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!]

nino

The competitive victim hood stuff sounds interesting to me too.

troi's uniform was very tight but BUT she was very curvy wasn't she and it's that effect where if you have a larger chest (or bum or whatever) it's always kind of obvious whether you are trying to accentuate it or not.

See - girls in school uniform who are accused of wearing their uniform incorrectly or deliberately trying to look "sexy" when often it's simply that they have adult female bodies and nothing's going to disguise that.

But yes, troi outfit tight.

Also ridiculous scene where they had her and the doctor in skin tight lycra having a chat about something while both doing lots of bendy yoga!

Not saying it's perfect. But, with 7 of 9, that's not what I saw, IYSWIM. And, massive trek fan, please don't make me get defensive

It appears I prefer my fictional female characters to be well 'ard

Oh hells yes. I was reading all this xenogender stuff the other day and thought, well I'm fucking Xenagender then!

It was less about the tight - all male and female TNG uniforms were very fitted - and more about the low cut vs, say, Yar.

Take your point re trousers, that annoys me too!

My observation is that as a working philosophy, the post-structuralist one denies effective agency in a way that is counterproductive. As we're all products of our ideology and can't escape the structures of power and patriarchy etc etc, there's no stance from which activism can effect positive change. To my eye it encourages feminism and other minority-rights movements to degenerate into competitive victimhood ('intersectionality') and a kind of embittered helplessness that's stuck railing at the pervasiveness of oppressive ideology but can't do anything to make positive changes.

I have been struggling to put my thoughts on this point into words for years, then someone comes along and does so with a coherence and clarity I couldn't even begin to attempt.

Applause.

Star Trek rocks. It's ideals formed my own - Jadzia Dax was my role model.

And it's loving criticism - similar to critiquing Whedon for his "Buffy having sex, goes badly" stories. Riker/Troi, Yar/Data and Picard/Crusher were all very equal interactions, IMO.

I suggest we go hand in hand, Buffy.

I do not accept that it's sensible to effectively pretend that individuals have agency and can effect change, as they would if the world worked according to humanistic, rational principals

But surely some people do affect change. I'm not for a moment suggesting that we aren't a product of our society (parents, culture etc).

I've always thought that society shapes individuals but also society is shaped buy individuals

sorry if I've read your posts wrong, I don't know much about post structuralism

But I think the way in which the idea of individual agency dupes us is when it's assumed to apply to everyone equally

I think this is a really good point. A girl born into a reasonably wealthy, liberal, educated family is going to have more options than - a girl born into a very deprived family.

I think most most people have some ability to make choices. This will vary wildly with some people having almost no options open to them but with others having a lot.

Maybe this is the dream of humanists. That more and more people should become liberal and educated and will therefore able to make the kind of choices someone from a very deprived background is not able to.

^What I mean to say is what's the point of aiming for everyone to become educated and liberal in the context of a society that structurally, to it's very deepest foundations, runs on inequalitY*

Yeah I can understand the feeling that capitalism isn't the best option. Capitalism feels like a massive wang swinging contest - there are winners and losers.

It just seems to me that educating people has to be the start. If you are going to dig down to societies foundations a good start is a decent education for as many as possible.

This discussion about post-structuralism and inequality is really interesting. It is opening my eyes, so thank you all!

I do have a (potentially silly!) question though. When discussing or arguing for reproductive rights, particularly abortion and contraception, the language of "choice" is used frequently - it seems that these battles are still very much being fought on the basis of individual autonomy. Is there a way of reconciling these (IMO) important means of arguing for women's autonomy in reproductive rights, and the post-structuralist position which seems to reject choice or individualism?

Sorry, that was very garbled - I know what I am trying to say, but not exactly how to say it! If anyone knows of any books or articles which tackle these issues, that would be great too.

Thanks Buffy that's really interesting. So "choice" can be used as a way of disguising inequality?

The cynical part of me thinks it isn't a coincidence that "choice" and "freedom" are conflated by society - it is very convenient for those who have an interest in maintaining the status quo.

Lots to think about!

Interesting thoughts on choice disguising inequality.

It's really interesting that Star Trek has featured quite heavily in this discussion.

In Star Trek society has moved on past money. This is very much a utopia. I don't know if people would ever be able to move past money (or something similar) in real life.

It sounds fantastic in theory but the reality probably wouldn't work.

I missed the post Mephistopheles quotes somewhere on this thread and I cannot find it. I am extremely tired which may explain this complete failure on my part! Apologies to the writer.

To add to the amazing posts from Buffy - I think post-structuralism only denies agency if it's bad (i.e. very monolithic in its analysis of power!) I get a bit pained at the 'there is no RESISTANCE in Foucault argument', particularly as he is at such pains to emphasize that there is never just 'one structure' (he repeatedly describes such an approach in contemptuous terms as characterising the kind of old-fashioned 'history of ideas' against which he is reacting - e.g. introduction to Archaeology of Knowledge onwards through his career right up to the very last interviews). Because there are always currents (plural) through any situation, there are always alternatives - it's just that not everything is entirely open: there is a horizon to the thinkable in any era, and agency is far from a straightforward 'choice' of a freewilling individual.

Hence the fact that a correlate of post-structuralism would be the breaking down of rather unnuanced terms like 'patriarchy' into a set of very different currents. (This, in my view, is a good thing because it allows a pinpointing of different kinds of oppression).

Sorry if this isn't clear - am more than struggling right now. It's been that kind of a week!! GIN O'CLOCK!!