Feminism vs Humanism

6 posts / 0 new
Last post
OwlExpress's picture
Feminism vs Humanism

Hey, new to the site and perhaps this is a dead horse (please tell me if so) but it's an issue that seems to be sensitive even between those of the atheist community.

To me, humanism seems to be the "ideal" standing point for ethical values, even if it is only an ideal. Everyone has tendencies of bias and that's fair and , perhaps, even needed. A bias towards a particular subject leeds to focused efforts and more effective movements. However, when that bias becomes the focal point, it falls from "striving for equality" and veers toward "gaining the advantage".

the feminists I see today seem more vengeful than perhaps they should be. Perhaps I am exposed more to only one side of the movement, but wouldn't that make that side the more abundent, or, at least, the more active side? My hope is that those that are willing take up the humanist flag as opposed to the feminist one.

It is for the sake of a shorter, more "to the point" read that I left out examples. I also am using this as my introductory to the community to perhaps test the waters and see how the people here read into open comments. I will, however, provide such examples if asked.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

OwlExpress's picture
Also, I may have over used

Also, I may have over used the "perhaps" haha. Perhaps a thesaurus could help me with that. Pun intended.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
welcome to the forum

welcome to the forum

me being a man, makes it harder for me to say this:

Humanists is the only real objective approach.

Feminists is a group that has issues with understanding their rights and might think that misogyny is their reason to unite and fight against it.

The problem is that they just need to join a humanist group and focus on supporting the female side of a humanist group instead of inventing a group of their own which is just 1 sided.
This tends to make them make some stupid comments which are all over you tube and really hinder the feminists which make good points.
Their message would be better received if they join a humanist group and give their contribution that way.

If everybody that feels different or oppressed starts inventing groups, there will be more groups then lawyers.

They tend to defend themselves from this obvious flaw in reasoning by saying that you can be both a feminists and a humanist, which is implying that the fact that you can be in both groups somehow gives a good reason to be in a group which is less objective or have less access of knowledge on the subject.

mysticrose's picture
I both stand for humanism and

I both stand for humanism and feminism. Being a woman I agree that woman deserve equal rights. Being a human, I believe that everyone deserve to be treated fairly.

CyberLN's picture
I think that in order to

I think that in order to realize humanism as a typical behavior/philosophy, we need to first pay particular attention to groups of folks who have traditionally been marginalized. Fixing those marginalizations are the very steps that lead to the adoption of humanism. It is a road with many places along the way to investigate.

Some of us work to remove discrimination against atheist folks, lgbt folks, non-white folks, the list goes on. Particular attention needs to be paid to every type of descrimination. Laws need to be passed, habits and attitudes need to change, etc. By paying particular attention to all the ways we engage in discrimination, large and small, we can correct them. Special interest is critical.

As feminism is simply the opinion that women should have equal footing to men, why wouldn't one call themselves a feminist? If the lgbt movement is all about equal footing, why wouldn't someone identify as supporting it? If color bars all need to be the same height, why wouldn't someone work specifically to raise the low ones? If religion needs to be ousted from government, why wouldn't a person take particular actions to do so? Perhaps they would not simply because they do not support these things.

What some folks would refer to as radicalism might be, in some respects, helpful, or even necessary for forward movement. It sure stimulates conversation about issues. It focuses attention on issues that need fixing. It gets people thinking.

Humanism cames in a lot of flavors. Henry VIII considered himself a humanist. He certainly, however, didn't think the rules for having sex, for instance, should be the same for women as men. Thomas Jefferson considered himself a humanist and thought women should not enter into politics. These are just two examples.

Now, you can use the same argument that many theists in this forum use, and say that Henry and Thomas were not *real* humanists. But that just won't fully cut it. They perceived themselves to be humanist and, because we can look at the world through only our own eyes, perception *is* reality.

Words are both powerful and weak. One can call themselves a humanist but what does it really mean to them? Identifying as a humanist as well as a feminist, or a specific supporter of equality for any marginalized group more fully describes / defines one's humanism.

Ellie Harris's picture
Is this just a fallacy of

Is this just a fallacy of composition? Like when theist complain about all the mean atheist they've met, as if it affects the credibility of atheist or atheism in any way.

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.