5 ms·

Because there's a crossover between feminism the philosophical worldview, which is arguably very close to humanism, and feminism the activist movement which has

Because there's a crossover between feminism the philosophical worldview, which is arguably very close to humanism, and feminism the activist movement which has the rather more immediate goal of liberating women from the threat(s) of physical violence which apply to them specifically. Obviously that kind of thing requires a banner for people to rally under. But you're right it's a pretty nebulous thing. I guess that's why people keep trying to redefine it with successive "waves." EDIT: also feminism isn't exactly a recent thing either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette

claudius 14y ago
> Because there's a crossover between feminism the philosophical worldview, which is arguably very close to humanism But not using humanism here opens the field for this radical crowd, who call themselves feminists, you usually find on Tumblr (and a few other places) and who find sexual harassment against men perfectly fine, because, hey, it’s feminism and all men are unworthy of one’s respect anyways. The civil rights movement in the US managed to pick a word that was not so easily abused by radicals.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "not using humanism here opens the field for this radical crowd, who call themselves feminists" Feminism is a specific application of humanism. Humanism is feminism. Self-ascription means that anyone can call themselves a "feminist", so you'd be harping about all the women in "humanism" when they're supposed to be promoting HUMANS NOT WOMEN. You'd have something to complain about no matter what they called themselves.
madaxe 14y ago
I find the whole "threat of physical violence" thing objectionable, personally. Sure, men are generally bigger than women, but culturally, men are trained to not raise a finger against women, whereas women are trained to have no such compunction. Apocryphal, I know, but I have never, ever, ever, and never will, raise a hand or my voice to a woman, yet have been on the receiving end of domestic violence more than a few times. I'm not a small chap, at 200lbs and 6'3", but: I've been stabbed in the leg by a stilleto (a heel, not a dagger), for accusing a girlfriend of cheating with my housemate (she was). I was given a fractured eyesocket by another ex who pushed me down the stairs while she (and I, admittedly) was drunk, "because". I can cite plenty of other examples of woman-on-man violence immediate to me, but shan't, as my point isn't one of "oh but women are the perpetrators", but one of "humans are the perpetrators". In a world where practically anyone can lay their hands on an object that in any hands can become a weapon with ease, I don't think it's valid to say that "domestic violence is a result of men, and women, specifically, are its victims".
- samastur 14y ago
  I am sure you can, but statistics are not on your side. Domestic violence is mostly done by men. I hope your choice of companions have improved since.
  - madaxe 14y ago
    Statistics are derived from crime reports. Men do not report domestic violence against them by women. I went to hospital for "sitting on a shoe" and "tripping and smacking my face on a bannister". Ergo, whatever statistics you're looking at, sample bias, sample bias, sample bias.
- hurfdurferson 14y ago
  You should've treated those incidents of assault as exactly that: assault. When adults physically assault other adults that is a crime and not reporting it doesn't make it any less of a crime. Just "taking it" means that an attacker can move on uncorrected to assault another person possibly making you complicit in another criminal act.
pbhjpbhj 14y ago
>feminism the activist movement which has the rather more immediate goal of liberating women from the threat(s) of physical violence which apply to them specifically // So are you saying that suffragettes, say, weren't feminists; or that they weren't activists. Your claim that feminism is primarily about protecting women from men trying to commit violence against them is bunkum. Feminism is about promoting the rights of women. Equality of opportunity is a finer cause IMO. This comment, http://stronglikebool.com/post/2013/04/10/No-I-Dont-Want-a-Ticket-for-the-Womens-Luncheon#id_7e58a44d-16d7-4bdc-bf82-b7e9fb30eda9 http://stronglikebool.com/post/2013/04/10/No-I-Dont-Want-a-T..., on the article is fascinating. She wants what people are railing against - the opportunity to discriminate sexually against those who are around her just because she likes it that way. Can you imagine a tech firm that had a "men only" event? To answer her question - I don't find it wrong at all just as long as she realises it's sexist. Sexual discrimination is a natural part of the human condition.

claudius 14y ago

> Because there's a crossover between feminism the philosophical worldview, which is arguably very close to humanism But not using humanism here opens the field for this radical crowd, who call themselves feminists, you usually find on Tumblr (and a few other places) and who find sexual harassment against men perfectly fine, because, hey, it’s feminism and all men are unworthy of one’s respect anyways. The civil rights movement in the US managed to pick a word that was not so easily abused by radicals.

illuminate 14y ago
"not using humanism here opens the field for this radical crowd, who call themselves feminists" Feminism is a specific application of humanism. Humanism is feminism. Self-ascription means that anyone can call themselves a "feminist", so you'd be harping about all the women in "humanism" when they're supposed to be promoting HUMANS NOT WOMEN. You'd have something to complain about no matter what they called themselves.

madaxe 14y ago

I find the whole "threat of physical violence" thing objectionable, personally. Sure, men are generally bigger than women, but culturally, men are trained to not raise a finger against women, whereas women are trained to have no such compunction. Apocryphal, I know, but I have never, ever, ever, and never will, raise a hand or my voice to a woman, yet have been on the receiving end of domestic violence more than a few times. I'm not a small chap, at 200lbs and 6'3", but: I've been stabbed in the leg by a stilleto (a heel, not a dagger), for accusing a girlfriend of cheating with my housemate (she was). I was given a fractured eyesocket by another ex who pushed me down the stairs while she (and I, admittedly) was drunk, "because". I can cite plenty of other examples of woman-on-man violence immediate to me, but shan't, as my point isn't one of "oh but women are the perpetrators", but one of "humans are the perpetrators". In a world where practically anyone can lay their hands on an object that in any hands can become a weapon with ease, I don't think it's valid to say that "domestic violence is a result of men, and women, specifically, are its victims".

samastur 14y ago
I am sure you can, but statistics are not on your side. Domestic violence is mostly done by men. I hope your choice of companions have improved since.
- madaxe 14y ago
  Statistics are derived from crime reports. Men do not report domestic violence against them by women. I went to hospital for "sitting on a shoe" and "tripping and smacking my face on a bannister". Ergo, whatever statistics you're looking at, sample bias, sample bias, sample bias.
hurfdurferson 14y ago
You should've treated those incidents of assault as exactly that: assault. When adults physically assault other adults that is a crime and not reporting it doesn't make it any less of a crime. Just "taking it" means that an attacker can move on uncorrected to assault another person possibly making you complicit in another criminal act.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago

>feminism the activist movement which has the rather more immediate goal of liberating women from the threat(s) of physical violence which apply to them specifically // So are you saying that suffragettes, say, weren't feminists; or that they weren't activists. Your claim that feminism is primarily about protecting women from men trying to commit violence against them is bunkum. Feminism is about promoting the rights of women. Equality of opportunity is a finer cause IMO. This comment, http://stronglikebool.com/post/2013/04/10/No-I-Dont-Want-a-Ticket-for-the-Womens-Luncheon#id_7e58a44d-16d7-4bdc-bf82-b7e9fb30eda9 http://stronglikebool.com/post/2013/04/10/No-I-Dont-Want-a-T..., on the article is fascinating. She wants what people are railing against - the opportunity to discriminate sexually against those who are around her just because she likes it that way. Can you imagine a tech firm that had a "men only" event? To answer her question - I don't find it wrong at all just as long as she realises it's sexist. Sexual discrimination is a natural part of the human condition.