Feminism

[flexibeast]

Recently i got involved in an online discussion regarding feminism and humanism. In declaring myself to be a feminist, i wrote that:

[To me, 'feminism'] means things like "Women have a right to control their own bodies" (i.e. i'm pro-choice), "Women are not chattels" (i.e. should not be treated as though we're property to be used at our owner's whim) and "Women should not be overlooked for a particular job because of stereotypes about what women are or are not supposed to do, rather than what the specific female applicant in question is actually able to do".

To which someone responded with:

Since I presume you have the same opinion about the rights of men, I do not see why such positions are more "feminist" than "humanist".

i then wrote a few comments about the problems with humanism, and why i think feminism as a strand of thought - related to, but distinct from, humanism - is thus necessary.

What follows is the result of editing those comments together (primarily for flow):

i here use the term 'humanism' in the sense of "those strands of thought that (re-)emerged during the Renaissance emphasising the need to apply rationality to beliefs about human society". The Wikipedia entry on humanism says that humanism is "a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people". However, that same summary section makes no reference to what i consider to be a fundamental tenet of feminism: basically, that the number of things that only men, and not women, are capable of doing, is rather overrated.

Given this, it seems to me that it's perfectly acceptable, within the bounds of humanism, to say something like "Women can't do mathematics. Not that there's anything wrong with that! We should respect the dignity and worth of women regardless of their mathematical capabilities. After all, they're good at other things, like housekeeping." A statement i (obviously) have a problem with: even if it could be demonstrated that women in general don't, biologically speaking, have brains 'built' for mathematics, the universal quantifier implied by the above statement still wouldn't be true, by virtue of historical and current counterexamples.

Further, i tend to think claiming a 'rational' basis for humanism is not as unproblematic as it might appear:

• There has often been an historical tendency to dismiss the opinions put forth by women as 'irrational'. This was (and occasionally still is, as i've witnessed personally) used to downplay issues faced by women: for example, "That's not a real issue, it's all in your head!", which may indeed be true some of the time, but probably not as often as claimed.


• More fundamentally, what is 'rational' in a given context is often debatable. i've had discussions with people who have made references to their arguments being the 'logical' ones. But what 'logic' are we talking about? Propositional logic? Predicate logic? Fuzzy logic? Modal logic? Linear logic? And so on.

So those are at least some of the theoretical problems. In terms of practice, humanism has failed to address the fact that there has been systematic discrimination against women not only in the legislative sphere, but in the social sphere as well (and in both obvious and subtle ways). For example: men had the right to vote in Western nations for a long time before women did; and men didn't have to deal with the belief that they generally shouldn't enter academia because it would affect their reproductive capacity. Further, the latter issue shows that there are some things that affect women either exclusively or predominantly. (Far more often than not, it's not men that have to carry a child to term.)

If humanism was sufficient to deal with the issues women face, then why was it only in the 20th century, which saw the first and second waves of feminism, that:

• women started making real inroads into academia (leaving aside the laudable actions of male academics such as Gauss);


• advertising depicting women as inherently ditzy became far less reasonable;


• rape became seen as something that could indeed happen inside a marriage;


• women started getting better access to not only abortion, but safe abortion;

and so on? And the experience of a number of women in the social movements of the 60s and 70s was that men who called themselves 'humanists' still casually expected the women in the movement to go away and make them cups of coffee while the men dealt with the important stuff. It took feminist movements only decades to make progress in areas which humanist movements had failed to significantly address over centuries.

So to me, the promise that humanism is sufficient is like the promise that Marxism leads to more freedom for the majority, or that Christianity is all about love and kindness - that's the theory, but the practice has so often turned out otherwise that one has to think that something is wrong with the theory. If humanist practice had lived up to its theoretical promise, then feminism would not have emerged, as there would have been no need for it. i feel that feminism, not only in theory but in practice, supports the notion issues facing women are worthy of study and action in their own right, not only if they're affecting men as well.

Do i think that an equivalent body of theory and practice is not needed for men? No - quite the opposite. Such a body is urgently needed. But it's not for women to do that - just as feminism was about women getting together and saying "We've had enough of this crappy situation. We're going to form groups and movements to agitate for change", the people who are best placed to be the most effective "change agents" for men are men themselves. And indeed, there are men who are trying to build movements to improve men's lives. Sadly, just as there are what are essentially "man-hating" strands of the feminist movements, there are "woman-hating" strands in these "men's movements". But more positively, there are also men who are using at least some of the tools created by feminism to pull apart the social, political, religious etc. construction of masculinity, and examine the interaction of this with male biology, the better to learn how to deal with the problems faced by men. Some examples of such men are Michael Flood and Bob Connell. i may not agree with everything they have to say, but they are genuinely trying to deal with the issues men face without fleeing into hating women or feminism in toto.

Having said all that, i certainly wouldn't claimed that feminism has completely lived up to its theoretical promise! Many women of colour have criticised various feminisms for their failure to move outside a "white middle class female" perspective; and as i note elsewhere, i have my own criticisms of those feminisms that have crossed a line into territory in which they suggest that there is a "correct" sexuality / career choice / relationship for women to have. Nonetheless, i still think that feminism, with its focus on the experiences of women in particular, which have often been ignored / overlooked / considered not worthy of examination in their own right, can still offer insights and ways to continue to move away from the oppression and discrimination that has affected women for millenia.

PS. There are much better feminist critiques of humanism than my attempt here: if you're truly interested in why some feminists feel that "humanism isn't enough", try googling for those critiques.
 

Comments

[sacred-harlot.livejournal.com]

Great Post Love, well said!

Sacred Harlot, X.

[flexibeast.livejournal.com]

Thanks. :-)