Feminism vs Humanism
I don't understand feminism.
I simply don't.
I learned yesterday that History is a mostly male dominated thing. Written by men, about men, for men! Chauvenistic pigs. How dare they have a primitive culture to us!
But feminists seem to applaud anything to do with female and femininity, anything vaguely woman related, we should push for. Which always comes across to me as positive discrimination.
To me it's a huge turn off. So when we use the criteria of gender and power to determine whether we should watch a film, or read a book, I do question whether "feminism" is the model of equality or equity with which we laud it.
I've been trying to brush up on what exactly feminism is. They say it is about equality first off, as a loose sort of definition. But why call it feminism? Why not humanism? "Fem" = Female = Woman. So already it sets a distinction and puts women apart. Men can be feminists we're told, feminism is all encompassing, but feminism appears to exist solely for the glorification, promotion and appeasement of women.
Another site suggests that feminism is actually quite distinct to equality. It talks about our patriarchal culture and that women have to live up to male ideals to be equal in the world. One feminist writes men live and work in a brutal world surrounded by sexism and ritual practices. Well that's sexist for a start. And it also assumes that's what men wants. It sums up with this lovely phrase:
The equalist debate is one way of preserving patriarchy, whereas feminism seeks to give power to women on their own terms – not mens. This is why I am a feminist, not an equalist.
I get this. I really do. It actually works out that we are different, men and women are different, and women shouldn't compete with men. Quite why I need to promote women specifically Im not sure.
But why are feminists drawing the line there? For some men, the male dominated patriarchal world is absurd. So why should men have to compete with women in a female dominated world?
"Im a feminist and believe in gender equality". Well, why not call yourself a gender neutralist instead?
Sarah Jessica Parker has said she's a humanist because she supports the LGBT people to be able to carve out their niches in this world. But why is it all these groups vs men? Have they got a problem with men? What about the men who are actually more sensitive than you possibly give them credit for?
Whoever we are, woman, man, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, whatever race, religion, why do we need one advocate, one expression of thought - in this case feminism, to promote one subset of society? I think we've got the whole thing ass backwards.
Another site says
"The reason why it’s called feminism while advocating for gender equality is because females are the gender that are the underprivileged, underserved gender," Shives says in his video response. "You attain gender equality by advocating for the rights of the underprivileged gender."
So our focus is on the underprivileged gender. But what about those underpriveleged people in the privileged gender? Do you just forget about them, because in feminism, we are creating a class distinction?
So I will not identify as a feminist, until one of them identifies as a simonist, someone who works for the promotion and liberation of all and the exclusion of none.
I simply don't.
I learned yesterday that History is a mostly male dominated thing. Written by men, about men, for men! Chauvenistic pigs. How dare they have a primitive culture to us!
But feminists seem to applaud anything to do with female and femininity, anything vaguely woman related, we should push for. Which always comes across to me as positive discrimination.
To me it's a huge turn off. So when we use the criteria of gender and power to determine whether we should watch a film, or read a book, I do question whether "feminism" is the model of equality or equity with which we laud it.
I've been trying to brush up on what exactly feminism is. They say it is about equality first off, as a loose sort of definition. But why call it feminism? Why not humanism? "Fem" = Female = Woman. So already it sets a distinction and puts women apart. Men can be feminists we're told, feminism is all encompassing, but feminism appears to exist solely for the glorification, promotion and appeasement of women.
Another site suggests that feminism is actually quite distinct to equality. It talks about our patriarchal culture and that women have to live up to male ideals to be equal in the world. One feminist writes men live and work in a brutal world surrounded by sexism and ritual practices. Well that's sexist for a start. And it also assumes that's what men wants. It sums up with this lovely phrase:
The equalist debate is one way of preserving patriarchy, whereas feminism seeks to give power to women on their own terms – not mens. This is why I am a feminist, not an equalist.
I get this. I really do. It actually works out that we are different, men and women are different, and women shouldn't compete with men. Quite why I need to promote women specifically Im not sure.
But why are feminists drawing the line there? For some men, the male dominated patriarchal world is absurd. So why should men have to compete with women in a female dominated world?
"Im a feminist and believe in gender equality". Well, why not call yourself a gender neutralist instead?
Sarah Jessica Parker has said she's a humanist because she supports the LGBT people to be able to carve out their niches in this world. But why is it all these groups vs men? Have they got a problem with men? What about the men who are actually more sensitive than you possibly give them credit for?
Whoever we are, woman, man, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, whatever race, religion, why do we need one advocate, one expression of thought - in this case feminism, to promote one subset of society? I think we've got the whole thing ass backwards.
Another site says
"The reason why it’s called feminism while advocating for gender equality is because females are the gender that are the underprivileged, underserved gender," Shives says in his video response. "You attain gender equality by advocating for the rights of the underprivileged gender."
So our focus is on the underprivileged gender. But what about those underpriveleged people in the privileged gender? Do you just forget about them, because in feminism, we are creating a class distinction?
So I will not identify as a feminist, until one of them identifies as a simonist, someone who works for the promotion and liberation of all and the exclusion of none.
Comments