholic, the first step is admitting that you have the privilege.
Humor me for a second please. Go back and re-read what you wrote, but substitute “man” for “white” and “woman” for “non-white/person of color” and tell me if you still stand behind your statement. I mean this quote, ” . . .if you want that, you know it ain’t here, so don’t give us shit about it,” comes straight from the Entitled White Guy playbook — I can’t be bothered to deal with this, so go fuck yourself.
This reminds of the time one of my friends was trying to insist that the GOP’s Southern Strategy and Reagan’s call for “state’s rights” had nothing to do with race. Riiiiiiight.
@tallgirl
I hear ya. Perhaps what I’m choking on isn’t feminism, but acknowledging that unpleasant and inconvenient reality of my own privilege.
Is this really all the farther young white feminists have come? Black women and Latinas have been pointing out for decades how your “this is just who we are and we can’t help it” attitude serves to further the very systems of domination that feminism purports to address.
Everybody seems to need a bell hooks refresher course. From the 1980s (probably before you were born!):
“When we cease to focus on the simplistic stance ‘men are the enemy,’ we are compelled to examine systems of domination and our role in their maintenance and perpetuation. . . By repudiating the popular notion that the focus of feminist movement should be social equality of the sexes, our own analysis would require an exploration of all aspects of women’s political reality. This would mean that race and class oppression would be recognized as feminist issues with as much relevance as sexism.”
Rock on, bell hooks. Listen and change, white feminists.
Hmm, Ivy, I see exactly what you’re saying and I think, as to my own personal view, “we can’t help it” isn’t useful either. I think maybe what Becky was trying to get at there, and HR maybe you can sympathize with this as a man interested in feminism, is that there comes a point where the privileged sitting around self-flagellating about privilege becomes masturbatory, and ultimately, not particularly helpful to the population that needs serving. (As someone pointed out to me recently, it’s yet another conversation about ME!) I don’t think that Becky meant that she therefore took pride in being interested only in white women’s issues and felt no responsibility to listen and learn to other women; I think she just meant that she is honest with herself and others about the limits of her experience.
As I have written elsewhere on this blog, I am, personally, interested in what hooks calls “all aspects of women’s political reality.” I nonetheless, in that context, feel silly speaking to an experience I do not have, particularly when the people who do have those experiences speak quite well and eloquently for themselves. But this blog is not the sum of what I do or think about, really. We started it as a hobby, and we have been lucky enough recently to gain a fairly wide readership, probably one that is wider than we imagined we would have. But I can’t say I think that means we should be trying to make broader claims than we currently do about “what women want.”
I feel like this thread has emerged from a massive misunderstanding of what SarahMC originally wrote. I do not think her claim was that caring about racism or classism or cissexism or indeed, any other kind of social justice was a necessary dilution of feminism. I think her point was that applying the label humanist to oneself does not, as a matter of plain meaning, identify the speaker as concerned about sexism, or for that matter racism, classism, or cissexism, etc. Because she would like to be identified as having sexism as a field of combat, she prefers feminist for herself. But it is not concomitantly true that it is the only thing she cares about.
@HillRat: No, my problem is that you want me to “do something about it”. WTF does that even mean? I’m not saying I’m unaware of my white privilege, I’m saying that no matter how aware of it I am, I cannot fundamentally change who I am, and if that offends you, don’t read what I write.
@IK:
Yes, I’m white. Yes, I’m aware of–and unhappy with–white priviledge.
But self-loathing or self-flagellating over what I can’t change–being I’m white, educated, etc–is not useful in any way whatsoever. It doesn’t do a damn thing except waste valuable energy I could be using to make positive changes to the things I CAN change.
I’d rather put my energy into the struggle for feminism and equal rights than stewing in liberal guilt and bemoaning the fact that I got lucky by being born white in Western society.
@IK: Contemporary feminists DO recognize classism and racism as feminist issues. (Though yes, white feminists fail, occasionally or often, depending on the individual.) This post is about using the word humanist carelessly, and in such a way that erases the need to combat patriarchy.
@PilgrimSoul
Next time someone starts riding my ass about my male privilege I’m quoting this:
. . . there comes a point where the privileged sitting around self-flagellating about privilege becomes masturbatory, and ultimately, not particularly helpful to the population that needs serving.
I think it bears repeating, just cuz we argue doesn’t mean we’re not friends.
Much Love,
HR
Hill Rat, no one was riding your ass about your male privilege. You’ve got it, we know it. You know it, too. We were (I was) riding your ass because you were calling our rights to our lives and experiences “bitter” and objectionable for you/men. You were also complaining about how hard it is to not be an asshole. That’s “gimme my cookie” talk. Being aware of your privilege/s (whatever axes they revolve around), and woe-is-me-ing about gee whiz treating other people like humans is like really hard and stuff, are two very different things.
Everyone speaks from where she sits. That’s not the problem. Complaining that your seat is really not so comfortable no matter that you’ve got an extra cushion, and that other peoples’ seats are keeping you from stretching your legs out, is.
@Satirus
Thanks for posting your thoughts!
I’ve recently wrestled with the issue of whether or not I’m a feminist. My conclusion is that I’m not. I’m a “feminist cheerleader”.
Fundamentally, regardless of what feminist camp you are in, feminism is about women re-defining their role in society. As a man, I don’t think it’s my place to tell women what their role in society is. But I encourage the change, whatever it leads to.
Hence, I’m a feminist cheerleader.
[...] “Humanist” is not a substitute for “feminist.” [...]
HAH! The Language Police.
I LOL’d
[...] “Humanist” is not a substitute for “feminist.” [...]
[...] The Pursuit of Harpyness: “Humanist” is not a substitute for “feminist.” [...]
Feminism is woman centred. Those of us who fought for rights in the 1960s have little problem identifying ourselves as feminists.
–How does this piece of legislation, political stance, regulation effect women, etc– That is the centre.
Women have been brainwashed into thinking that ‘women’s rights are human rights’ in the very widest sense… so women are to stop focusing on issues that effect ‘only’ women and deal with those which effect ‘everybody’.
To hear the Conservatives talk about abortion, forty years after we struggled to gain that right proves we haven’t achieved anything.
I can not believe that my children and grandchildren still have to fight for control over their own bodies…how is this possible?
It is because women have been guided away from the feminist ideals, taught ‘humanism’ and now have the mentality of the 1950s.
Blacks no longer have to fight to sit anywhere on the bus, attend any school, or apply for any job. They are not still fighting for the right to vote.
Why are we still having to fight?
How come the civil rights movement isn’t called Africanism?
@Spark – yes! you got it right. contemporary (third wave) feminism IS about classism, racism, rights of the disabled, and MEN! It is about all forms of oppression. If you do not believe this then you are simply not a third wave feminist by definition.
I believe “IK” was making his/her comments in response to the early comment from baroquiel that “I also don’t believe that feminism is trying to end all oppressions. Feminism is trying to end gender-based oppression. ”
This is simply not true anymore, and if you had taken a women’s studies class from any reputable institution in the past 20 years (and paid attention) this would be clear to you, baroquiel. It may be (and seems to be) your opinion that this is not befitting of feminism, and you seem to think that each of the individually repressed groups should fight their own battle. Bear in mind that this is just your opinion and in actuality feminism has indeed branched out to include all of these topics (and *gasp* the white men have yet to take it over as the result!).
Also to all the men who were purporting to be pro-feminist but felt uncomfortable calling themselves feminists: third wave feminism encourages you to join the movement, vagina or not! Being a feminist simply means that you believe in the inherent equality of all people, don’t need specific genitalia to do that. It doesn’t ask that you somehow transport yourself into the body of a woman to understand her life, this is impossible even for other women! Feminism doesn’t require you to “tell women what their role in society is” (@ Terry… it’s quite the opposite). All it asks is that you believe in the equality of all people, are willing to acknowledge that systems of power exist and that you may be a part of them, and that you LISTEN to the viewpoints of others. Being a feminist is a continual process of learning.
@BeckySharper acknowledging other points of view (different races etc.)does not exactly amount to “stewing in liberal guilt and bemoaning the fact that I got lucky by being born white in Western society.” The guy railing against you has a point. Would you feel the same way if a man said there was no point in trying to understand a woman’s perspective because he will never be a women? Of course you will never fully understand it, but this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try or equate the effort to some kind of frivolous pseudo-humility!
anyone who has a problem with my definition of third wave feminism please come to my class at UCLA (Ph.d. student) to get an accepted understanding of contemporary feminism
Ummm…I’m normally not that uptight about this, but I do object a little to someone questioning my education while spelling my screen name that badly. I mean, okay, I understand that the instinct is to put a q there, but where’d you get the o?
Anyway, barring extensive citing of sources from someone qualified to define exactly what the mission of feminism is at present and proving that your understanding of third-wave feminism is the only true, valid way to practice feminism now, I’ll just keep on having my understanding of feminism and you’re welcome to yours. I don’t consider myself to be a purely third-wave feminist. I don’t consider myself to be a wave-oriented feminist at all, actually. But the next time I have a spare five years to get a PhD in feminism, I’ll be sure to drop by UCLA, since apparently that is the only way to get an understanding of contemporary feminism that is accepted by…you, I guess.
*put a u there after the q
Sorry, I just took a quick glance at your name and wasn’t paying attention; I wasn’t expecting you to get quite so upset over it but I meant no disrespect. I don’t mean to critique your education, but I guess I do a little because if you had done any research into the subject (which I don’t think is ostentatious I think it’s just being a responsible and educated human being) I just don’t see how you could hold the view that feminism is still only for middle-class white women. Take into account the quote from Bell Hooks previously posted on this thread. Other feminist authors who help describe the changes feminism has undergone throughout time and what it means to be one today (if you find yourself with spare time and interest): Adrienne Rich, Alice Walker, Amy Richards, Becky Thompson, Anne Fausto-Sterling, Kristina Wong, Michael Kimmel, Olivia Chung, and Peggy McIntosh. I hope at least show to you that these ideas are not just MINE. You don’t need to get a PhD to understand that feminism is for everyone who wishes it to be. It’s ironic you try to depict me as some snobby elite when it is you who clings to a notion of feminism that precludes many who would otherwise be (and are indeed) a part of it.
I don’t have a problem with spelling errors — after all, this is the internet. I have a problem with spelling errors from people who are waving around their educational qualifications and questioning mine, because, you know, if you’re going to call me an idiot, at least have the courtesy not to do so while looking like one yourself.
It’s interesting that you read “feminism is still only for middle-class white women” from “Feminism is trying to end gender-based oppression.” I didn’t know women of color or poor women weren’t oppressed because of gender! But I’m very glad to hear that, I guess the situation isn’t as bad as I thought it was.
Alternately, you could stop misrepresenting what I said. You believe that feminism is a political movement aimed at ending all oppressions. Fine, whatever; that’s not what I believe. I believe that feminism is a political movement aimed at ending all kinds of gender-based oppression, including those that are amplified by intersection with oppression along another axis. But oh well, I guess that third-wave feminism is all about everyone having the same concept of feminism and not being able to define it for themselves, huh?
Sarah, for someone who is so educated and enlightened, you sure do have a hard time with reading comprehension.
If this:
“…feminism is still only for middle-class white women.”
is what you took away from baraqiel’s comments, I am not sure what either of us could say to elucidate our views.