Feminism, humanism and second-wave woes

[NiNoKuni]

This blog was posted by the British Humanist Association on Facebook today. Essentially, it says that feminism is a subdivision of humanism, focussing on the gender equality part of equality, so humanists don't have to choose whether to be either a feminist or humanist - they're already both.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. Whilst I personally would describe myself as a humanist, I feel it's almost completely separate from my feminism. Humanism feels to me more of a non-religious standpoint, advocating for humans, right here right now, as there is no afterlife. Feminism is, to me, advocating for the liberation of women from male oppression. They could in theory overlap, but it just doesn't gel for me.

How many of you would call yourselves humanists and do you feel it intersects with feminism?

On another note, I made the grave mistake of reading the comments. I should've brought my anti-feminism bingo card. Some women complain that feminists look down on or attack them for their choices, some men seem to see it as man-hating and pandering to social justice warriors. One woman was berating second wavers and saying she wouldn't call herself a feminist until the third wave had 'usurped' them entirely.

I don't know about you, but I've found second-wave-type feminists to be welcoming, full of humour, concerned for me and my well-being in confrontational situations and generally willing to think and talk about the world. Third-wave-type feminists (NATWTFALT) are the ones I mainly see judging people for thinking the wrong things and occasionally outright berating them.

Why is this still the prevailing narrative then?

In both of these issues, it seems to me that second-wave feminism is being sidelined and described as man-hating (or SJWs) and women's-choice-hating. Third-wave choice 'n equality feminism is clearly way more sexy. Is this the future? Is there still a place for more radical feminism?

[Sorry if this is a bit rambly, I've had root canal work today and four shots of anaesthetic plus codeine!]

Yes to Buffy, especially this:

"As I get older, experience more and read more, I am coming to the conclusion that any movement led by men will in some form accept some oppression or exploitation of women."

Exactly Buffy! There may be vital differences that cannot easily be reduced to some univocal claim to 'universal rights', and that is exactly why feminism is important to me - because women as subjects of gendered experiences need their own voices - always plural, never assuming that there is simply one experience that is valid, or that other categories like race, class etc don't have a bearing.

The fact that it is still clearly threatening to many men to suggest that their experience isn't true for all is deeply worrying, and also a reason why I am suspicious of movements that rely on a universal subject as inherently oppressive! I find the premise of that blog post quite a problem: the idea that feminism is 'fragmenting' the universal subject in problematic ways, that it is divisive and therefore 'wrong'. Argh! It's the same silencing, just with more sanctimoniousness!

Holly You've clearly engaged with humanism on a much more profound level than I have, given me lots to chew on there! I confess I'd only seen it as the liberation from religion type of movement, not as this (very interesting) universal subject philosophy. I shall be giving this a good deal more reading and pondering.

Squidzin On the topic of a fourth wave, Wikipedia has this to say:

In 2005, Pythia Peay first argued for the existence of a fourth wave of feminism, combining justice with religious spirituality. According to Jennifer Baumgardner in 2011, a fourth wave may exist, dated as beginning in 2008; is in her view important; was inspired partly by Take Our Daughters to Work Days; incorporated online resources such as social media; in turn inspired the Doula Project for children's services and inspired after-abortion talk lines, pursuit of reproductive justice, plus-size fashion support, transgenderism support, male feminism, and sex work acceptance; and led to developing media including Feministing, Racialicious, blogs, and Twitter campaigns.

Now, I may well be having a thick day, but that just sounds like a sort of general feminism on t'internet to me. Cyberfeminism. The mode of communication and organisation may have changed, but the underlying issues still relate to oppression and inequalities to varying radical and liberal degrees. Interesting it mentions religious spirituality there, but doesn't expand on that so I've been for a quick google and found this here:

In the words of author Carol Lee Flinders, "Feminism catches fire when it draws on its inherent spirituality," which means something else can happen as well. "When you get Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, and Sufi women all practicing their faith in the same room," she recently said, "another religion emerges, which is feminine spirituality."

This doesn't resonate with me at all. I don't know what 'feminine spirituality' means, unless it's trying to express the experience of female-only spaces in spiritual terms.

NiNo - I think it's one of those words that has many definitions! And that there is often a gap between different uses of the word. I have mates who self-describe as 'humanist' and they use it to describe a kind of atheism too (and sometimes to indicate that they have a kind of loose moral commitment to values like tolerance without moral ridigity). Many of them actually hold beliefs that are in tension with the core tenets of humanism, e.g. Marxist, structuralist, post-structralist ideas that society precedes and structures the individual in culturally specific ways. It's not really a problem - I know what they are intending by the word - though I do sometimes wonder if there is a confusion about the relationship of individual agency to social structuration underneath it. (Though I would not claim that I am more consistent or have solved all the problems in that area myself ).

"Feminism catches fire when it draws on its inherent spirituality," which means something else can happen as well. "When you get Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, and Sufi women all practicing their faith in the same room," she recently said, "another religion emerges, which is feminine spirituality."

That doesn't resonate with me either. I agree "feminine spirituality " sounds pretty meaningless.

How does she reconcile all these competing faiths? And the fact it's difficult to think of an institution more patriarchal than the Catholic Church.

I struggle to understand how a feminist can be religious (by that I mean believe in organised religion). In the main, religions have initiated and propped up the idea that to be female is to be different, other, inferior, less, etc.

I'm sorry, but that quote about feminine spirituality is just pish. Eyerolls all round.

Feminism catches fire when women rub two sticks together under the arses of the patriarchy.

Feminism catches fire when women rub two sticks together under the arses of the patriarchy.

R'amen to that

That quote follows this:

But as never before, today's conservative political environment has united women across the feminist spectrum. The result differs from earlier forms of feminism in several ways. For one, it espouses a new activism based not in anger, but in joy. It also tends to be focused outward, beyond the individual to wider issues, often global in scope.

So is it me, or is this just watering down feminism? We're not allowed or supposed to be angry any more? And that bit about the individual/global scope is precisely the opposite from what I've observed. Modern feminism is all about the navel-gazey, personal identify-y, choicey choice.

I don't think the fourth wave, should it even exist, has got its shit together yet.

Maybe I'm just feeling a bit meh about the future of feminism. So many women seem alienated by it, so many men hostile to it. I see these prevailing narratives, these attempts to co-opt it into other isms and/or dilute it into something unrecognisable to me. I don't get it. Or rather, I do and it pisses me right off!

Was feminism ever about the individual? I know we do get caught up in the issues in front of us - it's easier for me to lobby DS school about their choice of play next year than it is for me to feel like I can do anything about FGM, for example - but that doesn't mean I'm thinking about those wider global issues and doing what I can.

But I should also point out I have no clue about 'waves' and my feminist theory is pretty much non-existent.

I have no idea what 'wave' of feminist I am or even what type. I am religious and I am a feminist (waiting for the tongue lashing) so I would assume in my humble opinion that you can be both humanist and feminist. As far as I understand humanism, it's like spirituality for the non religious?

Fyi. My church doesn't charge for weddings funerals and the like.

I find it bizarre that there is any automatic intersection between feminism and humanism- to me they are entirely different things. You can be both, or either or neither. But if you are one, it doesn't automatically make you the other............

I agree. You can be both or you can be one. As I understand it, both deal with different things.

You can be both, or either or neither. But if you are one, it doesn't automatically make you the other

Got to agree with Bertrand there

startrek tbh I'm more shocked you are religious and a Star Trek fan - rather than religious and a feminist

Star Trek was brimming with gods and higher powers and spirituality!

Thanks shove for the interesting post

I disagree fundamentally with the idea of the autonomous individual freely-choosing agent

I don't really think many humanists would argue there isn't such a thing as society. Surely campaigning against religion imposing itself on many aspects of society is something close to the hearts of many humanists (impacts on schooling, abortion, euthanasia etc).

"For one, it espouses a new activism based not in anger, but in joy"

My feminism is totes based in anger, sometimes a blinding rage

Also an athiest here so the idea of feminine spirituality or whatever makes me cringe and also want to run away quickly and do something really unwholesome but then that sort of things always had that sort of adverse reaction in my case

YY to if humanism is it's all down to the individual to make their own destiny blah then that doesn't fit very well if you're taking a structural inequality perspective on something.

Also v glad to get home just in time for star trek to enter thread

The gods in star trek were usually

selfish
short-sighted
cruel
lacking in any form of self awareness
not actually very bright / unable to apply their intelligence appropriately

and/or

ancient craft from earth that had gone and got lost and confused

They could usually be defeated by the application of a heartfelt monologue on the moral of the week from Kirk, the veracity of which was supported by the application of a serious eyebrow from spock from behind his left shoulder

My feminism is totes based in anger, sometimes a blinding rage

Also an athiest here so the idea of feminine spirituality or whatever makes me cringe and also want to run away quickly and do something really unwholesome but then that sort of things always had that sort of adverse reaction in my case

Ta Buffy

lol NiNo

I'll buy in some dartboards and baseball bats, 18 kilos of pork scratchings and fill the bath with cider

I am religious and I am a feminist (waiting for the tongue lashing) so I would assume in my humble opinion that you can be both humanist and feminist

Not a tongue lashing. You haven't said which religion but if it is one of the ones which seeks to control women's reproductive rights how do you square the two?

My mother had a very pick 'n' mix concept of her feminism and her religion.

If I had to be any religion, I'd be Ancient Greek. At least it's realistic, and quite feminist. The main 6 gods and 6 goddess are equally powerful, equally unpredictable, emotional and irrational.
That's real humanism.

whirlpool

I think you are right about the gods on Star Trek. I was always more of a next generation kind of girl. Loved the episodes with Q in.